a slippery slope...

Constitution Project Releases 'Statement Opposing the Terrorist Expatriation Act'

The Statement Opposing the Terrorist Expatriation Act states, in part:

"The Terrorist Expatriation Act raises several serious constitutional concerns. Moreover, there is no need for such a law. Whether they are American citizens or not, terrorism suspects can and should be prosecuted in court to the full extent of the law. Congress should reject such expatriation proposals as being both unnecessary and dangerous; unnecessary because existing laws already provide more than adequate penalties for U.S. citizens who engage in acts of terrorism; dangerous because such proposals would forever dilute one of our most fundamental constitutional rights."

"This legislation is not only unneeded for our counter-terrorism efforts, but it seeks to strip Americans of a most fundamental right--that of being a United States citizen," said William H. Taft, IV, legal advisor for the U.S. State Department during the George W. Bush administration and Deputy Secretary of Defense during the Reagan administration, and member of the Project's Liberty and Security Committee. "Sadly, although cloaked in patriotism, this legislative proposal is actually ugly demagoguery that should be rejected by Congress. Our law already provides harsh punishment for U.S. citizens who commit terrorist acts."

The Project's Liberty and Security Committee is made up of policy experts who represent the full political spectrum, including former members of Congress, former government, intelligence and military officials, academics and advocates. These members came together to express their concerns that Congress cannot and should not seek to strip protected constitutional rights. In addition, members point out that by incorporating existing laws on material support for terrorism, the bill also incorporates the constitutional flaws plaguing those laws. In particular, the material support statutes raise serious due process and First Amendment concerns.

"The Supreme Court has long recognized that the constitutional right of citizenship cannot be taken away unless a person obtained it illegally or voluntarily renounced American citizenship," said Sharon Bradford Franklin, Constitution Project Senior Counsel. "The Terrorist Expatriation Act is a distressing example of legislation based on fear and anger rather than smart counter-terrorism strategies. We call on Congress to reject this bill."

For nearly nine years, the threat of international terrorism has fueled a government jackhammer, cutting away at long-established protections of civil liberties. It has been used to justify warrantless wiretapping, an expansion of the state secrets privilege in federal lawsuits, the use of torture, and the indefinite detention of people labeled enemy combatants. None of these actions were necessary to fight terrorism, and neither is a dubious Obama administration proposal to loosen the Miranda rules when questioning terror suspects and to delay presenting suspects to a judge.

A change to a fundamental constitutional protection like Miranda should not be tossed out on a Sunday talk show with few details and a gauzy justification. If Attorney General Eric Holder really wants to change the rules, he owes the public a much better explanation.

At the most basic level, it is not even clear that the warning requirement can be changed, except from the bench. The Miranda warning was the creation of the Supreme Court as a way of enforcing the Fifth Amendment. Since 1966, it has reduced coerced confessions and reminded suspects that they have legal rights.

As politicians and pundits debate Arizona's controversial anti-illegal immigration law, police in the state are caught in the middle - and exchanging fire.

Two police officers are challenging the law in court, fearing the bill will ultimately force cops to racially profile Hispanics.

"Before the signing of this bill, citizens would wave at me," said David Salgado, a 19-year Phoenix police officer who has sued the city and the governor, asking that the law be blocked, according to the Associated Press. "Now they don't even want to make eye contact."