Greg Sargent:

Lieberman's office has clarified to me how the law would work: It would empower the State Department to conclude -- on its own -- that Americans are conspiring with terror groups and should be stripped of their citizenship.

Lieberman's law would amend an earlier statute that details other things that can cost you citizenship [. . .] In those cases the State Department decides whether your disloyalty merits loss of citizen status. Lieberman's law would add involvement with a foreign terror organization -- as opposed to a foreign state -- to this list.

Why is this pointless? Because unless Lieberman is planning on repealing the part of the law that provides due process prior to revocation of citizenship, then all Lieberman has done is create a new federal proceeding where suspected terrorists can "propagandize." As noted earlier, the only way for Lieberman to get terror trials out of federal courts is to repeal federal law criminalizing terrorism. Will Lieberman propose that?

Speaking for me only

Holy Joe:

Joe Lieberman has a creative solution: Take away their citizenship. "If you've joined an enemy of the United States in attacking the United States and trying to kill Americans, I think you should sacrifice your rights of citizenship," Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, told reporters Tuesday.

[. . .] Lieberman said that the revocation of citizenship would not be automatic and there would be a right to go to court and to appeal the decision.

Tin soldiers and Nixon coming,
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drumming,
Four dead in Ohio.

Gotta get down to it
Soldiers are gunning us down
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her
And found her dead on the ground
How can you run when you know?

Gotta get down to it
Soldiers are gunning us down
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her
And found her dead on the ground
How can you run when you know?

Tin soldiers and Nixon coming,
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drumming,
Four dead in Ohio.

**********

An audio recording of the shootings 40 years ago at Kent State University includes the voices of Ohio National Guard leaders ordering troops to fire into a crowd of students, according to a man wounded in the shootings, who obtained a copy of the recording.

New York Governor David Paterson today announced that he would accelerate the pardon process so as to grant more pardons to legal immigrants convicted of old, minor crimes and prevent them from being deported.

Some of our immigration laws, particularly with respect to deportation, are embarrassingly and wrongly inflexible,” Mr. Paterson said in a speech on Monday at an annual gathering of the state’s top judges. “In New York we believe in renewal,” he added. “In New York, we believe in rehabilitation.”

In other good news, Sheriff Joe Arpaio won't run for Governor. Now if he'd only leave law enforcement. David Newert at Crooks and Liars has more on Arapio's possible motives. And here's the Pulitzer winning five part Tribune series on Arpaio's performance in office, which leaves much to be desired, to say the least.

NYTimes Editorial:

A fight is brewing over Arizona’s new law that turns all of the state’s Latinos, even legal immigrants and citizens, into criminal suspects. [. . .] President Obama has called the law “misguided” and promised to keep an eye on it. But when racial separation finds a foothold in any of the 50 states, the president needs to do more than mildly criticize. He should act. Here’s a partial but urgent to-do list:

DEFEND CIVIL RIGHTS The Justice Department needs to challenge this law forcefully in court. [. . .]

STOP ARIZONA COLD Arizona’s scheme will rely on federal databases to determine immigration status. It will also need the cooperation of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, or ICE, in accepting detainees. [. . .] In that case, ICE will deny Arizona authorities data, cooperation and scarce resources.

TAKE BACK IMMIGRATION POLICY The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that states cannot make their own immigration laws. The Arizona debacle gives the Obama administration another chance to make it clear that the nation’s immigration policy cannot be left to a ragged patchwork of state and local laws.

[. . . T]he federal government must react forcefully to the Arizona statute. Is our core belief still the welcome and assimilation of newcomers? Arizona has given one answer. It’s time for Mr. Obama to give the other.

(Emphasis supplied.)

Two lawsuits challenging SB 1070, the Arizona immigration law, were filed in federal court today.

In one of the suits filed Thursday, a Tucson police officer, Martin Escobar, 45, a 15-year veteran, claims the law, which requires officers “when practicable” to stop and check the legal status of people they reasonably suspect may be illegal immigrants, would compel him to racially profile.

Mr. Escobar argues that the law does not specify what criteria to use in deciding who might be in the country illegally, and that Tucson’s heavily Hispanic population and proximity to the Mexican border would force him to question people based on their ethnicity, exposing him to civil suits.

I've uploaded the complaint here. [More...]

At a press conference today, the ACLU and other civil rights groups will outline details of a legal challenge they will file to SB 1070, Arizona's immigration law:

The American Civil Liberties Union, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the National Immigration Law Center, which argue the law is unconstitutional, were expected to outline their legal strategy at the Arizona state capitol in Phoenix.

More here. Separately, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will hold a press conference at 5:45 p.m ET outlining the Democrat's immigration law overhaul, which Obama says will be tough to pass this year.

The Boycott Arizona movement is growing. The San Francisco City Attorney has joined the call and is urging businesses to take a stand against the law.

AZ Governor Jan Brewer shrugs it off. She thinks the outrage will fade. Not a chance.

Glenn Greenwald touches on Ross Douthat's typical selective outrage when it comes to censorship, but I want to touch on a different point -- on what censorship actually is. The South Park example Douthat focuses on is an especially poor choice in my view. The South Park program that Douthat champions is no longer run by Comedy Central, which is owned by Viacom, a publicly traded corporation. Whether Viacom should run the episode or not, is of course, a matter of opinion.

What is not an opinion is that it is utterly Viacom's RIGHT to decide whether it will run the episode or not. This is a much different issue than government censoring speech. The South Park duo, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, can express themselves in just about any manner they choose, but Viacom is not obliged to run it on their channels.

Indeed, Douthat himself proves the point when he seems to lament the lack of limits on expression in our culture:

(Photo credit: Archiwum Panstwowe w Krakowie)

Via John Wesley Hall (aka Last Night in Little Rock) at FourthAmendment.com:

AZ: State immigration law signed; what does an illegal alien look like?

The Arizona state immigration bill, S.B. 1070, was signed into law by the Governor yesterday. It permits detention on reasonable suspicion of being an illegal alien, and the burden apparently is on the detainee to prove he or she is a citizen. How does one prove citizenship? Carry your birth certificate? Won't the footprint be a little dated? No picture on a birth certificate. Isn't the burden of proof in a warrantless detention on the government? Doesn't the Fourth Amendment protect illegals the undocumented already inside the U.S.? It has to [in order]to protect the rest of us.

Arizona's S.B. 1070 makes a mockery of our Constitution. Congress needs to put immigration reform front and center now and pass legislation that would invalidate S.B. 1070 and prevent other states from following in its footsteps. [More...]

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer today signed the draconian anti-immigrant bill passed by the legislature into law. (Background here.) Before the signing, President Obama criticized it:

The Arizona law, he added, threatened “to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.”

The bill blatantly encourages racial and ethnic profiling. While it goes into effect in August, court challenges are expected immediately. The ACLU says the bill threatens civil rights and public safety. [More...]

The absurdly discriminatory immigration bill passed by the Arizona House passed the Senate yesterday. Absent a veto by the Republican Governor, Jan Brewer, it will become law.

The bill would require immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and require police to question people if there's reason to suspect they're in the United States illegally. It also targets those who hire illegal immigrant day laborers or knowingly transport them.

This bill is a racial profiling horror show in the making. What to do? Protest? That ship seems to have sailed. Better: Boycott Arizona. No hotels, no airlines based there, no merchandise manufactured there. Cross the Grand Canyon off your summer travel plans. Forget Sedona and Scottsdale. Colorado is lovely this time of year.