May 19, 2010 5:00PM # The Lieberman-Brown Bill and Your Right to Stay out of Gitmo By [David Rittgers](https://www.cato.org/people/david-rittgers) --- SHARE The attempted Times Square bombing prompted Senators Joseph Lieberman (I‑CT) and Scott Brown (R‑MA) to [propose](../../../../../wp-content/uploads/TerroristExpatriationAct.pdf) that anyone suspected of providing material support, as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 2339A, to State Department-listed terrorist groups be stripped of their citizenship. As Julian Sanchez [points out](../../../../../2010/05/06/the-what-reasonable-doubt-act-of-2010/), existing law provides for expatriation for a number of reasons, but in [two distinct categories](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1481.html). The first is for actions that demonstrate intent to relinquish citizenship: swearing loyalty to another nation, serving in a foreign military as an officer or non-commissioned officer (or in any capacity if that country is at war with the United States), formal renunciation before a diplomatic official, and similar actions. The second is for serious crimes against national security: treason, rebellion, insurrection, advocating the overthrow of the government, seditious conspiracy, and levying war against the United States. As Julian and I point out in this [piece](https://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11818) at *Politico*, there is a key difference between the existing expatriation provision and the Lieberman-Brown proposal. The existing expatriation capacity triggers, if at all, *after conviction* for listed crimes against national security. The Lieberman-Brown proposal would strip citizenship where there is an *allegation* of material support to a [Foreign Terrorist Organization](http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm). With this very important distinction, it is clear that the Lieberman-Brown bill does not merely update expatriation law for the 21st century. I discuss some of the low points of this legislation in this podcast: This bill is an end-run around the jurisdictional limitation of the military commissions. After expatriation, a former citizen could be shipped off to Guantanamo for trial by a panel of military officers for a domestic crime. This is a step that the Bush administration never took. The military commissions, from the original executive order through the Military Commissions Acts of 2006 and 2009, are limited in jurisdiction to non-citizens. This is an attempt to take terrorism prosecutions out of civilian federal courts, which already effectively deal with domestic terrorism, and put defendants in a forum where they will have fewer rights. What if the defendant is expatriated by a preponderance of the evidence (51% sure that they provided material support to an FTO) but are acquitted at the commission? Now we have the possibility of a natural-born non-citizen, who, unlike the traditional expatriation subject, has no other nationality to fall back on. This procedure won’t pass constitutional muster anyway, as David Cole [points out](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/07/AR2010050703542_pf.html). Citizenship cannot be stripped so lightly against a person’s will. In short, this is an ineffectual political stunt that aspires to be a radical threat to civil liberties. This proposal shouldn’t become law. ##### Related Tags [Defense and Foreign Policy](https://www.cato.org/defense-foreign-policy), [Constitutional Law](https://www.cato.org/constitutional-law), [Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies](https://www.cato.org/robert-levy-center-constitutional-studies) [![Creative Commons License](/build/cato_2020/images/creative-commons.svg)](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).