Sens. Feinstein and Bond and their Senate intel committee got a classified briefing on Faisal Shahzad this afternoon and briefed reporters on it at 4. I went to the Hart building to hear a lot of things — Pakistani Taliban connection isn’t definitive as yet; Bond doesn’t like Miranda because he doesn’t like Miranda; etc. This, though, I did not expect to hear:

“There are grounds in the law now to revoke his American citizenship,” Feinstein said. “I don’t think you need additional legislation to revoke his citizenship, because this is within five years of him having been naturalized and that’s the criteria. And the act that you can remove citizenship for, I believe, has been committed by this man.” Feinstein was referring to legislation by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) that would allow the government to strip terrorists of their American citizenship.

As it happens, I looked at this question in February, in relation to Anwar al-Awlaki (who is a native-born American citizen, unlike Shahzad). And Feinstein is right. The question is: why wouldja?

Feinstein made quite the case that Miranda hasn’t impeded the FBI’s ability to extract intelligence from Shahzad. He waived his right to a speedy arraignment, apparently, and Feinstein said that indicated he’s continuing to talk. He’s also going to be charged with five criminal counts related to terrorism & WMD usage (or something) that could land him in prison for life. It’s hard to see the necessity of stripping Shahzad of his citizenship. And it bears mentioning that he can only be stripped of his citizenship after he’s convicted.

On the other hand, maybe Feinstein is being cynical. Maybe the rationale for stripping Shahzad of his citizenship is just to preempt the Lieberman bill. You know, you can tell your colleagues that Lieberman is proposing something unnecessarily, and that deflates it. I don’t know. I didn’t think to ask Feinstein why she raised the issue until she had ended the briefing.

But let’s say she’s being cynical. I’ve been at Guantanamo during the height of the Lieberman proposal stuff and I’m still catching up. What’s your read — does it stand a chance of passage, or was that just a typical post-terrorist-attempt freakout? And if it stands a chance, is Feinstein’s (presumed! Alleged!) cynicism worth the cost of preventing the bill from passing?