http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/06/terrorism.act.change/index.html

Quote :

"introduced legislation in Congress to strip citizenship from any American found to be involved in terrorism. If the Terrorist Expatriation Act passes, an American would lose citizenship if found to have provided material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization -- as designated by the secretary of state -- or participated in actions against the United States "

.....

Quote :

"As the attempted terrorist attack on Times Square showed us again, our enemies today are even more willing than the Nazis or fascists were to kill innocent civilian Americans [in WWII]," Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, told reporters. "Our enemies today are stateless actors who don't wear uniforms and plot against Americans abroad and here in the United States." "

I find this proposed bill deeply disturbing from a civil rights and constitutional point of view. I love also how they inserted the Nazi WWII refrence to legitimize the bill and to add emotion fervor.

The only thing nazi like going on is this rediculous piece of legislation. Sure it sounds super awesome that we will strip evil terrorists of their american citizenship. Where though do you draw the line? The box is not open where reallistically what is the definition of a
terrorist?? The columbine shooters could be categorized as a terrorist, Timothy McVeigh, soliders or mules for the mexican cartels.
This law leaves the door wide open for government abuse. We have laws and courts to deal with people such as the NYC
attempted bomber. Now all the government has to do is slap a "terrorist" label onto any dissident and throw them into a dungeon
without due process.

Legislation like this shits on the rights and freedoms that we are supposed to stand for and only legitimizes the terrorist groups.
Tally another win for the islamic terrorists. Without even blowing anyone up, their times square stunt as sent shockwaves
of fear, people cowering in their home (my cousin's school trip to NYC with band was cancelled due to fear of terrorism), and increased government grabs for power.

5/7/2010 8:27:47 AM

I tend to agree with you.

The worst part is if you try to reason with someone that supports this bill; 95% will just call you an unpatriotic terrorist lover.

5/7/2010 8:37:09 AM

Personally, I'm fine this this bill.

The problem here is that Republicans want this applied to people suspected of terrorism, which is a totally different animal.

The example would be this current situation with the Times Square incident. They argued that the suspect, an American citizen, should not have been informed of his already existing rights granted under the constitution, which is:

A. Completely fucking idiotic, because if they didn't Mirandize him then stuff he says could be thrown out in court.
B. Proves that they really don't give a shit about "the constitution" or "our god given rights the Founding Fathers gave us."

And is really just a pretext to torture. They want any American citizen suspected of terrorism to be stripped of their rights, sent to Gitmo, and waterboarded.

In the wrong place in the wrong time and you look like a sand n*gger? Sorry, Jihad Joe, it's off to Gitmo! You shouldn't have been born brown.

Anyone who is suspected of terrorism, if they're an American citizen (and I would argue anyone in the world, but that's a different thread), should be afforded their rights under the Constitution to remain silent and to be afforded an attorney.

Convicted of terrorism? Sure, do what you want with them.

5/7/2010 8:37:48 AM

so once someone is convicted of terrorism, you dont mind them being tortured (even if they are an american citizen?)

5/7/2010 8:45:39 AM

I do, but not as much as someone who hasn't been convicted in a court of law.

SEE: Everyone in Guantanamo Bay.

5/7/2010 8:50:45 AM

I disagree with this proposed bill, b/c I can definitely see it being readily abused.

Furthermore, I'm pretty sure that you can already have your citizenship stripped if it can be proven that you lied on your citizenship forms/tests. Thus, if any future terrorists (that are naturalized US citizens) lied about past associates or anything else murky they can have their citizenship taken away. I can see this being applicable with this TS bomber moron. Of course, if you're a born US citizen there's no way (currently) for this to happen.

(I could be mistaken about the details, but read this somewhere recently)

5/7/2010 8:57:28 AM

There is no way this shit will pass. Even if it did, there's no way it wouldn't be struck down by the Supreme Court.

[Edited on May 7, 2010 at 9:29 AM. Reason : V sieg heil grammatik]

5/7/2010 9:14:35 AM

I was stricken with an illness from watching the bill get struck down by the supreme court.

5/7/2010 9:15:20 AM

I think this bill is on the right track, but you shouldn't get your citizenship stripped until after you've been convicted.

5/7/2010 9:37:00 AM

^I really agree with that. I mean, there are already ways to lose your citizenship. And I see this fitting in as a form of treason, or bearing arms against the United States in "times of war."

Quote :

"The ways to lose citizenship are detailed in 8 USC 1481: * Becoming naturalized in another country * Swearing an oath of allegiance to another country * Serving in the armed forces of a nation at war with the U.S., or if you are an officer in that force * Working for the government of another nation if doing so requires that you become naturalized or that you swear an oath of allegiance * Formally renouncing citizenship at a U.S. consular office * Formally renouncing citizenship to the U.S. Attorney General * By being convicted of committing treason "

5/7/2010 9:46:14 AM

Quote :

"B. Proves that they really don't give a shit about "the constitution""

Since when are you a champion of that outdated document?


I support what this bill is generally out to accomplish, if it's only applied post-conviction. I can see it potentially being abused, though.

5/7/2010 10:13:25 AM

Statutorily, you can already lose your citizenship if you've been convicted of terrorism. This bill would change that to automatically remove the citizenship of suspected terrorists. It is fundamentally immoral, unconstitutional, and it does not surprise me in the slightest that Joe Lieberman is behind it.

What I find more troubling, however, is the assumption that, if a person isn't a US citizen, the US government does not have to follow the constitution when dealing with them.

5/7/2010 10:13:58 AM

So it's like a mandatory sentencing law? Fuck that.

Quote :

"What I find more troubling, however, is the assumption that, if a person isn't a US citizen, the US government does not have to follow the constitution when dealing with them."

yeah, UNSAT.

5/7/2010 10:16:15 AM

^^Yes, I agree, this is not true at all.

Quote :

"if a person isn't a US citizen, the US government does not have to follow the constitution when dealing with them."

[Edited on May 7, 2010 at 10:16 AM. Reason : ]

5/7/2010 10:16:37 AM

Quote :

"Since when are you a champion of that outdated document?"

Always, it's just that you and I have different interpretations of the commerce clause.

5/7/2010 10:20:13 AM

Quote :

"it does not surprise me in the slightest that Joe Lieberman is behind it."

Nope and it also doesn't surprise me he's try to tie it to WWII somehow.

5/7/2010 10:23:45 AM

^^ I think there's a little more to it than the commerce clause, though I think the interpretation you take isn't just more flexible--it's to the point of absurdity, to the point that there is effectively no restriction on the scope of the federal government (not to be confused with actions of the federal government).

5/7/2010 10:35:44 AM

It's truly disgusting that any of you actually support this trash.
You should be ashamed.

It's one thing for treason to trigger expatriation, but "terrorism"?
Many still (correctly,) argue that terrorism is just crime. What if someone bombs an abortion clinic or gases a mega-church? What if someone burns down a ski resort or LGBT center? I'm pretty sure those crimes have earned the bullshit unconstitutional label of "terrorism". Yet none of those crimes are the least bit treasonous.

Complete bullshit. And a really sad day that we're even talking about it.

5/7/2010 10:38:01 AM

how are any of those things not terrorism?

[Edited on May 7, 2010 at 10:39 AM. Reason : (though I agree, they aren't necessarily treasonous)]

5/7/2010 10:39:29 AM

Quote :

"The worst part is if you try to reason with someone that supports this bill; 95% will just call you an unpatriotic terrorist lover."

Exactly.

Quote :

"Personally, I'm fine this this bill. The problem here is that Republicans want this applied to people suspected of terrorism, which is a totally different animal. "

Who decides what qualifies someone as a terrorist. Person A has dirt and pisses off a powerful senator. Now all the senator
has to do is get his FBI buddies to "find" a letter from Al Qaeda, slap person A with a terrorist label (after of course
talking to his country club buddy the secretary of state), and throw
him into a dungeon.

Would the columbine shooters be terrorists?

Quote :

"They want any American citizen suspected of terrorism to be stripped of their rights, sent to Gitmo, and waterboarded. "

Probably

Quote :

"so once someone is convicted of terrorism, you dont mind them being tortured (even if they are an american citizen?) "

to be convicted one would have to be tried first. This bill states that if the Secretary of state thinks you look like a terrorist
then you may never see the lights of the court house.


If you are raked up in Baghdad and are suspected of being a terrorist or if you are an american citizen captured by the CIA while training
with Hamas it is one thing. To detain an american on US soil, without under teh pretenses of acting as a spy (which would be treason),
slapping on a terrorist, and taking away their US citizenship without going to trial is unconstitutional.

Quote :

"I support what this bill is generally out to accomplish, if it's only applied post-conviction"

I have no problem post-conviction.

5/7/2010 10:51:34 AM

^^
No no.. I am saying that they have been labeled terrorism. (But it's my view that terrorism is an unnecessary label.)
My point was that plenty of non-treasonous crimes labeled "terrorism" would be subject to this law - basically saying, "I you commit a really serious and scary crime, you lose your citizenship."

5/7/2010 11:25:22 AM

Don't like this for the same reason I don't like a lot of other laws and proposed laws (aside from also the constitutional implications of this): You can already lose your citizenship for treason, treason is already defined as giving aid and comfort to America's enemies. If you want to have the suspect lose their citizenship as well, charge them with treason. We should not be looking to create new laws when existing laws already serve the same purpose.

Quote :

"Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted."

[Edited on May 7, 2010 at 1:11 PM. Reason : Treason]

5/7/2010 1:10:46 PM

5/7/2010 1:38:25 PM

The majority of my political views could be described as treasonous, and were I to act on them, terrorism.

[Edited on May 7, 2010 at 2:13 PM. Reason : ^I bet that actor gets picked on at parties.]

5/7/2010 2:11:40 PM

^^ The funny thing is the IRS plane guy and Timothy McVeigh both contradict him.

5/7/2010 2:16:57 PM

I think they both had good reasons for their actions, and brought national attention to their causes.

5/7/2010 2:19:26 PM

^^I too saw the Daily Show last night.

5/7/2010 2:26:43 PM

terrible, terrible, terrible law.

5/7/2010 4:37:05 PM

good thing it ain't law yet.

5/7/2010 5:05:08 PM

Terrorism should be treated as the crime that it is. If you blow up a building and kill 3,000 people, you should be charged with murder, destroying property, etc. No need to charge the specific intent of the crime, in this case "scaring people." Scaring people is not the really bad part of terrorism, it's the actual, physical harm that is inflicted.

I do have to question the intent of those that wish to treat terrorism as some other plane of crime. Is our current justice system not good enough? Will someone not get a proper punishment for murdering hundreds or thousands of people? Or is it just that blind, swift justice makes for better cable news TV specials?

5/7/2010 5:57:29 PM

^ I guess that depends on if you think crimes should be punished based on the intent of the criminal.

If we ignore intent, the attempted Times Square bomber should have just gotten a parking ticket.

[Edited on May 7, 2010 at 9:30 PM. Reason : .]

5/7/2010 9:28:11 PM

They will think its all cool until a white supremacist or deranged tea partier gets stripped of citezenship

5/7/2010 9:33:42 PM

I didn't read all of the thread, but I have a question...


If someone is stripped of their citizenship as a result of application of this law... Where is that person going to go? Are they going to be stuck in jail forever as a non-citizen? Put to death? Shuffled off to some country we haven't identified yet?

This law isn't even practical.

5/7/2010 9:40:42 PM

^ Non-citizens are still afforded due process if arrested in the US.

But the bill is still retarded.

5/7/2010 9:50:38 PM

Quote :

"They will think its all cool until a white supremacist or deranged tea partier gets stripped of citezenship"

The irony of course is that at least ITT, the people you would most expect to think this is all cool are the ones that don't like it, and the people you would expect to think it's a horrible idea are the ones that do.

5/7/2010 9:58:21 PM

^^ That doesn't answer my question, though. What happens to them when their prison sentences run out? Where do they go then?

[Edited on May 7, 2010 at 9:58 PM. Reason : ^]

5/7/2010 9:58:30 PM

^ asks a good question... we strip them of their citizenship, and they have no home country at that point... No passport, no way to really apply to go anywhere

5/7/2010 10:00:39 PM

who supports this bill?

I only see lukewarm support from God and Solinari and Gzusfrk .

[Edited on May 7, 2010 at 10:41 PM. Reason : ]

5/7/2010 10:40:51 PM

This is first I've heard of Dan Fanelli. I am not pleased.

5/8/2010 1:05:10 AM

‘‘(C) engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against any country or armed force that is—directly engaged along with the United States in hostilities engaged in by the United States; or
(ii) providing direct operational support to the United States in hostilities engaged in by the United States.’’

Most problematic part of the bill, IMO, also 8(A) has some definite mens rea clarification needed.

5/8/2010 1:48:39 AM

^^^And I should clarify that my lukewarm support is only if there is a due process legitimate trial first... which it doesn't appear this bill provides for.

^ I can see that being used for far too many things. We already have made it a criminal act for giving money to build hospitals by Hamas (which technically material support to a "terrorist" organization), do we really want to strip citizenship for the same sorts of things?

[Edited on May 8, 2010 at 10:23 AM. Reason : ]

5/8/2010 10:21:01 AM

They already deny citizenship/refugee status to people who've paid ransoms to recover kidnapped relatives.

5/8/2010 10:28:18 AM

This is not a real bill. Scott brown and Nazi Lieberman are just trolling people (I guess if Lieberman's motherland supports nazi-like policies, he has to fall in step).

5/8/2010 11:31:43 AM

^^^ right, plus consider that a country like Pakistan or Turkey could probably qualify as countries providing "direct operational support to the United States in hostilities engaged in by the United States."

So, if you provide support to an organization that engages in any sort of "hostilities" against those countries (and many more), then under this bill that would qualify. Turkey could probably argue that if you gave support to the wrong Armenian or Kurdish groups that could cost you your American citizenship.

[Edited on May 8, 2010 at 10:13 PM. Reason : .]

5/8/2010 10:12:19 PM

Quote :

"Terrorism should be treated as the crime that it is. If you blow up a building and kill 3,000 people, you should be charged with murder, destroying property, etc. No need to charge the specific intent of the crime, in this case "scaring people." Scaring people is not the really bad part of terrorism, it's the actual, physical harm that is inflicted. "

They already do this for supposed "hate" crimes.

5/9/2010 11:27:12 PM

Quote :

"^^ The funny thing is the IRS plane guy and Timothy McVeigh both contradict him."

Quote :

"I think they both had good reasons for their actions, and brought national attention to their causes."

5/9/2010 11:30:14 PM

lol we fucking destroying ourselves over this Terrorist bullshit.

5/23/2010 9:09:56 AM

Quote :

"as designated by the secretary of state"

great

Surprised to see that God supports this

5/23/2010 10:12:12 AM

^^ Yup. They literally NEVER have to attack us again in order to destroy. All they have to do is just exist.

But whatever is good for AMUUURICA it's good for me.

5/23/2010 10:25:06 AM

^Attending terrorist training camp in China.

5/23/2010 6:26:38 PM