Hello:

I don't know about you, but remember those inalienable rights I've been talking about. Well, apparently, they're not so inalienable. Right wing Senator Leiberman proposes that the government take them away from you if they SUSPECT you're a terrorist. What that would mean, is that instead of the Constitution PROTECTING you from the government, we just have to TRUST that the government won't accuse US and take away OUR rights.

But, that isn't what the Constitution says. It's not even close. Didn't Leiberman swear an oath to protect that document??

The problem here, is that all you righty's are going to agree with him.. You're going to say, of course, being the government trusting souls that you are, nahhh, they won't think I'M a terrorist. I don't know WHAT country you think you're from, but it doesn't resemble the one I live in. Or, make that LIVED in, cause the good old FREE US of A, is toast.

excon

What is the Constitution, Ex, Jam, that it should be conserved? You guys talk about that document as though it were sacrosanct, as though it is such a good idea it must be preserved without change. The Constitution of a country is a working document It must change over time as circumstances change. What was good for a fledgling nation in 1776 might need a whole lot of tweeking in 2010, That document in it's original form wasn't that good, it left a whole lot out and it preserved slavery. So get off this tack and start thinking about what is really neeeded today.

Now to tell you what the Senator is actually proposing...

There are already statutes in the law that could strip someone of their citizenship. Among them are serving in an enemy foreign army .
United States Code: Title 8,1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions | LII / Legal Information Institute

Senator Joe thinks that serving as an enemy for a non-state terrorist organization against the country is the equivalent as serving in a foreign army against the country and would amend the law to say so.

Sen Joe would let the State Dept be the agency that determines this ,since it is the State Dept that classifies groups as terrorist groups and nations as terrorist supporting nations.

So then does the State Dept have the final say ? Nope . Johnny Jihad would still have a right to contest it in court . The burden of proof would be on the
State Dept to convince the courts that the persons nvolvement in jihadism against the US merits the punishment of stripping of citizenship .Due process thus satisfied .

Now think about this . What is the likelihood that this charge would be the only one Johnny J is facing ? Most likely he will already be under charges stemming from his involvement in treason against his country.

That being said ,I don't believe I support this idea. I think conviction of treason should merit the death penalty . So stripping the citizenship is an unnecessary redundancy at that point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

What is the Constitution, Ex, Jam, that it should be conserved? you guys talk about that document as though it were sacrosanct, as though it is such a good idea it must be preserved without change. The Constitution of a country is a working document It must change over time as circumstances change. What was good for a fledgling nation in 1776 might need a whole lot of tweeking in 2010, That document in it's original form wasn't that good, it left a whole lot out and it preserved slavery. So get off this tack and start thinking about what is really neeeded today.

---

Our Constitution deserves preserving . Your concerns are addressed with the amendment process that is written into the Constitution. There is even a provision to go the extreme case of calling for a new convention to make broad sweeping changes . As a working document it serves us quite well if it is followed .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

So get off this tack and start thinking about what is really neeeded today.

---

Hello clete:

What you may not know, is the Constitution has a built in change mechanism. I'm all for its use. After all, that would be the Constitutional way to do it. If you support the document, then you do. If you don't, then you don't. There ain't no in between.

excon

From my Chicago school OPEx said :

Quote:

---

Then they can propose real stupid stuff, like Leiberman just did, and THE DUMB PEOPLE WON'T HAVE A CLUE THAT OUR CONSTITUTION FORBIDS IT.

---

Previously ignored the Constitutional aspect of this op and addressed the fact that I most likely would not agree to such a law. But have no doubt ,the law Sen Joe proposes is Constitutional.

I already mentioned that such a law is already on the books . American citizens have had their citizenship revoked. That is a fact.

True ,a blanket law that would say the government could choose anyone off the streets (as Ex appears to believe )and revoke it would be unconsitutional . But the Senator is being very specific which "citizens " it would apply to.

Take as an example the trojan horse game the Time Square bomber took to citienship.
Here we have a foreign born jihadist who came to the country on a work permit... married an American woman... then went through the citizenship process .
It was only after he was fully entrenched in the country that he struck .Did he ever truly have a loyalty to the United States or was he an enemy combattant from the get go ? In his case that is yet to be determined .

However ; this is not a new game plan by the jihadists.

El Sayyid A. Nosair married to avoid deportation for overstaying his visa. He became a U.S. citizen He was later convicted for conspiracy in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing .

Ali Mohamed became an American citizen after marrying a woman he met on a plane trip from Egypt to New York. He became a top aide to Osama bin Laden and was later convicted for his role in the 1998 United States embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya .

Also from the embassy attacks Khalid Abu al Dahab obtained citizenship after marrying three different American women.

Wadih el Hage, Osama bin Laden's personal secretary, married an American woman in 1985 and became a naturalized citizen in 1989.

This is so integral in the jihadists war against the US that they set up a plot called 'Operation Broken Vows ' to circumvent American laws .
CNN.com - Feds charge 220 in marriage scam - Oct. 17, 2002

Yes obtaining American citizenship is a war strategy against the United States . Why would we permit it ?

Now ;if Senator Joe was proposing this law to by-pass haebus you would be correct. But according to proposal he is advancing (which has about zero chance of passing anyway), the case for revoking would be in conjunction with other terrorist related charges ,and the burden of proof in front of the judiciary would be on the State Dept. to prove the jihadist is here as an enemy of the nation and obtained citizenship for that purpose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I already mentioned that such a law is already on the books . American citizens have had their citizenship revoked. That is a fact.

---

Hello again, tom:

You fall into your well worn trap of trying to convince me, that because the jihadists are really, really bad, and don't follow a constitution, that that's reason enough for us to disavow our own.

It is not.

I also don't disagree with your fact, above. And, I have no problem with that law, either, because, unlike what the dufus Leiberman proposes, that law sanctions people only AFTER they've been convicted.

That IS the American way, is it not? That one is innocent until one is convicted in a court of law? Truly, tom. It IS the American way. If you don't know that, maybe you too went to school in Chicago.

excon

PS> (edited) Uhhh, Glenn Beck had a moment of sanity, and agrees with me.

I gave a different reason for my probable opposition to the law (I could care less what Glen Beck thinks... his comedy act is a non-factor in any opinion I have . )

What you are missing is that naturalization is subject to statutory law . There is no inherent right for citizenship.. Also naturalization law can and has been amended many times.

As it stands now ,without any further amending ;a naturalized citizen can have that citizenship revoked in cases of applicant misrepresentation, and in committing acts of war like a terrorist attack , there's probability the oath of citizenship was not taken honestly and expatriation is justified .

Want a working example ? In August 1977, the Justice Department submitted a request to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio that John Demjanjuk's citizenship be revoked on the basis that he had allegedly concealed his involvement with Nazi death camps on his immigration application in 1951.Demjanjuk was fingered by five Holocaust survivors as a camp guard. .

On June 23, 1981, District Court Judge Frank J. Battisti ruled that Demjanjuk had lied on his application, that he had served as an SS guard at Treblinka.
He was never convicted of any crime in the US so your claim of conviction before expatriation doesn't stand .
Was there due process ? Yes ,as there would be in the cases involving terrorists who obtained citizenship under similar circumstances.

Now Sen Joe was speculating that for natural born citizens there would be an Amendment... Which like this proposed law itself ,there is zero chance of it happening.