http://lieberman.senate.gov/index.cfm/news…xpatriation-act
What a horrible idea.
You’ll know how the government will treat its best by how it treats its worst.
http://lieberman.senate.gov/index.cfm/news…xpatriation-act
What a horrible idea.
You’ll know how the government will treat its best by how it treats its worst.
Interesting assertion (your final sentence). Suppose a government were to imprison a murderer, arguably “its worst.” Would that be a warning about how it will treat its best?
Or would you recognize that “its worst” are those who would initiate force against rational citizens, and that they are properly removed from society in order to protect the rights of men, which is the only rational function of government?
This bill seeks to strip the judicial rights reserved specifically to U.S. citizens from those who hold loyalty to an aggressive foreign entity. You would think that the active support of a foreign enemy would be enough to expose any pretense of citizenship and justify the revocation of any special treatment reserved for U.S. citizens. Apparently, your view is that those who choose foreign enemies over their own nation should retain all rights of a citizen of that nation.
Please provide an argument to back that conclusion.
I think the concern is the portion of terrorism that is funded through multiple middle men by people who have no idea where their money is going. The government will theoretically be able to choose scapegoats to prosecute among the suckers
half a dozen transactions removed from any terrorist organizations. I’d have to read the proposal, but hopefully there is something in it to prevent such abuses.
Revoking the citizenship of those who support nations or organizations we are at war with is justified, and I support it, but there is a fine line between terrorism and “idealogically motivated crime”. A step or two down the line, a law like this
could morph into a situation where robbing a grocery store means you do time, but robbing a grocery store and coincidentally disagreeing with the party in power will lose you your citizenship as well. That’s a stretch though.
Hopefully this will deter terrorists’ use of US citizenship to achieve their ends without violating anyone’s rights, but, knowing the ominous meaning of bipartisan legislation that comes during a panic, this may be just another emergency that
can’t be allowed to go to waste.
Interesting assertion (your final sentence). Suppose a government were to imprison a murderer, arguably “its worst.” Would that be a warning about how it will treat its best?
Or would you recognize that “its worst” are those who would initiate force against rational citizens, and that they are properly removed from society in order to protect the rights of men, which is the only rational function of government?
This bill seeks to strip the judicial rights reserved specifically to U.S. citizens from those who hold loyalty to an aggressive foreign entity. You would think that the active support of a foreign enemy would be enough to expose any pretense of citizenship and justify the revocation of any special treatment reserved for U.S. citizens. Apparently, your view is that those who choose foreign enemies over their own nation should retain all rights of a citizen of that nation.
Please provide an argument to back that conclusion.
Please provide a list of those special “rights”, in the face of criminal prosecution, a foreign citizen does not have, and an American does, on US soil.
The Constitution already has a tool for the US government to treat terrorist threats on US soil differently from regular crimes: it is the suspension of habeas corpus clause. That can be done for American and foreign citizens alike, when captured committing acts of war or rebellion on American soil. It’s been used in the past (Herbert Hans Haupt, the last time), and it can be used now. If they think this guy is a threat to this country, Obama should go ahead and use it, and stand before history with his decision.
What this Bill is attempting is to pander to nationalist sentiment, and magically remove rights by stripping someone of their citizenship. It puts the magical rights wand into the hands of he people who already tightly control the citizenship wand. But some of us know that the source of rights is not the consent of the government.
Interesting assertion (your final sentence). Suppose a government were to imprison a murderer, arguably “its worst.” Would that be a warning about how it will treat its best?
Or would you recognize that “its worst” are those who would initiate force against rational citizens, and that they are properly removed from society in order to protect the rights of men, which is the only rational function of government?
This bill seeks to strip the judicial rights reserved specifically to U.S. citizens from those who hold loyalty to an aggressive foreign entity. You would think that the active support of a foreign enemy would be enough to expose any pretense of citizenship and justify the revocation of any special treatment reserved for U.S. citizens. Apparently, your view is that those who choose foreign enemies over their own nation should retain all rights of a citizen of that nation.
Please provide an argument to back that conclusion.
They put the murderer in there after having a legitimate trial. Justice is served.
What this Bill is attempting is to pander to nationalist sentiment, and magically remove rights by stripping someone of their citizenship. It puts the magical rights wand into the hands of he people who already tightly control the citizenship wand. But some of us know that the source of rights is not the consent of the government.
Pandering was the primary motivation that came to mind for the proposition of this law. However, there could be some benefits of allowing the State Department to make the “administrative determination” of whether someone will retain citizenship or not. They have an intelligence organization and are linked to just about all others. A State Dept. ruling could be less public and political, as well as quicker. That said, I still think it’s pandering, and I will until I hear some arguments by Lieberman in support of the law. Either way, my support for such things has dwindled quite substantially since the few years after 9/11. I don’t think the people can elect anyone capable of fighting a proper war against our enemies, nor do I trust anyone to properly target the enemy in the country. Hopefully, no one will take these statements as subversion, so I can keep my citizenship. :worry:
P…, “administrative determination” of whether someone will retain citizenship or not. …
Removing citizenship, as such, can never be of any urgency. If the situation envisaged by the bill (i.e., collaborating with terrorists) requires the government to act toward someone in a certain way, then let’s have a bill specifying what those ways may be. If the idea is to strip citizenship without any urgency – e.g. of someone who has been convicted and is serving time – then let’s have a bill to address that:e.g. specifying what types of convictions may result in the government asking a court to remove a person’s citizenship. Giving the executive branch a power that can have serious consequences to an individual, and that they can never need to fulfill their purpose, is to create a needlessly dangerous tool for the future.