Worse than the Patriot Act

[Citizen]

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10126/1056142-84.stm

Altmire bill would strip citizenship from terror helpers
Thursday, May 06, 2010
By Daniel Malloy, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

WASHINGTON -- Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle and both houses of Congress, including Rep. Jason Altmire, D-McCandless, today introduced legislation to strip U.S. citizenship from people with terrorist ties.

The bill's chief sponsors -- Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn, and Scott Brown, R-Mass., Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Allentown, and Mr. Altmire -- said they had been working on the measure for weeks. But the momentum built with Saturday's failed Times Square bombing, allegedly perpetrated by American citizen Faisal Shahzad.

The bill would empower the State Department to revoke citizenship if a person provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization or supports open hostilities against the U.S. The State Department already has the right to revoke citizenship of Americans who serve in a foreign armed force that is fighting the U.S., and the lawmakers said they were merely updating the 1940 law to reflect the modern war on terror.

"Our enemies today are stateless actors who don't wear uniforms and who plot against Americans abroad and here in the United States, specifically targeting civilians in violation of the laws of war," Mr. Lieberman said.

Under the proposed law, the State Department could decide to revoke citizenship based on intelligence information showing a citizen is a member of a terrorist group, even before trial or capture. It would not apply retroactively to Mr. Shahzad.

An accused terrorist would have the opportunity to appeal the decision, and the State Department would bear the burden of proof.

Non-citizens would lose protections afforded a U.S. citizen charged with a crime and could be prosecuted in a military tribunal rather than federal court.

Mr. Altmire, who has advocated non-civilian trials for suspects like accused 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, said the military tribunal issue is a secondary one but still important to the goals of the legislation.

"If you're talking about someone who has taken action -- it has to be proven action -- against the United States, it would expedite the ability to put them in a military tribunal," Mr. Altmire said.

I really never thought I'd see anything worse than that POS, but this proposed bill proves me wrong. If this country goes down the road of this bill, it's done. Everything it once stood for will be over.

[Hawkeye2j]

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10126/1056142-84.stm



I really never thought I'd see anything worse than that POS, but this proposed bill proves me wrong. If this country goes down the road of this bill, it's done. Everything it once stood for will be over.
I agree with you. I wouldn't mind them being stripped of citizenship after conviction, but citizens should have their day in court.

[bairdi]

We don't need this bill. Current law can successfully address the situation. Any citizen who has terrorist ties should be tried for treason.

[Kana]

I really never thought I'd see anything worse than that POS, but this proposed bill proves me wrong. If this country goes down the road of this bill, it's done. Everything it once stood for will be over.

They're chopping up the Constitution slice by slice. The average American doesn't notice the small degree of freedom they lose with any individual slice, but when you add up all the slices, we end up where we are now. I shudder to think where we will be in another decade or two.

[CommonCents]

I'll have to read up on this further, but based on what I've seen it seems like something I would support. The part that calmed my fears was this quote from the story:

"An accused terrorist would have the opportunity to appeal the decision, and the State Department would bear the burden of proof."

As long as they are afforded the right to appeal the decision and the government bears the burden of proof, I think anyone who associates or aids a terrorist organizations, should be stripped of their US citizenship.

[doctordog]

I agree, let's offer Osama Bin Laden citizenship if he comes out of hiding.

[Kana]

I'll have to read up on this further, but based on what I've seen it seems like something I would support. The part that calmed my fears was this quote from the story:

"An accused terrorist would have the opportunity to appeal the decision, and the State Department would bear the burden of proof."

As long as they are afforded the right to appeal the decision and the government bears the burden of proof, I think anyone who associates or aids a terrorist organizations, should be stripped of their US citizenship.

To what standard of proof?

If the state has proof, let them prove it at trial, beyond reasonable doubt, in front of a jury.

This isn't complicated. The US Constitution guarantees US citizens a trial by jury with due process. That's the law of the land. The state does not have the authority to circumvent the Sixth Amendment by preemptively stripping a citizen of his citizenship.

This is a litmus test. Support the Constitution or support this law. Pick a side.

[CommonCents]

To what standard of proof?

If the state has proof, let them prove it at trial, beyond reasonable doubt, in front of a jury.

This isn't complicated. The US Constitution guarantees US citizens a trial by jury with due process. That's the law of the land. The state does not have the authority to circumvent the Sixth Amendment by preemptively stripping a citizen of his citizenship.

This is a litmus test. Support the Constitution or support this law. Pick a side.

Like I stated, I will have to investigate this further before I choose to support it.

[slowhand]

Freedom?..What freedom?

Almost everybody has a computer today..People's lives are stored on their hard drives, in their online financial transactions, in their e-mail..Big Brother has access to you 24/7

Own a cell phone?..Every call, every text, is on record..Time, date, number, duration..Big Brother and corporate American have you right where they want you..They can even get a GPS fix on you

The only thing the govt hasnt done is bar code, and implant a "Home Again" microchip in our asses

Freedom is an illusion..Has been for years

[Kana]

Freedom?..What freedom?

Almost everybody has a computer today..People's lives are stored on their hard drives, in their online financial transactions, in their e-mail..Big Brother has access to you 24/7

Own a cell phone?..Every call, every text, is on record..Time, date, number, duration..Big Brother and corporate American have you right where they want you..They can even get a GPS fix on you

The only thing the govt hasnt done is bar code, and implant a "Home Again" microchip in our asses

Freedom is an illusion..Has been for years

Granted, we don't have privacy. We do have freedom to the extent that I can say, "Fuck those narcissistic, criminal parasites in Washington, DC," and not be whisked away by jackbooted thugs and made to disappear. Try to say something similar about Kim Jong-il in North Korea.

But there may come a time when to utter such things in America could be interpreted as giving "material support" to enemies of the US government. Lieberman's legislation could therefor be used to strip me of my citizenship in order to place me in jail indefinitely without trial. To support such a law is to display blind faith, not only in the current administration, but every administration that follows it in perpetuity.

We do have freedoms, and they will be conspicuous by their absence if we let men like Comrade Joe have their way in stripping away the remaining limitations we have on the authority of the state. We may not be living in any utopia of freedom now, but believe me, it could get much, much worse.

[MintJulep]

To what standard of proof?

If the state has proof, let them prove it at trial, beyond reasonable doubt, in front of a jury.

This isn't complicated. The US Constitution guarantees US citizens a trial by jury with due process. That's the law of the land. The state does not have the authority to circumvent the Sixth Amendment by preemptively stripping a citizen of his citizenship.

This is a litmus test. Support the Constitution or support this law. Pick a side.Do you think the Oath of Allegiance should simply be lip service?

"The Oath of Allegiance: "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;

I mean, if a 'naturalized' citizen takes this oath and then plots and consorts with foreign terrorists to kill citizens, isn't that a clear violation and cause for revocation? My freedom doesn't hinge on the 'freedom' of foreign terrorists to plot destruction of this country.

[MarkMiller]

Do you think the Oath of Allegiance should simply be lip service?

"The Oath of Allegiance: "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;

I mean, if a 'naturalized' citizen takes this oath and then plots and consorts with foreign terrorists to kill citizens, isn't that a clear violation and cause for revocation? My freedom doesn't hinge on the 'freedom' of foreign terrorists to plot destruction of this country.
You continue to show that you REFUSE to know what you are talking about.

This bill will authorize the State Department to revoke the citizenship of any U.S. national. That means you as well. :hi: National not naturalised.:lmao2: :lmao2:

[Kana]

Do you think the Oath of Allegiance should simply be lip service?

"The Oath of Allegiance: "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;

I mean, if a 'naturalized' citizen takes this oath and then plots and consorts with foreign terrorists to kill citizens, isn't that a clear violation and cause for revocation?

A citizen of the US is guaranteed a trial and due process by the Constitution. Again, this is not complicated. If a US citizen has consorted with foreign terrorists to kill his fellow citizens, then he has committed treason. Take him to trial and prove it to the sufficient standard of evidence. That's the law according to the Constitution. If he's found guilty, losing his citizenship is the least of his worries.

Stripping a person of his citizenship before he has been found guilty of any crime, in attempt to circumvent a trial altogether, is a blatant violation of the Sixth Amendment. Either you believe the US government should be bound by the Constitution, or you don't. There's no middle ground here.

So, yes, this is a litmus test. Many so-called "conservatives" like to talk up the Constitution and rule of law. Here's your chance to prove that its more than just empty rhetoric.

My freedom doesn't hinge on the 'freedom' of foreign terrorists to plot destruction of this country.

But it does hinge upon your government's authority being restricted by law.

[MarkMiller]

I think Boehner has it right. (did I just say that?)

“If they are a U.S. citizen, until they are convicted of some crime, I don’t see how you would attempt to take their citizenship away,”

“That would be pretty difficult under the U.S. Constitution.”

[MarkMiller]

To what standard of proof?

If the state has proof, let them prove it at trial, beyond reasonable doubt, in front of a jury.

This isn't complicated. The US Constitution guarantees US citizens a trial by jury with due process. That's the law of the land. The state does not have the authority to circumvent the Sixth Amendment by preemptively stripping a citizen of his citizenship.

This is a litmus test. Support the Constitution or support this law. Pick a side.
Well Kana, give commoncents some time to read up on the bill. I just did and was surprised to see that this revives an existing law little used that began in 1940. It may be outdated and unconstitutional, but there is some background to look at to understand this bill and how it will attempt to work and if it is something people would support.

I still don't see how it would be legal in this day and age and I doubt it would stand up to a lawsuit, but hell....stranger things have happened.

[slowhand]

Granted, we don't have privacy. We do have freedom to the extent that I can say, "Fuck those narcissistic, criminal parasites in Washington, DC," and not be whisked away by jackbooted thugs and made to disappear. Try to say something similar about Kim Jong-il in North Korea.

But there may come a time when to utter such things in America could be interpreted as giving "material support" to enemies of the US government. Lieberman's legislation could therefor be used to strip me of my citizenship in order to place me in jail indefinitely without trial. To support such a law is to display blind faith, not only in the current administration, but every administration that follows it in perpetuity.

We do have freedoms, and they will be conspicuous by their absence if we let men like Comrade Joe have their way in stripping away the remaining limitations we have on the authority of the state. We may not be living in any utopia of freedom now, but believe me, it could get much, much worse.

It is, and has been getting worse

I know what you're saying

[MarkMiller]

It is, and has been getting worse

I know what you're saying
Worse as far as California is concerned. Prop 8 proves these people can get what they want with enough money even if it means blatantly taking away an established right for moral reasons.....and stupid moral reasons at that.

[Kana]

Anybody remember this fellow? Richard Jewel?

Fortunately for him, Comrade Lieberman didn't have the authority to strip him of his citizenship.

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/5669/jeweld.jpg

[MintJulep]

A citizen of the US is guaranteed a trial and due process by the Constitution. Again, this is not complicated. If a US citizen has consorted with foreign terrorists to kill his fellow citizens, then he has committed treason. Take him to trial and prove it to the sufficient standard of evidence. That's the law according to the Constitution. If he's found guilty, losing his citizenship is the least of his worries.

Stripping a person of his citizenship before he has been found guilty of any crime, in attempt to circumvent a trial altogether, is a blatant violation of the Sixth Amendment. Either you believe the US government should be bound by the Constitution, or you don't. There's no middle ground here.

So, yes, this is a litmus test. Many so-called "conservatives" like to talk up the Constitution and rule of law. Here's your chance to prove that its more than just empty rhetoric. So, the Oath of Allegiance is basically lip service and one who takes it is perfectly within their rights to do so with with the sole intention of committing acts of mass murder on the citizenry. In that case, 'naturalized' citizenships should not be handed out like free doughnuts and instead, earned like a medical board certification.

But it does hinge upon your government's authority being restricted by law.And it does conflict with the government's obligation to protect the citizens. Any alien applying for a 'naturalized' citizenship should be required to wait a certain number of years and be investigated like they're applying for an FBI position.

[slowhand]

Worse as far as California is concerned. Prop 8 proves these people can get what they want with enough money even if it means blatantly taking away an established right for moral reasons.....and stupid moral reasons at that.

I hear you..I was in the fishing biz for 35 years..They turned it into a police state..Didnt matter who was in the Whitehouse or Congress

[Kana]

So, the Oath of Allegiance is basically lip service and one who takes it is perfectly within their rights to do so with with the sole intention of committing acts of mass murder on the citizenry. In that case, 'naturalized' citizenships should not be handed out like free doughnuts and instead, earned like a medical board certification.

And it does conflict with the government's obligation to protect the citizens. Any alien applying for a 'naturalized' citizenship should be required to wait a certain number of years and be investigated like they're applying for an FBI position.

You are trying to change the subject. This isn't about immigration. This is about whether the US government is bound to obey the Constitution. It is a "yes" or "no" question.

[Kana]

I hear you..I was in the fishing biz for 35 years..They turned it into a police state..Didnt matter who was in the Whitehouse or Congress

It never does. This country keeps going in the same direction, regardless of which group of parasites is holding the reins. We are ruled by a chameleon. Sometimes he's blue, and other times, he's red. People have been hoodwinked into thinking he's two different chameleons.

[Scottbrown2012]

You are trying to change the subject. This isn't about immigration. This is about whether the US government is bound to obey the Constitution. It is a "yes" or "no" question.
I have plenty of experience dealing with lady mint liberty julep and that is her thing to change the subject and twist things to try and confuse you. I know exactly what this bill is about and immigration has NOTHING to do with it or the oath she talks about, it deals with dealing with terrorism and it does not matter to lieberman or anyone else that supports this hunk of crap if you have been a U.S. citizen your entire life...if you help a terrorist knowingly or unknowingly you will lose your citizenship without trial.

[Kana]

I have plenty of experience dealing with lady mint liberty julep and that is her thing to change the subject and twist things to try and confuse you. I know exactly what this bill is about and immigration has NOTHING to do with it or the oath she talks about, it deals with dealing with terrorism and it does not matter to lieberman or anyone else that supports this hunk of crap if you have been a U.S. citizen your entire life...if you help a terrorist knowingly or unknowingly you will lose your citizenship without trial.

Well, slight correction. If the government has intel alleging you might have connections to some terrorist group, you will lose your citizenship without trial. You don't actually have to have done anything at all. There will only ever be an allegation, because the whole point of this law is to circumvent a trial.

They only need to prove your alleged ties to some terrorist organization by the "preponderance of evidence" standard, which is the lowest standard of evidence we've got, and it's generally only used in civil cases. This is the standard of evidence used when you get a fucking parking ticket. It is far lower than the standard of evidence used in a criminal trial, where they really need to prove that you are guilty.

So, some terrorist fuckhead is under interrogation and starts lying his ass off, and fingers you as an accomplice. There goes your citizenship, and off you go to some military prison to rot away, never to be heard from again. This is real Joe Stalin Soviet-era bullshit.

[Scottbrown2012]

Well, slight correction. If the government has intel alleging you might have connections to some terrorist group, you will lose your citizenship without trial. You don't actually have to have done anything at all. There will only ever be an allegation, because the whole point of this law is to circumvent a trial.

They only need to prove your alleged ties to some terrorist organization by the "preponderance of evidence" standard, which is lowest standard of evidence we've got, and it's generally only used in civil cases. This is the standard of evidence used when you get a fucking parking ticket. It is far lower than the standard of evidence used in a criminal trial, where they really need to prove that you are guilty.

So, some terrorist fuckhead is under interrogation and starts lying his ass off, and fingers you as an accomplice. There goes your citizenship, and off you go to some military prison to rot away, never to be heard from again. This is real Joe Stalin Soviet-era bullshit.
Exactly! and this is a REPUBLICAN bill with the support of turncoat Liberman...I actually agree with citizen that if this actually passes this country is fucked forever.

[MintJulep]

You are trying to change the subject. This isn't about immigration. This is about whether the US government is bound to obey the Constitution. It is a "yes" or "no" question.I wasn't trying to change the subject. The question was should someone like this Times Square terrorist, a 'naturalized' citizen have their citizenship revoked for consorting with foreign terrorists to murder Americans. Being involved with foreign enemies in a plot to kill seems like an act of war that should be handled by a military commission, not a domestic court. It's obvious that little "Oath of Allegiance" means absolutely nothing, so it should be scrapped. Just let anyone in and make them a citizen. When a dirty bomb finally goes off and thousands lay dead, Muslims will probably wind up in internment camps for their own protection. It's clear the government has no interest in protecting the citizens and more interest in downplaying Islamic terrorism, so we will have to protect ourselves.

[MintJulep]

I have plenty of experience dealing with lady mint liberty julep and that is her thing to change the subject and twist things to try and confuse you. I know exactly what this bill is about and immigration has NOTHING to do with it or the oath she talks about, it deals with dealing with terrorism and it does not matter to lieberman or anyone else that supports this hunk of crap if you have been a U.S. citizen your entire life...if you help a terrorist knowingly or unknowingly you will lose your citizenship without trial.Please. You don't care about the Constitution, only about your beloved little terrorist friends who you consider 'victims'.

[John Galt]

Well, slight correction. If the government has intel alleging you might have connections to some terrorist group, you will lose your citizenship without trial. You don't actually have to have done anything at all. There will only ever be an allegation, because the whole point of this law is to circumvent a trial.

They only need to prove your alleged ties to some terrorist organization by the "preponderance of evidence" standard, which is the lowest standard of evidence we've got, and it's generally only used in civil cases. This is the standard of evidence used when you get a fucking parking ticket. It is far lower than the standard of evidence used in a criminal trial, where they really need to prove that you are guilty.

So, some terrorist fuckhead is under interrogation and starts lying his ass off, and fingers you as an accomplice. There goes your citizenship, and off you go to some military prison to rot away, never to be heard from again. This is real Joe Stalin Soviet-era bullshit.

That's the point here...

The citizenship isn't the issue. It's the treatment you get for just being a suspect that's the killer.

Nobody wants to talk about the ramifications of being 'suspected' of terrorist ties.



Those who flew planes into the WTC weren't citzens. I believe some of them were here on expired education visas.

You don't have to be a citizen, to be dangerous.

[Hawkeye2j]

I wasn't trying to change the subject. The question was should someone like this Times Square terrorist, a 'naturalized' citizen have their citizenship revoked for consorting with foreign terrorists to murder Americans. Being involved with foreign enemies in a plot to kill seems like an act of war that should be handled by a military commission, not a domestic court. It's obvious that little "Oath of Allegiance" means absolutely nothing, so it should be scrapped. Just let anyone in and make them a citizen. When a dirty bomb finally goes off and thousands lay dead, Muslims will probably wind up in internment camps for their own protection. It's clear the government has no interest in protecting the citizens and more interest in downplaying Islamic terrorism, so we will have to protect ourselves.
No that is not the question. The question was about the bill. And the bill did not include just naturalized citizens.

[Tom Paine]

So does the bill clearly state that you can be a terrorist against the US government and keep your citizenship as long as you don't affiliate yourself with other terrorist organizations or countries over seas?

Terrorists should be hung or shot because you should pay a price when you lose.

[Hawkeye2j]

So does the bill clearly state that you can be a terrorist against the US government and keep your citizenship as long as you don't affiliate yourself with other terrorist organizations or countries over seas?

Terrorists should be hung or shot because you should pay a price when you lose.
Again, due process of law.

[Tom Paine]

Again, due process of law.

Never said a word against it, even with the crappy system we have in place, I still feel better knowing its in place.