Monday, May 10, 2010



Congressional grandstanding over terrorism

If this is the best they can do about terrorism, America is in a bad way:
"A bipartisan group of legislators on Thursday 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.

Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut, and Scott Brown, R-Massachusetts, co-sponsored the bill. An identical bill is being introduced in the House by Reps. Jason Altmire, D-Pennsylvania, and Charlie Dent, R-Pennsylvania.”

Source

It seems reasonable to make support for terrorism a crime but what if the person's family have been in America for generations? Where are they going to be sent to? Or they just continue to live on in the USA as non-citizens?

All quite crazy and totally contrary to the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment protects even naturalized citizens, not only native born Americans. So the whole nonsense would almost certainly be knocked over by SCOTUS. It's all just for show -- to show that they are tough on terrorism! It in fact shows how weak and impotent they are

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Support for terrorism is not simply a crime. It's a war crime. We are at war with a foreign power, so the rules of war should be applied, not the rule of law, which in the US, as the whole world knows, is a joke.

Much of this serious problem could be solved with a sane and rational immigration policy in this country. Not one that invites the entire world to come here, drain us, and mock our laws. Do you need more proof that our immigration laws are an international joke?

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local
/alien_WU7CcuvTMg4n2yBzWqSPMI

Anonymous said...

Aiding and abetting an enemy in time of war is treason, and the only solution for that crime is summary execution. In public. This is a standard policy in almost every country on earth, except here in the Nation of Fools.

Anonymous said...

Innocent until proven guilty. Once they have been tried and convicted as a US Citizen, I can't see a problem of striping them of citizenship for conducting acts of war against the populace. However, since the constitution seems to apply even to visitors to the country, does it really matter other than voting. Is the loss of citizenship really that great a punishment today?

The Finn said...

"Support for terrorism is not simply a crime. It's a war crime. We are at war with a foreign power, so the rules of war should be applied, not the rule of law, which in the US, as the whole world knows, is a joke."

By definition you cannot be a terrorist and commit a war crime.

Also, no-one can be a stateless person. Obviously there are people like this due to failed states but right to nationality is a fundamental human right that is protected under international law. I would think one would have to be a complete idiot to suggest such an action when there are easier and legal measures available.

Anonymous said...

By definition you cannot be a terrorist and commit a war crime.

In that there is no universally accepted definition of "terrorist," your point cannot be accurate.

Also, no-one can be a stateless person.

Of course they can. There is no national or international guarantee that a person must have or possess an allegiance to a state.

If a person is citizen of one country and renounces that citizenship, he is, by his actions, without a state. There is no international requirement that a person renounce a citizenship in favor of another country or state.

Anonymous said...

By some of the arguments here every state could argue that it is perpetually in a state of war and normal protections should not apply.
Of course, this is ludicrous and is the opposite of the principles this website is meant to support.
Stripping a person of citizenship when they have no alternative citizenship would leave them in a state of legal limbo.

The Finn said...

"In that there is no universally accepted definition of "terrorist," your point cannot be accurate."

But there is a universally accepted definition of war and laws of war. What ever definition of terrorism you choose to use, it never includes privileged combatants. By it's very nature terrorism is action outside the scope of laws of war.


"There is no national or international guarantee that a person must have or possess an allegiance to a state."

Yes but at the same time Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that:

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Anonymous said...

By it's very nature terrorism is action outside the scope of laws of war.

Once again, that would assume that the definition of terrorism is concrete and established. It is not.

Yes but at the same time Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that:

That is quite different from a your original point that "no-one can be a stateless person."

The Finn said...

Ah, you must be 'the Anonymous'. This time around I shall be careful and make sure from the very beginning that I understand you and you understand me. So before I continue this conversation from my part, would you be so kind as to clarify.

Are you in fact saying that since there is no concrete and established definition of terrorism anything can be terrorism?


"That is quite different from a your original point that "no-one can be a stateless person.""

Do you actually read my first comment as meaning it is physically impossible for someone to be a stateless person?

Anonymous said...

Are you in fact saying that since there is no concrete and established definition of terrorism anything can be terrorism?

No, I am saying that without concrete definitions, it is impossible to say that "war crimes" preclude "terrorism."

Do you actually read my first comment as meaning it is physically impossible for someone to be a stateless person?

That is what you said. While I also understood your point that there are people that are in this state due to failed state, by definition a person can be a member of a state that no longed exists.

The Finn said...

"No, I am saying that without concrete definitions, it is impossible to say that "war crimes" preclude "terrorism." "

And also, I assume, without concrete definitions it is impossible to say that "track and field events" preclude "terrorism"? I don't wish to be anal but last time around you were pretty hung up on details so let's make sure. Are you willing to draw any kinds of lines on the definition of the term or is it just one of those words that can mean what ever the person using it wants it to mean? Unless of course the word the person wants it to mean is defined as 'not terrorism'.

"That is what you said. While I also understood your point that there are people that are in this state due to failed state, by definition a person can be a member of a state that no longed exists."

So you just on principle misunderstood to argue an irrelevant point while at the same time understanding that I didn't in fact mean that it is somehow against the laws of nature to exist in a situation of statelessness?

I don't have the time nor the will at this point to google this and check, but it is my understanding that nobody can be a member of a state that no longer exists. There are another set of laws that dictate how the succeeding state(s) should handle the situation but unless I remember this wrong, a citizen of the USSR for example cannot legally be a national of that country anymore.

Anonymous said...

Are you willing to draw any kinds of lines on the definition of the term or is it just one of those words that can mean what ever the person using it wants it to mean? Unless of course the word the person wants it to mean is defined as 'not terrorism'.

This is the statement you made: By definition you cannot be a terrorist and commit a war crime.

The problem is, of course, that you are relying on a definition that does not exist. You cannot use "by definition" to buttress a point when the definition upon which you are relying does not exist.

Even so, here is a bigger problem for you. The Geneva Accords protects certain groups of people. Those groups are listed in Article One. Article 33 has this: "No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited."

Got it now?

So you just on principle misunderstood to argue an irrelevant point while at the same time understanding that I didn't in fact mean that it is somehow against the laws of nature to exist in a situation of statelessness?

Not at all. I took what you read and responded.

but it is my understanding that nobody can be a member of a state that no longer exists.

That may or may not be true. For the purposes of this post and thread, it is irrelevant. "Statelessness" is generally considered to be without a state. Typically, the term applies to people such as refuges who have been driven from their home or state no longer exists.

What is being discussed here is the the citizenship of a person. US Code 8 USC 1481 lists the way a person may renounce or lose their US Citizenship:
* 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

Therefore, you can renounce your citizenship in the US and not belong to another state. Neither US or International law require that you must be a citizen of a country.

Your original post seemed to be trying to make that point that a state or person could not strip or renounce a citizenship because all people must have a "nationality."

Clearly that is not the case.