Aa
Stripping Citizenship from Domestic Terrorists
Joe Lieberman is calling for US citizens engaging in terrorism against the US (such as the Times Square bomber) to be stripped of their US citizenship. There is currently a law on the books where if a US citizen joins an opposing force during time of war (ie: joining the Nazi's during WW2), he/she can be stripped of their citizenship. The question lies as to whether the courts will actually consider this a war as there is no real country the US is at war with when it comes to this specific issue (in other words, these terrorists come from a variety of countries, not necessarily Afganistan). I think he is right. It should be considered an act of treason in my opinion, and to me that is the same thing. Curious to hear others thoughts.
I agree with teko that we have a "war on terror" in progress and whatever laws are enacted, should apply to anyone who commits an act of terror against the US. I also agree that there has to be a separation between a "crime" and an act of terror.
For the most part an act of terror would be something designed to destroy property, kill/maim multiple/hundreds/thousands of people one has never met and has no reason to kill/maim, such as 911. A "crime" would be on the order of, oh say, an ex husband blowing up his ex wife's home during a family reunion attended by people he "used" to be associated with. Heinous as that would be, it would be a crime against an ex-family versus a crime against the entire country.
I'm don't think I'd want to send them to Canada -- I've made some pretty good friends from various parts of Canada, here on MH. I vote for taking away their US citizenship and sending them back to whatever country they came from...........lol
Actually, anyone convicted of terrorism against the US should be imprisoned for life in order prevent any type of "repeat performance"...........
As simple as I made it sound -- I'm realistic enough to know it's not going to be that simple.
For the most part an act of terror would be something designed to destroy property, kill/maim multiple/hundreds/thousands of people one has never met and has no reason to kill/maim, such as 911. A "crime" would be on the order of, oh say, an ex husband blowing up his ex wife's home during a family reunion attended by people he "used" to be associated with. Heinous as that would be, it would be a crime against an ex-family versus a crime against the entire country.
I'm don't think I'd want to send them to Canada -- I've made some pretty good friends from various parts of Canada, here on MH. I vote for taking away their US citizenship and sending them back to whatever country they came from...........lol
Actually, anyone convicted of terrorism against the US should be imprisoned for life in order prevent any type of "repeat performance"...........
As simple as I made it sound -- I'm realistic enough to know it's not going to be that simple.
Lol, yeah send them here. We have parts of our country that are still pretty much inhabitable...frozen!!! We'll send them to Tuktyuktuk (yep, that's a real place..lol). I bet they behave after a few months living there.....
I vote Canada! ROFL! I seriously don't see this coming to pass anytime soon so is it another political ploy or what? What happened to Financial Reform, Immigration? That darned oil spill that is making people get headaches, feel sick to their stomachs?
I can see it going the other way as well....how will they actually define terrorism. If a Muslim American commits a crime it can very well be just that...a crime. So defining terrorism I would think would have to be done on a case by case basis. And if stripping someone of citizenship means deporting and the individual is American born, where would they send them?
Good point! We have a war on Terror, period. So that is where things start getting touchy! Terror can come in many forms and many nationalities. hmmm
I agree. When I first heard Joe Lieberman talking about this I thought it made alot of sense. I still do in theory, but I think in actual practice it just won't be that simple. Too many gray areas.
Barb, the reason I wondered about the law being applied to Muslim Extremists is because that is currently who the war on terrorism really exists with. There are so many things that happen that technically could be considered terrorism, but are not a part of the current larger problem. The law actually already exists, it's just how to apply it in this situation. It is very different then the situation when the law was created. Yes, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Barb, the reason I wondered about the law being applied to Muslim Extremists is because that is currently who the war on terrorism really exists with. There are so many things that happen that technically could be considered terrorism, but are not a part of the current larger problem. The law actually already exists, it's just how to apply it in this situation. It is very different then the situation when the law was created. Yes, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
You said: "would it only apply to terrorists that are part of the muslim extremist groups or all domestic terrorists even if there is no affiliation."
I wouldn't think that there could possibly be a law that singles out only muslim extremist groups - that would be some pretty tough discrimination. You'd be saying that other people can terrorize the US, but not the muslims.........
I don't know if they can get a law like this passed, but it would have to apply to *all or no* domestic terrorists.
I wouldn't think that there could possibly be a law that singles out only muslim extremist groups - that would be some pretty tough discrimination. You'd be saying that other people can terrorize the US, but not the muslims.........
I don't know if they can get a law like this passed, but it would have to apply to *all or no* domestic terrorists.
When you fill in the citizenship papers ,you swear to fight against Enemies ,foreign or domestic, I read that they can indeed take it away .and you actually swear this on Oath...
I think this issue is considerably more complicated than it might appear.
""Miranda applies if somebody's going to be charged with a crime, and that applies to somebody whether they're a citizen or not," said Anil Kalhan, a law professor at Drexel University.
Indeed, what Lieberman is attempting to do is to pave the way for terrorists with American citizenship to be thrown into military tribunals once they are captured. And it would give the State Department the power to make that determination.
"It sounds like a draconian solution," said John Bellinger a legal adviser to the United States Secretary of State during the Bush administration. "I assume the Senate has thought through the constitutional issues but I would want to see what the standards are for stripping someone of their citizenship and what opportunities they would have for notice and to challenge the decision... It certainly seems like a far-reaching step."
As Bellinger notes, the issue of revoking citizenship has been litigated to the highest levels of the justice system already. And as it stands now, the standard is set fairly high.
"....As Emily Berman of the Brennan Center notes, a naturalized citizen can have his or her citizenship revoked if it is proved that he or she obtained their citizenship through fraudulent means. There are also complexities with regards to Americans who have joined "the armed forces of a state engaged in hostilities against the United States," says Kalhan. And this, indeed, may be the subset of the law that Lieberman is hoping to expand (to include non-state terrorist organizations).
But these remain fairly well established elements of immigration law. And an expansion of power to the State Department, as Lieberman seems to be envisioning, will almost assuredly be challenged on constitutional grounds, these experts say.
"With respect to people who are born American citizens I believe this would be an unconstitutional statute," said Berman. "I don't think the Congress has the power to give the State Department that right."
There are non-legal questions surrounding Lieberman's proposal as well. For starters, what would distinguish a member of al Qaeda from a domestic terrorist? Could a homegrown terrorist like Timothy McVeigh be denied citizenship rights? How would the State Department define what constitutes ties to terrorism? And what happens if the person is wrongfully accused?
"The slippery slope is there but also there's great potential to apply that kind of rule in a very arbitrary and discriminatory way," said Kalhan.
Perhaps the issue proving most bothersome to the legal community, however, is the slight Lieberman's bill sends to America's criminal justice system, which has, statistically, proven far more effective at trying citizen and non-citizen terrorists than its military counterpart.
"There is an ongoing and often irrational debate about what do we do with people who are suspected terrorists who are captured in the United States," said Berman. "The thought that we should be doing anything different than what we always have done is remarkable. I don't think anyone has ever been able to contradict all the evidence that the criminal courts are perfectly capable of locking these people away quite effectively."
I tend to think this law would be unnecessary and troublesome but I have not come to a conclusion yet. As a general rule I don't agree with most of what Lieberman says or does but that doesn't mean he can't be right. I see him as a guy who loves to grandstand and why wouldn't he? He is a politician after all.
Mike
""Miranda applies if somebody's going to be charged with a crime, and that applies to somebody whether they're a citizen or not," said Anil Kalhan, a law professor at Drexel University.
Indeed, what Lieberman is attempting to do is to pave the way for terrorists with American citizenship to be thrown into military tribunals once they are captured. And it would give the State Department the power to make that determination.
"It sounds like a draconian solution," said John Bellinger a legal adviser to the United States Secretary of State during the Bush administration. "I assume the Senate has thought through the constitutional issues but I would want to see what the standards are for stripping someone of their citizenship and what opportunities they would have for notice and to challenge the decision... It certainly seems like a far-reaching step."
As Bellinger notes, the issue of revoking citizenship has been litigated to the highest levels of the justice system already. And as it stands now, the standard is set fairly high.
"....As Emily Berman of the Brennan Center notes, a naturalized citizen can have his or her citizenship revoked if it is proved that he or she obtained their citizenship through fraudulent means. There are also complexities with regards to Americans who have joined "the armed forces of a state engaged in hostilities against the United States," says Kalhan. And this, indeed, may be the subset of the law that Lieberman is hoping to expand (to include non-state terrorist organizations).
But these remain fairly well established elements of immigration law. And an expansion of power to the State Department, as Lieberman seems to be envisioning, will almost assuredly be challenged on constitutional grounds, these experts say.
"With respect to people who are born American citizens I believe this would be an unconstitutional statute," said Berman. "I don't think the Congress has the power to give the State Department that right."
There are non-legal questions surrounding Lieberman's proposal as well. For starters, what would distinguish a member of al Qaeda from a domestic terrorist? Could a homegrown terrorist like Timothy McVeigh be denied citizenship rights? How would the State Department define what constitutes ties to terrorism? And what happens if the person is wrongfully accused?
"The slippery slope is there but also there's great potential to apply that kind of rule in a very arbitrary and discriminatory way," said Kalhan.
Perhaps the issue proving most bothersome to the legal community, however, is the slight Lieberman's bill sends to America's criminal justice system, which has, statistically, proven far more effective at trying citizen and non-citizen terrorists than its military counterpart.
"There is an ongoing and often irrational debate about what do we do with people who are suspected terrorists who are captured in the United States," said Berman. "The thought that we should be doing anything different than what we always have done is remarkable. I don't think anyone has ever been able to contradict all the evidence that the criminal courts are perfectly capable of locking these people away quite effectively."
I tend to think this law would be unnecessary and troublesome but I have not come to a conclusion yet. As a general rule I don't agree with most of what Lieberman says or does but that doesn't mean he can't be right. I see him as a guy who loves to grandstand and why wouldn't he? He is a politician after all.
Mike
I wonder if this is even constitutionally allowed? I will be tuning into this one. Interesting.
I guess the only real question is how they will define a criminal act vs. an act of terrorism.
This would definitely be the real problem with this. Where is the line drawn?
I think this could open a can of worms. I don't think any terrorist, domestic or foreign, would give a $hit if their citizenship was stripped and it wouldn't deter them from their goals. There would need to be specific guidelines for this law, targeting terrorist acts and ONLY terrorist acts.
This would definitely be the real problem with this. Where is the line drawn?
I think this could open a can of worms. I don't think any terrorist, domestic or foreign, would give a $hit if their citizenship was stripped and it wouldn't deter them from their goals. There would need to be specific guidelines for this law, targeting terrorist acts and ONLY terrorist acts.
An interesting question came up on this....would it only apply to terrorists that are part of the muslim extremist groups or all domestic terrorists even if there is no affiliation. My thought is all terrorists. To commit a heinous act like that against a country you claim as your own has to be the lowest of the low. I guess the only real question is how they will define a criminal act vs. an act of terrorism. This is going to be an interesting debate I think.
Absolutely agree!
Yes within the law that is a crime against the United States as a whole and that would be grounds for removing a person's citizenship status. I agree.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
