NO NO NO NO NO! (Terrorist Expatriation Act)

[Graelin]

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2010/05/brown_to_co-spo.html

While this sounds like it might be a good idea... all I can say is  ?!?!?

I have to admit I haven't put any time and effort into thinking on it, but first impressions are not good. The reason I say this is because the way it was mistakenly reported on the news. The reporter screwzled up the report and said the legislation could allow stripping citizenship of any US citizen if found to having ties to any terrorist organization.

Now I realize it could be an intentional misreporting for the shock and the "you heard it here first" factors... but if not.. it goes to show that it is indeed a "slippery slope". If the reporter actually interpreted it this way, one 'sample of the average moron American population has just proven where the precedent will take the action to eventually.

At some point, some snake on Capitol Hill is going to somehow get legalized torture for non-US citizens on the books (officially). Between these two laws alone, the Constitution will no longer exist.  NOONE would be safe.

On a side, but related note, what would happen if I renounced my natural born citizenship. WHO would I be citizen to? W/O a green card, where would I be deported to?

Bah.. it's late.. I'm getting altered and going to exercise my rights... Cops just can't stay away from the suspicious looking guy walking at suspicious hours down suspicious streets.

[KBCraig]

U.S. politicians are completely off the hook. We routinely hear arguments that the Constitution only applies to citizens, that non-citizens have no rights at all (not even basic human rights).

Personally, I couldn't give less of a crap about geographical boundaries or government promises. But it's amusing to see those who are so enamored or words on paper, go to such lengths to insist that they don't mean what they way when it comes to "those people".

[Graelin]

Personally, I couldn't give less of a crap about geographical boundaries or government promises.

I have to agree... geographical boundaries have never meant much to me... I have seen them change many times in my short life... and government promises...well... listen to a state of the union address sometime to check the integrity of those.

As far as the Constitution is concerned... I'm afraid I have to drink a bit more Kool-Aid to not still want that around. I agree there is far too much interpretation of it's true meaning going on... wish they could figure out that it is not actually an element of the DaVinci Code. It's actually pretty clear what the intent and meaning of it is... It's not really even littered with legalese... just good old fashioned English.

Human rights are a no-brainer.. if you're human.. you have them. It's not an entitlement.. it's never a privilege. It just is.

I have always had an issue with authority and laws in general... Wish I could have met the guy that decided natural law wasn't good enough and started this whole mess to begin with. All in the name of civility. You know.. civility is nice... but not to the point where we forget what we really are... animals. When it comes right down to it.. we're just a bunch of monkeys that are too damn smart for their own good. Until we embrace this concept again, and start working together within Nature's dictates, I vote http://www.vhemt.org/ as our only moral option.

[MaineShark]

As far as the Constitution is concerned... I'm afraid I have to drink a bit more Kool-Aid to not still want that around. I agree there is far too much interpretation of it's true meaning going on... wish they could figure out that it is not actually an element of the DaVinci Code. It's actually pretty clear what the intent and meaning of it is... It's not really even littered with legalese... just good old fashioned English.

The Constitution got us into this mess.  Let's try something different, eh?

Joe

[FreelanceFreedomFighter]

I have to agree... geographical boundaries have never meant much to me... I have seen them change many times in my short life... and government promises...well... listen to a state of the union address sometime to check the integrity of those.

Completely agree...

As far as the Constitution is concerned... I'm afraid I have to drink a bit more Kool-Aid to not still want that around. I agree there is far too much interpretation of it's true meaning going on... wish they could figure out that it is not actually an element of the DaVinci Code. It's actually pretty clear what the intent and meaning of it is... It's not really even littered with legalese... just good old fashioned English.

Agree again...

Human rights are a no-brainer.. if you're human.. you have them. It's not an entitlement.. it's never a privilege. It just is.

fair warning:
<rant mode == on>

This is and has been my pet peeve for (literally) many decades! The founding documents are clear that our Rights are inalienable (which last I checked meant "incapable of being altered, surrendered or transferred"), and are recognized by government not granted by government... they are "granted" to us by "Our Creator". Before anyone who is an avowed atheist jumps on that, we all have a "creator" in some fashion (even if it happens to be some evolutionary cosmic ooze that your great (X10000)-grand-parents slithered out of when doing the amoebic mambo!)... Regardless, the point is that "government" does not grant us our inalienable natural Rights. They belong to Us... ALL of Us... regardless of birth, heritage, OR public school indoctrination!

I listened to an interview with one of the co-sponsors (Senator Scott Brown, R-MA) and he was clear that his intentions were that it would apply not only to the naturalized citizen (such as the Times Square would-be bomber), but birth citizens as well. He didn't actually come out and SAY that, but he did say that it would apply to the Fort Hood attacker (who, FYI, was born and raised here and grew up "American")... THAT tells me that it can and would be applied to "born in the USA" citizens as well. While all that is bad enough, what got me came in another part of the interview where it was stated unequivocally that doing this would allow for "fast-tracking" the "trial" through military tribunals where conviction rates are much higher and punishments are swifter and harsher! AND, as bad as THAT is, another "reason" for doing this was stated that "once stripped of citizenship, they become 'enemy combatants' not 'citizens' with 'Constitutional Rights' and THERFORE, the allowable interrogation techniques that the military can use are much greater and 'more effective'!" (While that might not be a perfect exact quote it isn't far off and is accurate in sentiment.)

Yeah, this one's got me pretty riled up... what is getting me pi$$ed off lately is the fact that people in this country are only "free" at birth, THEN they get fukked out of their freedom (almost immediately because their parents have been so damn brainwashed by the system) and yet instead of realizing this they all go around (yippee!) waving a flag to celebrate their slavery! Instead they should be raging against the machine and demanding their (birth)RIGHTS!

<rant mode == off>



The Constitution is just like a restraining order... it's only worth the paper it's written on and is usually ignored or interpreted to mean different things as the need arises.

[AntonLee]

can I be first to lose my citizenship?

civics class taught me that the constitution is an umbrella, protecting all under it from the rain of government.  It did not matter if you were a citizen, if you were under the umbrella (on US SOIL) you were protected.  People for centuries have come here seeking protection from the evils of government.

Now they can come, and be deemed a 'terrorist' for the crime of being in this political designation in an eee leee gull fashion surely bent on destruction of democracy and freedom.  Their rights will be removed, their dignity dissolved, and their freedom taken (if not their life)

[KBCraig]

They're really trying to regress to the medieval system of "outlawry": when someone was declared an outlaw, not only were they breaking the law, the lost all protection of the law. It wasn't murder to kill an outlaw.

[EthanLeeVita]

Some ideas in anarchism support that as well with regard to refusing to cooperate with a claim against you (not paying the fee for losing a case, refusing to agree to an arbitrator etc.) = ostracization = no protection from a defense/insurance/justice company.

[lildog]

I heard some debate on this bill earlier today.  The one question that came up was whether or not due process was even needed for them to strip away citizenship. 
Another question came up as to what constitutes a terrorist organization.  They gave examples of Irish citizens who donated to the IRA who were classified as a terrorist organization.

[Graelin]

I once donated to the chiefs of police organization here that harasses you on the phone every night until you finally give them $10 to leave you the hell alone... Does that mean I'm a terrorist by association and non-us citizen now?

WOOT! No more IRS extortion installments!

Now if I just had the money to buy some firepower to arm the People Republic of Thom!

[AntonLee]

I think we have a winner