Lieberman's Terrorist Expatriation Act

Today Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) introduced his bill aimed at stripping terrorism suspects of their U.S. citizenship, thereby making them eligible for military tribunals and/or indefinite detention (a proposal I discussed this morning). The Terrorist Expatriation Act would make "engaging in...hostilities against the United States" or "providing material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization" grounds for revoking someone's citizenship. As with the existing grounds—treason, renouncing one's nationality during a state of war, or serving in the military of a "foreign state" that is engaged in hostilities with the U.S.—the determination would be made by the State Department. Someone stripped of his citizenship could challenge the State Department's decision in federal court, where the government would have to show by "a preponderance of the evidence" that he committed an expatriating act with the intent of relinquishing his citizenship. That standard of proof, which means that the allegation is more likely than not to be true, is much easier to satisfy than proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is required for a criminal conviction.

Hence an American accused of ties to terrorism could be stripped of his citizenship without anything like the evidence needed to convict him in federal court. It would not matter whether he was arrested here or abroad, or where his offense allegedly occurred; indeed, an arrest, let alone a conviction, does not seem to be a requirement at all. Once stripped of his citizenship, the suspect could be locked in a military prison indefinitely, with or without a trial by a military tribunal (where he would have fewer due process protections than he would in a civilian court) and regardless of whether he was convicted or acquitted.

By linking his end run around due process to the "material support" statute, Lieberman greatly expands the bill's potential applications. As a case that is currently before the Supreme Court shows, the definition of "material support" is vague and broad—broad enough to cover pure speech advocating legal activity, among other things that fall far short of leaving a car bomb in Times Square. Depending on how much evidence of an intent to relinquish citizenship is required, combining the wide net of "material support" with the preponderance-of-evidence standard could easily lead to indefinite military detention of Americans whose links to groups on the State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations are tenuous, innocent, or even nonexistent.

Lieberman's bill, which is co-sponsored by Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), is here (PDF). His summary is here. Reps. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.) and Charlie Dent (R-Pa.) have introduced the same bill in the House.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    That standard of proof, which means that the allegation is more likely than not to be true,

    You mean, like: "Joe Lieberman is an homunculus, formed from pig shit and goats' spittle, and animated by a Satanic incantation"?

  • ||

    LOL!!! Good one! :^D Careful, you could be accused of libel, slander, defamation of character, and TREASON for making a statement like that now! They will strip you (of citizenship) and send you to Mexico! FEMA already has the concentration camps ready for anyone who engages in what USED to be our "RIGHT" to free speech.

  • whatever||

    "They will strip you (of citizenship) and send you to Mexico"

    I love how you put "of citizenship" in parentheses! LOLOL!

  • Zeb||

    "Joe Lieberman is an homunculus"

    I think he is more likely a Golem.

  • ||

    What could possibly go wrong?

  • Jerry||

    I see that Romney's rent-roy Brown is trying to get some attention again, just when we all had forgotten about him.

  • Ska||

    I guess Lieberdouche is looking for that TP support that Brown can get. And frighteningly it sounds like a plausible theory.

  • Fluffy||

    I have a practical question:

    If I wake up in the morning and Google News shows me that during the night someone shot Lieberman right through his fucking ugly Elmer Fudd skull, if I clap my hands and cheer and say, "Woo Hoo!" does that violate the material support provision or not?

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    sorry. even asking the question with that tone just procided material support to "the bad guys".

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    provided.

  • Alan Vanneman||

    Glenn Greenwald identifies an obstacle in the way of Joe's plan to make the world safer (for Joe):

    'One ironic aspect of Lieberman's sponsorship of the citizenship-stripping bill for accused Terrorists is that the original 1940 law on which it is based was designed, as [David] Frum put it, "to strip citizenship from Americans who showed themselves loyal to a foreign power."

    Fortunately for Joe Lieberman (as well as for GOP Rep. Peter King), the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967 held that it is unconstitutional for Congress to strip the citizenship of any American who did not voluntarily renounce citizenship, even if that citizen proved himself loyal to a foreign country (adding to the irony, that case, Afroyim v. Rusk, involved an American citizen who had voted in Israeli elections and, as a result, had his passport renewal denied by the State Department on the ground that he had lost his American citizenship under The Nationality Act of 1940). As the Afroyim Court put it (emphasis added):

    [The Fourteenth Amendment] provides its own constitutional rule in language calculated completely to control the status of citizenship: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States . . . ." There is no indication in these words of a fleeting citizenship, good at the moment it is acquired but subject to destruction by the Government at any time. Rather the Amendment can most reasonably be read as defining a citizenship which a citizen keeps unless he voluntarily relinquishes it. Once acquired, this Fourteenth Amendment citizenship was not to be shifted, canceled, or diluted at the will of the Federal Government, the States, or any other governmental unit.

    The Court, in 1980, made clear what a person must do in order to be found to have "voluntarily renounced" his citizenship. All of this underscores another great irony of Lieberman's advocacy of this bill: although I'd be unequivocally opposed to any citizenship-stripping, if anyone merits having that done to them, it's Joe Lieberman, who proves -- yet again -- that he has no interest or belief in core American principles.'

    See the whole thing at http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

  • Fluffy||

    Greenwald has only the law on his side. Lieberman has his mighty power of Assholery. It's no contest.

  • ||

    Greenwald has only the law on his side. Lieberman has his mighty power of Assholery. It's no contest

    That ruling was from 1980. I wonder if the Roberts' court would invalidate it. That is what Holy Joe has on his side.

  • ||

    Liberman is so insane on this issue, he makes Greenwald seem thoughtful. That is an amazing accomplishment.

  • ||

    Liberman is so insane on this issue, he makes Greenwald seem thoughtful. That is an amazing accomplishment.

    And yet you do it daily!

    Obviously you don't read Greenwald very often.

    One of the best Constitutional Law blogs on the net.

  • ||

    "One of the best Constitutional Law blogs on the net."

    Greenwald is an idiot. If you think his blog is one of the "best Constitutional Law blogs on the net" that is either because you don't know anything or there are not any other such blogs.

  • ||

    Greenwald is an idiot.

    You are an idiot.

    If you hate something and think it's stupid, then that's a pretty good indication that it is something worthwhile.

  • ||

    He got the law wrong on this one, even if he happened to be right about Lieberman. Greenwald is rarely right about anything.

  • ||

    And yes, I think people who sock puppet and attack their critics because they lack the integrity to take them on themselves, are idiots.

  • Oh no not this again||

    Chicago Tom @ 306

    +1

  • ||

    He is also one of the best sock puppeteers on the net. Is that you Glenn?

    Seriously, after the sock puppeting scandal, how does he even have a job let alone get taken seriously.

  • Tony||

    What the eff are you talking about John. You'll have trouble finding a more principled blogger than Greenwald. He never carries water for Democrats. You, however, never miss an opportunity to bend over for the GOP, the most blatantly corrupt political party in the first world.

  • ||

    http://patterico.com/2006/07/2.....-puppetry/

    He would go on to blogs that he didn't like or disagreed with him and put up a sock puppet to attack them. It was real grease ball shit.

  • Tony||

    Wow, that's even more pathetic a "scandal" than I assumed.

  • ||

    Since you don't consider being dishonest to be an issue, it is not surprising that you don't find it to be a big deal. But if you value integrity, it is. The whole thing just showed Greenwald to be a petty coward, which didn't surprise anyone who paid any attention to his writings.

    It is funny how you and Tom totally ignore Greenwald getting the law wrong on this. I guess once you are a fan boy, your idol can do no wrong.

  • Fluffy||

    John, you are a stupid fuck.

    I use the handle "Fluffy" here. You call yourself "John" and don't use your full name. Does that make your posts dishonest?

    "Sockpuppetry" would apply if someone was posting on THEIR OWN BLOG under a different name, and/or posting product reviews OF THEIR OWN PRODUCT on third party sites under fake names.

    Going to someone's site and arguing with them about politics using a pseudonym isn't "sockpuppetry", it's called "using the internet". You stupid, stupid, stupid, rotten fucker.

    Sometimes I see you write something sensible, and I forget why I despise you so much. But then you always remind me.

  • ||

    If I were Glen Greenwald and showing up here under the name fluffy and kept telling everyone how great Glenn Greenwald is and how wrong every one is to criticize him, it would make me a dishonest fuck. And that is what Greenwald did.

    You are such a hack over this stuff. Greenwald says thing you like, so it doesn't matter what he does.

    And I can think nothing that makes me happier than you disliking me. You are a total jerk. Anyone who you have good things to say about and doesn't get cross ways with you, is clearly not doing something right.

  • Fluffy||

    That's not what Greenwald is accused of doing.

    He is accused of posting under pseudonyms to make political arguments similar to the ones he makes on his blog.

    Which even if true is utterly meaningless.

    The bottom line is this: Greenwald is a principled guy, whose posts are literally crammed with research and supporting material that is actually LINKED TO, instead of just asserted to exist, and anyone who wants to do so can engage his arguments ON THEIR MERITS without reference to Glenn as a person at all.

    But since doing that actually takes effort, you like to post about this fake scandal that even if true proves nothing more than the fact that Greenwald uses the internet the same way that you do. And that makes you a cunt. An intellectually dishonest cunt. As if we needed more evidence of that.

  • ||

    Greenwald rarely knows what he is talking about. He is nothing but a hack who posts half truths and invective. He is a terrible lawyer and has hackneyed views of the law. I work in the law and worked in international law and I have zero respect for his opinions. And that is not because I disagree with him. There are lots of people I disagree with who I hold in a lot higher esteem than Greenwald.

    Just because he is your boyfriend doesn't make him write. And he lied about the sock puppetting until they confronted him with the IP addresses. He is just a little shit and is an unprincipled coward.

  • ||

    "That's not what Greenwald is accused of doing."

    That is exactly what he is accused of doing. Read the Rick Ellensburg at
    6:52 pm comment on this blog.

    http://rightwingnuthouse.com/a.....ficiality/

    That was later established to be Greenwald. The whole comment is about how this guy's attacks on Greenwald were wrong. Greenwald sock puppetted under another name to make it look like there was some disinterested stranger out there defending him. In reality, it was Greenwald writing that. That is sock puppetry.

  • Tony||

    John it's apparent you rarely, if ever, read Greenwald, but instead prefer to get your info on him from loser right-wing hacks in obscure corners of the Internet.

  • ||

    Yeah. Greenwald is a fabulous lawyer on the law of international amred conflict. That is why he posts on the internet to his fanboys rather than works in the field.

  • Fluffy||

    Actually, the Ellensburg posts supply additional evidence, including links, in support of arguments that the conservative blogger had attacked.

    I still do not consider that sock puppetry, sorry.

    There are some other posts in the original link you put up that are a lot more "sock puppet-y" than that, but the evidence linking those to Greenwald is also a lot weaker.

  • ||

    It is just weak and says really bad things about him. If Greenwald didn't like what the guy said, go on and post as Greenwald.

  • ||

    Not to pick, but unsurprisingly, since Greenwald is a shitback hack, he knows just enough about this subject to be dangerous. He selectively quotes the cases to make it sound like the federal government can never take away your citizenship once you have it. That is not true. If the government finds that you got your citizenship by fraud, they can revoke it. That actually happens. Also, if you were actually convicted of the crime of making war against the United States for a foreign power, you have by doing so "voluntarily renounced your citizenship" even by the definition given by the Court.

    So, Greenwald while right about Lieberman's law being unconstitutional. Gets the law wrong.

  • Fluffy||

    Cite.

  • ||

    http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/new.....ntaana.htm

    Here is one example of it happening.

    SANTA ANA, Calif. - An Afghani-born Irvine man convicted of naturalization fraud in the first criminal denaturalization case ever to go to trial in Orange County faces loss of his U.S. citizenship when he is sentenced early next year.

    Hares Ajmal Ahmadzai, 35, was found guilty by a jury here late yesterday of failing to disclose his criminal history when he applied for citizenship with the former Immigration and Naturalization Service in 1994. The charges stem from an investigation by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of State's Bureau of Diplomatic Security. Ahmadzai's sentencing is scheduled for January 28.

    Once Ahmadzai is stripped of his citizenship, he becomes an alien subject to removal from the United States. The Irvine man previously pleaded guilty to passport fraud in April 2006.

    Legally the way these cases work is you are considered never to have been a citizen, therefore, we are not "taking away your citizenship". That is how they get around the language Greenwald cites. But they are effectively taking your citizenship away from you. Again, Greenwald knows just enough to be dangerous.

    Do you really think I wouldn't come up with a cite? Is your tongue up Greenwald's ass so far that you think that anyone who criticizes him is just making it up?

    Try thinking for yourself sometime instead of giving people like Greenwald tongue.

  • Fluffy||

    That's not a cite for what I wanted.

    I wanted a cite proving that there are acts you can take that are considered voluntary renunciations of your citizenship even if they do not include a specific and explicit denunciation of your citizenship.

    You are proving very effectively that committing fraud to obtain citizenship will invalidate your citizenship, and that was not my question.

  • Fluffy||

    Also, if you were actually convicted of the crime of making war against the United States for a foreign power, you have by doing so "voluntarily renounced your citizenship" even by the definition given by the Court.

    This was the part I was interested in. The immigration fraud part doesn't concern me.

    Because the case linked to above indicated that even signing a loyalty statement to gain Mexican citizenship would not invalidate your citizenship, unless it could be proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant specifically intended that act to invalidate his US citizenship.

  • ||

    I don't think doing that in Mexico would under those cases. I think basically the court is authorizing duel citizenship. But going down and voting in Mexico and telling them you are a loyal Mexican is different than making war on the US.

  • ||

    I don't know that there are those cases. It is an interesting whether joining a foreign army and fighting directly against the US would count as "voluntarily renouncing your citizenship". The Court has never ruled on that. But I think it is at least a pretty good bet that it would rule that you have through your actions done such a thing. At the point at which you have joined a foreign Army and started trying to kill Americans, it is kind of hard to say you haven't renounced your citizenship.

  • Fluffy||

    Not really. If a communist regime swept to power in the US, and you and I went to Canada to fight against that regime, I don't think you could automatically say that we were renouncing our citizenship. We would probably assert that we were the true citizens.

    We'd still be committing lots of crimes if we did that. But it wouldn't automatically mean we were renouncing our citizenship. I don't think John Brown's actions renounced his citizenship. Hell, they let Robert E. Lee keep his citizenship.

  • ||

    Wow, even Glenn "Sock Puppet" Greenwald is right about something for once. Wrong reasons, as usual (people who voluntarily go through the process to revoke their US citizenship should be treated as non-citizens), but that's about as good as I could expect from a stopped clock.

  • Juice||

    There are a few cases that say that the government has no obligation to protect you. If the definition of a citizen is "a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it" then no one in the US is a citizen. The Supreme Court should really explicitly define the term "citizen."

  • kinnath||

    "America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

    Claire can take comfort in knowing the status quo is getting closer to one end than the other.

  • Some Guy||

    Is it just my paranoia, or do the initials of the Terrorist Expatriation Act (TEA) spell out a warning to Tea Parties across the nation that openly criticize the government?

    Also, "providing material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization" is grounds for revocation of citizenship....like how the U.S. government supported the Taliban and Al-Qaeda? I suppose the Contras were more revolutionaries than terrorists...according to us, at least.

  • Colin||

    And guess who decides what groups are on the list?

    Hilary Clinton.

  • Some Guy||

    Crap I forgot that part. *PUKE* It's like a nightmare that just gets worse and worse and worse.....

  • Glenn Beck||

    Maybe I should reconsider deciding that only citizens have rights...

  • ||

    Glenn Beck was on Fox News defending the Maranda rights of Fasil Shahzad because he is a US citizen.

  • ||

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7cf-kB9NqY

  • Vitamin D||

    Shame on the people who reelected this guy.

  • Colin||

    Hence an American accused of ties to terrorism could be stripped of his citizenship without anything like the evidence needed to convict him in federal court.

    And as federal conviction rates are currently running at around 97%, your odds of acquittal are pretty close to nil.

  • ||

    Nor do we even need such a law to cover a-holes like Bomzo the Clown (Shahzad). The government can (and does) institute proceedings to revoke a *naturalization* if it can show that the person obtained US citizenship under false pretences. Remember the Demjanjuk case? In Shahzad's case, the fact that barely 2 months after he got his passport he moved his whole family back to Pakistan and started terrorist training, makes it pretty clear that his only interest in "citizenship" was to further hostile acts.

  • ||

    Lieberman apparently helped Crist make his independent leap.

    Joe's a net evil.

  • ||

    So what's wrong with a good, old fashioned charge of treason? Hmmmm?

  • Tony||

    How is attempting to blow up a car treason? It's not treason just because of his ethnic heritage. I think we should stop stroking the egos of terrorists by elevating their crimes beyond what they are.

  • kinnath||

    It's all about motivation Tony.

    Committing mass murder because you don't like people outside your specific monkeyesphere is a crime.

    Committing mass murder to affect a polictical goal is an act of war.

    Since it can be difficult to tell the differnce sometimes, we'll just let the state department strip the murderers of their citizenship so they can be warehoused at Gitmo until everyone forgets about them.

  • ||

    Lieberman apparently helped Crist make his independent leap.

    Not particularly surprising; run away from a primary election you're likely to lose, in the hopes that you can pick off enough stragglers from the rube herd to split the vote in the general election.

    Because losing an election is the worst imagineable thing which could happen to you.

    Goddammit, I hate these people. What better argument for term limits do we need?

  • IceTrey||

    Is this going to apply to Crips and Bloods who do drive by shootings?

  • Dave||

    Ok, so quick question...

    If they are an American Citizen, and America is at war with 'terrorism', and they have aided in some way the terrorist organizations that America is at war with, why don't we charge them with treason and line up a firing squad?

    Now if they have no connections to terrorist organizations, and are working solo to blow people up, I would say its mass-murder and not treason, but working with declared enemies would be treason, right? Please feel free to enlighten me. :)

  • ||

    What a terrible idea of Lieberman's. I don't see any problem with stripping naturalized citizens of their citizenship AFTER they've been convicted of a crime that shows they're working for an enemy of the United States. But stripping any citizen, including a native-born one, of his citizenship when he is merely accused of aiding terrorism? What a tremendous tool for abuse that would be. There would be great temptation by lawmakers to broaden the definition of many crimes to make them "terrorist" offences so they could take advantage of this new power. For example: the authorities already often argue that using narcotics aids terrorism, because a lot are produced by enemies of America (like the Taliban). So it wouldn't be that hard to argue that drug trafficking is a terrorist offense. And now anyone accused of dealing drugs can be stripped of his citizenship and locked up without trial forever.

    The best thing about Lieberman's proposal you can say is that it goes so far that it probably wouldn't stand up to constitutional challenge.

  • ||

    The best thing about Lieberman's proposal you can say is that it goes so far that it probably wouldn't stand up to constitutional challenge.

    Personally, I'm pretty damned sick of the congress passing anything and everything that crosses their tiny little minds, leaving us to rely on the supreme court for a back-stop. When a statute is declared unconstitutional, that should be a major crisis, and it should result in severe repercussions, either for the court or the congressmen who voted for it, because one or the other of them had fucked up, big time.

    -jcr

  • ||

    There is absolutely no reason for stripping citizenship from a citizen accused of terrorist activities. Terrorist activities are fundamentally different from intelligence crimes, but share a common theme. Prosecution and incarceration of spies can be a good model for terrorist trials.

    A terrorist is an obvious flight risk. It is reasonable to deny bail. It is reasonable to restrict to lawyers before trial. There is little need for self testimony from the accused. Sufficient evidence is obtained from observed actions, inspection of bank accounts, purchase and travel records, and other forensic evidence. If the accused testimony will not be used, than any amount of pressure can be brought to bear to extract intelligence. If new laws are required, the guidance should focus on providing a trial in a restricted setting that does not violate the accused rights to fair trial. Public trial is not required, nor are statements to the press. Again, the trails of accused spies should be used as the model.

    It is reasonable to require incarceration of convicted terrorists in a restricted access facility, to prevent release of sensitive information to other would-be terrorists. It is completely up to the court’s discretion where that incarceration will be carried out. The living circumstances not be generous, merely not directly injurious to the physical health of the criminal. A convicted terrorist should be judged as any other criminal committing grievous and heinous crimes with pre-meditation. Current laws require very stiff minimum sentences. If anything, sentencing guidelines may need reinforcement, to include the mandatory death penalty in the event of deaths or large numbers of serious injury.

  • Fluffy||

    One gigantic additional problem I see with Lieberman's proposal is that it's possible to provide "material support" to LOTS of terrorist organizations that have absolutely nothing to do with the United States.

    Lieberman's proposal says that I should lose my citizenship if I provide material support to, say, a Chechen organization. Fuck you, Joe. Or to the IRA, if they ever came back. Fuck you again, Joe. What the hell does any of that have to do with whether I'm a citizen of the United Fucking States?

  • ||

    If I'm a natural-born US citizen with no ties to another country, and then have my citizenship revoked because I provided material support to a stateless entity like Al Qaeda, then what is my status? Do I have any citizenship? Or am I not a citizen of any state?

  • ||

    If you do a bad,bad,thing, you
    deserve whatever treatment you get.

    If you allow your government to pass
    bad,bad,laws, or abuse good laws,
    ditto.

  • ||

    So, Lieberman turns out to be as much of a douche as the Democrats all say he is. Who could have guessed?

    -jcr

  • ||

    Who is Behind Sen. Joe Lieberman’s Proposed Fascist Legislation?

    Sen. Joe Lieberman has already endorsed McCain’s March 4th bill S.3081 that would strip Americans of Habeas corpus: Under the McCain bill, U.S. Government would need only designate an American Citizen was an “Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent” suspected of; having engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or U.S. civilians to cause their indefinite detention in military custody, without right to an attorney or trial.

    Joe Lieberman’s proposed bill would make it easy to strip Americans of their Citizenship and hold them as “Unprivileged Enemy Belligerents” as U.S. Government would only have to show a U.S. Citizen or group had slight-interaction with a foreign group that touched a terrorist organization, for example Irish Americans living on the east coast of the United States contacting their alleged IRA relatives in Northern Ireland. Since many political groups intersect, even unknowingly with alleged terrorists, Lieberman’s bill would make it possible for a U.S. Government administration to do large sweeps of U.S. Citizens denying Americans Habeas corpus, to try them in military tribunals. One might want to ask who put Lieberman up to introducing this fascist bill that favors Israel. It should be noted Joe Lieberman’s June 4th endorsement of McCain’s bill S.3081, The “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010” strips Americans of Habeas corpus; there appears to be a pattern here between McCain and Lieberman legislation. McCain’s bill S.3081 would eliminate several Constitutional protections allowing Government to arbitrarily pick up Americans on mere suspicion—with no probable cause. Your political opinions and statements made against U.S. Government could be used by Authorities to deem you a “hostile” “Enemy Belligerent” to cause your arrest and indefinite detention. S.3081 is so broadly written innocent anti-war protesters and Tea Party Groups might be arrested and detained just for attending demonstrations; Government could charge that attending demonstrations "materially supported hostilities."
    McCain’s legislation S.3081 could like Lieberman’s proposed bill be used by a corrupt U.S. government administration to crush anyone that dared question government. Under McCain’s S.3081, an “individual” need only be Suspected by Government of “suspicious activity” or “supporting hostilities” to be dragged off and held indefinitely in Military Custody. Government would have the power to detain and interrogate any individual including Americans without probable cause. Government need only allege an individual kept in detention, is an Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent suspected of; having engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States; its coalition partners; or against U.S. civilians. How could one prove to Government they did not purposely do something? “Materially Supporting Hostilities” against the United States could include any person or group that spoke out or demonstrated disapproval against an agency of U.S. Government. It is foreseeable many Americans might go underground to Resist Government Tyranny. Definition for Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent: (Anyone Subject to a Military Commission)

    At least under the Patriot Act, law enforcement generally needed probable cause to detain a person indefinitely. Passage of S.3081 will permit government to use “mere suspicion” to curtail an individual’s Constitutional Protections against unlawful arrest, detention and interrogation without benefit of legal counsel and trial. According to S.3081 Government is not required to provide detained individuals U.S. Miranda Warnings or even an attorney. It is problematic under McCain’s S.3081 that detained individuals in the U.S. not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings or allowed legal counsel will be prosecuted for ordinary crimes because of their alleged admissions while in military custody.

    S.3081 if passed will frighten Americans from speaking out. S.3081 is so broadly written, it appears any “individual” who writes on the Internet or verbally express an opinion against or an entity of U.S. Government or its coalition partners might be detained on the basis he or she is an “unprivileged enemy belligerent”, “supporting hostilities against U.S. Government.” The “supporting hostilities” provisions in S.3081 are so broad Government could use “suspicion” to detain U.S. corporate executives on the premise their corporations “supported hostilities” by providing goods or services to a nation engaged in hostilities against the United States.

    (Make Your Own Determination If The Analysis Herein Is Correct) See McCain’s 12-page Senate bill S.3081 at:
    assets.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/ARM10090.pdf

  • ||

    @Alan Vanneman, Your citation of the 14th Amendment seems to get a pass from everyone despite the fact that voluntary renouncement of citizenship is ALSO not allowed for, in any way manner or form, anywhere in the Constitution. So, what's good for that goose is...

    Now, let's drop the legal thinking caps long enough to use the sense give to us to actually reason things out, aka "common sense". Citizenship can not be regarded as a one-way street folks. Reminds me of things like having a job, or being married. If your boss told you that you could never get fired, or your spouse said they would NEVER divorce you, would you be a better employee or spouse because of it?

    As Mr. Pooh once said, "think think think"

  • kay sieverding||

    Did you know that even if you are a citizen, USDOJ claims immunity for putting you in jail without accusing you of a crime as part of an extortionist scheme? I was born in this country and never did anything considered terrorist or violent in any way. My father is a WWII vet and I don't have a criminal record. I have never been accused of perjury or disrupting a court room. Yet, USDOJ put me in jail for 5 months without a criminal charge, without an arraignment, without a bail hearing, without a sentence. I was told in court that I didn't have a right to a lawyer because I wasn't accused of a crime. The 10th Circuit clerk of court Elisabeth Schumaker also ruled that I didn't have a right to a lawyer because I wasn't accused of a crime. The Federal public defender Raymond Moore wrote to me in jail that they couldn't defend me because I hadn't been charged with a crime. They said I was awaiting trial and then they said "whoops". The local police came to my home and forced me into their car because according to John Jay McNulty USMS asked them to. I asked my congressonal rep to find out why I was in jail and McNulty said I was arrested on a warrant for contempt of court but they can't produce a warrant for contempt of court. The documents they used had places for a statute but they left that blank. The reason that USDOJ says it put me in jail was to force me to dismiss a civil lawsuit. The stated reason for issuing a No Pro Se order was that I reported that my former neighbor Kevin Bennett president of Steamboat Springs city council might be a drug dealer. It turns out he is a convicted drug dealer.

    So it that could happen to me, other people will lose their citizenship for similar acts such as reporting crimes.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement