Matt Viser of the Globe has the story:
Senator Scott Brown tomorrow is signing on to legislation that would strip naturalized Americans of their citizenship if they are found to have aided a foreign terrorist organization.
Even Glenn Beck doesn’t like the idea of shredding the constitution for U.S. citizens, as Viser notes, just because powerful people think that happens to be a good idea. With respect to the Times Square bombing suspect:
“He’s a citizen of the United States, so I say we uphold the laws and the Constitution on citizens,” Mr. Beck said. “He has all the rights under the Constitution. We don’t shred the Constitution when it’s popular.”
A “Scott Brown Republican” is a Republican who is even more authoritarian than Glenn Beck. So much for “tacking back to the center” and “governing from the middle” once in office.
Glenn Beck Ultra versus the MA Democratic nominee in 2012. Should be interesting.
marcus-graly says
How exactly do you determine that someone is supporting a terrorist organization? Wouldn’t you need to try them first? Or is the mere accusation of supporting terrorism enough to cause you to lose your rights? If it’s the former, this law is pointless, since you can already incarcerate them for life or execute them. If it’s the latter, then the law is grossly immoral and almost certainly unconstitutional.
christopher says
…when Glenn Beck is more reasonable than John McCain, who has complained that the suspect should not have been Mirandized.
kirth says
to his “normal” self, as soon as the ratings analysts point out that his fans don’t want reasonable and are hungering for more insane.
jconway says
I find it troubling a man like this is still a reservist in the JAG Corps when he is clearly violating his oath to protect and defend the Constitution, even for citizens that clearly committed terrorist acts, their rights are not shredded at the jailhouse door.
bluemoon4554 says
I’m a Republican who reads this blog far more than I ever post, but this is dangerous legislation. It has the potential to be used wrongly down the line by either Republican or Democrats. Who determines what group is an official terrorist organization and to what degree of support is needed to conclude this? Is it actual financing or as simple as posting something suggestive on a bog? Does an organization within the US become labeled as a “foreign” terrorist organization if it is seen by the current administration as combative to the US Government and the administration in power?
<
p>I can’t see how Scott Brown could even see this as any bit beneficial. Lawmakers can’t possible believe this would actually be a deterrent of any means … if one is hell bent on being an active supporter of terrorism or partaking in actual terrorist activities, and already risking being caught, loosing their citizenship isn’t going to scare them.
<
p>A Scott Brown Republican is one who remains quiet until its time to hold his finger in the air to feel which way the populist winds are blowing, and then act to its extreme
kirth says
The executive branch determines who’s a terrorist organization an enemy combatant, and can have their rights ignored. The Bush Administration explicitly claimed that power, and Obama has not given it up. Do you miss habeus corpus?
<
p>I think you may be mistaking which finger the Scott Brown Republican is holding in the air, and the intent behind doing it.
mr-lynne says
“I can’t see how Scott Brown could even see this as any bit beneficial.”
<
p>It’s politics. It’s beneficial to him (in his estimation).
david says
that the title of this ridiculous bill is the “Terrorist Expatriation Act”? Does that acronym look familiar? Might give TEA parties a whole new meaning.
charley-on-the-mta says
Can you “strip someone of citizenship”? I kinda thought that was irrevocable.
david says
<
p>That’s from the NYT story in Bob’s post. So, apparently it does happen.
choles1 says
A couple of thoughts on this topic.
<
p>First, I have no problem with the idea that Americans who allegedly conspire with foreign terrorist organizations or with governments which sponsor those organizations should be charged with treason. It is certainly the perogative of the jury to convict (or not). If convicted the death penalty could result, as permitted by the Constitution.
<
p>Second, it would seem appropriate that if it is found that a convicted terrorist sought citizenship for the purpose of carrying out illegal actitivites, under such circumstances the award of citizenship could (and should) be revoked.
david says
But the key point is your second one, which talks about “a convicted terrorist” — i.e., someone who has been found guilty according to constitutional procedures. In that case, I don’t have any particular problem with stripping a naturalized citizen of US citizenship. What I object to, and apparently what this bill would do, is take that draconian step before conviction.
kirth says
but to avoid the necessity of conviction, or of a fair trial.
roarkarchitect says
Where the issue gets murky is what you do with non-US citizens who commit acts of war, as an example the 9/11 conspirators – I think the Roosevelt method was best – try them before a military tribunal.
<
p>
stomv says
War is organized violent conflict between two (or more) separate social entities. The USA wasn’t engaged in a violent conflict with these men or whatever social entity they represent.
<
p>It was an act of terrorism. I understand that GWB liked to muddy the waters here, but the distinction is really important.
sabutai says
Treason as defined in the Constitution is narrowly yet vaguely defined…
<
p>
<
p>Talk about appeals city. I’m fine with persecuting American citizens to the fullest extent of the law, but giving the government the power to unilaterally strip citizenship at will is downright unAmerican. Scott Brown’s suggestion would do more long-term damage to America than Faisal was planning — perhaps he should be first in line.
smadin says
sabutai says
…okay, yes, prosecuting is what I was thinking if not typed.
smadin says
mattmedia says
It says above that Brown is supporting legislation that would strip citizenship of a naturalized citizen who has “been shown” to be involved in terrorism. By “been shown,” does the legislation mean, “be convicted of”? Because I support that, and so does the constitution.
<
p>If it is to strip someone who has been accused or is on trial for terrorism, though, I’m against it. Please clarify.
<
p>kthx.
stomv says
Terrorism isn’t mentioned in the Constitution.
<
p>
<
p>It’s not really clear that conventional terrorism is treason at all, given that terrorism is generally not an act of war. Furthermore, being ‘involved in terrorism’ doesn’t mean that it was a part of levying War against tUSA, nor adhering to tUSA’s enemies, etc.
roarkarchitect says
Flying an airplane into a building full of civilians or trying to set off a bomb in Times Square is an Act of War.
smadin says
stomv says
Unless it’s done at the order of someone who’s operating a government, either recognized by the UN or otherwise.
<
p>Same goes for blowing up a federal office building in fact.
christopher says
…the Constitution supports revocation of citizenship. The 14th amendment suggests to me that once you’re in, you’re in. The only thing I can see is if a person sought citizenship under false pretenses it can be reversed as if it never happened. I’d compare it to Catholic marriage dissolution; the US could annul your citizenship, but not divorce you.
lasthorseman says
dis-information agent posing as opposition to the current neo-liberal globo-corpofascism then what does that make me.
smadin says
stomv says