posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 11:42 AM
Methinks the dire consequences predicted to arise from this new law are much ado about almost nothing.
First of all, this law levels the playing field for both sides. Terrorists cannot engage in hostilities outside the framework of the Geneva
Conventions and then turn right around and claim legal protections under those same conventions--which is the situation we were faced with before this
law. In other words, terrorists will be treated as the criminals they are, not as honorable combatants in a war. Notice that nowhere in the law, or
the statement above, does the U.S. have any right to mistreat prisoners. Prisoners, even illegal combatants, will be treated in accordance with all
the humane protocols of the Geneva Conventions--and then some--but they will not be entitled to the same legal protections.
Secondly, when and under what circumstances may a U.S. citizen be stripped of his or her citizenship? From whence does this power derive and who has
the authority to invoke this power? I think you will find the law that was just passed does not change the rules about this in any material way.
A U.S. citizen may voluntarily renounce his/her citizenship--this has always been the case, so nothing has changed here. A naturalized citizen may be
stripped of his/her citizenship if, by their words & deeds, they present clear evidence that the "oath of allegience" they took to become a U.S.
citizen was not taken in good faith--again, nothing new here. A natural born, or naturalized, citizen may be stripped of their U.S. citizenship if
they voluntarily swear an oath of allegience to a foreign power or government--once again, no change. What you seem to be referring to is language in
the Patriot Act II that seemingly gives the right to the government to strip citizenship from anyone who knowingly and voluntarily aids & abets alien
Let me just say that no one has ever been stripped of his/her citizenship under this act yet and it is doubtful they can be. The fourteenth
ammendment to the constitution prevails here and that prevalence has been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. However, there is pressure from many to
change the rules somewhat so as to cover the case of the young man who voluntarily went to Afganistan, joined the Al-Queda terrorist group
voluntarily, and then fought against U.S. & Allied forces voluntarily. The argument is that by his actions he demonstrated he was no longer a U.S.
citizen. No action has been taken regarding the young man's citizenship yet and most likely there will be a Supreme Court case should any actions be
taken. I, myself, don't like some of the language in the Patriot Act II, but I think your fears concerning U.S. citizenship are unfounded.
Should the young man mentioned above be stripped of his citizenship by government decree and that action be subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court,
along with the language of Patriot Act II, then I will worry.
[edit on 17-10-2006 by Astronomer70]