It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bill aims to strip certain Americans of their citizenship

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


I'm willing to take that risk. We've become too soft. Too ready to through a bouquet of rights to these folks while stripping the rights of law abiding citizens. When they capture one of these folks, especially when they confess, they should make it very public that he's done. Right to the military court and executed within a month. They should also make it very clear that it is SOP. They should restrict travel or at least reentry to anyone who traveles to one of these places and stays for an extended period. If someone goes to Pakistan for an extended period, they should not be allowed reentry into this country. Same deal goes for Yemen, Iran, Somalia and any one of these hell holes that sponsor this activity.

Is that impacting muslims unfairly? No and even if it is, too bad




posted on May, 7 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Scott Brown is my senator and he also represented my district before he was elected senator.

He's lost my vote forever. This is a precedent I will not lend a hand to, or stand for. We all know where this is headed.

It also shows that our elected officials have zero trust in our system of law.

EDIT: to add,... There isn't even a real definition of what terrorism is. It's a blanket term that can mean whatever they want it to mean.

[edit on 7-5-2010 by METACOMET]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


I'm sure you won't think this is such a great idea when your loved ones begin to lose their citizenships for not paying speeding tickets.


"Any society that would be willing to give up a little liberty to gain a little security deserves neither and will lose both" - Benjamin Franklin



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


I really don't see that happening. What I do think is that we are in a conflict and acting like the folks who are engaged in are speeding rather than blow people up. Its one thing to have a soft white underbelly. Its another thing to lay on your back and show it to everyone.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. "

Barry Goldwater



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


But we have other ways to deal with known terrorists, including the death penalty. Also, as earlier posters have asked, who decides what is terrorism? You might not thinks it's bad when they do this to suicide bombers but what about when they do this to you after a minor offence?



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Here's a link to the pdf of the actual Terrorist Expatriation Act.

Actually it's only a page long


[Linenumbers removed]


‘‘(8)(A) providing material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization;
‘‘(B) engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States; or
‘‘(C) engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against any country or armed force that is—
‘‘(i) directly engaged along with the United States in hostilities engaged in by the United States; or
‘‘(ii) providing direct operational support to the United States in hostilities engaged in by the United States.’’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(c) For purposes of this section—
‘‘(1) the term ‘foreign terrorist organization’ means an organization so designated by the Secretary pursuant to section 219(a); [3 MDM10405 S.L.C.]
‘‘(2) the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war; and
‘‘(3) the term ‘material support or resources’ has the meaning given the term in section 2339A of title 18, United States Code.’’.



[edit on 7-5-2010 by Thermo Klein]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Let's break this down...

An American could lose his or her citizenship for:

engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against any country or armed force that is directly engaged along with the United States in hostilities engaged in by the United States




what??

So let's say you work for Halliburton, via the CIA, and happen to cause an oil leak - you are now eligible for expatriation??

Am I reading this wrong?

Added:
I figured it out - the US government doesn't like competition in its false flag operations, so only the government can attack itself.


[edit on 7-5-2010 by Thermo Klein]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
In Oklahoma if you're in a non-state approved militia, you're a terrorist... totally anti-constitutional.... ect...
[edit on 6-5-2010 by Vitchilo]


Actually the constitution refers to "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." It is the obligation of the individual state to regulate a militia, and the militia is for defense of the state, not the individual. Today the 'State Regulated Militia' has evolved into the National Guard in every state, and while they are ultimately armed and funded by the federal government they operate under their respective state governor or territorial adjutant general. Therefore non-Guardsmen are no longer required to stand in defense of state or nation (though the US Code does still recognize the unorganized militia as an entity, and state laws vary on the subject).

US Code TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311
Militia: composition and classes
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia

Basically the unorganized militia is any person meeting the above requirements who are subject to be called up by their state to serve in the state militia, and is in no way an endorsement or guarantee of the right of private citizens to form private militias which are not subject entirely to the state in which they are formed and which have not been specifically called up to service by the state.

So as a matter of fact, it’s perfectly constitutional because, quite simply, there is NO SUCH THING as a "Non-State Approved Militia". These are simply well armed socio-political groups with no ties to (and frequently ideologies opposed to) the state in which they operate and therefore are NOT constitutionally protected.

[edit for spelling and grammar]


[edit on 7-5-2010 by USAFJetTech]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Actually, its true that the government already has the power to remove your citizenship. If you are a citizen you should look at your passport, it gives you a list of reasons why they might remove your citizenship and deny you access to the country.

Most reasons are along the line of formally renouncing your citizenship, joining a foreign military etc. I think this new bill simply looks to expand the reasons for which they can remove one's citizenship. The reasoning is obvious, wthout citizenship a suspect or defendant isn't protected by the consitution, the government can do anything it wants, not that the Constitution ever really stopped them before.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by Nosred
 


I really don't see that happening. What I do think is that we are in a conflict and acting like the folks who are engaged in are speeding rather than blow people up. Its one thing to have a soft white underbelly. Its another thing to lay on your back and show it to everyone.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. "

Barry Goldwater


Uh, the US blows innocent people up all the time... we'll level a village targeting one suspect, they'll blast a market to bits doing the same... same tactics, different justifications... the dead, maimed & suffering don't care who was called terrorist by who, or "freedom (from American rule) fighter"..

Erasing our rights as citizens is always a bad idea, name one single time in all of history where "the people" benefited from excessive government power? name one time a government didn't end up abusing that power?

"Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely" - Lord Acton

But ok, lets do it your way.. don't be horrified when captured US military, or Americans abroad, are denied any semblance of human rights and summarily executed on youtube... people following the new "American way" of justice.

How about those so called "hikers" (cough CIA cough) Iran captured?.. you would be ok with Iran adopting your plan?.. a firing squad & cigarette after a quick military show trial?.. all things being relative, in Iran they are "terrorists"..

Once we start slaughtering "them": "What goes around comes around" - Unknown.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 04:18 AM
link   
Reposted:

Just to throw one in there, So to speak, How about (when you lose your citizenship) you claim political asylum, on the grounds you will be arrested and tortured and interned, (FEMA camp) Like the terrorist from the Iranian embassy siege, (damn missed one) I am lead to believe he still resides here in the UK (payed by the taxpayers), After almost 30 odd years..

PS I was not on the balcony,



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join