[Wheatfield]

If this makes it's way into law.

Enemy Expatriation Act Could Strip Americans of Citizenship

A new bill has been introduced in Congress that, if passed, would strip Americans of their citizenship for just supporting hostilities against the United States.
The Enemy Expatriation Act, or H.R. 3166, was introduced by Republican Representative Charles Dent of Pennsylvania. According to The People’s Voice:

Combine this with the recently passed NDAA, and you have a recipe for the Fourth Reich.

[jolepp]

Incidently, is it in fact so that the US constitution's protections apply to citizens only (while a person is under US jurisdiction)? I mean is this in the constitution itself and/or are there supreme court decisions?

[séamuis]

a pretty big sense of irony how he compares american citizens marching with the third reich in WWII as a reason why this bill is necessary for the 'updating of existing laws', when the law itself grants the governments the same rights as the leaders of the third reich. how, of how can a nation that fought against the third reich believe that becoming just like it, is the best way to fight against it? how in the world is this an appropriate law when you can only name one modern instance (Anwar Al-Awlaki) and we decided too kill him regardless of being a citizen? I mean, whats the point of a law like this when the government is willing to invade sovereign foreign borders to kill you before they can even strip citizenship? this screams of tightening the grip of the police state, and combat a threat that is almost nonexistent, and a threat that we already violate our own laws to combat. so why threaten the whole of american people? it just boggles my mind how utterly clueless this nation has become. people like Mr. Dent, while he may possible only mean good, does not need to be in public office. like I said before, the writing is on the wall... I hope I'm not the only one who sees it.

[bossa]

This is about that top 1% that own 20% of the wealth (or whatever the figure is) tightening their grip on the remaining resources of a finite planet. The powers that be in the US know that there's almost no chance the country can reinvent itself fast enough to deal with the changes at hand, and probably don't even care, so they'll just hammer those that raise their voice and maintain control.

Lately, everything gets dumbed down in the name of security and the resultant distortions of fact are then used instigate a war to prop up the Industrial Military Complex. Expect a war against China in the near future because the US has no way to pay back 14 trillion dollars in Chinese loans and will seek to destroy the creditor instead. China is a large and mysterious target that the masses will fear and respond against willingly. The Jews were an easy target all those years ago. Today we have an abstraction called terror to fight and that can be anyone the authorities can identify. The new laws don't require proof, only suspicion, so propaganda through the media will do the job as it has always done only more effectively than ever before.

As an aside: Recently some scientists discovered how to make a certain virus work as via airborne delivery. That virus kills 60% or it's victims. Keep your eyes peeled for any offers for immunization (any kind) on a mass scale. It'd be convenient for valued citizens to be offered a way to survive an attack from such a virus. But it would, most likely, be offered as a flue vaccine rather than 'let's avoid mass extinction today and have this vaccine" type of thing.

Climate change, peak oil, overpopulation, starvation, the largest mass extinction of animals in history.. etc etc... ..and ONLY because there are too many people with values that just don't work on a small planet. The easiest solution is, well I think you know.

Cheers and I hope I didn't depress anyone too much.. lol

[Parallax]

Incidently, is it in fact so that the US constitution's protections apply to citizens only (while a person is under US jurisdiction)? I mean is this in the constitution itself and/or are there supreme court decisions?

Constitutional protections extend to everyone. At least they did before September of 2001. I'm not so sure they apply to anybody, anymore.

[vonBaloney]

Constitutional protections extend to everyone. At least they did before September of 2001. I'm not so sure they apply to anybody, anymore.

They don't. The police state is already here, I'm afraid.

Jonathan Turley: 10 Reasons the U.S. Is No Longer the Land of the Free

[jolepp]

Constitutional protections extend to everyone. At least they did before September of 2001. I'm not so sure they apply to anybody, anymore.

Thanks. It was my impression, but I thought I'd ask as the piece seemed to suggest this.

[boriscleto]

This is about that top 1% that own 20% of the wealth (or whatever the figure is) tightening their grip on the remaining resources of a finite planet.

Actually, that's 42.7% of the Financial Wealth, and that was in 2007, before the bailout. The bottom 80% own just 7% of the Financial Wealth. The top 1% has 24% of the income. Maybe that's what you were thinking about.

How Unequal We Are: The Top 5 Facts You Should Know About The Wealthiest One Percent Of Americans | ThinkProgress

If Mitt is elected how long will it be until personal wealth is a factor in determining your citizenship? He did say the 1% was right and the 99% was wrong the other day.

[magkelly]

There's a huge difference between saying you don't like something your country is doing and actively supporting the opposition. The one is free speech, the other is sedition. I don't like a lot of what my country has done lately. I'm very anti-war and I freely admit that, but I'm not out there supporting Al Queda either. If someone is going to do that, actively betray their country they should be allowed to revoke their citizenship and ask them to leave. I have no real problem with that. A law like this shouldn't be abused but citizens of this country have a responsibility to treat the nation with respect too. You cannot actively work against your country, betray it and then claim you have the right to remain a citizen regardless. I don't think there are too many countries on this planet that would disagree with that.

[vonBaloney]

The problem is we are rapidly taking away due process, and so anyone at all can be decreed to be an enemy of the state without even being given a hearing or told the reason why.

[grhazelton]

There's a huge difference between saying you don't like something your country is doing and actively supporting the opposition. The one is free speech, the other is sedition. I don't like a lot of what my country has done lately. I'm very anti-war and I freely admit that, but I'm not out there supporting Al Queda either. If someone is going to do that, actively betray their country they should be allowed to revoke their citizenship and ask them to leave. I have no real problem with that. A law like this shouldn't be abused but citizens of this country have a responsibility to treat the nation with respect too. You cannot actively work against your country, betray it and then claim you have the right to remain a citizen regardless. I don't think there are too many countries on this planet that would disagree with that.

The question is: how is "active" support defined? Does it entail fiscal support? Picking up a rifle? Or is merely making statements to friends, neighbors or in public which could be construed as supportive of Al Queda or the current boogie-man sufficient? And who is to be entrusted with making this determination? If so charged what recourse does the accused have? A proper civilian court, or a military tribunal? Or perhaps "preventative detention" forever?

BTW, Sinclair Lewis wrote a prescient novel in 1935 It Can't Happen Here describing a fascist take over of the US. A distrubing read, with all too many parallels to today. And of course we have the Japanese American citizens' internment during WW II, for no other reason than accident of birth.

Someone said that if fascism comes to the US it will be lead by the proverbial hero on a white horse, bearing a cross wrapped in the US flag. Surely the current mixture of religion and right-wing fanaticism ought to worry all of us.

Rep Dent said that the terrorists must not be allowed to make us live in fear. It begins to look as though we will do that to ourselves.

[riff]

It appears to me that some actively work against your country, betray it and then claim they have the right to be President. What should be done with these scoundrels.

[séamuis]

The question is: how is "active" support defined? Does it entail fiscal support? Picking up a rifle? Or is merely making statements to friends, neighbors or in public which could be construed as supportive of Al Queda or the current boogie-man sufficient? And who is to be entrusted with making this determination? If so charged what recourse does the accused have? A proper civilian court, or a military tribunal? Or perhaps "preventative detention" forever?

it doesn't matter though, thats the disturbing part. and its why this bill, despite what Mr. Dent would like us to believe, isn't aimed at 'terrorists' that are also american citizens. denaturalization is a completely redundant reaction to a 'terrorist' american citizen. when we have proven that if, even as a US citizen, you take action against the US in any way that the government deems a real threat to national security, they will hunt you down and kill you. now, you tell me, what good does denaturalization and having no protection of state do, when the state is going to kill you to eliminate the 'threat' regardless? what does the state get out of denaturalizing a particular citizen just before having them, even if inside the borders of another sovereign nation, strategically bombed? if you are a real threat, your life will be terminated. thats a proven fact at this point. so who is it aimed at? thats the disgusting part. nobody. and everyone. its designed to be one more tightening of the police state choke chain.

all this bill will do, is give the government the ability to extend the NDAA indefinite detention law to the degree that they can basically completely bypass the US Constitution and bill of rights. you can see it now, the government deems a US Citizen a domestic terrorist. they know enacting the rights granted by the NDAA will cause public backlash, so instead, they denaturalize you, ship you off to one of our secret prisons and hold you prisoner for the rest of your life. what can people say? the government will say they were a real terrorist and would have brought harm to millions, and since they are no longer a US citizen, and have no protection of state from any nation, the government can effectively do whatever they wish to you without having to worry about any laws or protections.

sounds far fetched? I bet people in germany in the late 30's had similar thoughts when people said the Nazi party was a real threat.

Rep Dent said that the terrorists must not be allowed to make us live in fear. It begins to look as though we will do that to ourselves.

beginning is a false statement. it began September 11, 2001. people like Rep Dent are the construction crew for the fascist police state that they somehow foolishly and ignorantly believe they are trying to protect themselves from. they may believe in a 'free' america, and don't want a fascist nation, but they are swinging the door wide open, and all it will take is someone who really does, and they will have a free and easy ride right into the 'führer's' seat. bills like this are effectively rolling out the red carpet. all we will need are the swastikas.

no I'm not crazy. just take a few moments to brush up on history. it CAN happen, and we are practically begging for it at this point.

[vonBaloney]

The question is: how is "active" support defined? Does it entail fiscal support? Picking up a rifle? Or is merely making statements to friends, neighbors or in public which could be construed as supportive of Al Queda or the current boogie-man sufficient? And who is to be entrusted with making this determination? If so charged what recourse does the accused have? A proper civilian court, or a military tribunal? Or perhaps "preventative detention" forever?

BTW, Sinclair Lewis wrote a prescient novel in 1935 It Can't Happen Here describing a fascist take over of the US. A distrubing read, with all too many parallels to today. And of course we have the Japanese American citizens' internment during WW II, for no other reason than accident of birth.

Someone said that if fascism comes to the US it will be lead by the proverbial hero on a white horse, bearing a cross wrapped in the US flag. Surely the current mixture of religion and right-wing fanaticism ought to worry all of us.

The current occupant of the White House has actively pursued such powers (beyond GWB), and I don't think it is because of religion and right-wing fanaticism. If you think only side of the aisle is a threat in this regard, you're dead wrong.

[bossa]

Actually, that's 42.7% of the Financial Wealth, and that was in 2007, before the bailout. The bottom 80% own just 7% of the Financial Wealth. The top 1% has 24% of the income. Maybe that's what you were thinking about.

How Unequal We Are: The Top 5 Facts You Should Know About The Wealthiest One Percent Of Americans | ThinkProgress

If Mitt is elected how long will it be until personal wealth is a factor in determining your citizenship? He did say the 1% was right and the 99% was wrong the other day.

Thanks for the link.