• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pentagon Quietly Explores De-Citizenship of US Citizen Terrorists

D

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
100,696
Reaction score
53,414
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Pentagon Quietly Explores De-Citizenship of US Citizen Terrorists | TPMCafe


At the highest levels of the US military, a quiet discussion is going on about putting in place a legal framework that would permit the US government to strip American citizenship from terrorists.

The case of Las Cruces, New Mexico born al Qaeda commander Anwar al-Aulaqi, who has been a key organizer and recruiter for the terrorist organization in Yemen is the primary driver of this exploration of possibly modifying US law to allow "de-citizening."

As the Washington Post's Dana Priest recently revealed, al-Alaqi was added recently to a short list of other Americans for whom there are kill orders in place.

A senior Member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has told me that to his knowledge, there has been no serious discussion in the Committee of stripping US citizenship from terrorists, but a senior Pentagon official has confirmed that some in the military are exploring the upsides and downsides of such a more routenized mechanism for stripping citizenship.

A national security attorney who serves in an advisory capacity to President Obama has reported to me that there is no legal way for the US military or the government to strip citizenship from Americans.

But Eugene Volokh, exploring in a Salon article the case of American gone al Qaeda adventurer John Walker, writes in 2001 that "8 U.S.C. § 1481 : US Code - Section 1481" may provide such a mechanism.

As Volokh then wrote pondering whether a terrorist could be stripped of his US citizenship:

Maybe. A federal statute says that a citizen loses his citizenship by "serving in the armed forces of a foreign state if such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States" but only if he does so "with the intention of relinquishing United States [citizenship]."

This topic can be more ably discussed by sharp legal minds like Jeffrey Toobin, Jeffrey Rosen and Glenn Greenwald -- but it seems to me that establishing a regularized legal framework specifying that alleged terrorists be stripped of US citizenship so that the military can deal with those de-nationed individuals differently reminds me of the kind of legal gray area that Cheney national security adviser David Addington loved to create.

By posting this question, I trust that others will review other cases and the legal background of this question of stripping citizenship in times of war -- and weigh in.

The Pentagon's top stars are mulling over this issue now and just beginning to probe receptevity in the administration and among some in Congress.
Click to expand...

I am really, really not comfortable with revoking citizenship under any circumstances. Even if they are standing in the middle of a terrorist training camp teaching people how to shoot a rifle. Nor am I comfortable with "kill orders" being issued for any Americans.

I mean, if an airstrike hits the camp and an American happens to be there, well, it's their own damn fault for being there. But deliberately targeting Americans for assassination? Argh.

"Capture if able" orders are fine. Bag em and tag em, stick them on a plane and send them home to answer for their crimes to a jury of their peers. If a guy shoots at the soldiers trying to apprehend him, well, that's a dumbass idea and he'll probably get killed for it.

I voted for change. I got Bush III.
 
Deuce said:
Pentagon Quietly Explores De-Citizenship of US Citizen Terrorists | TPMCafe




I am really, really not comfortable with revoking citizenship under any circumstances. Even if they are standing in the middle of a terrorist training camp teaching people how to shoot a rifle. Nor am I comfortable with "kill orders" being issued for any Americans.

I mean, if an airstrike hits the camp and an American happens to be there, well, it's their own damn fault for being there. But deliberately targeting Americans for assassination? Argh.

"Capture if able" orders are fine. Bag em and tag em, stick them on a plane and send them home to answer for their crimes to a jury of their peers. If a guy shoots at the soldiers trying to apprehend him, well, that's a dumbass idea and he'll probably get killed for it.

I voted for change. I got Bush III.
Click to expand...

I might consider(*note, might consider, since this is a new issue for me) if it wasn't for the fact that "terrorist" has pretty much been redefined to mean anyone that the government hates, so untill that gets fixed, it's an absolute no for me, the pentagon doesn't deserve that power.
 
^^^ Like this guy says. &*$# the pentagon, they work for ME.

To clarifiy, I am not comfortable with citizenship being revoked under any circumstances without due process. I.E. a courtroom.
 
Last edited:
It De-Citizenship cruel and unusual punishment?
 
Deuce said:
Without a trial, all punishment is cruel and unusual!
Click to expand...

Does fleeing from the United States and hiding in the mountainous regions of Yemen after US authorities have posted an arrest warrant for your actions in terrorist attacks (Fort Hood, Xmas Day Debacle) give the US permission to blow you to smithereens and de-citizenship you?
 
Revoke their citizenship with a bullet, it will save paperwork.....;)
Treason should be punished by death, every time, no if ands or buts.....
Lindh should have been executed.....:x
 
Arch Enemy said:
Does fleeing from the United States and hiding in the mountainous regions of Yemen after US authorities have posted an arrest warrant for your actions in terrorist attacks (Fort Hood, Xmas Day Debacle) give the US permission to blow you to smithereens and de-citizenship you?
Click to expand...
In my opinion, yes it does....;)
 
Moderator's Warning:
Thread moved - does not meet Mainstream Media guidelines.
 
Partisan said:
Revoke their citizenship with a bullet, it will save paperwork.....;)
Treason should be punished by death, every time, no if ands or buts.....
Lindh should have been executed.....:x
Click to expand...

If the OP's topic came true I wonder how long before they shift "Anyone that is a terrorist" to "Anyone that has goals of their own that happen to fit some of the agenda of a few targeted overseas groups." Then is it bullet time for O'Really Taintz?
 
Partisan said:
Revoke their citizenship with a bullet, it will save paperwork.....;)
Treason should be punished by death, every time, no if ands or buts.....
Lindh should have been executed.....:x
Click to expand...

Partisan, I officially am accusing you of Treason. I saw you with schematics to the city hall of Gary, Indiana with red X's written in crayon that says "PUT BOMBS HERE."

Let's say an intelligence officer gets that little bit off one of their data mining computers. Being near the end of his shift, he just tosses you into the "kill this dude" pile.

Forwarded to SOCOM and before you know it, a predator missile comes through your door.

Obviously my scenario is rather exaggerated, but the point is that who do we allow to decide what is or is not treason? Many of you right-winged crackpots are probably pretty concerned about the idea that President Obama could personally apply this label to you! Maybe he's gotten the impression that people opposing healthcare reform are in favor of policies that CAUSE THE DEATH OF AMERICANS. If you're causing the death of Americans, surely you're a traitor!

We don't let the military decide these things for a very good reason.
 
I agree that we shouldn't de-citizen people under any circumstances. That would be completely unprecedented in the United States, and I *really* don't think we should go down that path. I could easily see this being abused.

And it would violate Article 15 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, to which the United States is a signatory.
 
Deuce said:
Pentagon Quietly Explores De-Citizenship of US Citizen Terrorists | TPMCafe




I am really, really not comfortable with revoking citizenship under any circumstances. Even if they are standing in the middle of a terrorist training camp teaching people how to shoot a rifle. Nor am I comfortable with "kill orders" being issued for any Americans.

I mean, if an airstrike hits the camp and an American happens to be there, well, it's their own damn fault for being there. But deliberately targeting Americans for assassination? Argh.

"Capture if able" orders are fine. Bag em and tag em, stick them on a plane and send them home to answer for their crimes to a jury of their peers. If a guy shoots at the soldiers trying to apprehend him, well, that's a dumbass idea and he'll probably get killed for it.

I voted for change. I got Bush III.
Click to expand...

Even though doing so is and has been illegal?
 
Kandahar said:
I agree that we shouldn't de-citizen people under any circumstances. That would be completely unprecedented in the United States, and I *really* don't think we should go down that path. I could easily see this being abused.

And it would violate Article 15 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, to which the United States is a signatory.
Click to expand...

This isn't something that someone just dreamed up in the past few years. It's the law.

§ 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions
How Current is This? (a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—

(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if

(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or

(B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or

(4)(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or

(B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or

(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or

(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or

(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

(b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.
Click to expand...
 
Deuce said:
Partisan, I officially am accusing you of Treason. I saw you with schematics to the city hall of Gary, Indiana with red X's written in crayon that says "PUT BOMBS HERE."

Let's say an intelligence officer gets that little bit off one of their data mining computers. Being near the end of his shift, he just tosses you into the "kill this dude" pile.

Forwarded to SOCOM and before you know it, a predator missile comes through your door.

Obviously my scenario is rather exaggerated, but the point is that who do we allow to decide what is or is not treason? Many of you right-winged crackpots are probably pretty concerned about the idea that President Obama could personally apply this label to you! Maybe he's gotten the impression that people opposing healthcare reform are in favor of policies that CAUSE THE DEATH OF AMERICANS. If you're causing the death of Americans, surely you're a traitor!

We don't let the military decide these things for a very good reason.
Click to expand...
Ever been to Gary?
If you sell military or state secrets to a foreign nation, you are a traitor....
If you serve in a foreign military while we are at war with that country, you are a traitor....:2wave:
 
Deuce said:
Pentagon Quietly Explores De-Citizenship of US Citizen Terrorists | TPMCafe




I am really, really not comfortable with revoking citizenship under any circumstances. Even if they are standing in the middle of a terrorist training camp teaching people how to shoot a rifle. Nor am I comfortable with "kill orders" being issued for any Americans.

I mean, if an airstrike hits the camp and an American happens to be there, well, it's their own damn fault for being there. But deliberately targeting Americans for assassination? Argh.

"Capture if able" orders are fine. Bag em and tag em, stick them on a plane and send them home to answer for their crimes to a jury of their peers. If a guy shoots at the soldiers trying to apprehend him, well, that's a dumbass idea and he'll probably get killed for it.

I voted for change. I got Bush III.
Click to expand...
i don't like this one bit. a slippery slpoe, to say the least.
 
liblady said:
i don't like this one bit. a slippery slpoe, to say the least.
Click to expand...

I thought you were a law and order Liberal. Or, is that only when the law works in your favor?
 
apdst said:
This isn't something that someone just dreamed up in the past few years. It's the law.
Click to expand...

Tell me, just which armed forces of which foreign state are these guys serving in?

Remember that little technicality that these guys are not members of the armed forces of a foreign state and why we aren't treating them as POW's when captured?

Looks like we have to find a different law in order to strip them of their citizenship, right???
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Tell me, just which armed forces of which foreign state are these guys serving in?

Remember that little technicality that these guys are not members of the armed forces of a foreign state and why we aren't treating them as POW's when captured?

Looks like we have to find a different law in order to strip them of their citizenship, right???
Click to expand...

Any American citizen whom engages in armed conflict against the United States is guilty of treason. There's no technicality, according to the law.

No need for a new law. The ones in place are just fine. Not to mention we can use the Reconstruction Act of 1867 to take away their rights for the rest of their lives, even if they aren't jailed and/or executed.

(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Any American citizen whom engages in armed conflict against the United States is guilty of treason. There's no technicality, according to the law.

No need for a new law. The ones in place are just fine. Not to mention we can use the Reconstruction Act of 1867 to take away their rights for the rest of their lives, even if they aren't jailed and/or executed.
Click to expand...

Then why did you highlight a section that does NOT apply to these guys? What's that all about?
 
Partisan said:
Ever been to Gary?
If you sell military or state secrets to a foreign nation, you are a traitor....
If you serve in a foreign military while we are at war with that country, you are a traitor....:2wave:
Click to expand...

Right.

And who establishes guilt? Maybe I wasn't there teaching people how to shoot rifles. Maybe I took a wrong turn and found their camp by accident. I was lost, and one of the dudes there went to get a map to show me how to get to town. While he was fetching the map, I watched some guys firing rifles at some targets for a bit. I got the map, and drove back to town.

The point is, I have rights. Intelligence officers shouldn't be the ones determining my innocence or guilt.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Then why did you highlight a section that does NOT apply to these guys? What's that all about?
Click to expand...

Why didn't you read the entire law? What's that all about?

Technically, the Americans that were fighting with the Taliban were,

(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if

(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States,

since the Taliban was the controlling government of Afghanistan at the time went to war.
 
apdst said:
Why didn't you read the entire law? What's that all about?

Technically, the Americans that were fighting with the Taliban were,

(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if

(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States,

since the Taliban was the controlling government of Afghanistan at the time went to war.
Click to expand...

Then they have to be treated as POW's when captured. Why aren't they?
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Then they have to be treated as POW's when captured. Why aren't they?
Click to expand...

Because according to the Geneva Convention, they don't fall under the definition of a legal combatant, nor is the Taliban a signatory of the Geneva Convention and only signatories of the Geneva Convention rate protections under the articles of the Geneva Convention and even if the Taliban fighters did rate protections under the Geneva Convention, American citizens fighting with the Taliban wouldn't, because those persons would fall under the Geneva Convention's definition of a mercenary and mercenaries aren't protected by the Geneva Convention...that's why.
 
apdst said:
Because according to the Geneva Convention, they don't fall under the definition of a legal combatant, nor is the Taliban a signatory of the Geneva Convention and only signatories of the Geneva Convention rate protections under the articles of the Geneva Convention..
Click to expand...

Signatory status matters not:

Articles 82 to 97 covers the implementation of this convention. Articles 82 and 83 contained two important clauses. "In case, in time of war, one of the belligerents is not a party to the Convention, its provisions shall nevertheless remain in force as between the belligerents who are parties thereto." and that the provisions of this convention continue to cover prisoners of war after hostilities up to their repatriation unless the belligerents agree otherwise or a more favorable regime replaces it.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom