• 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!

Obama administration said Tuesday it could continue to imprison non-U.S. citizens

TacticalEvilDan said:
Incorrect.

The Feds have already defined several circumstances under which even natural-born citizens can be stripped of their citizenship, and there is no Constitutional safeguard to prevent the government from expanding those circumstances (aside from an iffy 8th Amendment argument of course).

If we allow the Feds to imprison non-citizens indefinitely, with or without charges and with or without a conviction, they can do it to any of us.
Click to expand...

Please provide the law where this definition exists.

Thank you. :2wave:
 
Truth Detector said:
I read the OP and didn't see any proof or credible conclusion suggesting that anyone's human rights are being denied. Please highlight where this is occurring and how it is a violation of human rights for my education and edification.
Click to expand...

They're still holding people in GITMO without charge or conviction, even from a military tribunal.

That is a denial of human rights.

The fact that they're talking about detaining them indefinitely on the basis that they are non-citizens and might be dangerous should scare you.

If the Feds can do it to them, they could do it to you.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
If we allow the Feds to imprison non-citizens indefinitely, with or without charges and with or without a conviction, they can do it to any of us.
Click to expand...

We aren't allowing the Feds to imprison non-citizens indefinitely without charges or without conviction; we are allowing them to hold "any alien unlawful enemy combatant" indefinitely in order to prevent them from killing more innocent people.

Fascinating that you continue to ignore this FACT or willingly suspend disbelief.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
So maybe you should PM the ones you have in mind and ask them to participate.

There are lots of threads in this forum I never see, simply because I don't have time to look past the top half of the first page of new threads once I've checked out the ones I've replied to lately.
Click to expand...





:lol: I remember when I posted like 300 Obama threads....


250 of them were issue based, and they barely showed.... They prefered the minor stuff.....


Funny how they found those. :lol:
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Incorrect.
The Feds have already defined several circumstances under which even natural-born citizens can be stripped of their citizenship, and there is no Constitutional safeguard to prevent the government from expanding those circumstances (aside from an iffy 8th Amendment argument of course).
Click to expand...
You'll need to provide examples of this, as I do not beloeve there is any law that allows this.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
They're still holding people in GITMO without charge or conviction, even from a military tribunal.

That is a denial of human rights.

The fact that they're talking about detaining them indefinitely on the basis that they are non-citizens and might be dangerous should scare you.

If the Feds can do it to them, they could do it to you.
Click to expand...

What human rights are they being denied? They are kept in clean facilities, allowed to pray and practice their religion; they are fed three times a day and clothed.

I guess you refuse to believe that they are alien unlawful enemy combatants who were caught on the battlefield trying to kill or planning to kill our troops or other innocents.

I guess REALITY doesn't mean much to those who wish to turn this into an absurd case of political partisan nonsense, but REALITY and previously released thugs who ended up killing again suggests that this is a GOOD policy that is managed in a HUMANE way.

Why do you pretend this is something it isn't? What part of alien unlawful enemy combatant do you willfully refuse to understand?

Let me ask you something that deals with the REALITY and FACTS behind these alien unlawful enemy combatants; do you believe there can be any actual “criminal” evidence in the heat of battle and war? Do you think that troops searching houses and fighting these combatants document all the crimes witnessed so that they can be tried at a later date in a criminal court of law? What level of absurdity must one wallow in to think that this makes any credible sense?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Incorrect.

The Feds have already defined several circumstances under which even natural-born citizens can be stripped of their citizenship, and there is no Constitutional safeguard to prevent the government from expanding those circumstances (aside from an iffy 8th Amendment argument of course).

If we allow the Feds to imprison non-citizens indefinitely, with or without charges and with or without a conviction, they can do it to any of us.
Click to expand...



Incorrect.


Renunciation of U.S. Citizenship
 
Truth Detector said:
Please provide the law where this definition exists.

Thank you. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Check it out:

US CODE: Title 8,1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

In other words, you are wrong, natural-born citizens can be stripped of their citizenship.

Now, on top of the fact that some of the provisions are a little . . . vaguely worded . . . if the government can, with an act of law, define when a natural-born citizen is stripped of their citizenship, then the above-cited law need not be the end of the list of things that one can lose one's citizenship for.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Wow. I'm really going to enjoy rubbing your face in it with my next post.
Click to expand...

Based on your previous posts, the notion that you could rub anyone's face in anything is laughable. But of course, seeing the denial you operate under, I have no doubt that you are under the illusion that your nonsense actually makes sense.

Carry on. :2wave:
 
Truth Detector said:
What human rights are they being denied? They are kept in clean facilities, allowed to pray and practice their religion; they are fed three times a day and clothed.
Click to expand...

How about the right to hear the charges against them? Or to challenge those charges? Or to demand to see the proof against them?

Truth Detector said:
Why do you pretend this is something it isn't? What part of alien unlawful enemy combatant do you willfully refuse to understand?
Click to expand...

I understand it perfectly. Since the Feds get to decide which natural-born citizens keep their citizenship and under what circumstances, and since as you yourself said :

Truth Detector said:
Let me ask you something that deals with the REALITY and FACTS behind these alien unlawful enemy combatants; do you believe there can be any actual “criminal” evidence in the heat of battle and war? Do you think that troops searching houses and fighting these combatants document all the crimes witnessed so that they can be tried at a later date in a criminal court of law? What level of absurdity must one wallow in to think that this makes any credible sense?
Click to expand...

. . . I guess all the Feds have to do is strip our citizenship, and state that we're unlawful combatants, and since apologists like you will loudly proclaim that there can never be any actual criminal evidence in the heat of battle and war, they'll be more likely to get away with it.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Check it out:

US CODE: Title 8,1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

In other words, you are wrong, natural-born citizens can be stripped of their citizenship.

Now, on top of the fact that some of the provisions are a little . . . vaguely worded . . . if the government can, with an act of law, define when a natural-born citizen is stripped of their citizenship, then the above-cited law need not be the end of the list of things that one can lose one's citizenship for.
Click to expand...

Let’s revue what was originally stated:

Quote: Originally Posted by stevenb
While the military and patriot acts are still around, that's exactly what this government can do to it's own citizens.. as long as they call you a terrorist.

We won't ever see those repealed though.. way too much power for the government to let go of.


So what part of the following applies to the absurd statements made about the Patriot Act and stripping citizens of their rights do you not comprehend?

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

Please Dan, your desperate attempts to defend the indefensible are making you look ridiculous.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
How about the right to hear the charges against them? Or to challenge those charges? Or to demand to see the proof against them?
Click to expand...

Since when did alien enemy combatants have the right to hear charges?

What part of COMBAT do you not get? Do you actually think our soldiers while shooting and fighting document the actions of those they capture so that they can be tried in a civilian court later? Can you name one time in history where this has ever occurred?

TacticalEvilDan said:
I understand it perfectly. Since the Feds get to decide which natural-born citizens keep their citizenship and under what circumstances, and since as you yourself said :
Click to expand...

Once again, nothing you have posted and REALITY and FACTS do not support your hysterical assertions.

TacticalEvilDan said:
. . . I guess all the Feds have to do is strip our citizenship, and state that we're unlawful combatants, and since apologists like you will loudly proclaim that there can never be any actual criminal evidence in the heat of battle and war, they'll be more likely to get away with it.
Click to expand...

Once more, these are the remarks which are made in a vacuum of reality and the facts.

No one can "claim" someone is an alien enemy combatant and then strip them of their citizenship. This is a gross fabrication in a very weak effort to argue something that hasn't occurred, never will occur and merely is desperation in an effort to support the previous farcical claims made by Steve.

Carry on. :roll:
 
While you guys are (I must assume) doing some more reading, here's what I'd really like to know:

How come so many are willing to believe that Obama is willfully trying to nationalize everything in sight in a desperate grab for power, but are at the same time not willing to believe that the government might have an interest in establishing prescedent for detaining non-citizens indefinitely without conviction, and that this interest might be that it would permit them to strip dissidents of citizenship and stick them in a dark hole somewhere?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
While you guys are (I must assume) doing some more reading, here's what I'd really like to know:

How come so many are willing to believe that Obama is willfully trying to nationalize everything in sight in a desperate grab for power, but are at the same time not willing to believe that the government might have an interest in establishing prescedent for detaining non-citizens indefinitely without conviction, and that this interest might be that it would permit them to strip dissidents of citizenship and stick them in a dark hole somewhere?
Click to expand...



Obama is trying to nationlize over 1/7th of the us economy..... FACT



This stripping citzenship to detain indeffinetly is a bit of a stretch....
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Try reading the whole law. See above.
Click to expand...

Here is the entire law and it still doesn't support your hysterical assertions that the Government can just randomly claim you are an alien enemy combatant and strip you of your citizenship.

But hey, it is your hysterical claim, why don't you just highlight it for me here:

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.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
While you guys are (I must assume) doing some more reading, here's what I'd really like to know:

How come so many are willing to believe that Obama is willfully trying to nationalize everything in sight in a desperate grab for power, but are at the same time not willing to believe that the government might have an interest in establishing prescedent for detaining non-citizens indefinitely without conviction, and that this interest might be that it would permit them to strip dissidents of citizenship and stick them in a dark hole somewhere?
Click to expand...

Very simple Dan, because facts do not support the absurd notion that the government has an interest in establishing precedent for detaining non-citizens indefinitely without conviction and nothing you have posted supports such an absurd assertion.

Glad to help you out with that one Dan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom