• 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!

Should Hoda Muthana be allowed back in the US?

Should Hoda Muthana be allowed back in the US?

  • Total voters
    21
  • Poll closed .
Yes, then arrested and charged.
 
Casper said:
So we can prosecute her, pretty simple.
Click to expand...

Well, not so simple.

We don’t bring back all lower level Terrorist Sympathizer foreigners for prosecution... why should we bring her back?
 
Of course, not.

She made her bed so she should lie in it.

Of course, she may sneak back into the States at the southern border.

And then all the bleeding hearts will use the liberal courts to keep her here.
 
Before reading the article, my initial reaction was to answer no. Leave her there. But after reading the article and thinking about the child, here is my solution.

Bring her back. Take her child away. Try her for treason. If convicted, send her to prison. If not convicted, strip her of her citizenship and send her back to Syria.

Bottom line:

download (6).jpg
 
Mycroft said:
Before reading the article, my initial reaction was to answer no. Leave her there. But after reading the article and thinking about the child, here is my solution.

Bring her back. Take her child away. Try her for treason. If convicted, send her to prison. If not convicted, strip her of her citizenship and send her back to Syria.

Bottom line:

View attachment 67268345
Click to expand...

She’s not an American citizen.

We don’t bring back low level terrorist sympathizers to the US for court cases. Her home country can do that.

We don’t try high level terrorists captured either. We have a wonderful resort Obama kept open (though he did release and trade* many Muslim Brotherhood-styled friends) called Gitmo... for their sunbathing and rotting pleasure.

*Traded five asshole scum for one scum Bergdahl who should have met the firing squad.
 
zimmer said:
She’s not an American citizen.

We don’t bring back low level terrorist sympathizers to the US for court cases. Her home country can do that.

We don’t try high level terrorists captured either. We have a wonderful resort Obama kept open (though he did release and trade* many Muslim Brotherhood-styled friends) called Gitmo... for their sunbathing and rotting pleasure.

*Traded five asshole scum for one scum Bergdahl who should have met the firing squad.
Click to expand...

The court case concerning whether she is a citizen or not is still pending.
 
The nation has drifted away from equal punishment and changed it depending on who you are.

This woman, a legal adult at the time chose to join a group at war with the USA. Does anyone remember John Walker Lind? He got twenty years and served 17.

She should be arrested and tried just like “The American Taliban”.
 
Last edited:
Voted No.

The article was close in saying "For many, it is about testing the limits of American compassion" where I would argue this is about testing the limits of compassion *and* the tolerance of the intolerant.

The case is interesting. The OP article is from April 6th, updated April 7th... but in the linked sources below we already have at least one ruling from a federal judge that she is not a US citizen. It is also my understanding from some of these sources that the original lawsuit was brought by her father, so while the suit was dismissed the judge also ruled that financial support to his daughter or grandson could be interpreted as "material support of terrorism."

Odds are all of this will be appealed, easy to consider this matter far from closed.

Back to the matter of compassion, and tolerance of the intolerant.

Voted no simply because of the nature of her actions, denouncing the US and showing alliance to ISIS and terrorism. She reached out to them, joined, traveled to Syria, married back to back three ISIS fighters all of whom died in combat somehow, and had a child with one of them.

Even if this effort somehow gets her back into the nation she'll be charged with dozens of crimes up to and including supporting supporting terrorism, aiding or abetting, various charges for the distribution of execution videos on social media, what have you. Her wanting to return to the US to face prosecution is just for the protection of her son, and that creates the awful balance of compassion.

The liberal in me wants to help, but this is where my classical liberalism departs from what modern liberalism is today using an interpretation of tolerance of the intolerant.

We have had this debate before, going down certain paths with religion (especially Islam) suggest weaponizing the 1st Amendment to the point of asking for tolerance of a faith that in the right hands outwardly showcases intolerance. Those who aligned with ISIS at some point are looking at a fundamentalist warfare interpretation of the text and making that a trademark in calls for division, hatred, and eventually on a long enough timeline calls for violence and loss of life.

You cannot have this both ways, open tolerance for religion and including in that a religion that looks at itself in terms of superiority (again, in the right hands like what ISIS proclaims.)

That ideology, that interpretation of the faith and self given empowerment to justify violence and loss of life, does not simply go away by having someone face trial here just to save a 2 year old that today has no idea what I am talking about.

But Hoda Muthana does clearly understand what I am talking about, and a sweet smile from a refugee camp and an apology (to Muslims only by the way) does not erase the ideology.

She cannot tell everyone she "deserves a second chance" without being honest about what she really did. That outward support for barbarianism and cruelty, with the complete absence of humanity.

There has to be a line somewhere, she crossed it. Had to vote No.

Sources:
American-born ISIS bride not a citizen, judge rules
US-born Alabama woman who joined ISIS is not an American citizen, judge rules | Fox News
Alabama woman who joined Isis is not US citizen, judge rules | World news | The Guardian
 
Mycroft said:
Before reading the article, my initial reaction was to answer no. Leave her there. But after reading the article and thinking about the child, here is my solution.

Bring her back. Take her child away. Try her for treason. If convicted, send her to prison. If not convicted, strip her of her citizenship and send her back to Syria.

Bottom line:

View attachment 67268345
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true Stephen Miller groupie.
 
The ultimate punishment for anyone is to be caught up in the legal and bureaucratic system of the United States. It is truly one of the most wonderful punishments for criminals.
 
I voted no, but that contradicts Trump's expressed wish to have other nations "take back" their (defined by original citizenship?) ISIS POW's and/or their immediate family members now being held (encamped?) in Syria (and elsewhere). The expense of the (required?) trial(s) alone should be reason (justification?) to bar her return - just keep her on the "terror watch list" as an active member and/or material supporter of ISIS.
 
She is a born American citizen and while she has made a very bad decision... Would we do the same thing to the wife of a drug dealer? A murderer? a thief?

Why does anything associated with "brown people terrorism" suddenly make us lose our humanity or our belief in rule of law?

Because here's the thing, what she did was unbelievably stupid, but if she is a citizen of the United States that gives comes with rights and responsibilities both for her and the government and are we so frightened of this woman that she cannot return to her country of birth and face the music for her actions?

I suspect the reason people are being treated this way, right or wrong is because the government knows it can't convict her, she may have married someone very stupidly, but unless she actively participated and took up arms herself, actually, legally it may be difficult to convict her of anything so the government takes the extra-legal approach of simply denying her the ability to return.

It's a political decision, not a legal one in my opinion, but that's just my take.

I believe citizenship stripping and denying someone a right to return is a slippery slope that can be expanded.
 
voted - No.
- She made her choice years ago.
- It still is not definitive she is a US citizen
- If not let back in, no need for tax payers to pay for her incarceration which most likely would be the outcome.
 
charliebrown said:
Is she a citizen of the US?
Click to expand...

That is still something being determined by the courts, but the first round of that process suggest she is not by this first ruling.
 
Jetboogieman said:
She is a born American citizen and while she has made a very bad decision... Would we do the same thing to the wife of a drug dealer? A murderer? a thief?
Why does anything associated with "brown people terrorism" suddenly make us lose our humanity or our belief in rule of law?
Because here's the thing, what she did was unbelievably stupid, but if she is a citizen of the United States that gives comes with rights and responsibilities both for her and the government and are we so frightened of this woman that she cannot return to her country of birth and face the music for her actions?
I suspect the reason people are being treated this way, right or wrong is because the government knows it can't convict her, she may have married someone very stupidly, but unless she actively participated and took up arms herself, actually, legally it may be difficult to convict her of anything so the government takes the extra-legal approach of simply denying her the ability to return.
It's a political decision, not a legal one in my opinion, but that's just my take.
I believe citizenship stripping and denying someone a right to return is a slippery slope that can be expanded.
Click to expand...


Obama said she isn't.

"... Muthana was issued a passport as a US citizen, that’s true. But the government challenged her citizenship before giving her a passport. And in 2016, after she’d burned her passport upon joining ISIS — “Bonfire soon, no need for these anymore, alhamdulliah [thanks be to God],” she tweeted, with a photo of her and several other women’s Western passports — the Obama administration officially declared the passport and her citizenship had never been valid to begin with. ..."

Hoda Muthana: the ISIS recruit’s citizenship controversy, explained - Vox
 
Barnacle said:
Obama said she isn't.

"... Muthana was issued a passport as a US citizen, that’s true. But the government challenged her citizenship before giving her a passport. And in 2016, after she’d burned her passport upon joining ISIS — “Bonfire soon, no need for these anymore, alhamdulliah [thanks be to God],” she tweeted, with a photo of her and several other women’s Western passports — the Obama administration officially declared the passport and her citizenship had never been valid to begin with. ..."

Hoda Muthana: the ISIS recruit’s citizenship controversy, explained - Vox
Click to expand...

What does Obama have to do with it?

Do you think you can throw that at my feet and say "hah, gotcha".

I have been critical of the practice of citizenship stripping by any government that does it and that is why I didn't say Trump, or Obama I said more broadly, the Government.

I believe citizenship stripping degrades citizenship and is a slippery slope.
 
Jetboogieman said:
What does Obama have to do with it?
Do you think you can throw that at my feet and say "hah, gotcha".
I have been critical of the practice of citizenship stripping by any government that does it and that is why I didn't say Trump, or Obama I said more broadly, the Government.
I believe citizenship stripping degrades citizenship and is a slippery slope.
Click to expand...


A lot ... he nullified her citizenship in the first place.
 
Barnacle said:
A lot ... he nullified her citizenship in the first place.
Click to expand...

In the sense of, what does it have to do with my argument, I know what happened in those years both in the US and other nations that also practiced it and I was vehemently opposed to it today as I was then.
 
Jetboogieman said:
In the sense of, what does it have to do with my argument, I know what happened in those years both in the US and other nations that also practiced it and I was vehemently opposed to it today as I was then.
Click to expand...


I don't give a **** about what you vehemently oppose or not ... I was just replying to your statement that she is a US citizen by saying no, Obama stripped her of her US citizenship ... probably because legally she never was a US citizen in the first place.
 
I voted yes. She did not take part is any actual fighting and is willing to face jail time for her actions.

Also, her value as a source of anti-terrorist propaganda could be considerable. Her tale is a litany of reasons why people should NOT run off and join the islamofascists. She knows better than most how violent and evil people use their religion as a vehicle for justifying atrocities. She should be given a megaphone to spread that message.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom