Enemy Expatriation Act Could Strip Americans of Citizenship

[SR4]

Yeah, no probs. No, I see why you hold these specific social rights to be so important, and I find nothing wrong with that. What I have a problem with (and maybe this is where I misstepped by terming it "meta-aspects") is what should be given ultimate primacy in the preservation of existing rights. Of course I want gay marriage and recognition of same-sex unions and equal pay and all that good stuff. The reason I disagree with your line of thought is because in my mind if you override the overarching legal principles of all citizens and not just minorities (ie. the right to due process), eventually it won't really matter if you are gay or black or Mexican or a Middle Eastern immigrant or whatever, you can all be targeted for arrest, imprisonment or execution without any means to protect yourself.

 

 

I think I'm looking at it as potential for great harm in the future vs. the current reality.

 

Don't go setting 14 Am. clauses against each other, mang! The DPC and the EPC are pals!

 

You are absolutely right. But judging from the introduction of the Pat Act, the existence of COINTELPRO, and this new bill, there doesn't seem to be much creedence towards upholding constitutionality.

 

ET I think you are being a little heavy handed in your argument.

[Guest disparaissant]

I think I'm looking at it as potential for great harm in the future vs. the current reality.

 

Understandable. But my point kind of hinges on the fact that I don't really see much that can be done wrt what you're saying without a lot of work towards dismantling the system we have.

 

I'm not saying that it's ideal in the least, my whole point is that this isn't going to be fixed by voting third party. This is going to be fixed by going out and protesting, occupying, etc. Forcing action. Who we vote for in the mean time isn't really important re: individual liberties - Obama has more than proven that with his continuation of Bush-style policies in THAT regard. I guess I just feel like my vote to keep someone who is at least socially liberal is pragmatic and doesn't really say much about me as a person when I am simultaneously advocating a dismantling of the system that limited me to choosing him in the first place. He's certainly better than the alternative. I guess I see it as a necessary evil.

 

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that Obama is deserving of any kind of support.

It's very much just a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

 

you just exposed the fact that you are more concerned with the ability of a gay people (queers, as you so eloquently put it), which by the way are of a small minority, to get decent employment, than you are of the president signing legislation which allows a very aggressive military, which has already proved its willingness to inflict violence on defenseless american citizens, to enter into civilian territories and secretly kidnap anyone they so wish and hold them indefinitely.

No I'm not, you fucking ignoramus. Re-read what I said, then go sit in the fucking corner.

[Guest Helper ET]

i tried so hard to be respectful, civil, and to avoid a flame war, and now this...

 

youre just trying to mess up this thread. i see through you and am reporting you right now

 

you couldnt even stay on topic could you? you just couldnt help it

 

back to the matter at hand...

[Guest disparaissant]

Dude whatever, you misunderstood what I said entirely, went on a huge, absolutely disrespectful rant, accused me of all sorts of slanderous things, and told people not to listen to me. You were far from respectful and civil.

 

All because you lack the reading comprehension to actually understand my point.

[SR4]

The tangental discussion in general was bound to happen, ET.

[BCM]

let's talk about donuts

[joshuatxuk]

i tried so hard to be respectful, civil, and to avoid a flame war, and now this...

 

youre just trying to mess up this thread. i see through you and am reporting you right now

 

you couldnt even stay on topic could you? you just couldnt help it

 

back to the matter at hand...

 

hi alex jones

 

i kid

[Guest Helper ET]

i love alex jones

[Guest Helper ET]

heres an article from infowars

 

Next Up: Enemy Expatriation Act; Would Strip Americans of Citizenship For “Hostilities Against the United States”

 

Mac Slavo

SHTFplan.com

January 17th, 2012

For months leading up to the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) opponents of the legislation vehemently argued that it usurped, among other fundamental laws of the land, 5th Amendment provisions of due process of law, essentially allowing for the detainment of American citizens without charge or public trial. To remedy the political fallout, President Obama included a signing statement when he approved the bill over the New Year’s weekend to the effect that he would only use his newly appointed powers to detain foreign nationals – not Americans.

As the controversy played out, however, unbeknownst to most of us, legislation that would completely bypass that signing statement was already in the works. In October of last year Representative Charles Dent (R-PA), Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and faux-Tea Party darling Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) conspired to introduce a scant but very powerful amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act that outlines a “list of acts for which U.S. nationals would lose their nationality.”

Dubbed the Enemy Expatriation Act (HR 3166), the amendment would essentially grant the United States government, perhaps through anonymous military tribunal or by secretive Congressional super panel, the power to brand Americans as hostiles for “engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States,” where “the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war.”

As is typically the case, the language is vague and allows for broad interpretation of what is or is not considered a “hostile” act.

In prepared teleprompter delivered comments, bill sponsor Rep. Charles Dent defends his support of the proposed bill (video below):

The bipartisan legislation I introduced this week calls for a pragmatic recognition that a person who is purposefully and materially supporting acts of terror against the United States is demonstrating they have no intent of acting as a U.S. citizen. If they want to engage in hostilities against the American people then they clearly no longer wish to be a citizen of our great nation.

…

Currently, an individual who engages in hostilities against the United States on behalf of an armed force of a foreign state has committed an expatriating act. Our legislation clarifies that engaging in hostilities by supporting terrorism will also constitute an expatriating act.

…

I believe being an American citizen is more than a right. It is a responsibility.

It is now clear why President Obama added a signing statement to the recently passed NDAA. The Enemy Expatriation Act may be short and simple, but it is a highly effective work-around. Under NDAA, according to the President and its many Congressional supporters, American citizens who commit hostilities against the United States cannot be detained in the manner of, say, a Guantanamo inmate who has no right to trial by jury or even discovery of evidence because most of it is classified as a national security issue.

With the addition of this new legislation, however, an American can first be detained for engaging in or materially supporting ambiguously defined terrorist activity under the Patriot Act, determined to be hostile by a secret panel, stripped of their citizenship, and then, conveniently, detained indefinitely without trial under the National Defense Authorization Act.

As we’ve outlined previously, over the last ten years the definitions for “terrorism” and “extremism” have changed drastically. Just recently, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that the terrorist threat has “shifted” to “lone wolf attackers” not abroad, but here at home. Combined with previous alerts and bulletins from the Department of Homeland Security, seemingly innocent activities such as purchasing habits or political leanings can classify Americans as persons-of-interest and domestic extremists.

The recent trial of Bernard von NotHaus, who coined his own “Liberty Dollars” manufactured of pure gold and silver, was accused of terrorism by the Department of Justice for a crime that, for two hundred years, was known simply as “counterfeiting”:

Attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism, U.S. Attorney Tompkins said in announcing the verdict. While these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country, she added. We are determined to meet these threats through infiltration, disruption, and dismantling of organizations which seek to challenge the legitimacy of our democratic form of government.

From teenagers engaging in typical adolescent behavior and protesters fighting for their right to be heard, to a guy buying survival food or joining in a heated debate on the internet, a semantic change for words like terrorism, terrorist, hostilities, and domestic extremist is taking place in the social and political spheres.

Soon, any activity deemed contrary to the ideas, purposes and principles of the ruling class and the plutocratic elites will be grounds for detainment, imprisonment and expulsion.

 

discuss!

[awepittance]

@awepittance I missed your comment the first time around. If you sincerely think that Republicans are paying"lip service" to social conservatism, you are simply not paying attention. At all.

 

conservatives as a whole? no they really want social reverses in this country. 'conservative' politicians like Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, absolutely fuck no. And i pay far too much attention to this dog and pony show.

i Could say the same thing to you, that if you're paying attention for long enough youll see that these people are not the social conservatives they pretend to be. the RNC made a deal with christian evangelicals in the 70s, and since then they are linked only in a PR sense. The republicans in charge continue to pay lip service to them because they feel it is politically necessary, not because any of the people listed above would actually make strides to overturn ROe vs wade, no way in hell they would. It's fear that continues to make people believe at face value what essentially actors like Mitt Romney say about social issues, why on earth would you believe them?? There is little to no actual policy difference between what a Romney or Obama presidency would be like except for the color of lip service or hawkishness/humanitarian bombing angel they pay.

 

 

besides Rick Santorum, i don't think a single person on that stage is nearly as 'scary' on the issues that think they are. To me the most scary part is that the american empire will continue at the same deadly capacity it has since 9/11 regardless of who takes the office.

[awepittance]

Doesn't it make more sense to assume that the government will abuse this power eventually, based upon what has already happened in our past before this legislation was passed?

 

 

apparently a lot of people can only project in the future the length of a current president's term. This is what is soooo fucking dangerous about Obama, while he makes all these platitudes towards more macro social issues, they ultimately act as a distraction from all the really destructive stuff he's implemented, that WILL NOT GO AWAY when he leaves office. 'scary conservatives' who 'want to take us back to the 50s' will be the ones with the same powers once he leaves office, what part of that do people not understand? there really seems to be a huge blind spot in this area

[SR4]

i love alex jones

 

this, combined with your unnecessary rudeness towards dis severely compromises the strength of your argument.

[azatoth]

The only positive Obama could do with another term is maybe install some more liberal judges in the supreme court. If some of them drop dead or retire. Why it's even a lifetime position is a question in itself.

[baph]

Doesn't it make more sense to assume that the government will abuse this power eventually, based upon what has already happened in our past before this legislation was passed?

 

 

apparently a lot of people can only project in the future the length of a current president's term. This is what is soooo fucking dangerous about Obama, while he makes all these platitudes towards more macro social issues, they ultimately act as a distraction from all the really destructive stuff he's implemented, that WILL NOT GO AWAY when he leaves office. 'scary conservatives' who 'want to take us back to the 50s' will be the ones with the same powers once he leaves office, what part of that do people not understand? there really seems to be a huge blind spot in this area

 

Awepittance, do you think putting the Republicans in charge of every branch of government (probably giving them another SCOTUS justice or three in the process of putting a R. in the White House) isn't going to radically acceleration the erosion of liberty you rightfully peg on Obama?

[Hoodie]

The only positive Obama could do with another term is maybe install some more liberal judges in the supreme court. If some of them drop dead or retire. Why it's even a lifetime position is a question in itself.

 

so they don't have to pander to the population to be reelected.

 

although they still have to pander to get money from their powerful friends, so idk what the difference is.

 

also, kagan and sotomayor aren't particularly liberal iirc.

[baph]

SCOTUS is leaning so far to the right it's nearly horizontal.

[SR4]

We all seem to be gravitating towards the real structural problem that desperately needs to be addressed...or rather, is there at the deepest level any creedence to voting in the presidential election?

 

To some extent, I would say yes there is, in that, if you live under the auspices of a republic, your vote, or rather the mere action of voting cements the existence of that republic (whether at this point real or imagined) in the mind of the citizen. This is some old school shit we are coming upon, its a fucking hard set of questions to answer.

 

What I see is at least a massive failure on the part of the real liberals to swerve their party out of this centrist/center-right platform as a means of political expedience.

[Guest disparaissant]

@awepittance

they may just be acting, but they're still trying to pass legislation that is socially conservative. it may all be a put-on, but that doesn't mean that it's not a harmful put-on.

 

and i would really disagree with the idea that Romney isn't actually socially conservative. he's a mormon. a devout one, at that. if you are a mormon who is socially liberal, you are not actually a mormon. that's just how they roll.

 

and i'm not even denying that the liberal agenda re: social issues is a put on. it's the divisive issue. the largely artificial difference between D and R. i mean they can't be "enemies" without having an issue to disagree on, right? once again, though, my point hinges on the fact that choosing third party is completely and utterly ineffective. tearing the whole fucker down is my main goal. in the mean time i would like to not have to deal with backslide. is that really so unreasonable?

[awepittance]

Doesn't it make more sense to assume that the government will abuse this power eventually, based upon what has already happened in our past before this legislation was passed?

 

 

apparently a lot of people can only project in the future the length of a current president's term. This is what is soooo fucking dangerous about Obama, while he makes all these platitudes towards more macro social issues, they ultimately act as a distraction from all the really destructive stuff he's implemented, that WILL NOT GO AWAY when he leaves office. 'scary conservatives' who 'want to take us back to the 50s' will be the ones with the same powers once he leaves office, what part of that do people not understand? there really seems to be a huge blind spot in this area

 

Awepittance, do you think putting the Republicans in charge of every branch of government and probably giving them another SCOTUS justice in the process isn't going to radically acceleration the erosion of liberty you rightfully peg on Obama?

 

i wouldnt ever want power to be consolidated by that much regardless of party, it wont ever happen, but if it did (doesnt matter to me if its dems or republicans) it will continue to accelerate at more or less the same rate it has since 9/11.

maybe with different flavors, some different types of scare tactics and more dredging up of racial tensions things like that. But imo those are the things that make intellectuals in America take notice (generic right wing pushes) and put up guard. When Obama basically continues a Bush 3rd term all of the so called intellectuals fall asleep and think they are fine as long as a gay person can get married (total pipe dream, obama is anti gay marriage) or other things similar.

 

tearing the whole fucker down is my main goal. in the mean time i would like to not have to deal with backslide. is that really so unreasonable?

if tearing it all down is your goal, why would you cast the ultimate vote symbolically or literally for the status quo?

 

not voting would be a more effective means, or voting for someone to bring more of a challenge to obama would actually be actively trying to tear it down

 

otherwise the way i see it, is by voting for Obama you're vote is an act of acquiescence and defeat

[Guest disparaissant]

ugh whatever you clearly aren't reading what i'm saying. i'm just gonna quote a friend of mine because he writes a lot better than me on 4 hours of sleep and 7 hours of classes.

Excuse me, but yes, not voting does allow more nasty people to take control. Can you honestly say to me there is no substantive difference between Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner? Between the Tea Party and the House Progressive Caucus? In case you were asleep for the last three years, the Democratic majority in the House passed an extremely progressive agenda that then went on to die in the Senate. Obviously, the system is deeply if not fatally flawed, but you can’t say that who is in charge is of no consequence.

So what if you’re voting for another corporatist like Obama. Better an Obama corporatist than a Rick Perry Christofascist.

The Democrats have shown zero ability to make anything better, though not for a lack of trying. What they have shown is an ability to stop things from getting significantly worse and put a check on the GOP’s push to turn us into a hard authoritarian fascist state.

But go ahead, don’t vote. Set the next election out. Let Bachmann or Perry become president with a super majority in the House and 60 Republican-Fascist stormtroopers in the Senate.

Relax while the GOP-controlled “Justice Department” starts rounding up anyone who ever so much as said a nice thing about a Palestinian as a material-supporter of terror, and the Interior Department goes back to the Bush days of auctioning off the ecosystem to the highest, or simply most connected bidder.

Breath a sigh of relief as a GOP appointed National Labor Relations Board fails to enforce any labor laws, giving the corporate state carte blanche to bust unions the old fashioned way and send even more jobs overseas.

Sit back and watch as a cadre of fascists insitutes a reign of economic corruption and state-terrorism that this hemisphere hasn’t seen since Pinochet. Your conscious is clean of the ickiness of having to vote for a candidate you don’t really like or didn’t quite pass your progressive purity test. And a pure conscious is what’s really important, after all.

 

obviously this is from a few months ago, lol bachmann/perry

[Guest disparaissant]

and you know, im just gonna reiterate. "obama is bush's third term" is a totally naive thing to say. obama is certainly continuing bush's foreign policy ideals (though DEFINITELY toned down) and he has about as much respect for the constitution as bush did, but he's only "bush's third term" if you are ignoring like half of the things he has done.

[SR4]

wait, this is the first ive heard of Obama being anti-gay marriage...can you clarify?

 

@awepittance

[Guest disparaissant]

THAT said

 

also wow i didnt even catch the obama = anti-gay marriage. that's ridiculous. the administration stopped defending DOMA, no one has attempted to get an amendment in circulation (unlike the bush years) everything that has happened with the obama administration and gay marriage bolster my point that democrats are stagnant at worst on social issues.

[SR4]

ugh whatever you clearly aren't reading what i'm saying. i'm just gonna quote a friend of mine because he writes a lot better than me on 4 hours of sleep and 7 hours of classes.

Excuse me, but yes, not voting does allow more nasty people to take control. Can you honestly say to me there is no substantive difference between Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner? Between the Tea Party and the House Progressive Caucus? In case you were asleep for the last three years, the Democratic majority in the House passed an extremely progressive agenda that then went on to die in the Senate. Obviously, the system is deeply if not fatally flawed, but you can’t say that who is in charge is of no consequence.

So what if you’re voting for another corporatist like Obama. Better an Obama corporatist than a Rick Perry Christofascist.

The Democrats have shown zero ability to make anything better, though not for a lack of trying. What they have shown is an ability to stop things from getting significantly worse and put a check on the GOP’s push to turn us into a hard authoritarian fascist state.

But go ahead, don’t vote. Set the next election out. Let Bachmann or Perry become president with a super majority in the House and 60 Republican-Fascist stormtroopers in the Senate.

Relax while the GOP-controlled “Justice Department” starts rounding up anyone who ever so much as said a nice thing about a Palestinian as a material-supporter of terror, and the Interior Department goes back to the Bush days of auctioning off the ecosystem to the highest, or simply most connected bidder.

Breath a sigh of relief as a GOP appointed National Labor Relations Board fails to enforce any labor laws, giving the corporate state carte blanche to bust unions the old fashioned way and send even more jobs overseas.

Sit back and watch as a cadre of fascists insitutes a reign of economic corruption and state-terrorism that this hemisphere hasn’t seen since Pinochet. Your conscious is clean of the ickiness of having to vote for a candidate you don’t really like or didn’t quite pass your progressive purity test. And a pure conscious is what’s really important, after all.

 

obviously this is from a few months ago, lol bachmann/perry

 

no offense, but this guy seems to completely ignore the power of organized protest over voting in a presidential election.

[baph]

wait, this is the first ive heard of Obama being anti-gay marriage...can you clarify?

 

@awepittance

 

He's politically anti-gay marriage or neutral. He stated that his position is "evolving." Basically he's just pussying out for teh votes.

 

Sort of like how he has to pretend he believes in God and then accidentally hitched his wagon Rev. Nutjob. Oops.