Yeah, that pretty clearly says no person and not citizen.
Of course, there's a huge argument over whether or not the Constitution applies even a little when dealing with non-citizens. Whether or not that argument is sound or even valid, unfortunately is up to individual opinion, it would seem.
Yeah, that pretty clearly says no person and not citizen.
Of course, there's a huge argument over whether or not the Constitution applies even a little when dealing with non-citizens. Whether or not that argument is sound or even valid, unfortunately is up to individual opinion, it would seem.
Yeah, that pretty clearly says no person and not citizen.
Of course, there's a huge argument over whether or not the Constitution applies even a little when dealing with non-citizens. Whether or not that argument is sound or even valid, unfortunately is up to NINE individual opinions, it would seem.
Section 349 of the INA [8 USC § 1481] specifies several conditions under which US citizenship may be lost. These include:
becoming a naturalized citizen of another country, or declaring allegiance to another country, after reaching age 18; serving as an officer in a foreign country's military service, or serving in the armed forces of a country which is engaged in hostilities against the US;
working for a foreign government (e.g., in political office or as a civil servant);
formally renouncing one's US citizenship before duly authorized US officials; or committing treason against, or attempting or conspiring to overthrow the government of, the US
.
So...stock the fridge with Mt Dew and launch the drones.
Section 349 of the INA [8 USC § 1481] specifies several conditions under which US citizenship may be lost. These include:
becoming a naturalized citizen of another country, or declaring allegiance to another country, after reaching age 18; serving as an officer in a foreign country's military service, or serving in the armed forces of a country which is engaged in hostilities against the US;
working for a foreign government (e.g., in political office or as a civil servant);
formally renouncing one's US citizenship before duly authorized US officials; or committing treason against, or attempting or conspiring to overthrow the government of, the US
.
So...stock the fridge with Mt Dew and launch the drones.
Not really. No, not at all.
First, that's a criminal code you're quoting there, Title 8 US Code. Which means that you have to be found guilty of committing treason against, or attempting or conspiring to overthrow the government of, the US.
Second, neither Al Qaeda nor the Taliban are recognized by the US government to be official governments of anything, so working for them does not meet the qualification of working for a foreign country or government.
And it's hard to claim that a terrorist is actually trying to overthrow the government of the US. It's simply beyond them, what they want is policy changes.
So terrorists neither work for a hostile government, want to overthrow the government, nor have sworn any oath that would preclude them from terroristic activities. They're normal criminals.
On a completely unrelated note, I'm imagining Predator drones being used to serve notices from the court.
And it's hard to claim that a terrorist is actually trying to overthrow the government of the US. It's simply beyond them, what they want is policy changes.
So terrorists neither work for a hostile government, want to overthrow the government, nor have sworn any oath that would preclude them from terroristic activities. They're normal criminals.
On a completely unrelated note, I'm imagining Predator drones being used to serve notices from the court.
Eh, I would say they are working to overthrow the government. After all, you don't have to actually do it, you just have to attempt or conspire to do so. I think you could demonstrate that easily in a legal setting, though I don't know about proving it beyond reasonable doubt.
Did you notice the original article you linked contained a link to the article it is based on?
The order is "Kill or Capture."
Or rephrasing:
Wanted: Dead or Alive
Yeah, this is pretty much where I'm standing. I'm not entirely certain this is an unprecedented action. We used to do that all the time, up until, I don't know, the 40s/50s?
Yeah, that pretty clearly says no person and not citizen.
Of course, there's a huge argument over whether or not the Constitution applies even a little when dealing with non-citizens. Whether or not that argument is sound or even valid, unfortunately is up to individual opinion, it would seem.
Actually it's up to the Supreme Court.
that reminds me wasn't there a measure being prepared for making it so that any terrorist/confirmed terrorist has their citizenship revoked whether or not they were born in the US (or did i misread that part?)
Yeah, that pretty clearly says no person and not citizen.
Of course, there's a huge argument over whether or not the Constitution applies even a little when dealing with non-citizens. Whether or not that argument is sound or even valid, unfortunately is up to individual opinion, it would seem.
Actually it's up to the Supreme Court.
that reminds me wasn't there a measure being prepared for making it so that any terrorist/confirmed terrorist has their citizenship revoked whether or not they were born in the US (or did i misread that part?)
Introduced by Lieberman and I think Graham. It'd be at the discretion of the AG. There's a Democrat in the House who introduced something similar, but I forget who.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
And it's hard to claim that a terrorist is actually trying to overthrow the government of the US. It's simply beyond them, what they want is policy changes.
So terrorists neither work for a hostile government, want to overthrow the government, nor have sworn any oath that would preclude them from terroristic activities. They're normal criminals.
On a completely unrelated note, I'm imagining Predator drones being used to serve notices from the court.
Inability to perform an act is not a defense against attempt charges. You can be charged for attempted murder if you stab a corpse repeatedly under the belief they were alive but sleeping.
That said, it's my contention that the ability to revoke citizenship in anything but the most ridiculously exception circumstances is dangerous and not necessary to fulfill military objectives. If an American citizen makes themselves a military target, all the birth certificates in the world shouldn't save them from a bullet or missile. But if they aren't a military target, I don't care if they are in service to Satan himself, they need a trial.
And it's hard to claim that a terrorist is actually trying to overthrow the government of the US. It's simply beyond them, what they want is policy changes.
So terrorists neither work for a hostile government, want to overthrow the government, nor have sworn any oath that would preclude them from terroristic activities. They're normal criminals.
On a completely unrelated note, I'm imagining Predator drones being used to serve notices from the court.
Wait, what? I think killing people to install a global Caliphate is waaaaay beyond the actions of "normal criminals."
widowson on
-I owe nothing to Women's Lib.
Margaret Thatcher
0
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Yeah, that pretty clearly says no person and not citizen.
Of course, there's a huge argument over whether or not the Constitution applies even a little when dealing with non-citizens. Whether or not that argument is sound or even valid, unfortunately is up to individual opinion, it would seem.
Actually it's up to the Supreme Court.
that reminds me wasn't there a measure being prepared for making it so that any terrorist/confirmed terrorist has their citizenship revoked whether or not they were born in the US (or did i misread that part?)
Yeah. Lieberman suggested it.
It is the most blatantly unconstitutional proposal I have ever heard in my life.
Lieberman and "our man" Scott Brown. And the idea was to give the State Dept. the authority to revoke citizenship. Presumably, this would only work in the case of migrant citizens.
I have to say, I have a slight issue with the notion that it should be easier to kill a non-American than an American. They are BOTH human beings.
It matters because we aren't writing the law ourselves: no invitation has been issued to penny arcade forums to re-draw the Constitution. We're talking about how the executive branch is responding to the Constitution that we already have in place, and that constitution guarantees its citizens access to due process of the law.
Not under all circumstances.
The only exception is servicemen during a time of active duty.
The 5th amendment:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
It's notable that non-citizens actually enjoy the same protections from the federal government that citizens do.
More topically, any situation where law enforcement is allowed to use lethal force.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
What does that mean for the Airforce? It specifically says land forces, naval forces, or militias, when it could have used a more general term that would have encompassed any new types of military forces. Granted, they thought they were being comprehensive when they wrote it, but it turns out they weren't.
Yeah, that pretty clearly says no person and not citizen.
Of course, there's a huge argument over whether or not the Constitution applies even a little when dealing with non-citizens. Whether or not that argument is sound or even valid, unfortunately is up to individual opinion, it would seem.
No there isn't. There's a "hey this would be politically convenient" argument and everyone else going "What, are you fucking crazy?"
EDIT: The SC has already ruled on this. Several times.
Posts
Of course, there's a huge argument over whether or not the Constitution applies even a little when dealing with non-citizens. Whether or not that argument is sound or even valid, unfortunately is up to individual opinion, it would seem.
Actually it's up to the Supreme Court.
Good point. fix'd.
So...stock the fridge with Mt Dew and launch the drones.
Not really. No, not at all.
First, that's a criminal code you're quoting there, Title 8 US Code. Which means that you have to be found guilty of committing treason against, or attempting or conspiring to overthrow the government of, the US.
Second, neither Al Qaeda nor the Taliban are recognized by the US government to be official governments of anything, so working for them does not meet the qualification of working for a foreign country or government.
So terrorists neither work for a hostile government, want to overthrow the government, nor have sworn any oath that would preclude them from terroristic activities. They're normal criminals.
On a completely unrelated note, I'm imagining Predator drones being used to serve notices from the court.
Eh, I would say they are working to overthrow the government. After all, you don't have to actually do it, you just have to attempt or conspire to do so. I think you could demonstrate that easily in a legal setting, though I don't know about proving it beyond reasonable doubt.
Wanted: Dead or Alive
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Yeah, this is pretty much where I'm standing. I'm not entirely certain this is an unprecedented action. We used to do that all the time, up until, I don't know, the 40s/50s?
that reminds me wasn't there a measure being prepared for making it so that any terrorist/confirmed terrorist has their citizenship revoked whether or not they were born in the US (or did i misread that part?)
Introduced by Lieberman and I think Graham. It'd be at the discretion of the AG. There's a Democrat in the House who introduced something similar, but I forget who.
Inability to perform an act is not a defense against attempt charges. You can be charged for attempted murder if you stab a corpse repeatedly under the belief they were alive but sleeping.
That said, it's my contention that the ability to revoke citizenship in anything but the most ridiculously exception circumstances is dangerous and not necessary to fulfill military objectives. If an American citizen makes themselves a military target, all the birth certificates in the world shouldn't save them from a bullet or missile. But if they aren't a military target, I don't care if they are in service to Satan himself, they need a trial.
Wait, what? I think killing people to install a global Caliphate is waaaaay beyond the actions of "normal criminals."
Margaret Thatcher
Yeah. Lieberman suggested it.
It is the most blatantly unconstitutional proposal I have ever heard in my life.
More topically, any situation where law enforcement is allowed to use lethal force.
No there isn't. There's a "hey this would be politically convenient" argument and everyone else going "What, are you fucking crazy?"
EDIT: The SC has already ruled on this. Several times.