http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/then-they-came-for-me/

Does the word Traitor fit this group of guys?

Osama ben Ladin made the statement that he was going to start attacking our ecomony a couple of years ago. It seems to me that we may have a strong case for Treason joining the MSM and the Whitehouse today.

'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.'

Sadly, your implied review question here is complete nonsense as the current Law (which presumably you refer too and I have not read) and interpreataion and seemingly application thereof is correct.

Other than a learning application of current Law your suggestion at best is ridicoulous nonsense or much worse.

Talk about this kind of subject in the halls of government is nuts. And it is, in some ways, even more nuts for a guy like Clemons to be discussing this dispassionately instead of screaming from the rootops that our government is infested with dangerous, fascistic, sociopathic, right wing extremists.

It seems to me taking away one's citizenship is an extension of this idea that somehow the constitution and laws only apply to US citizens which is flat out bullshit. Seems to me you have even more options if one of those people happens to be a US citizen. Can't charge a foreigner with treason can ya? Nope.

I fear our political, economic and other elites are now so corrupt as to be beyond redemption. It is sad and, in a way, alarming. Time for a new New Deal that rearranges the power, wealth and other relationships in order to restore some balance in the direction our nation is taking.

Sounds like a very slippery slope to me. We're fighting the terrorists to impose our rule of law and our 'rights' on them remember?

Capture him, try him in court as a traitor and lock him up for life.

This idea of stripping Americans of their citizenship if we label them terrorists is WAY OVER THE TOP! After spending trillions of dollars, 5,000 American soldiers and probably 100,000 Iraqi and Afgani civilians we are worried about how to try a handful of Americans who have been caught in terror acvtivities????

Who the heck is setting priorities in the Pentagon these days? Whoever said this is a slippery slope is correct because with laws like this it won't take long before planning demonstrations will be labeled "terror".

I think even conservative Supreme Court won't go for this.

The law in question would allow for the loss of citizenship only after "due process of law" is followed, and it would seem that the accused would have the right to a trial by jury.

Even assuming that this would be a reasonable thing to do, why the hell is the military involved with it?

The job of the military is to do what they're told, not to make policy or law.

They come for them today and they'll come for us tomorrow....

The only reason to strip them of citizenship, is to strip them of their rights. What rights would those be?

However, let's say you are a mid-level officer engaged in a fire-fight with some "insurgents", and one of the enemy suddenly yells "I am an American citizen!" What do you do?

I think the way to win hearts and minds is to treat everyone with the same rights that you treat American citizens. If an American citizen starts shooting at the cops in my town, they will shoot back. If you capture them, you read them their rights, and throw them in jail. No torture.

What the constitution says about citizenship is:

he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. ...

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

These sentences imply that one is a citizen of the United States by virtue of being citizen of one of the several states.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President....

This implies that birth within the country (and, therefore, within a state) suffices to grant citizenship (natural born citizen can also be anyone born to citizenship by whatever rules regardless of location).

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. ... No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

These imply that there can be a way to gain citizenship other than by being born to citizenship.

There is no other place in the constitution where "citizen" is mentioned. While it may be possible to revoke post-birth citizenship or may be possible to accept resignation of citizenship for born citizens (uncertain), it would seem to be a poor reading of the constitution to permit revoking born citizenship.

I find this unthinkable and outrageous. I find it especially disgusting that this evidently coming from the Defense Department. Questions of this sort, to the degree they are addressed at all, properly are the jurisdiction of the Justice Department and the State Department (which is technically responsible for citizenship determinations).

That said, citizenship law is complex on many levels - those of use with dual citizenships must sometimes walk a careful line to avoid losing it. There is well established law about how this may happen, and it is more feasible than many people think.

The question of how an American can lose citizenship is explicitly addressed by Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481).

The US State Department website summarizes those provisions as follows:

Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:

1.) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);

2.) taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);

3.) entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);

4.) accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);

5.) formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);

6.) formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only under strict, narrow statutory conditions) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);

7.) conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html

The US generally tolerates someone doing #1, #2, and #4, as well as tolerating US citizens serving in foreign armies of non-hostile countries:

The Department has a uniform administrative standard of evidence based on the premise that U.S. citizens intend to retain United States citizenship when they obtain naturalization in a foreign state, subscribe to a declaration of allegiance to a foreign state, serve in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, or accept non-policy level employment with a foreign government.

Short of a treason conviction or going the army of a hostile foreign state, it is basically possible to "de-citizenize" someone only if they intend to give up their citizenship.

I don't think there has been any case law on removing the citizenship of someone serving in a non-state military force engaged in hostilities against the US. I imagine that some parts of the US court system (including 5 Justices on the Supreme Court) could be open to the idea that somehow joining a terrorist group is legally equivalent to joining the armed forces of a hostile state.

The Constitution provides that every person born in the United States is a citizen. It does not provide for a mechanism for taking away citizenship. (There may be somewhat less clarity for naturalized citizens, but there is no reason to believe that they would be treated differently.) The Constitution provides a definition of treason, but does not provide a method for taking citizenship even from traitors. Can't be done.

Aren't we forgeting the biggest action in US history of denying rights to citizens of the United States?

No one has mentioned the WW II government declaration as 'enemy aliens' and internment of all natural born or naturalized American citizens, men, women and children, of Japanese ancestry on the West Coast.

Many were thus confined while their young male relatives fought the Nazi's in Europe, where Mr. Hayakawa (D-Hi) lost an arm in combat.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt authorized the internment with Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942.....This power was used to declare that all people of Japanese ancestry were excluded from the entire Pacific coast, including all of California and most of Oregon and Washington, except for those in internment camps.[7] In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion orders....

You can always count on the Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution!

"serving in the armed forces of a foreign state if such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States"

First off by this wording I don't think it would apply to terrorists because technically they don't serve in the armed forces of any state.

Secondly, only totalitarian loving fascist thugs would ever even suggest this. First wendy davis posted the chilling news that the US government wants to target US citizens abroad for assassination...and now arbitrarily stripping US citizens of their citizenship? Pardon my language, but what the fuck is wrong with this country? Who spiked the water with the completely nucking futs tablets?

I can't believe they haven't already done this! When are they going to explore de-citizenship for Israeli spies?

In the case of his comments regarding the American citizen Anwar al-Alaqi -- whom officials in the American government have openly vowed to extra-judicially murder at their whim -- Mr Clemons needs to familiarize himself with the word "alleged" and the [formerly American] legal concept it represents: namely, "presumption of innocence." In other words, simply because a government official proclaims someone a "terrorist," does not make that person a terrorist, much less summarily and arbitrarily abrogate that citizen's rights to "life, liberty, or property without due process of law," et cetera, et cetera. For further, simply stated, clarification: see the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Mr Clemons very much needs to cease his credulous stenographic reiterations of leaked slurs against other persons (citizens or otherwise) by unnamed Pentagram (or "intelligence community") cowards and instead offer cautionary warnings of obvious career or institutional self-interest by those government employees who have so-far found him such a convenient tool for insidiously undermining the rule of Constitutional law in the United States, not to mention arbitrarily appropriating the lives, liberty, and property of others without even the pretense of Due Process.

I would go further in my exegesis of Mr Clemons' insipid worship of unaccountable government transgressions against the lives and rights of other persons, but I really can't do better than Glenn Greenwald's recent article on the subject: "Religious faith in government accusations," published by Salon.com (Saturday, Feb 13, 2010 08:14 EST). Mr Clemons, you really need to not only read this, but -- more importantly -- you need to act on it in a responsible manner. Start calling "bullshit" on those at the "highest levels" of our out-of-control Pentagram whenever any one of them even hints at telling American citizens or anyone else about "citizenship." These fuck-up-and-move-up incompetents couldn't finish a coherent sentence, let alone a real "war" against a real "country" declared by a real "Congress," et cetera, et cetera. Please visit the following link.

http://www.salon.com/news/terrorism/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/02/13/faith

I want to post a point of view that might aid some of you, that of someone who sees the fraudulent nature of the monetary system, as a non-US resident (I'm a proud Dutchman).

The practices of the American government, not it's people (who I simply adore) is putting a lot of stress on the view that my countrymen have of the United States. The inability to mobilize your people as you succesfully have in the past worries us, and serves to me and many with me as proof that your bastion of freedom is no longer that, but the exact opposite. The stranglehold that instiutions such as the Rothschilds and Rockefellers have on you has been tighter then one could possibly imagine since you've shed that influence and they recovered it through deceipts such as the Patriot Act and long before that the Federal Reserve Act. You the people, who I've met in great numbers on trips and in my own country, still have traces of that power left, but you're affraid to use it, so it seems to me. The only way out now is the revolutionary road, which will cause millions of deaths, but will result in the ultimate happiness of millions.

I hope everything I just said is of any help to any one, and wish you luck with your hardships ahead, for we have just hit the tip of the iceberg.

I would expect that a judiciary body would find that the U.S. Constitution *protects* those American citizens who are Native-born, together with those of its specialized category of 'Natural-born,' as being innately Sovereign over the Federal Government, losing a measure of their liberties only upon conviction by jury trial of Treason and precipitating severe punishment.

The only citizenship-stripping which already finds precedent appears to be in the case of Naturalized immigrants who, having been found guilty in a jury trial of treasonous criminal activity, can not only be subject to severe punishment but also stand to forfeit their citizenship status that had been previously granted through the process of Naturalization (14th Amendment). But one's Native-born and its specialized category of 'Natural-born' citizenship status are not dependent upon the 14th Amendment.

It seems to me that this "exploration" by the tyrannous Neo-cons amounts to yet another attempt to usher in a Police State, to subvert the Republic. Apparently the Pentagon wants to usher in a Police State, as in TOTALITARIANISM.

It's high time our elected representatives REPRESENT their constituent CITIZENS and set the Pentagon straight.

Thanks for providing this information. It's quite informative and helpful. Most especially to those notices users. Two thumbs up for the contributor.
Divorce Attorneys New York City

It's quite informative and helpful. Most especially to those notices users. Two thumbs up for the contributor.
desperate wives

Most especially to those notices users. Two thumbs up for the contributor.
sports management degree

Internet digital camera traffic monitoring agency comScore shows that Microsoft`s share on American intellectual mobile phone market fell again. It has already fallen by 4 percentage points since last December, the newest data is only 15%. Though the ipad case share of google is not inferior to microsoft, according to degrees in criminal justice

I adore what you have got right here. You make it entertaining and you still manage to keep it smart. This is truly a great blog thanks for sharing
Dogs for Sale

I choose my friends for their good looks, my acquaintances for their good characters, and my enemies for their intellects. A man cannot be too careful in the choice of his enemies. auto insurance quotes online Oscar Wilde

A nation which has forgotten the quality of courage which in the past has been brought to public life is not as likely to insist upon or regard that quality in its chosen leaders today - and in fact we have forgotten. online games to play for free John F. Kennedy imobiliare

Thanks for sharing. i really appreciate it that you shared with us such a informative post..
Bachelors degree associate degree

I am just now working on, and i am sure this will help me a lot..and I have been looking for such information since from few days....Thanks!!!
auto insurance companies

We've got this totally backwards; this is a chance for the United States to show the contrast between the majesty of justice being done and some despicable sadists with the delusion that they can remake the world by murdering innocents.
penny auctions

The something or another person that the sentence is about is named the topic from the sentence. From your blog, I see that, and analyze some thing I'd like. Thanks for sharing.
riverside county lawyer

From your blog, I see that, and analyze some thing I'd like. Thanks for sharing.
NY bankruptcy attorney

I really liked the post and great tips..even I also think that hard work is the most important aspect of getting success keep it up :)

hotell i Barcelona centralt

Volokh quote, the terrorist would have to be "serving in the armed forces of a foreign state". Isn't the whole rationale for denying the accused terrorist things like Geneva Convention protections,
motorcycle vest

This is good, since a tour guide will readily explain, give out facts and figures and even tell you a funny story or two about the site that you are visiting.
beads

I also think that hard work is the most important aspect of getting success keep it up :)
Costume Wigs

Thanks. That’s great info for a newbie like me. I even like how you segmented your blog clearly… I’m still trying to get mine that focused. I guess it’s all a work in progress.
snow cone syrup

Are you willing to get resume, that conform the field of science you expect?.
compare car insuranceYou can rely on our resume writers, as you count on yourself. Thanks because it’s the useful fact