Terror Bill Would Expatriate U.S. Citizens (Updated)
[Guest post by DRJ]
A bill filed in the Senate would allow the government to revoke the citizenship of Americans who support terrorism:
“Lieberman offered the legislation today along with Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., and Reps. Jason Altmire, D-Penn., and Charlie Dent, R-Penn, which would add to the existing federal statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1481, which identifies seven categories of actions for which U.S. citizens lose their citizenship. The legislation, called the Terrorist Expatriation Act, would authorize the State Department to revoke the citizenship of any U.S. national who provides material support or resources to a Foreign Terrorist Organization or who engages in or supports hostilities against the United States or its allies.
In a speech, Lieberman said that Times Square suspect Faisal Shahzad “is just the latest in a growing and accelerating line of cases where U.S. Citizens have supported or fought for al-Qaeda or affiliated terrorist organizations against the United States… With increasing frequency, U.S. Citizens like Nidal Hassan, Abdul Hakim Muhammad, or Faisal Shahzad, who are inspired or recruited by violent Islamist ideology plan and execute attacks right here in the United States.”
Lieberman, the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee said that it “has become a strategy of al-Qaeda and other Islamist terrorist groups over the past couple of years to recruit U.S. citizens who can train overseas and then use their American passports to re-enter the U.S. for the purposes of planning and carrying out attacks against us. …The legislation we are introducing today will help take that ability away from the terrorists. For example, if a U.S. citizen travels to Somalia to train with and fight for al-Shabaab – as more than 20 young men have done over the past several years – the State Department will now have the authority to revoke their citizenship so that they cannot return here to carry out an attack. If, in some way, they do, and are then captured, they will not enjoy the rights and privileges of American citizenship in the legal proceedings against them.”
Press Secretary Robert Gibbs describes this as a bill to revoke the citizenship of suspected terrorists but that appears to be a misstatement. The text of the bill states the expatriation provisions apply to those who are:
“(8)(A) providing material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization;
(B) engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States; or
(C) engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against any country or armed force that is—
(i) directly engaged along with the United States in hostilities engaged in by the United
States; or(ii) providing direct operational support to the United States in hostilities engaged in by the United States;”
Gibbs said that although his fellow workers at the White House did not support the bill, no one enumerated why. Maybe that’s because it’s provocative … or maybe it’s because they haven’t read it.
— DRJ
UPDATE 5/7/2010 — Senator Lieberman explains the law:
“In 1940, Congress passed a law that identifies several categories of acts that can be grounds for the Department of State to revoke an American’s citizenship. As the statute currently stands, it contains seven categories of expatriating acts. One of those acts is the [quote] “entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States” [unquote]. That law, 8 USC Section 1481, was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in 1980 in a case called Vance v. Terrazas.
During WWII, this law had been applied to a U.S. citizen who voluntarily joined the German or Japanese armies to fight against our troops in Europe or the Pacific. I believe it would have been evident to all that a U.S. citizen who took up arms against the United States during WWII had no interest in being a citizen of our country any longer – and should not be.
The war we are fighting today against Islamist terrorists is obviously not like WWII. Our enemies today are stateless actors who don’t wear uniforms and who plot attacks against Americans abroad and here in the United States, specifically targeting civilians in violation of the laws of war. But, our enemies – foreign terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda or the Taliban – are just as committed to attacking America and killing Americans as the Germans and Japanese were during WWII.
The bill we are introducing today – the Terrorist Expatriation Act – updates the 1940 law to account for the enemy we are fighting today.
Under the Terrorist Expatriation Act, the State Department will now also be able to revoke the citizenship of an American citizen who affiliates with a Foreign Terrorist Organization or who fights against our country. Foreign Terrorist Organizations, as you are likely aware, are also designated by the State Department.
The same due process that applies to the existing statute will apply to those whose citizenship is revoked under our proposed amendment to the law. The State Department will make an administrative determination that a U.S. Citizen has indicated an intent to renounce their citizenship by supporting an FTO. That individual will then have the right to appeal that determination within the State Department and, then, to a federal district court.”
as soon as they figure out they can twist this to use against TEA Party protesters, look for it to get the fast track.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 5/6/2010 @ 10:01 pmForgive me for being dense, but if we revoke their citizenship and then they sneak back in, will they be eligible for amnesty 10 years down the road? Will it be “profiling” to ask them to show ID? Will LA’s Special Order 40 apply to them?
JVW (bf4fc7) — 5/6/2010 @ 10:02 pmAny thoughts on the motivation for this Act?
I think one motivation could be that the Senators are concerned American citizens will be found guilty of terror-related crimes, sentenced to prison, and someday released after they have served their sentences. This let’s the government revoke the citizenship of persons considered to be continuing threats, although I’m not sure where we could deport them to.
Another possibility is that the existence of the law could be used as a bargaining chip by the prosecution in terror-related cases. Thus, a prosecutor could tell a suspect that if he cooperates, the prosecutor will urge the government not to seek to revoke his citizenship if there is a conviction.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 5/6/2010 @ 10:39 pmI suppose you’re right, DRJ, but as you point out I don’t see where exactly we would be releasing a expatriated terrorist to. Does North Korea need a bunch of malignant westerners? I mean, come on, the Ivy League only has so many tenure-track positions.
JVW (bf4fc7) — 5/6/2010 @ 11:21 pmApparently we didn’t have sufficient reason to arrest or closely monitor Shahzad when he returned from Pakistan, but is Lieberman saying that nevertheless we would have had enough evidence to revoke Shahzad’s citizenship while he was still abroad?
Nels (3e56d7) — 5/6/2010 @ 11:39 pmNels,
As I read the proposed bill, it applies to citizens who are terrorists or who supported terrorism, i.e., to people who have been convicted of terror-related offenses. In other words, it would apply to Shahzad if he is convicted. [EDIT: Close but not exactly. See the Update — DRJ.]
JVW,
It does seem hard to imagine but other nations are still taking GTMO detainees, even in cases there is no relationship between the detainee and that nation. Thus, other nations might be similarly convinced, especially if the American citizen is like Shahzad and has ties to another nation.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 5/6/2010 @ 11:48 pmYou think this would be less controversial than deporting illegal immigrants which the left gets the vapors over and we can’t get right anyway, but apparently they’ve brought out the fainting couches for this bill.
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 5/7/2010 @ 12:02 amSo, they’re announcing that you can now be excommunicated for actions against the church of America?
That seems a bit silly.
Don’t get me wrong, I think that this is clearly treason. I think it should be treated as such, and the individuals like Faisal should be prosecuted as traitors and, if such is the standard sentence, lined up against a wall and shot.
I don’t see how excommunicating them is a positive action. It just makes for some idiotic protest movement to form around the “martyred victims” of this “heinous law“.
And if you imagine the libtards are going to treat them as anything else, you’re smoking crack. One need only look at Tookie Williams and Roman Polanski to grasp that they cannot (or will not) subscribe to the idea of limitable atonement.
IgotBupkis (79d71d) — 5/7/2010 @ 12:34 am> I mean, come on, the Ivy League only has so many tenure-track positions.
Not to worry, I’m sure that there are many, many potential slots which can be opened up at the University of Illinois at Chicago and at Northwestern University, n’est-ce pas?
IgotBupkis (79d71d) — 5/7/2010 @ 12:40 amBupkis:
It’s more appropriate to hang them.
Dr. K (5eb9c8) — 5/7/2010 @ 2:41 amPlease explain. If we are extending all the rights of being a citizen of the USA to known terrorists captured on foreign soil, wearing no uniform, connected to no country, killing our soldiers…..what difference will it make stripping someone of their citizenship?
J (2946f2) — 5/7/2010 @ 5:30 amThere’s a whole raft of cases from Nikishima v. Dulles, to Vance v. Terraza that support this course of action
ian cormac (865b4a) — 5/7/2010 @ 5:50 amThe leftist hyperventilating over this proposed bill was almost as bad, and dishonest, as the AZ law.
JD (0f9c01) — 5/7/2010 @ 7:14 amLeftists seem to think there is no value to American citizenship, anyway.
John Walker Lindh will someday walk free among us. Eventually Adam Gadhan will be (or is?) caught. This naturalized Times Square bomber. There might be a few more overseas. Lawyer Lynne Stewart knowingly broke the law to help her terrorist clients.
If this can PREVENT somebody from knowingly consorting and aiding terrorists, I am all for the deterrent. If it doesn’t deter, then the person doesn’t value U.S. citizenship anyway. I like it.
TimesDisliker (48410b) — 5/7/2010 @ 9:06 amIt does seem hard to imagine but other nations are still taking GTMO detainees, even in cases there is no relationship between the detainee and that nation
Has there been any investigation of whether there is some correlation between our planting GITMO alumni in a particular country and a corresponding increase of U.S. foreign aid to that country? I am guessing that our expatriated terrorists arrive in their new homeland with a nice dowry courtesy of Uncle Sam.
JVW (b70198) — 5/7/2010 @ 10:11 am“If this can PREVENT somebody from knowingly consorting and aiding terrorists, I am all for the deterrent. If it doesn’t deter, then the person doesn’t value U.S. citizenship anyway. I like it.”
TimesDisliker, you seriously want the govt to be able to revoke citizenship of anybody they damn well please? The govt can define a terrorist as anyone they like, including you or me.
I thought conservatives favored limited govt, especially after all the talk about Obama will be coming for us next.’
This scares the hell out of me and every citizen of the US should oppose it in its current form.
JEA (0ccd61) — 5/7/2010 @ 12:18 pmDaH over at BigLizards has a good take on this question re the Times Square Bomber.
AD - RtR/OS! (044556) — 5/7/2010 @ 12:33 pm“Robert Gibbs describes this as a bill to revoke the citizenship of suspected terrorists but that appears to be a misstatement. ”
It doesn’t say it is only after a conviction. Thus ‘suspected.’
imdw (143bb3) — 5/7/2010 @ 1:16 pmI don’t understand the need to strip them of their citizenship. It seems to me that, if we are going to consider terrorism to be an act of war, and we should, then the same elements could also lead to a conviction for treason.
The proposed law says this:
The Constitution says this:
Would the sticking point be that the Constitution requires two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court?
Personally, I’d much prefer that we treat a man such as Shahzad as exactly what he is; a traitor to his adopted country.
Steve (9a21f4) — 5/7/2010 @ 2:10 pmSteve had a better analysis than mine. Here’s Lieberman’s explanation:
I’m also updating the post to add this information.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 5/7/2010 @ 2:16 pm16. TimesDisliker, you seriously want the govt to be able to revoke citizenship of anybody they damn well please? Comment by JEA — 5/7/2010
Yes, that is exactly what I want, you understand me perfectly.
*sarcasm off*The person has to be convicted by a jury of their peers. John Walker Lindh wasn’t convicted of treason. Timothy McVeigh wasn’t. Citizenship allows protections for the subjects we are discussing, convicted of consorting or aiding terrorists. The ‘slippery slope’ argument is goes nowhere when you consider it involves a jury of 12.
TimesDisliker (5cf8c4) — 5/7/2010 @ 2:51 pmI’d be a little less upset if the “bad associate” was declared some period of time (a year?) before the association began, and a conviction by 12 of a jury of 12 would be required of a criminal act, and the citizen stripping would be an additional sentence requiring the 12, and the judge, to agree (and this to be a secret ballot, too, after all were convinced that deliberations were ended.) None of that is going to happen, of course.
htom (412a17) — 5/7/2010 @ 3:25 pmIt used to be, long ago, that “felons” were people who were put outside the walls and denied their protection, or something like that. This is something like that.
htom (412a17) — 5/7/2010 @ 3:25 pmHey, it looks like imdw is back. Was there ever a an apology from that troll?
Eric Blair (95cfa5) — 5/7/2010 @ 4:25 pm