Oh cool, the US assassinated a citizen without a trial or anything

Status
Not open for further replies.
What powers does the president have to revoke the citizenship of a person, or to target them, given the relatively recent patriot/terrorist acts that have been passed and updated over the last few decades?
There is no method in which US citizenship can be revoked if it was obtained by jus solia. However, there are several methods to take it from people who've moved here and become citizens.

Involuntarily Losing Your US Citizenship (Denaturalization)

Both the State Department and the USCIS have specfic laws and regulations they must follow in determining whether someone’s US citizenship should be taken away.

1. Convicted For An Act Of Treason Against The United States

Treason is a serious crime, and the Constitution defines the requirements for convicting someone of treason. Treason is waging a violent war against the United States in cooperation with a foreign country or any organized group. It includes assisting or aiding any foreign country or organization in taking over or destroying this country including abolishing the Constitution. Treason also consists of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the US government or of betraying our government into the hands of a foreign power. If you are caught and convicted of treason, you can pretty much count on losing your US citizenship as well as serving lots of jail time.

2. Holding A Policy Level Position In A Foreign Country

If you become an elected official or hold a policy-level position (like an ambassador, cabinet minister, or any high level administrative position where you make government policy) in your native country or a foreign country, you run the risk of losing your US citizenship. On the other hand, if you hold a non-policy level job like working in your native country’s embassy or working for your native country’s government in an advisory or purely administrative capacity, you run little risk of jeopardizing your US citizenship. For further information, see the State Department’s circular: ADVICE ABOUT POSSIBLE LOSS OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND SEEKING PUBLIC OFFICE IN A FOREIGN STATE.

3. Serving In Your Native Country’s Armed Forces If That Country Is Engaged In Hostilities Or At War With The United States

If your native country is engaged in hostile actions or is at war with America you need to be extremely careful. The US government will attempt to take away your US citizenship if they find out you are either aiding or serving in your native country’s armed forces in any capacity. Alternatively, the US government could try to nail you with a treason conviction and then strip you of your US citizenship.

4. Serving In Your Native Country’s Armed Forces As An Officer Or A Non-Commissioned Officer

If your native country is not at war with or engaged in hostilities towards the US, then serving in your native country’s armed forces is OK as long as you are not an officer or non-commissioned officer (usually the rank of sergeant or above). Serving as a civilian worker in your native country’s armed forces, or serving as an enlisted man or women are generally acceptable. For further information, see the State Department’s circular: ADVICE ABOUT POSSIBLE LOSS OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND FOREIGN MILITARY SERVICE.

The State Department has set several administrative guidelines for dual citizens to follow in order to avoid losing their US citizenship ( ADVICE ABOUT POSSIBLE LOSS OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND DUAL NATIONALITY ). The four reasons for losing US citizenship cited above were taken from these guidelines. We strongly suggest that you carefully review these guidelines if you are planning on maintaining dual citizenship. As you review the guidelines keep in mind that the State Department is primarily referring to native-born US citizens who become dual citizens by being naturalized in another foreign country. The guidelines are also applicable to naturalized US citizens who maintain their original citizenship.

5. Lying To The USCIS During The Naturalization Process

If you deliberately withheld information from or misrepresented information given to the USCIS or INS when filing your N-400, the USCIS may cancel your Certificate of Naturalization and revoke your US citizenship. This includes withholding information and misrepresenting yourself during your naturalization interview or oath ceremony. If your Certificate of Naturalization is cancelled and your US citizenship revoked, you may also find yourself facing criminal prosecution as well as deportation proceedings.

For example, if you lived outside the country for four months and deliberately omitted this absence from your N-400 and the USCIS finds out about it after you’re naturalized, they could move to have your Certificate of Naturalization cancelled. All they would need to show is that your absence would have disqualifed you from or materially affected your naturalization due to the “physical presence in the United States” requirement for naturalization applicants.

You may also lose your US citizenship if you withheld information or misled the USCIS or INS when becoming a permanent resident. If within five years of becoming a permanent resident, the USCIS finds out that you withheld information from them or misled them in order to obtain your green card, the USCIS may also strip you of your US citizenship. Of course, after five years from becoming a permanent resident, the only way the USCIS would be able to take away your US citizenship would be if you withheld or misrepresented yourself during the naturalization process.

The above examples illustrates why you need to be both truthful and accurate when filing for naturalization and permanent residency. You don’t want to give the USCIS any ammunition they could use against you later if they or someone else (like a politician or government bureaucrat) is looking for any means to get rid of you.

6. Refusal To Testify Before Congress About Your Subversive Activities

We included this legal provision for completeness. If you refuse to testify before Congress within ten years of being naturalized regarding your involvement in any subversive activities, the Attorney General can move to have your US citizenship revoked [ 8 USC 1451(a) ]. Subversive activities are not well defined but include activities such as spying, belonging to a terrorist or other organization wanting to overthrow the US, or other activities aimed at undermining our government [50 USC 783 & 843, 18 USC Ch. 115]. Of course, if you do testify before Congress about your subversive activities, you may still lose your citizenship if your testimony is later used to convict you of treason.
The only way for someone born in the US to lose their citizenship is via an official act of renouncing it.
 
Commit treason? Burn for it. Collaborate with a traitor? Burn for it. Assist knowingly in the spread of treason? Burn for it. Pretty straight forward. Don't bother playing the "What's considered treason?" game either. The difference between speaking out against what you consider injustices and joining up with known terrorists is easy to figure out.
 
There is the possibility that an Undesireable may move to keep himself surrounded with people selected just to prevent this sort of thing (audience with The Pope, traveling with an elementary school soccer team's bus, whatever). I would propose that any such deaths should be credited to the machinations of the Undesireable rather than the fault of the entity who pulls that final trigger.

--Patrick
 

GasBandit

Staff member
The place where we differ seems to be that in your ideal world, the people are either dead or a lot less stupid than they are in reality.
Not protecting people from the (possibly fatal) consequences of their own stupidity is a cornerstone of my perfect world, so... yes, I guess you're right. They ARE either dead or a lot less stupid.
Added at: 16:56
Commit treason? Burn for it. Collaborate with a traitor? Burn for it. Assist knowingly in the spread of treason? Burn for it. Pretty straight forward.


I think I dislike you slightly less intensely.
 
The difference between speaking out against what you consider injustices and joining up with known terrorists is easy to figure out.
Funny thing about treason is that you have to be convicted of it. The whole point of our laws about treason is so that the US government cannot unilaterally declare someone a traitor.

And since we've danced around it in this thread but haven't really talked about it yet, there's a huge damn difference between someone dying on a battlefield or resisting arrest, and being killed by Predator strike in a car in a country with whom we are not at war.
 
C

Chibibar

Funny thing about treason is that you have to be convicted of it. The whole point of our laws about treason is so that the US government cannot unilaterally declare someone a traitor.

And since we've danced around it in this thread but haven't really talked about it yet, there's a huge damn difference between someone dying on a battlefield or resisting arrest, and being killed by Predator strike in a car in a country with whom we are not at war.
I agree. I think the government declare "war against terror" to be broad. They are taking out known al qaida members so the question is that, can the government do that? what if the Yeman's government said it was ok?

It is a slippery slope the world is getting into.
 
I'm not championing a member of Al-Queda as a freedom fighter. I just don't like the idea that the government can straight up kill a citizen of the US without proving their guilt in a court of law.

For that matter, I don't think they SHOULD kill a citizen no matter how much they prove the guilt, but this is demonstrably worse.
What planet do you live on? Shit like this has gone on for ... like forever.
 
What planet do you live on? Shit like this has gone on for ... like forever.
And the reason to accept it is...?

of course they seem to be reticent about actually showing the proof of their statements right now.
This is the whole problem. After "...but, the WMDs!!" I'd have thought that we'd all grown out of taking statements claiming, but not establishing, proof at face value.

If the proof was so air-tight, trial-by-abstentia seems a perfectly good way to proceed.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Just goes to further illustrate that, abarring some very special exceptions, the most deciding factor in who is outraged by what is not the what is to be outraged at, but who's in charge when the what is perpetrated.
 

fade

Staff member
If you're talking about this thread, and if I know anything about this forum, it sure seems like there are no party lines here.
 
And the reason to accept it is...?

This is the whole problem. After "...but, the WMDs!!" I'd have thought that we'd all grown out of taking statements claiming, but not establishing, proof at face value.

If the proof was so air-tight, trial-by-abstentia seems a perfectly good way to proceed.
Charlie doesn't really car about al-Awlaki, or people being murdered overseas. He's generally offended to be offended. Sorry, no, I don't agree with the way shit went down. My response was more a response to Charlies' impression that this is the first time something like this has happened.
 
You guys find Charlie so objectionable that you can't even give him the benefit of the doubt in a thread where he hasn't done anything yet?

Really?

I'm thinking you guys need to man up and get some therapy. :awesome:
 
So if a guy came into your store, and stole the same item, 30x in a row. On his 31st visit, would you just give him the benefit of the doubt and leave him be? He purposelly creates these threads to garner up troll food. He does it well, and I've gone from disliking it, to enjoying the show.
 
B

Biannoshufu

You guys find Charlie so objectionable that you can't even give him the benefit of the doubt in a thread where he hasn't done anything yet?

Really?

I'm thinking you guys need to man up and get some therapy. :awesome:
 
If my government is gonna kill someone, I'd at least hope they bother to prove their reasons beyond a shadow of a doubt. This is something I feel strongly about. I worry what President Rick Perry would deem a terrorist organization. I wouldn't post a thread if I didn't care about this, and it didn't make me feel less safe.
 
Charlie, I think I can sum up how you feel with a Loreena McKinnett song:

The thundering waves are calling me home to you
The pounding sea is calling me home to you.

On a dark new year's night
On the west coast of Clare
I heard your voice singing
Your eyes danced the song
Your hands played the tune
T'was a vision before me.

We left the music behind and the dance carried on
As we stole away to the seashore
We smelt the brine, felt the wind in our hair
And with sadness you paused.

Suddenly I knew that you'd have to go
My work was not yours, your eyes told me so
Yet it was there I felt the crossroads of time
And I wondered why.

As we cast our gaze on the tumbling sea
A vision came o'er me
Of thundering hooves and beating wings
In clouds above.

As you turned to go I heard you call my name.
You were like a bird in a cage, spreading its
Wings to fly
'The old ways are lost' you sang as you flew
And I wondered why.
 
So if a guy came into your store, and stole the same item, 30x in a row. On his 31st visit, would you just give him the benefit of the doubt and leave him be? He purposelly creates these threads to garner up troll food. He does it well, and I've gone from disliking it, to enjoying the show.
That doesn't even make any sense. A web-forum isn't a store. If it was, we'd all have been banned for not buying anything.
 
That doesn't even make any sense. A web-forum isn't a store. If it was, we'd all have been banned for not buying anything.
If you really can't get what I mean by that because of the location I chose, I can't help you. My point was clear. Cry troll enough times, and people won't believe anything that comes out of your text. He's earned the reputation, which he loves having, so why are you white knighting someone who's openly admitted to why he posts the way he does?
 
I actually believe that. I know you do. Hence why I enjoy the show. You'll always post in a thread/create a thread that will stir up a shit-storm because you know for a fact your views will be the minority vs mass majority. Granted, they're your real views, but the result is still the same. For that, I say kudos and never stop! :D
Added at: 18:19
It's very much the same as how I used to post years ago about violence, gore, etc. I revel in it, I love it, it's not a "show" or "persona", it's honest and what I feel deep inside. Difference between us was that I posted it for the intent of relieving my pent up emotions/opinions that aren't allowed anywherelse vs getting a rise/gettingpeopletothink/troll. Didn't stop people from constantly calling me a "fake" a "troll" or an attention whore. *shrug* be yourself. I am, and I love it.
 
I post things in an antagonistic way on purpose to get a response/make people think/"troll", bla bla bla.
And then cry when people just get pissed at you because you were antagonizing them. It's not a way to incite debate--it's childish. You are a whiny child waving your arms around and screaming, being abrasive to get attention. For a grown adult, that's pathetic.
 

fade

Staff member
I post things in an antagonistic way on purpose to get a response/make people think/"troll", bla bla bla. That doesn't mean I don't believe them.
But as I said before, that doesn't make people think. It makes them ally against you, even if they would agree with you under other circumstances. There is quite the body of literature out there about precisely this thing, and even quite a few old adages.
 
But as I said before, that doesn't make people think. It makes them ally against you, even if they would agree with you under other circumstances. There is quite the body of literature out there about precisely this thing, and even quite a few old adages.
Trouble is, Charlie doesn't understand how people work emotionally, mentally, anything; he just knows them as words and names. I'm starting to wonder if he does have some severe form of Aspberger's, and not the entertaining kind like on Community.
 
If you really can't get what I mean by that because of the location I chose, I can't help you. My point was clear.
Then don't make analogies that don't work. Just be clear. Heck, going by your example, this is his store. In Dave's shopping mall. So unless Dave intends to ban him from posting or starting threads, I fail to see why you guys are somehow validated by coming into his thread and feeding his suspected trolldom when you could just as easily ignore the whole thing (besides you, Shegs, as you've stated many times that your counter-trolling is for fun, so all's fair, I guess).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top