USA Patriot Act: The Sequel - Page 2

Ned · February 7, 2003, 23:28

IIRC, Nazi's caught in the US were stripped of their citizenship involuntarily.

Right?

Velociryx · February 7, 2003, 23:32

Dunno Ned....but from my understanding of the whole "Patriot" act, pretty much anybody could be defined as belong to a terrorist organization. Hell, I'd imagine they could interpret it so that my grandmother's sewing circle could be seen as a "terrorist" outfit.

They:
a) Meet behind closed doors
b) Are very secretive about what they discuss in the "inner sanctum"
c) Have a secret handshake.

I'm all for taking resonable precautions but this.....this crosses the line.

Big time.

-=Vel=-

DuncanK · February 7, 2003, 23:40

Yeah,

But the people who support this aren't in much danger of having their citizenship stripped. Only groups, while not terrorists, who are considered by the majority as unamerican are in danger.

mrmitchell · February 7, 2003, 23:43

call out the Unamerican Activities Commitee!

Let's get this witch hunt goin!

DuncanK · February 7, 2003, 23:53

Nixon, is that you? I thought you were dead.

Velociryx · February 7, 2003, 23:54

Yeah....and let me guess, we'll all get to vote on exactly what those groups are?

No....what's gonna happen IF they pass this garbage, we'll have an appointed cabinet level (non-elected) guy deciding which groups are "unamerican."

That's all well and good in a perfect world, but this administration is far from that.

Wouldn't surprise me much if they went after the freakin' boy scouts.....

-=Vel=-

Velociryx · February 7, 2003, 23:58

Question: Would YOU like the thought of, say...Ashcroft handing down edicts about what groups in this country are "unamerican." ARGH! This ticks me off almost more than I can describe!

-=Vel=-

DuncanK · February 8, 2003, 00:10

Well you will have people turning in their neighbors for being terrorists because their neighbors dont mow their lawn. That's the part that really sucks.

Velociryx · February 8, 2003, 00:11

WhoooHoooo! "One good turn-in deserves another" eh? Gooooood slogan....

GAHHHH! The more I think about this, the more savagely ticked off I get.

-=Vel=-

DuncanK · February 8, 2003, 00:46

DuncanK · February 8, 2003, 00:58

There is a show on PBS right now about this.

DuncanK · February 8, 2003, 01:09

The most shocking thing is they are waiting to put this through until the war starts. OMG, is this the real reason for the war?

Velociryx · February 8, 2003, 01:10

Our president (and I refuse to even capitalize the title in reference to this individual) is insane.

-=Vel=-

DuncanK · February 8, 2003, 01:20

I just told my wife she better start dressing like an American

Velociryx · February 8, 2003, 01:24

I just read the transcript of the interview. I can't believe this discussion is even occuring on American soil.

The terrorists have just won.

If THIS is what the president believes is called for in order to prosecute the "War on Terror" then terror has already arrived on our doorstep, and it is our own government that we should be terrified of, because it is far worse, and far more insidious than anything OBL could ever throw our way.

-=Vel=-

DuncanK · February 8, 2003, 01:24

According to NOW, the show on PBS I just watched, the DoJ drafted this potential law and was keeping it a secret. They were going to keep it secret until the most favorable political climate.*shivers*

edit: It leaked out, thanx to some great unknown American

Andrew1999 · February 8, 2003, 01:24

Here is a list of the ways you can currently lose your US citizenship. This is from the State Department Website :

Quote:

POTENTIALLY EXPATRIATING STATUTES
Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain 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) a declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);

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

(6) formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only "in time of war") (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);

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

It looks like the various "American Taliban" could be stripped of their citizenship for serving in a hostile army, but I haven't heard of anything like that happening. I don't know what difference it would make anyway, the administration seems to be making it up as they go along.

Velociryx · February 8, 2003, 01:34

Here's a lovely snippet from the interview:

MOYERS: The House Judiciary Committee actually asked the FBI a few months ago how it has used the new powers that had been given to it under the Patriot Act. And the Justice department said, "We can't tell you that information, it's classified."

And this prompted then-Congressman then Bob Barr, from Georgia, another conservative, by the way, he said the attitude of the Justice Department seems to be that even Congress isn't entitled to know how they are using the authority that Congress gave them.

LEWIS: It's incredible. I mean, if Congress doesn't have oversight over the Justice Department and these programs, who does? That's how it's supposed to work in our constitution and in our set up for government.

-=Vel=-

Mr. President · February 8, 2003, 01:52

I think Western civilization is in a war and it needs to be defended mercilessly.

But what would Pericles say about this?

Pekka · February 8, 2003, 01:54

Sounds pretty hardcore. Where can I find this interview?

GeneralTacticus · February 8, 2003, 01:56

Here:

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/tr...pt_lewis2.html

Velociryx · February 8, 2003, 01:57

Right here, Pekka....and I'm posting the full text too....too important to miss (in case some nutjob in the White House pulls it later for reasons of "national security" or some tripe!)

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/lewis.html

-=Vel=-

Velociryx · February 8, 2003, 01:58

Beat me, Gen....and I'll spare 'poly and post it on my own site....

D@MN them!

-=Vel=-

Pekka · February 8, 2003, 02:01

Fast work guys! Thanks Velociryx and GeneralTacticus.

Velociryx · February 8, 2003, 02:04

My pleasure....believe me, my pleasure.

And Mr. President....I agree. This isn't an ordinary piece of legislation this is....a siege.

-=Vel=-

Ramo · February 8, 2003, 02:53

Quote:

Congress would never pass this, and even if they did, such a thing would be blatantly unconstitutional.

That didn't stop the passage of the Patriot Act. I wonder what they'll call it this time? "Pass-This-Or-Else-You're-a-Member-of-al-Qaeda Act?"

Ramo · February 8, 2003, 02:56

didn't realize this was the initally linked article.

Ramo · February 8, 2003, 03:01

This is my favorite provision (

):

Quote:

Section 405, “Presumption for Pretrial Detention in Cases Involving Terrorism”: While many people charged with drug offenses punishable by prison terms of 10 years or more are held before their trial without bail, this provision would create a comparable statute for those suspected of terrorist activity.

The Mad Monk · February 8, 2003, 03:08

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
Yeah,

But the people who support this aren't in much danger of having their citizenship stripped. Only groups, while not terrorists, who are considered by the majority as unamerican are in danger.

DuncanK, you've seen my posts, you know where I stand.

Your phrasing just scared the **** outta me.

Imran Siddiqui · February 8, 2003, 03:15

Quote:

The fact is that they voted for Bush. So that should show that constitutional rights are not their first concern.

Nope, they voted that the recount violated Equal Protection (which interestingly was a 7-2 decision, but then 2 Democrats decided to get partisan and decided Equal Protection didn't matter).

Quote:

IIRC, Nazi's caught in the US were stripped of their citizenship involuntarily.

Yes. Ex parte Quirin

I don't really see the problem in this legislation. We have this stuff on the books already for other offenses. Basically, this is nothing new. I mean, if you are funding Al Queda groups, I think you've basically given up your citizenship.