Stripping an American terrorist of citizenship
The Lieberman proposal to strip terrorists who are Americans of citizenship rights has a great many critics. That is not surprising, since the idea appears at first glance to be a fairly radical one.
Here’s a typical critique, taken from our very own comments section:
[Shahzad] is an American citizen, and he was caught on American soil (i.e. not taken as a prisoner on a foreign battlefield, like John Walker Lindh.) That means, regretfully, he deserves the full panoply of rights we would extend to any other American citizen suspected of committing a crime. To me, that’s a bright line that you don’t want to mess with.
That argument makes sense—except for one thing: that bright line has already been messed with. The relevant statute is quite explicit about the conditions under which an American may lose his or her citizenship, and you will see if you study it that the Lieberman suggestion could easily be considered a logical extension of the older statute to the present circumstances of a terror war.
I can’t find a date for when the stature was passed, but it appears to have been quite some time ago, since the last section (on page 2 of the link) involves a 1978 repeal of a certain rule that had been in place since 1952. There are quite a few conditions currently listed that would cause forfeiture of citizenship; some of them having to do with formal renunciation by the party involved, and/or accepting posts in foreign governments. The most relevant sections for our purposes, however, are the following:
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or…(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Lieberman is apparently proposing that the act be amended in order to encompass the modern realities of terrorism and jihad. One may certainly disagree with his suggestion, but not on the grounds that this represents something completely new and different.
Currently, it’s the State Department that makes decisions as to whether to attempt to apply the law already on the books in any individual case. The same would be true with the proposed Lieberman extension. Here’s more:
You would still have the right to contest this in court. And if you did, the burden of proof would be on State — not on you — to persuade the court that your involvement with a terror organization is sufficient to justify taking away your citizen status.
It doesn’t seem all that revolutionary to me. If a person is opposed to Lieberman’s idea, perhaps he/she ought to oppose the earlier manifestation of the statute as well. Should it make any difference if a person joins the regular military of an enemy versus a group such as al Qaeda? In my opinion, it should not.
[ADDENDUM: The original statute is from the 1940’s. The Greatest Generation.]
I think we’d all agree that taking away any American’s citizenship is a profoundly serious undertaking. The potential for abuse and injustice alone makes it so.
Regardless of precedent or prior law, it seems to me that the very least that should be involved in cases of terrorism is that US citizenship could only be revoked after having been convicted of active involvement in terrorism and in a civilian trial.
Furthermore, should they appeal and win that appeal, their citizenship would have to be immediately reinstated.
It’s also worth pointing out some of the inevitable ‘nuances’ involved. If the Times Square terrorist, who is Muslim, obviously sympathetic to the Taliban but not positively identified as a formal member of either the Taliban or Al Qaeda but arguably acting as their (unilateral?) agent, can have his citizenship revoked, what of such as Timothy McVeigh, i.e. domestic terrorists?
That said, any American, actively involved in terrorism and convicted of such, should lose their citizenship.
Note that a lot of such statutes that people are thinking apply are circumvent the laws by refusing to use the word war, or declare it.
if we had declared war in Vietnam, hanoi jane would have went to jail. Because the statute used the term war. (a reverse of this game was used with Gender. by replacing sex with gender, they can argue the other meanings, not just the synonym, then assume they apply as well.)
today, the OTHER exception is that by waging proxy war without the main front having a home, you cant declare all the foreign state clauses.
they are well aware of law…
the people who help them arent…
so going to your statute. the clauses you might be able to use, are negated as there is no government (a thing which requires recognition by other states).
about the CLOSEST statute would be the last one (a)(7), which is the Treason claus
however, treason has only been proven 40 times in the history of the country.
however, (a)(7) does not require constitutional treason as it defines it under 2383. Rebellion or Insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
or… 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government
under these clauses you can remove his citzenship.
ESPECIALLY under 2385
however, like immigration law, selective enforcement (another unconstitutional thing), prevents its use.
under these clauses, we could clean house quite well.
the other question, which was never addressed as far as i ever read or remember, was the removal of birth citizenship.
the main problem in the clause leading to 2385, is its phrasing as to the clause in 2383… “against the authority of the united states”, and so if the US chooses to ignore such acts, your not violating its authority. (odd but i think how one could look at it legally… )
wholly (a)(7) with 2385, clearly lays out that one can remove citizenship.
under this clause if one had a mind to, one could remove every immigrant teacher who is a liberal.
if you were legally artful, you could convict under this statute, which holds no bite for citizens of natural birth, then use that establishment of condition in applying other laws which also could clean house.
if you could apply it to natural citizens… ooh boy.
[and there is no reason why not, since one can argue equality before the law, and that a citizen who was not subject to this law, would be a special citizen, and not equal, and so… ]
so the people selling and publishing “the coming insurrection” would be guilty (though i think they are in jail. please no one give them pencil and paper. 🙂 )
what would they apply to Faisal?
in order to get him you would have to work backwards. that is, from the act and what the act would do if it completed.
ie, that not only would he kill civilians but that he would also hurt officers of said government
you can find this under
CHAPTER 115–TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
unless these codes are no longer in force, which would then make the cited (a)(7) have a holes in it, we do have means. what we lack is will.
again… the problem is the authority wording..
with that, stopping a conversion would be seen as illegal.
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
this means that if they play strategy right, the bad wording can be used for Gleichschaltung… but remember when these were updated, and the word games and such…
NOW the moves become evident..
they negated the laws autonomy to protecting the constitution, instead focusing on authority.
however, i will say that a good lawyer could make them apply, there really is a wealth of stuff that can be used…
to read go to
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I.html
then to chapter 15
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_115.html
* § 2381. Treason
* § 2382. Misprision of treason
* § 2383. Rebellion or insurrection
* § 2384. Seditious conspiracy
* § 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government
* § 2386. Registration of certain organizations
* § 2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally
* § 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war
* § 2389. Recruiting for service against United States
* § 2390. Enlistment to serve against United States
* [§ 2391. Repealed.]
enjoy!
Neo,
I wasn’t aware of the older statue, but I think this makes sense.
In the financial services business, profits and losses are characterized; a capital gain/loss is taxed differently from ordinary income and different rules are applied for passive gains and losses.
When examining gifting for someone applying for Medicaid, monies which are part of a consistent historical gifting pattern have been treated differently than monies given away for the express purpose of denying a nursing home payment.
If we can distinguish between differing aspects of our financial life, why should we not distinguish between someone who wants to become a citizen v. someone who merely uses citizenship for cover?
Geoffrey Britain,
Any statute is, of course, open to abuse and interpretation. Perhaps the problem is the lack of a a current and appropriate definition of terrorism/terrorist which mirrors the the changes in our world over the last twenty years.
T,
Good point and one that I rather doubt the US will soon address. Then again, rushing into Constitutional changes in a reactionary manner is never wise. Ft Hood and Times Square demonstrate however that it has become an issue that needs to be addressed.
the 1940s was after the war in europe started
from the early days of that war, germans and russians would place their people inside the other countries. not just those that would go in at the time, but those who had gone in years earlier.
they had a problem..
like the dentist that photographed pearl harbor…
look up things like “The Brandenburgers”
The Brandenburgers were members of the Brandenburg German commando unit during World War II.
Regiment Brandenburg evolved out of the Abwehr’s 2nd Department, and was used as a commando unit during the first years of the war. Initially the unit consisted mainly of former German expatriates fluent in other languages. Until 1944 it was an OKH unit rather than a unit of the regular army (Heer). The unit steadily expanded until it was reallocated to the GroéŸdeutschland Panzer Korps to be used as a frontline combat unit.
thats the bottom clauses on the expats…
that they will assume you expat for honest reasons
During World War I, General Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck, Commander of the East African theatre, conducted a brilliant guerrilla war against the Allied colonial troops. At the same time in the Middle East, T. E. Lawrence was enjoying great success using Arab hit-and-run tactics against the Turks. Hauptmann Theodor von Hippel had served under Lettow-Vorbeck in Africa, and after the war became a strong advocate of the tactics pioneered by his former commander and the British Lawrence.
Hippel’s vision was reminiscent of that of David Stirling, founder of the British SAS. Hippel proposed that small, élite units, highly trained in sabotage and fluent in foreign languages, could operate behind enemy lines and wreak havoc with the enemy’s command, communication and logistical tails.
When Hippel approached the Reichswehr, his idea was rebuffed. The traditionalist Prussian officers saw this clandestine form of warfare would be an affront to the rules of war, and claimed that men who fought that way would not deserve to be called soldiers.
Undaunted, Hippel then took his idea to Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, commander of the German Intelligence service, the Abwehr. Hippel was employed in the Abwehr’s 2nd Department, and given the task of making his vision a reality.
it was under Canaris that he got to do the voodoo that he do…
the first group to be formed was for the polish war.
now, remember they used EXPATS… so what would happen is that a person who had been living in Germany would return to the country. they are citizens…
these laws gave bite to a certain situation
Fall WeiéŸ (1939) was the first time it was used
(not fall weis in the 40s)
given russias cool down, and stuff going on, it was considered that every country would have such. and so the US would need a way to neutralize them.
killnig them out rigt is not what a free state does
and so they needed a form of banishment
a way to send the problem back home
to read the escapades and things is AMAZING (on all sides)
Despite the increased size, the Brandenburgers were still highly skilled. The training was physically and mentally demanding, with focuses on foreign languages, small unit tactics, parachuting, demolitions, covert operations, use of vehicles and aircraft and familiarity with enemy weapons, including tanks. Some sub-units were specifically trained as pilots or trained in forgery, demolitions or camouflage. One company was formed from 127 expert cross country skiers, and was specially trained to fight in the frozen wastes of the northern Soviet Union. The company was also equipped with dog sleds.
Mitrokhen points out that Russia has long term people like that in the US, and that they have Caches of all kinds of weapons and materials. including bio.
he was able to detail a few of them, but there are hundreds. so the laws are still there, as i said, its will.
In action, a Brandenburger unit could consist of two-man teams, to 12-man squads, to full 300-man companies, depending on the mission requirements. At this stage in the war, virtually all Brandenburger operations took place behind enemy lines. The units operated along the lines of the SAS teams. Often they used captured equipment or disguised themselves as soldiers from the opposite side, sometimes including false identification papers, but unlike their allied counterparts, the Brandenburgers were very particular about donning another nation’s uniform. This chivalric code, while perhaps rather anachronistic, required that men always wore their German uniform beneath the enemy’s, and before combat, the men would hold fire until they made their own uniforms visible.[citation needed] While this led credence to the claim that Brandenburgers were soldiers, not spies, it also led to the capture of several units who refused to break these orders and open fire before revealing their ‘true colours’.
the other part was that it was possible to have citizenship papers that one could not validate
from deep cover people who would take over the identity of a dead child (sometimes off a gravestone), to others who would manufacture it noting the origin place was destroyed, or the records in the US were lost.
how do i know that they exist now in their own way?
The Brandenburgers who escaped death or capture during the war were, like many special forces soldiers, not willing or able to lay down the sword and return to civilian life. Many ex-Brandenburgers were accepted into the French Foreign Legion. It is interesting to note that at Dien Bien Phu, a large number of French Legionnaires were Germans – ex-Waffen-SS and -Heer men, with several ex-Brandenburgers among them. The Russians also almost certainly used ex-Brandenburgers as advisers and operatives in their security forces.
history tells me
Many other Brandenburgers travelled to Africa, South America or Asia to operate as mercenaries or advisers. The successive coups d’état in the many newly formed African states provided work for ex-Brandenburgers. The head of Indonesian Security services during Sukarno’s rule was a Brandenburg veteran. Congolese Separatist Moise Tshombewas advised by an ex-Brandenburger. Many Brandenburgers also found employment in the Egyptian forces of Muhammad Naguib.
lack of a a current and appropriate definition of terrorism/terrorist which mirrors the the changes in our world over the last twenty years.
the reason for that is that to have a valid one would lay them open to charges.
Rote Zora… early feminist terrorists…
what would a common definition do?
make no distinction between their hero terrorists, and other terrorists.
so every terrorist organization would have problems. feminism would become a no no, BNS a no no. panthers a no no, SDS a no no…
by the way, if you can define it and separate the two, you would become a hero to them.
[this is also what prevents them from really going after people and groups the left hates until they have power enough to make arbitrary distinctions. how close are they to that? when they cross it, watch out]
I think we should live with him being tried as a citizen. It’s a similar situation to those who argue we drug test welfare and unemployment recipients. Feelings say do it. Rational thought says don’t give govt ANY MORE POWER against its citizenry.
Breaking: Obama Administration Removed Faisal Shahzad From Terror Surveilance List Before Attack
[gateway pundit]
Confessed terrorist Faisal Shahzad was removed from the Department of Homeland Security travel lookout list sometime after Barack Obama came into office.
CBS reported:
Sources tell CBS News that would-be Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad appeared on a Department of Homeland Security travel lookout list — Traveler Enforcement Compliance System (TECS) — between 1999 and 2008 because he brought approximately $80,000 cash or cash instruments into the United States.
The New York Times reported that the person who bought Faisal’s apartment back in 2004 was interviewed by federal investigators.
George LaMonica, a 35-year-old computer consultant, said he bought his two-bedroom condominium in Norwalk, Conn., from Mr. Shahzad for $261,000 in May 2004. A few weeks after he moved in, Mr. LaMonica said, investigators from the national Joint Terrorism Task Force [JTTF] interviewed him, asking for details of the transaction and for information about Mr. Shahzad. It struck Mr. LaMonica as unusual, but he said detectives told him they were simply “checking everything out.”
Barack Obama began shutting down Bush-era terrorist investigations last year including the investigation of Faisal Shahzad.
We all know what happened next.
Last week Faisal almost blew a hole in the middle of Times Square.
The only thing that saved the people of New York was Faisal’s incompetence.
You probably need a trial to prove a person did one of these things…. which is why so many people have dual citizenship (not worth the effort to deal with). It is also why no one is ever convicted of treason…. it’s easier to just put them on trial for their crime and send them away…
PS
Back to legalism… from my point of view; you can delay reading someone their rights… and interrogate them… for quite awhile. As long as you don’t use what they say in their prosecution. There is even civilian legal precedent to support this… but I’d push the limits in terror cases and/or try expand it (by doing it and defending it in court when it is brought up). It’s probably a good compromise. Obama apologists will say this is what his justice department has done… but I tend to think they’ve done it half heartedly and more for political cover than to find intelligence. I say, really do it (as in for a week or two so the person has a chance to crack and gives up whatever info they have).
Thomass mentions
I submit that it’s time we considered ending this plural citizenship lark. If someone with, say a British/Swiss father. an Iranian mother and born in the US, were able to claim citizenship of four countries simultaneously, to which country will he or she give allegiance? I know several Australians who have the passports of three countries. I know that it makes travelling to different countries less irksome if, for example, folks use their British passports to get into Europe easily but use their Australian passports at European hotels (so the staff won’t think that they’re English), and it certainly helps to have a non-Israeli passport to travel in South West Asia, but I suggest that adults should select just one country at a time to call home.
Good points, neo.
You might find this from one of the commenters at AoSHQ of interest (http://tinyurl.com/2bh8jl2):
The Key Case Law is on the side of Lieberman:
…entry upon our territory [317 U.S. 1, 37] in time of war by enemy belligerents, including those acting under the direction of the armed forces of the enemy, for the purpose of destroying property used or useful in prosecuting the war, is a hostile and war-like act. It subjects those who participate in it without uniform to the punishment prescribed by the law of war for unlawful belligerents. It is without significance that petitioners were not alleged to have borne conventional weapons or that their proposed hostile acts did not necessarily contemplate collision with the Armed Forces of the United States.
Paragraphs 351 and 352 of the Rules of Land Warfare, already referred to, plainly contemplate that the hostile acts and purposes for which unlawful belligerents may be punished are not limited to assaults on the Armed Forces of the United States. Modern warfare is directed at the destruction of enemy war supplies and the implements of their production and transportation quite as much as at the armed forces. Every consideration which makes the unlawful belligerent punishable is equally applicable whether his objective is the one or the other. The law of war cannot rightly treat those agents of enemy armies who enter our territory, armed with explosives intended for the destruction of war industries and supplies, as any the less belligerent enemies than are agent similarly entering for the purpose of destroying fortified places or our Armed Forces. By passing our boundaries for such purposes without uniform or other emblem signifying their belligerent status, or by discarding that means of identification after entry, such enemies become unlawful belligerents subject to trial and punishment.
Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war.
Speaking of Dual citizenships, or rather the results of open borders: Five American students are kicked off a public school campus for wearing clothing with American Flags on Cinco de Mayo. “But to many Mexican-American students at Live Oak, this was a big deal. They say they were offended by the five boys and others for wearing American colors on a Mexican holiday.”
“Mexican-American” is a lie. It would be more truthfull to just say “Mexicans”.
This reminds me of one of my co-workers whose wife is a teacher. The ‘hispanic” kids wanted to know why they did not get to say the pledge to the Mexican flag in school. idiots. see article below.
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local-beat/Students-Wearing-American-Flag-Shirts-Sent-Home-92945969.html
This is from a second article, same source : “Dozens of students at Live Oak High School made a mass and impromptu walk out of class Thursday. They weren’t protesting the ejections and instead were showing their Mexican-American pride. Many support the school’s decision and say they were offended by their classmates’ wardrobe choice.
Many of the students who walked out Thursday held Mexican flags as they left campus. The said they marching for respect and unity. ”
If you are offended by the American Flag, you are not an American. In our Baptist Churches in Texas there is very typically an American Flag up front on the stage on one side, and the “Christian” flag on the other. I saw a pic last year of one of the Spanish Speaking Churches here in Texas in one of the Missionary magazines. guess what flag was up front? The Mexican Flag. This is colonization!
here is the link to the second article : http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local-beat/Flag-T-shirt-Controversy-Day-Two-92988244.html
Who is Behind Sen. Joe Lieberman’s Proposed Fascist Legislation?
Sen. Joe Lieberman has already endorsed McCain’s March 4th bill S.3081 that would strip Americans of Habeas corpus: Under the McCain bill, U.S. Government would need only designate an American Citizen was an “Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent” suspected of; having engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or U.S. civilians to cause their indefinite detention in military custody, without right to an attorney or trial.
Joe Lieberman’s proposed bill would make it easy to strip Americans of their Citizenship and hold them as “Unprivileged Enemy Belligerents” as U.S. Government would only have to show a U.S. Citizen or group had slight-interaction with a foreign group that touched a terrorist organization, for example Irish Americans living on the east coast of the United States contacting their alleged IRA relatives in Northern Ireland. Since many political groups intersect, even unknowingly with alleged terrorists, Lieberman’s bill would make it possible for a U.S. Government administration to do large sweeps of U.S. Citizens denying Americans Habeas corpus, to try them in military tribunals. One might want to ask who put Lieberman up to introducing this fascist bill that favors Israel. It should be noted Joe Lieberman’s June 4th endorsement of McCain’s bill S.3081, The “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010” strips Americans of Habeas corpus; there appears to be a pattern here between McCain and Lieberman legislation. McCain’s bill S.3081 would eliminate several Constitutional protections allowing Government to arbitrarily pick up Americans on mere suspicion–with no probable cause. Your political opinions and statements made against U.S. Government could be used by Authorities to deem you a “hostile” “Enemy Belligerent” to cause your arrest and indefinite detention. S.3081 is so broadly written innocent anti-war protesters and Tea Party Groups might be arrested and detained just for attending demonstrations; Government could charge that attending demonstrations “materially supported hostilities.”
McCain’s legislation S.3081 could like Lieberman’s proposed bill be used by a corrupt U.S. government administration to crush anyone that dared question government. Under McCain’s S.3081, an “individual” need only be Suspected by Government of “suspicious activity” or “supporting hostilities” to be dragged off and held indefinitely in Military Custody. Government would have the power to detain and interrogate any individual including Americans without probable cause. Government need only allege an individual kept in detention, is an Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent suspected of; having engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States; its coalition partners; or against U.S. civilians. How could one prove to Government they did not purposely do something? “Materially Supporting Hostilities” against the United States could include any person or group that spoke out or demonstrated disapproval against an agency of U.S. Government. It is foreseeable many Americans might go underground to Resist Government Tyranny. Definition for Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent: (Anyone Subject to a Military Commission)
At least under the Patriot Act, law enforcement generally needed probable cause to detain a person indefinitely. Passage of S.3081 will permit government to use “mere suspicion” to curtail an individual’s Constitutional Protections against unlawful arrest, detention and interrogation without benefit of legal counsel and trial. According to S.3081 Government is not required to provide detained individuals U.S. Miranda Warnings or even an attorney. It is problematic under McCain’s S.3081 that detained individuals in the U.S. not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings or allowed legal counsel will be prosecuted for ordinary crimes because of their alleged admissions while in military custody.
S.3081 if passed will frighten Americans from speaking out. S.3081 is so broadly written, it appears any “individual” who writes on the Internet or verbally express an opinion against or an entity of U.S. Government or its coalition partners might be detained on the basis he or she is an “unprivileged enemy belligerent”, “supporting hostilities against U.S. Government.” The “supporting hostilities” provisions in S.3081 are so broad Government could use “suspicion” to detain U.S. corporate executives on the premise their corporations “supported hostilities” by providing goods or services to a nation engaged in hostilities against the United States.
(Make Your Own Determination If The Analysis Herein Is Correct) See McCain’s 12-page Senate bill S.3081 at:
assets.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/ARM10090.pdf
Pingback:Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: e117v5
No law is required to “revoke” Shahzad’s citizenship. He lied under oath when he accepted citizenship, so it was never granted.
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen.”
We have stripped citizenship from others who lied to obtain it. See the case of John Demjanuk, for a recent example.
Such an action is clearly available in this case under 8 USC Ch. 12, Subch. III, Part II, § 1451 in conjunction with 8 USC Ch. 12, Subch. III, Part II, § 1424 (a)(4)(B). Note that this only requires “affiliation” with, not membership in, a prohibited group.
Please, no BS about fascism or totalitarianism, no hysteria over the dire implications of the thing. It’s simply a matter of not allowing an enemy to take advantage of US citizenship obtained through fraud.
If you believe we are not entitled to use such minimal self-protection, cite me an example of a nation the laws of which allows its enemies to so benefit. If you can’t, your expectation that the US will adhere to dangerous standards adhered to by no other nation makes you a prima facie anti-American, though of a common, banal type.
If this passes, our right to a trial by jury hangs on the whim of the President of the United States.
Who trusts Obama that much? Not me.
Let’s not forget that a “suspect” is someone the government accuses of a crime — and the Bill of Rights was crafted to prevent the government from abusing its power over citizens.
Our descent into Soviet tyranny just gained a little more speed.
There is some difficulty in assessing the intent to bring down the government of the U.S.
How is planting a bomb in Times Square more damaging than hammering at the Constitution the way Dick Cheney did? Can we claim Cheney is no longer a citizen, and impound him, too?
I think the Act anticipates an operation of law that has not yet occurred in the case of the Times Square bomber.
Nor with Richard Cheney, either.
How about Oliver North? (Hey, this could be fun . . .)