An enemy, not any
Well, gosh, tell the truth, I was raised in a place where if you say what someone said is a lie, you’re pretty much callliing them a liar. 'Course, we also think if its brown, stinks, and drops from a pig’s ass, it’s pig shit, but hey, what do we know?
Nice try, I almost fell for it*, but I will not take the bait. Cheers!
*you’re good though, I had it all typed out and almost hit submit. :eek:
As flattered as I am by your estimation of my craftiness and cunning, my rigid sense of personal honesty compels me to admit I have no idea what you’re talking about.
The way I read it…
At present, two things are needed for expatriation. An act and an intent. The act can already be presumed to be voluntary, though that is “rebuttable.” (see my first post)
If my reading of Vance v. Terrazas is correct, and that is a big “if”, then one’s intent can already be presumed based on one’s action.
So a person who served in the Iraqi Army could already be expatriated unless they claim either that the service was involuntary (this would cover being drafted) or that there was no intent to relinquish citizenship. If they make such a claim at present then the state has the burden of proof.
OK…that’s how things stand now. I know that this new, but not actually proposed, legislation would add joining a “terrorist organization” to the list of seven other actions. It is unclear to me that anything else would really be changed. I don’t even understand why they would feel it necessary to include language about presuming intent based on action.
Now, I am ready to be convinced, but show me where anything is actually changing. (I’m limiting myself to the expatriation business in this post).
Am I the only one here starting to feel an urge to go join the French Foreign Legion after all this talk of expatriation?
If nothing is actually changing, zigaretten, then why make a new law?
To add joining a Terrorist Organization to the list of actions.
zig: Since the French won’t play ball with the USA, I expect that the Legion would be considered to be a terrorist organization (or giving aid to one) and they would attack France to come and get you.
I’m thinking about Tasmania. Nice weather and Nepenthes. (Carnivorous plants). 'Course I guess furrin plants could be subversive, too.
What I’m concerned about is that if ‘they’ decide to use it for other purposes which they define. Perhaps drug abuse will be defined as supporting drug dealers whom they say now make money for terrorists.
Oh…and for elucidator and milroyj…didn’t we decide in the case of Everybody vs. Chumpsky that “liar” was the one insult that it was OK to use in GD?
And Carni…everything furrin is subversive, if it wasn’t, why, it’d be American, by golly.
Well, then, perhaps I overestimated your abilities. I thought you were trying to bait me into a reply that would be un-GD like. Not gonna happen, amigo.
Btw, how did your “rigid sense of personal honesty” come into play when you claimed that American citizens would be deported, when no such assertation existed in the real world?
Oh, well, sure, Chumpsky is a liar. All those Trotskyists are liars.
And I am also troubled, as well, by the whole cloud of smoke surrounding definitions in this bit of jurisprudence, which is starting to smell like the Alien and Sedition Act all over again.
Take a for instance, the Sandanistas. I entirely supported thier position against the perfectly despicable Somoza regime. They were freedom fighters in my book. But Ronnie says they’re terrorists.
Now in my book, that means he’s got his opinion, I’ve got mine. But this law seems to suggest that the day my gummint decides diffently, I am at risk. They can throw me in the slam, incommunicado, no lawyer, nothing for as long as it suits them. I can’t see how I’m any better off if they can’t deport me.
I really can’t believe the number of people who don’t understand a basic principle of our system, Don’t ever trust the people to whom you give power necessarily to use it to the benefit of the people.
Congress, seemingly in a panic, has abandoned many of its functions to executive decree operating unchecked if only the executive certifies that he or she is acting in the name of national defense.
I can’t understand how anyone can defend the original USA Patriot Act (makes me gag) and for sure the proposed Son of USA Patriot.
Section 501, “Expatriation of Terrorists”: This provision, the drafters say, would establish that an American citizen could be expatriated “if, with the intent to relinquish his nationality, he becomes a member of, or provides material support to, a group that the United Stated has designated as a ‘terrorist organization’.” But whereas a citizen formerly had to state his intent to relinquish his citizenship, the new law affirms that his intent can be “inferred from conduct.” *Thus, engaging in the lawful activities of a group designated as a “terrorist organization” by the Attorney General could be presumptive grounds for expatriation. *
It was right there, on page one. Lots of other folks saw it, read it, understood it. You got a beef, take it up with Bill Moyers, he aint my sock puppet. Or take it to the Pit where we can engage in more explicit terms.
You’re starting to bore me. Can you stalk somebody else for a while?
Here’s a question (or two) I think is sort of interesting (I couldn’t decide whether it warranted a separate thread or not):
Each of these questions lead to another:
- How severely does this proposal impact civil liberties?
- If the answer is “severely,” does it necessarily mean that the trust many people have given the Bush administration is less founded, not necessarily just on the Iraq war?
After all, one could argue that deliberately pushing something of this magnitude is a sign of a certain “ends justify the means” attitude, or willingness to give in to a knee-jerk reaction, that could, for example, put a new light on the administration’s determination to launch war. At the very least, it could cast doubt about the intentions of the people Bush has chosen to run the Justice Department, or on himself for not stopping this immediately. And hey, check out Slashdot; the SDMB denizens are not the only ones interpreting this document this way… (Then again, there are a lot of libertarians there, so take that with a bit of salt. ;))
Of course, there’s the risk that no conservative (or administration supporter) will reply except milroyj, and everyone else will be opposed to it, considering how this thread has gone already, but I’ll take my chances. 
FTR, and without commenting on the legislation in question, intent is pretty much always inferred from conduct.
Consider a prosecution for murder. One of the elements of the crime is that the killing be intentional (or that the defendant intended to do grave bodily harm). Now assuming the defendant hasn’t confessed, the prosecution will assuredly not be in possession of some statement from the defendant saying “yes, at the time of the killing, I specifically wanted the victim to die.” The prosecution must prove intent from the defendant’s action.
So what does the prosecution do? It presents evidence that, say, the defendant pointed the gun at the victim and voluntarily pulled the trigger. That act, in addition to satisfying other elements of the crime, is sufficient proof of intent.
Obviously, there are close cases. A defendant hits victim once with a baseball bat, killing victim; intent to kill or do grave bodily harm, or just intent to rough the victim up a bit? Well, that’s a factual question for the jury.
Same thing in the instant case: if Johnny runs off and joins Saddam’s October Guard, intent to relinquish citizenship is pretty clear. OTOH, if he runs off to Afghanistan for a few months to learn how to set an effective dirty bomb, and then returns to set off said bomb – well, intent is less clear. Again, it’s just a question for the factfinder.
Again, my point isn’t to say that the subject matter of the OP is good or bad – I haven’t reviewed any of the links and am thus unable to comment on them. But proof of intent from the acts of the defendant is a common feature of criminal law; it sounds to me like much of the worrying on that narrow point is overblown.
The crucial point Dewey is who makes that adjudication. Perhaps, perhaps mind you, after a trial by jury with all the attendant safeguards, it might be that revocation of citizenship would be a justifiable penalty for a proven crime.
Absent those safeguards, it places entirely too much discretion in the prosecutorial side of the equation. Mr. Padilla, who is without any question a citizen, is already denied the rights commonly assumed to be guaranteed. Perhaps he deserves it, perhaps not. But we deserve to know that it is not up to Mr. Ashcroft to determine the nature and extent of our loyalty solely on his discretion.
Which is why I said “on that narrow point.” Sheesh, I even underlined it for you.
It will be interesting to see if the conservative branch of the Repugs is willing to march in lockstep with Patriot II. I think we will find out a lot just from seeing who supports this one and who does not.