Assuming for the sake of argument that everything you say about the Padilla case is true, what does that say about this amendment (on the narrow portion we’ve been discussing)? Does it ameliorate the harms you describe? No, but then again neither does the tax bill. The crucial point is that it doesn’t make it worse. The procedural safeguards you describe are not harmed by the content of the proposed item. They may be harmed other actions of the administration, true, but not by the language in question. That being the case, your ire is misdirected. To say otherwise means you may as well criticize every single act Congress passes – up to and including “National Gopher Week” resolutions – because they do not deal with the procedural safeguards you find lacking in the Padilla case.
To put it simply: Mr. Padilla is being held without the passage of this act. This act does nothing that would worsen Mr. Padilla’s position w/r/t procedural safeguards. Ergo, your concerns regarding Mr. Padilla are better directed elsewhere.
Perhaps I’m a bit dense, Dewey, but it seems to me this does rather raise the stakes a bit. After all, how often does one see a bill designed to do nothing in particular? Keeping in mind that Mr. Padilla represents nothing more than a handy reference point, am I mistaken in my assertion that this bill would permit that he be declared a non-citizen? Would he then become, instead of a US citizen denied his civil rights, a non-citizen without any such rights to be denied?
Yes, yes and yes. But you’ve been arguing on procedural grounds, not substantive grounds. You’ve NOT been saying “the penalty for the acts described in this bill ought not be loss of citizenship;” you’ve instead been arguing “the procedural safeguards – specifically, the right to trial by jury where the jury finds all elements of a crime are present – for conviction under this bill are insufficient.”
Here, I’ll try to clarify: assuming arguendo that conviction under this bill must be both (i) by a jury and (ii) all elements must be proven to the jury’s satisfaction, do you believe that the crime and punishment described in this legislation is appropriate?
If the answer to that question is “yes,” then your ire is properly directed at procedural matters that are problematic whether or not this legislation is passed.
If the answer to that question is “no,” well, fine, but that simply isn’t the case you’ve been making. You need to shift your criticisms from procedural to substantive grounds.
IANAL, and maybe I tend to think the worst, but I have done quite a lot of reading in the case law in this area (being an immigration paralegal and all, and one who’s been doing some geneaology-related immigration research into ways to lose one’s citizenship. Long story.).
From the plain language quted here, it seems to me that it’s a much lower burden to prove that someone has “provided material support” to an organization, which could be something as simple as writing a check for $10, than to prove that someone has committed treason. Especially if we have no idea how a “terrorist organization” will be defined. Will the ACLU become one, since they tend to disseminate material which undermines the authority of the U.S. Government?
Oh, and Apos, “acts inconsistent with U.S. citizenship” have historically been defined as things mentioned earlier such as service in a foreign army, policy-level service as an employee of a foreign government, and indefinite residency abroad.
There was a law in force until 1922, however, under which U.S. citizen women, even native-born ones, automatically lost their citizenship when they married non-citizens (thus my geneaological research; let’s just say it’s entirely possible my grandmother has been here illegally since 1930). The law wasn’t classified under the “acts inconsistent with U.S. citizenship” category, but it does illustrate the insane things the U.S. Government has done to the concept of nationality over the years. (and it’s an episode I guess I forgot about when stating that the PARIOT Act II might be the first time the law allowed stripping legally acquired citizenship).
If anyone’s interested, I’ll try to dig up some cites at work tomorrow. Last I looked, though, the marriage to aliens thing was even listed as a colorful historical episode on INS’ Web site.
Well, if I’ve somehow given you that impression I apologise. I see nothing in this bill that touch upon (i) or (ii). I see no mention of procedural safeguards whatsoever, hence, it is my impression that this is intended to obviate, pre-empt, and nullify any such possibility.
Whether or not loss of citizenship is an appropriate penalty after a full and fair trial is a matter I did not intend to discuss, and if I have given you the impression that this is somehow central, or even relevent, to my concerns I apologize. It most assuredly is not.
Bollocks. Silence on procedural issues means that existing procedures are used. Whenever a new crime is codified into law, the bill most assuredly does not include procedural descriptions – such a bill does not change existing procedures, for good or ill.
If existing procedures are insuffficient, then they are insufficient whether this bill becomes law or not. Your ire, again, is misplaced.**
Then your arguments are not substantive; they are procedural. And since the instant bill does not deal with procedural matters, your ire is misplaced.
“…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.””
What is to stop Mr. Ashcroft from deciding that my watching the Palestinain satellite channel is providing material support (by a subscription fee) to a terrosiat organization and removing my citizenship?
Let’s see if I can put Dewey’s lawyerly language in English.
Apparently Dewey thinks that because Patriot II doesn’t say anything about procedure, existing courts and court procedures will be used to enforce it.
So, to get stripped of your citizenship, he thinks you’ll have to be tried in open court, by a jury, with all the evidence known to you, and everybody knowing you’re being tried, instead of all this secret stuff that has us all worried (and with good reason).
Or maybe he’s saying that we could be tried in secret by government tribunals under the new laws, and all our concerns might be justified, but our real problem is with the secret tribunals that have already been established, and instead of bellyaching about Patriot II we should be directing our ire at the secret tribunals created by Patriot I.
I know this is putting words in Dewey’s mouth, but he’s a lawyer and may not be able to speak English very clearly any more.
I think that those associated with the legal system expect it to work fairly and those of us at the bottom of the food chain expect it to be manipulated to screw us as has been my experience.
Just as Mrs. Plant expects her dogs to be well behaved and I expect them to crap on the floor.
My citizenship is a tad more important than the carpet.
The problem you’re claiming (and assuming arguendo that it is a problem) is not a problem created by Patriot II. The problems you’re claiming are with procedural safeguards wholly unrelated to the content of Patriot II.
Jesus, I’m helping your argument for Christsakes. If you want to change something, it really helps if you direct your ire at the thing that needs changing.**
:rolleyes:
Yes, it’s a good thing we have lawyers to focus your attention on the legally operative things before us. Your ire is misplaced.
Here’s an analogy to what you’re saying: you’re a doctor. A patient complains of a headache. You prescribe cutting off his foot.
DAMMIT, IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE THINGS IT REALLY HELPS IF YOU SEEK TO CHANGE THOSE THINGS THAT WILL ACTUALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
But is this true? Let’s look again at Vance vs. Terrazas:
Eva Luna…To me, “seditious act” is so vague that it could be anything. This worries me far more than “providing material support” which at least requires proof of some concrete action. And from the "New York Law Journal:
carnivorousplant…what stopped Janet Reno from deciding that all militia members were guilty of seditious acts and stripping their citizenship?
Dewey Cheatem Undhow…maybe we should actually be directing our ire toward former president and Nobel Peace Prize winner Jimmy Carter and Cyrus Vance.
So that’s it, Dewey. All this lawyerly Bushwa comes down to:
Me: This could be used to screw us!
You: No, you dumshit! You’re already screwed!
Well, whoopty-fuck-a-doo!
One might be forgiven for harboring the notion that you are more interested in proving me wrong about something than advancing any particular opinion. For, in truth, my ire is not specificly directed at one or another example of legal chicanery, but to the scoundrels who advance it. May I assume that you share that dismay and repugnance, evidenced by:
What needs changing? The rulership of our nation by a band of flint-eyed authoritarian cynics. Your enlistment in our cause is much appreciated. Comrade.
Assumes a position not in evidence. I specifically stated that I was only assuming that the current state of procedural protections were insufficient for the sake of argument. That topic is a discussion unto itself, and one already hashed and rehashed many times in GD. At any rate, it is inapplicable to the OP, for the reasons given. You may or may not be “already screwed,” but that is beyond the scope of a discussion of Patriot II.**
Your accusation of bad faith on my part is duly noted. Dare I ask that you substantiate the accusation?**
So, you’re just interested in yet another anti-Bush rant, rather than seriously discussing and critiquing the subject of the OP? Please do return to the children’s table. The adults would like to continue speaking uninterrupted.
Quite the contrary. Elucidator said, in essence, he isn’t interested in discussing specific examples (e.g., Patriot II); he’s just interested in directing his ire at “the scoundrels who advance” such examples. IOW, he wants to rant at Bush and can’t be bothered with the specifics of the case at hand.**
I was inclined to ignore that, but the repitition put it over the line.
What utter rot, Dewey. You sniff disdainfully at what it pleases you to regard as childish. I am concerned with the erosion of our civil liberties at the hands of men I frankly regard as scoundrels. Pish and tosh, say you, the really important issue has to do with elucidator’s failure to understand the truly crucial matters, the ones having to do with procedural and substantive.
You expend enormous amount of high-falutin’ ammo on this triviality and then congratulate yourself on the maturity of your analysis. To what end, may I enquire? What substantial distinction are you seeking to define? I note with alarm that the ship of state is heading full speed towards an iceberg, you sneer in rejoinder that it is only 3/4 speed. It is the argument of a sophist, and if I am to be excluded from your company of like minded pedants, I count myself the better for it.
Put baldly, these repulsively named “Patriot Acts” are intended to expand the authority and power of men who have too much as it is, it is, or ought to be, repugnant to a free people who jealously guard thier liberties.
That, sir, is the important issue. I note that aside from your implication that you are assisting me in making my case, assistance that I neither request nor appreciate, you have not expressed any stance on that issue. Are you unconcerned? Approving? Do you give a rat’s ass about any of this?
Give us unvarnished candor. Do you approve, or not?
True dat.