Ok, so you have some birth issues. Maybe yes, maybe no.
You have a passport- good, but State sez issued in error.
Then you have serving for a Enemy of the USA- which she did and admits.
I think that last makes it difficult for any sympathy.
I agree with you, especially if it’s us calling it such. If the other party claimed it to be an act of war, maybe that’s stronger, but (see below) that’s not the case. Anyway, I concede the point and would like to drop this hijack.
That’s probably it. Thanks!
Aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war might be a better approach.
Well, yeah. But that’s all she really has to go on, isn’t it?
That and gender issues. Can you imagine this discussion if it were a guy who went to fight for ISIS? They media wouldn’t be all over him. Who was that idiot branded American Taliban? John something or other?
Ah. John Walker Lindh. Indicted for a bundle of things including conspiracy and contributing services to Al Queda and the Taliban. Pled down and got 20 years. That might be a parallel case.
Hey, he’s eligible for release in May!
Anyway, that might be some sort of parallel. Anyway, she’s learning a hard lesson that she’s responsible for her actions. And some governments are more hard nosed than others.
Is the toddler responsible for her actions as well?
Is anyone here saying she deserves sympathy?
She deserves due process – first, to determine her citizenship status, and then (if she is a citizen) to answer the charges against her.
No, although it sounds like the mother’s claim to American citizenship is a bit shakier than I first thought, so the toddler may not be an American citizen either. Anyways, my preferred approach (letting her back in and trying her for her crimes) would probably result in the child being separated from her mother, and we know how sensitive everyone is to that, so maybe it’s not the best approach. Letting the family stay together in (where are they again? Kurdistan? Iran?) might be better …
Oh yes I forgot that passage in the US constitution where it says it only applies to sympathetic individuals who hug puppies and help old ladies across the street.
A Kurdish-run refugee camp in northern Syria. But rest assured I will take your apparent knowledge of the situation and apparent concern for the child into all due consideration.
No, of course not.
However, that doesn’t make the US responsible, either. There are many cases where the parent makes decisions for a child and the child has to live or die by it. I don’t know a way around that for her any more than I know a way around anti-vaxxers, bad parents who teach white supremacy or people who do other questionable things for/to their kids.
So, yes, the kid may suffer consequences because of the sins of her mother. But that’s life.
Are you kidding? Have you lived in the United States? For God’s sake, we have a reality television star as a President and a key part of evaluating our leaders is how well they present on television. Too assume that the United States polity isn’t strongly driven by sympathetic narrative is to deny the truth.
We’re hearing about this girl. Fine. But there are others who AREN’T are sympathetic or media-savvy that haven’t found themselves on the news and therefore getting attention.
There are laws that state you give up your citizenship if you fight for a foreign enemy.
*Formally declaring allegiance to a foreign government after age 18.
…
Joining the military force of another country either (1) in any capacity if that country is engaged in hostilities against the U.S., or (2) as an officer.
*
She admits to having done so.
Actually the law says “with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality”. Also the US has been doing everything in its power to show the ISIS caliphate is NOT a country or nation state of any kind, so claiming it is now isn’t going to fly.
But that’s irrelevant to my point. She has rights under the constitution, including due process (which removal of citizenship by presidential tweet is definitely not), whether she has our sympathy or not is irrelevant to that.
Equating “due process” with “sympathy” has been a staple of the GOP playbook for generations.
The due process was her voluntarily joining a enemy of the USA. *She *made that decision.
On a related note, should al-Awlaki have been given due process?
WTF? So, how does the Constitution work as toilet paper?
Your point could be extended to:
The due process was stealing from the store.
The due process was shooting someone.
The due process was the cop shooting someone.
Bring her in, and try her, if not for treason then for the many laws about giving support to terrorists.
I think she conveniently has changed her mind after ISIS got crushed. So I have zero sympathy for her. But the rule of law doesn’t depend on that.
Irrelevant. If a drone strike on her camp wiped her out, I wouldn’t be crying either. Someone actively fighting you is different from a prisoner.
If she was just a prisoner, like one of the various people that have been rescued from Al Qaeda / Taliban / ISIS, this thread wouldn’t exist. The best case scenario for her I see is that she’s in some gray area between “actively fighting” and “prisoner”
Cite that Hoda Muthana was doing any fighting? Because I hadn’t heard before this that it was even a possibility, but here you are asserting that she was “actively fighting”. :dubious: