A foreign power bent on the overthrow of the US, before declaring war on us, has planted operatives inside our country, appearing to be conventional citizens. This process has been going on for decades. This foreign power declared war on the US, some time later some of these operatives attack US civilian population, then another major attack happens this way.
The US finally acknowledges this declaration of war and starts counter attacking, and also goes on the offensive. We still have the issue that the enemy has operatives inside the US mainland and they are a clear threat to the US.
What options does the US Government have in dealing with this enemies inside our gates?
Bonus question - How does your answer change when Bush is president?
Once they are citizens, they are subject to our Constitution. That’s part of our process: by defending the rights of even the most despicable, dangerous people, we defend our own. There is no other way for us to defend our own.
Fortunately, the Constitution doesn’t require us to look the other way. Law enforcement can, given reason to suspect a particular person of being a spy, obtain a warrant to spy on them. As I understand it, law enforcement can even start spying on suspects without getting a warrant, as long as they send someone down to a judge to get a warrant at some point within the next three days–and the judge is overwhelmingly likely to give them that warrant. If that’s not enough, we’ve got a republican process for providing the executive branch with more power: law enforcement can go to congress, argue that they need more leeway in spying on US citizens in order to ferret out the bad apples, and if the representatives of the people agree, law enforcement can get those powers. (If the representatives disagree with law enforcement, then the people whom they represent will suffer the consequences, as it should be).
If Bush is the President, clearly none of the above analysis applies: a s President, he’s not beholden to the law.
OK this is not how I see the issue, they are foreign spies acting under the ruse of citizenship, and the issue is military as opposed to a civilian law enforcement issue.
If they’re citizens, they’re citizens and the government has to respect every Constitutional right. If any of them commit a crime, then the government may arrest them and charge them accordingly.
Your question also seems to presume that the government already knows who these people are. If they already know that someone is engaged in criminal activity then they can arrest them. If they merely suspect somebody then they may investigate them within the bounds of the law. There is no scenario by which it is acceptable for the government to go outside the law or the US Constitution.
Does your opinion on this change if the person in question in a citizen by birth? I was born in this country, lived here my whole life. If tomorrow I sign up with Al Qaeda, does the government now have the right to decide that my citizenship with this country doesn’t “count” anymore?
I think that all citizens have exactly the same rights. Is that what you mean?
A bad choice of words on my part, but people who are arrested still have a right to due process and they can’t be convicted if the evidence against them was gained illegally.
Huh. I’m not rejecting that theory out of hand, but do you believe this is an accurate summary of US law, or is that just how you believe the law ought to be written? As a follow-up question, at what point should a US citizen be determined to no longer be a US citizen in your opinion: should they be treated as a hostile power as soon as they’re suspected of being a hostile power, or only after a court has found them to be such?
As an example, let’s say that I call the FBI and tell them, “Psst, a little bird told me that Kanic is an evil terrorist.” How much evidence must they gather before they should have the legal right to deny you your rights as a citizen, and must they treat you as a citizen while gathering that evidence? Should there be any check based on their power to decide when to deny you your citizenship rights?
kanik - perhaps this discussion would be served if you could list all the constitutional amendments that you think the President may violate in time of war. I won’t ask you to justify your reasoning; a simple list would suffice for my purposes.
How about you quit with this idiotic question and non-response and put forth an issue for debate, kanicbird?
Citizenship is not absolute. Once gained, you can also have your citizenship stripped in a denaturalization hearing. One of the critiques of Patriot II was that it made removal of United State’s citizenship too easy.
The foreign operatives in your hypothetical could be subject to anything from arrest, to the death penalty, to being treated as enemy combatants.
Other than that, I have no idea what you’re “asking”.
Okay, then the follow up: how do you know I’m a member of Al Qaeda? Obviously, it’s not the sort of thing I’m going to go around announcing. You’re in the FBI, and you suspect I might be a terrorist. How much information do you need before you decide my constitutional protections no longer apply? Is the suspicion enough? Do you need witnesses? How many is enough? One? Two? What if the witnesses are lying to get me in trouble? Shouldn’t I have a right to confront them in a court of law and defend myself? The Constitution says I get to do that, so does your decision that I’m no longer a citizen apply before or after I get to take advantage of that right? How can you strip people of their constitutional protections without first, at the very least, using those constitutional protections to make sure I actually deserve to be stripped of them?