Keep away from Wiki PlainOl......It's dangerous!
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]>wrote: > 8 USC § 1448 <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1448.html> > > Of particular relevance to the dual citizenship issue is that, as part of > the oath, a new citizen must pledge "to renounce and abjure absolutely and > entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, > state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject > or citizen." > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 11:39 AM, plainolamerican < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Dual citizenships are illicit, period. (I know, there are many >> "Americans" who possess dual citizenship....It is nevertheless >> illegal. >> ---- >> try again >> Based on the U.S. Department of State regulation on dual citizenship >> (7 FAM 1162), the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that >> dual citizenship is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a >> person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries >> >> >> On Dec 28, 10:32 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Dual citizenships are illicit, period. (I know, there are many >> > "Americans" who possess dual citizenship....It is nevertheless illegal. >> > >> > An American citizen is "An American Citizen". Doesn't matter where he >> was >> > born. (It is a very narrow window for an American citizen to be born >> in a >> > foreign land). >> > >> > On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 10:37 AM, plainolamerican < >> [email protected] >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > wrote: >> > > The >> > > foreign born terrorist may not receive a court's review, but the >> > > American >> > > will. >> > > --- >> > > oh, so a foreign born US citizen is excluded from the right to a court >> > > review? >> > > what about those with dual citizenships? >> > >> > > On Dec 28, 9:21 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > Good Morning PlainOl, >> > >> > > > Yes, including any American who may be associated with terrorists. >> The >> > > > foreign born terrorist may not receive a court's review, but the >> American >> > > > will. >> > >> > > > On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:18 PM, plainolamerican >> > > > <[email protected]>wrote: >> > >> > > > > I believe that no American can be detained without a Court's >> review >> > > > > --- >> > > > > even someone 'associated' with terrorists >> > >> > > > > On Dec 27, 11:47 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > > > > > After study and review, as well as being familiar with the >> Supreme >> > > Court >> > > > > > Decision in *Rumsfeld v. Hamdi*, where the Supremes ruled that >> > > EVERY >> > > > > > American is entitled to *habeas corpus* and review of >> detainment; >> > > that >> > > > > > Section 1022, and the phrase which states in part: >> > >> > > > > > *b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident >> > > Aliens- >> > > > > > (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a >> person in >> > > > > > military custody under this section does not extend to citizens >> of >> > > the >> > > > > > United States.* >> > >> > > > > > I believe that no American can be detained without a Court's >> review, >> > > > > > whether he has been caught on the battlefield, or in downtown >> Tampa. >> > > > > > This obviously does not apply to foreign enemy combatants, and >> I for >> > > one >> > > > > > agree that it should not apply to enemy combatants who are not >> > > American. >> > >> > > > > > On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 12:26 PM, plainolamerican < >> > > > > [email protected] >> > >> > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > btw - RP's opposition is that the amendment repeals parts of >> the >> > > bill >> > > > > > > of rights, patriot act, 4th and 5th amendments and even magna >> carta >> > > > > > > principles. >> > > > > > > Many Americans don't understand the relationship between >> local, >> > > state, >> > > > > > > federal, and military authority. >> > > > > > > If thinking that our authorities should have all the >> resources they >> > > > > > > need to combat terrorism makes me a moonbat then keep calling >> me a >> > > > > > > moonbat. >> > >> > > > > > > On Dec 26, 6:28 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > > > > > > > Just in case you missed it: >> > >> > > > > > > > *(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful >> Resident >> > > > > Aliens- >> > > > > > > > (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a >> person >> > > in >> > > > > > > > military custody under this section does not extend to >> citizens >> > > of >> > > > > the >> > > > > > > > United States. >> > > > > > > > * >> > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Keith In Tampa < >> > > > > [email protected] >> > > > > > > >wrote: >> > >> > > > > > > > > Good Morning. >> > >> > > > > > > > > I am genuinely hoping that you will respond to this post. >> As a >> > > > > side >> > > > > > > note, >> > > > > > > > > last week, we had Crackpots and Moonbats claiming that >> this >> > > piece >> > > > > of >> > > > > > > > > legislation, (which is renewed every year since 1961, >> with >> > > various >> > > > > > > > > modifications) was setting up camps to imprison American >> > > > > citizens, >> > > > > > > (I >> > > > > > > > > assume Ron Paul supporters) until level heads pointed >> out to >> > > these >> > > > > > > > > Moonbats and Crackpots that the legislation didn't say >> > > anything of >> > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > sort. >> > >> > > > > > > > > What in particular, are you, and others who oppose this >> > > > > legislation, >> > > > > > > > > opposed to? Here is the section that you reference, >> (which by >> > > the >> > > > > way, >> > > > > > > > > does not say what you claim it says). I suggest that all >> of >> > > the >> > > > > > > Moonbats, >> > > > > > > > > and all of the Crackpots read the legislation before they >> > > listen to >> > > > > > > other >> > > > > > > > > Crackpots and Moonbats, and get their proverbial panties >> in a >> > > wad: >> > >> > > > > > > > > Subtitle D--Counterterrorism >> > >> > > > > > > > > SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES >> OF THE >> > > > > UNITED >> > > > > > > > > STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE >> AUTHORIZATION >> > > FOR >> > > > > USE >> > > > > > > OF >> > > > > > > > > MILITARY FORCE. >> > >> > > > > > > > > (a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of >> the >> > > > > President >> > > > > > > > > to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to >> the >> > > > > > > Authorization >> > > > > > > > > for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 >> U.S.C. 1541 >> > > > > note) >> > > > > > > includes >> > > > > > > > > the authority for the Armed Forces of the United >> States to >> > > > > detain >> > > > > > > covered >> > > > > > > > > persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending >> disposition >> > > under >> > > > > > > the law of >> > > > > > > > > war. >> > >> > > > > > > > > (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this >> section is >> > > any >> > > > > > > person >> > > > > > > > > as follows: >> > >> > > > > > > > > (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or >> aided >> > > the >> > > > > > > > > terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, >> 2001, or >> > > > > > > harbored those >> > > > > > > > > responsible for those attacks. >> > >> > > > > > > > > (2) A person who was a part of or substantially >> supported >> > > > > al-Qaeda, >> > > > > > > > > the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged >> in >> > > > > > > hostilities against >> > > > > > > > > the United States or its coalition partners, >> including >> > > any >> > > > > > > person who has >> > > > > > > > > committed a belligerent act or has directly >> supported >> > > such >> > > > > > > hostilities in >> > > > > > > > > aid of such enemy forces. >> > >> > > > > > > > > (c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a >> > > person >> > > > > under >> > > > > > > > > the law of war as described in subsection (a) may >> include >> > > the >> > > > > > > following: >> > >> > > > > > > > > (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until >> the >> > > end >> > > > > of >> > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use >> of >> > > > > Military >> > > > > > > Force. >> > >> > > > > > > > > (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States >> Code >> > > (as >> > > > > > > > > amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 >> (title >> > > XVIII >> > > > > of >> > > > > > > Public Law >> > > > > > > > > 111-84)). >> > >> > > > > > > > > (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or >> competent >> > > > > tribunal >> > > > > > > > > having lawful jurisdiction. >> > >> > > > > > > > > (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's >> > > country >> > > > > of >> > > > > > > > > origin, any other foreign country, or any other >> foreign >> > > > > entity. >> > >> > > > > > > > > (d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended >> to >> > > limit >> > > > > or >> > > > > > > > > expand the authority of the President or the scope of >> the >> > > > > > > Authorization for >> > > > > > > > > Use of Military Force. >> > >> > > > > > > > > (e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be >> construed >> > > to >> > > > > > > affect >> > > > > > > > > existing law or authorities relating to the detention >> of >> > > United >> > > > > > > States >> > > > > > > > > citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, >> or >> > > any >> > > > > other >> > > > > > > persons >> > > > > > > > > who are captured or arrested in the United States. >> > >> > > > > > > > > (f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The >> Secretary of >> > > > > Defense >> > > > > > > > > shall regularly brief Congress regarding the >> application of >> > > the >> > > > > > > authority >> > > > > > > > > described in this section, including the organizations, >> > > > > entities, >> > > > > > > and >> > > > > > > > > individuals considered to be `covered persons' for >> purposes >> > > of >> > > > > > > subsection >> > > > > > > > > (b)(2). >> > >> > > > > > > > > SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA >> TERRORISTS. >> > >> > > > > > > > > (a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War- >> > >> > > > > > > > > (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), >> the >> > > Armed >> > > > > > > Forces >> > > > > > > > > of the United States shall hold a person described >> in >> > > > > paragraph >> > > > > > > (2) who is >> > > > > > > > > captured in the course of hostilities authorized by >> the >> > > > > > > Authorization for >> > > > > > > > > Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in >> military >> > > custody >> > > > > > > pending >> > > > > > > > > disposition under the law of war. >> > >> > > > > > > > > (2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) >> shall >> > > > > apply to >> > > > > > > > > any person whose detention is authorized under >> section >> > > 1021 >> > > > > who >> > > > > > > is >> > > > > > > > > determined-- >> > >> > > > > > > > > (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an >> associated >> > > > > force >> > > > > > > > > that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the >> > > > > direction >> > > > > > > of al-Qaeda; and >> > >> > > > > > > > > (B) to have participated in the course of planning or >> > > carrying >> > > > > out >> > > > > > > an >> > > > > > > > > attack or attempted attack against the United >> States >> > > or >> > > > > its >> > > > > > > coalition >> > > > > > > > > partners. >> > >> > > > > > > > > (3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this >> > > > > subsection, >> > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > disposition of a person under the law of war has the >> > > meaning >> > > > > > > given in >> > > > > > > > > section 1021(c), except that no transfer otherwise >> > > described >> > > > > in >> > > > > > > paragraph >> > > > > > > > > (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent >> with >> > > the >> > > > > > > requirements >> > > > > > > > > of section 1028. >> > >> > > > > > > > > (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The President may >> waive >> > > the >> > > > > > > > > requirement of paragraph (1) if the President >> submits to >> > > > > > > Congress a >> > >> > ... >> > >> > read more » >> >> -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> > > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
