Keep away from Wiki --- not zionist enough for you, eh? I noticed that you didn't challenge the truth about dual citizenships.
On Dec 28, 11:03 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > 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.
