Keith, What the US requires has absolutely NOTHING to do with what the other Government involved accepts and recognizes as legal in dealing with their citizens and constitutions.
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]>wrote: > Hello Mark, and Happy Holidays! > > Well, therein lies the conundrum. You are not a good example of what I > am referencing, and I am aware of your circumstances. A person who takes > an oath in the United States naturalization process is required to renounce > his citizenship to any other soverign, and I don't know how you, PlainOl, > but especially a United States District Court can get around the plain > language of the statute. > > Here's wishing you a prosperous, amusing, but most importantly a healthy > 2012! > > Keith > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 1:49 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> There are many countries that do not recognize a renunciation of >> citizenship. Once a citizen, always a citizen regardless of the oath >> the US requires. That oath only counts within the jurisdiction of US >> courts. >> >> On Dec 28, 11:02 am, 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. >> > >> > ... >> > >> > 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. > -- *Mark M. Kahle H.* * * * * -- 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.
