Re: No Ex Post Facto Laws, No Easy Loss of Citizenship
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 23:07:50 -0800, you wrote: > "This man was and is a citizen. His presence overseas > did not cause him to lose his citizenship. If he faces > charges, he faces them in a U.S. court with full access > to lawyers, full habeas corpus rights, full rights to face > his accusers, and so on." But isn't the point of the Bush-Military that he does not face "charges", he is like a captured German Luftwaffe Pilot in 1944 in France -- he is to be held in a prisoner of war prison until the end of hostilities (never, since you can't defeat a method like "Terror"), and repatriated to the country of his military commanders (never, since it is a group, not a country, and they will all be killed)? But the point is more dangerous. The point is that the military alone can decide if you are an enemy combatant, and if they do, you can be held in secret anywhere, without notice to anyone, with no legal representation, until the day you die. A person disappears. That's all we would know, if that's the way the military wants to play it. Land of the free, home of the brave.
RE: No Ex Post Facto Laws, No Easy Loss of Citizenship
> Tim May[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > [...] > Second, losing citizenship is not easy. Check Google on "loss of > citizenship" to find precedents, laws, etc. Basically, even serving in > a foreign army does not cause loss of citizenship. (Which is symmetric > with how we want other countries to behave when we draft their citizens > into our armies--yes, when the draft was in place we expected all males > reaching age 18 to register with our draft boards and expose themselves > to serving in our military. Many foreigners served in our military.) > > Basically, citizenship is not revokable. Not even traitors have their > citizenships revoked. It can be given up, but not lightly and not > without the initiative of the party giving up the citizenship. > > In any case, this guy's citizenship has not been given up by him. > [...] While I agree with most of Tim's post, it's not as hard to lose your US citizenship as he makes out. I grew up as a US expatriate in various European countries, including the age period when compulsory military service was a very real personal issue. What could an could not affect your US citizenship was a topic of interest, research, and discussion in the expat community (this was in the 60's and 70's). Basicly, getting drafted and serving in a foreign army (of an ally) was not a problem. Voluntarily entering a foreign military service most definitely was. Taking a civil service job was risky; and riskier the higher you went - being a department head at a foreign state run university was riskier than being an associate professor. Note that I talk about risk rather then certainty. If what you did didn't piss off the USG, you were cool. If it did, they'd decide according to what fit the USG's interest. The US fliers who served with the RAF in the Eagle Squadron prior to Pearl Harbor didn't lose their citizenship. Of course, you could appeal, but your options were pretty limited. Mr. Hamdi seems to have US citizenship almost by accident - he was apparently born in the US while his Saudi father was receiving military training here, and returned to Saudi soon after. He joined the anti-US forces in Afghanistan, apparently voluntarily, and bore arms against the US. By all the rules I lived by as an expatriate, he could be stripped of his citizenship in a heartbeat. --- But what I object most strongly is the neologism 'enemy combatant'. Most of these people are in fact POWs, and should have all the protections of such. Mr Padilla, the other US citizen tagged in this way, is a much more worrying case. He was born in the US, always lived here, and was arrested in the US. Bush and his gang have stuck the 'enemy combatant' label on him, and he is now denied most of his Constitutional rights. If it can happen to him, then the government can 'dissapear' anyone it wants. Peter Trei
Re: No Ex Post Facto Laws, No Easy Loss of Citizenship
On Thursday, January 9, 2003, at 09:55 AM, Trei, Peter wrote: While I agree with most of Tim's post, it's not as hard to lose your US citizenship as he makes out. I grew up as a US expatriate in various European countries, including the age period when compulsory military service ... Of course, you could appeal, but your options were pretty limited. Fine, then take away his citizenship, using established and formal procedures. This zeroes the clock. For things he does after the clock is zeroed, he does not have citizenship status. For things he did before the clock was zeroed, he was of course a citizen. (There is the ancillary issue I raised, that it is a misconception for people think the Constitution and Bill of Rights only applies to _citizens_. It applies to those facing trial in the U.S. or its territories (mostly), save for cases where an illegal immigrant, for example, is deported out of the U.S. promptly.) Mr. Hamdi seems to have US citizenship almost by accident - he was apparently born in the US while his Saudi father was receiving military training here, and returned to Saudi soon after. He joined the anti-US forces in Afghanistan, apparently voluntarily, and bore arms against the US. By all the rules I lived by as an expatriate, he could be stripped of his citizenship in a heartbeat. But they didn't, and haven't. As for his "almost by accident," this may be so, but so what? But what I object most strongly is the neologism 'enemy combatant'. Most of these people are in fact POWs, and should have all the protections of such. Indeed. Mr Padilla, the other US citizen tagged in this way, is a much more worrying case. He was born in the US, always lived here, and was arrested in the US. Bush and his gang have stuck the 'enemy combatant' label on him, and he is now denied most of his Constitutional rights. As were the 1000 Arabic-ancestry men rounded up and held on vague "material witness" grounds. A police state. The Bill of Rights is toilet paper. --Tim May "As my father told me long ago, the objective is not to convince someone with your arguments but to provide the arguments with which he later convinces himself." -- David Friedman
Re: No Ex Post Facto Laws, No Easy Loss of Citizenship
Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : > >First, even non-citizens have court rights now being denied to the >concentration camp detainees. (Many of you reading this list are > > > >The Supreme Court should overrule the Appeals Court and say very simply: > >"This man was and is a citizen. His presence overseas did not cause him >to lose his citizenship. If he faces charges, he faces them in a U.S. >court with full access to lawyers, full habeas corpus rights, full >rights to face his accusers, and so on." > >And the Supremes ought to chastise the Bush Administration for thinking >otherwise. > >--Tim May > The supposed justification is that the guy was picked up on the battlefield. I say that on a battlefield, war or no war, they guy's citizenship is irrelevant. Where I differ with the current decision is that once he is detained, effectively removed from battle, his citizenship becomes of paramount importance. Some might argue that there is some sort of intelligence issue in between the two states. Perhaps. So I agree, you are right in what you say but watch what happens if Shrub gets to place more justices in the federal system. It'll get worse than it already is. M
No Ex Post Facto Laws, No Easy Loss of Citizenship
First, even non-citizens have court rights now being denied to the
concentration camp detainees. (Many of you reading this list are
residents of the U.S. but not U.S. citizens. You must surely know that
if you are charged with some crime you will have the same
constitutional protections that actual citizens have--our courts are
filled with trials of resident aliens.)
Second, losing citizenship is not easy. Check Google on "loss of
citizenship" to find precedents, laws, etc. Basically, even serving in
a foreign army does not cause loss of citizenship. (Which is symmetric
with how we want other countries to behave when we draft their citizens
into our armies--yes, when the draft was in place we expected all males
reaching age 18 to register with our draft boards and expose themselves
to serving in our military. Many foreigners served in our military.)
Basically, citizenship is not revokable. Not even traitors have their
citizenships revoked. It can be given up, but not lightly and not
without the initiative of the party giving up the citizenship.
In any case, this guy's citizenship has not been given up by him.
Third, even if it is argued that his actions caused him to lose his
citizenship, he would then only be liable for prosecution as a
noncitizen (whatever that may be, pace the first point above). To argue
otherwise is to argue for an ex post facto law, which the Constitution
specifically forbids.
He should be charged, if any charges are valid, as any other person
should be charged and brought to trial in a U.S. court. (A non-U.S.
resident, non-U.S. citizen, such as a German soldier in World War II,
may be subject to capture and imprisonment as a POW, and perhaps even
to trial in a military court. This is not being done in this case.)
In any case, a claim that a state of war exists is flimsy. No
declaration of war has been made, neither by the Congress ("Congress
shall have the power to declare war") nor by the Executive Branch
(scholars debate whether the President has this power; in any case,
Bush hasn't tried to do it).
The 9/11 attackers may or may not have been connected to Bin Laden's
group (I think they were), but the state and people of Afghanistan were
not in a state of war with the U.S. Possibly Mullah Omar knew of Bin
Laden's plans in advance of 9/11, but I have seen no evidence of this.
And certainly the rank and file Taliban were not apprised of this sneak
attack plan. It looks like Afghanistan's guilt as a country (??) came
from its unwillingness to round up Bin Laden and his men after 9/11.
("Harboring.")
(I could go on about harboring fugitives, extradition treaties, moral
responsibilities, U.N. resolutions, etc. The U.S. attacked Serbia
basically for harboring Milosevich. And so on. But the real issue is
whether this unwillingness to turn over Milosevich, or Chile's
unwillingness to turn over its former leaders, and so on, is the same
as a country going to war.)
Back to Bush declaring this citizen to be unworthy of normal trial
procedures. He was and is a citizen. His presence in Afghanistan and
even his service in their military does NOT cause him to lose his
citizenship. Even if it did, he could not then be tried as a noncitizen
for alleged crimes committed when he WAS a citizen, by the "no ex post
facto laws" provisions of the Constitution.
Finally, practically speaking, why not have normal trials for these
Americans? The Rosenbergs got a real trial, not a military tribunal in
Cuba or Diego Garcia. And so on for Walker, Hanssen, etc.
Even an obvious foreigner, General Manuel Noriega, received a trial in
a U.S. court.
It is inconceivable that a low-level American serving in Afghanistan's
military knows something which cannot be mentioned in open court (not
that this is justification for secret military tribunals, but I mention
it anyway).
If Bush is not overruled on this "declaration of being an Evil Doer"
end-run of the Constitution, the implications will be dire.
The Supreme Court should overrule the Appeals Court and say very simply:
"This man was and is a citizen. His presence overseas did not cause him
to lose his citizenship. If he faces charges, he faces them in a U.S.
court with full access to lawyers, full habeas corpus rights, full
rights to face his accusers, and so on."
And the Supremes ought to chastise the Bush Administration for thinking
otherwise.
--Tim May
