Keep away from Wiki PlainOl......It's dangerous!
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
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 <plainolamerican@gmail.com> 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 Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 10:37 AM, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com
On Dec 28, 10:32 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> 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).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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 <keithinta...@gmail.com> 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
> > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>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 <keithinta...@gmail.com> 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 <
> > > > plainolameri...@gmail.com
>
> > > > > > 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 <keithinta...@gmail.com> 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 <
> > > > keithinta...@gmail.com
> > > > > > >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.
WordPress.com
