FARK.com: (6865155) While Americans worry about the relationship status of the Kardashians, Congress is looking at a new way to strip Americans of their citizenship if they get all protest-y

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		While Americans worry about the relationship status of the Kardashians, Congress is looking at a new way to strip Americans of their citizenship if they get all protest-y (addictinginfo.org)		94
		More: Scary, Americans

• • •

7197 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Jan 2012 at 3:15 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/6865155

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

Voting Results (Smartest)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh voting results (Smartest or Funniest) or Return to comments

Archived thread

Funbags		2012-01-07 04:56:54 PM

5 votes:

I'd like to vocally oppose this legislation, but I don't want to lose my citizenship and/or get disappeared.

In other words, mission accomplished.

coco ebert		2012-01-07 02:30:33 PM

5 votes:

Disgusting. Many of the political refugees that I worked with from Turkey who fled after the 1980 military coup were stripped of their citizenship. It was one way for the military government to ensure they would never return. Many of them took the government to the European Court of Human Rights and won as it is actually illegal under international law to do so. Some got their citizenship back. I'm just appalled that this is even floated by a mainstream politician in the U. S. in this day and age. People don't realize that this is something authoritarian regimes (see Chile under Pinochet as well) have done to people they deemed undesirables.

danny_kay		2012-01-07 08:35:39 PM

4 votes:

Amos Quito: Wayne 985: Skirl Hutsenreiter: Yep. I hate to Godwin the thread...

Then don't. You're comparing the crime of exterminating 11 million innocent people to a policy of what is essentially banishment for terrorist activity. It's faulty logic and it trivializes the deaths of those people.

Bullshiat. Shiat like this starts small, and encroaches slowly.
The best way to honor the victims of tyranny is to prevent more lives and liberty being lost to tyranny.

Exactly!

I think it was author Bertold Brecht who compared Hitler to a snowball rolling down a hill. At first, no one took him serious, but when he had turned into an avalanche, it was too late to stop him.

And this very bill is such a snowball.

Also, Godwin's Law does not apply to any mention of Nazis in a discussion. It only applies to telling the other side of the discussion "oh yeah? Well, you're a dirty Nazi, so there!"
Godwin's Law most definitely does not apply to drawing valid historical parallels between the Third Reich and parts of today's politics. That's not Godwinning, that's examining snowballs.

Also, he wasn't comparing the bill to the holocaust against the German Jews.
He was comparing the bill to what happened *before* the holocaust.

It trivializes the deaths of these people if we put the holocaust and its victims onto a pedestal, because, as we see by Wayne's words, it keeps us from analyzing how the holocaust happened and how we can prevent it from happening again.
Ask the survivors what they want: for us to speak about the holocaust in hushed tones only or for us to have a frank discussion of the political mechanisms with the goal of making damn sure nothing like this ever happens again.

secularsage		2012-01-07 04:11:04 PM

4 votes:

I've been highly suspicious that the reason the Congress has been doing all of this anti-free speech activity lately is because they have been deeply embarrassed by activists who have used the Internet to expose them and challenge them, and they've decided that if they can't limit free speech, they can definitely limit who has the ability to speak.

This goes way beyond Islamophobia and the War on Terror. These guys are terrified of things they don't understand, like LulzSec, Anonymous, Wikileaks and the Occupy movement. They're also terrified of Americans rising up against them for doing things that we'd never approve of if every decision were put to a vote. They're using fear of terror abroad to redefine freedom domestically.

Some might say this is society's growing pains in the face of a brand new technological paradigm that is limiting government's power. Others might say that this is the generation gap, where those who were raised in an era of limited transparency and back door decision-making are finding themselves terrified of a more open society.

The problem is, if we don't stand up to this stuff as a society now, it will be other democratic republics that learn from our mistakes when we start disappearing our own dissidents and sending our own citizens to internment camps. It might seem extreme now, but it always does until it happens.

Bob16		2012-01-07 04:01:32 PM

4 votes:

It really is to the point now where if the US government considers you to be an enemy there is a good chance you are a decent human being.

HellRaisingHoosier		2012-01-07 03:59:23 PM

4 votes:

Trance750: Well you get the Government you deserve.

That's the stupidest statement ever. I wasn't even able to vote until just after the 2004 election. The only Presidents I can really remember are President Obama and President Bush. I vaguely remember President Clinton, but I really didn't know a thing about politics in my early teens.

How exactly do I, and millions of Millennials, deserve this shiat?

So here we sit. The largest age-group in the United States with the highest unemployment rate, poor economy, minimal job aspects, crushing personal debt and being scolded by our parents for being "losers" while they spend our money and our grandchildren's money.

All we've actually seen are the Bush Jr. years ..... and President Obama's first turn. Now I ask you. What do you think the viewpoint of Republicans are to most people my age, and what do you think the viewpoint of Democrats are to most people my age?

Mugato		2012-01-07 12:39:43 PM

4 votes:

Trance750: Well you get the Government you deserve.

Ugh, that old cliche. I didn't vote for any of this shiat. And when Obama is raping us almost as badly as Bush (and don't all smug about that, republicans. McCain would have been no better), we're not getting the gov't we deserve. The game is rigged. We get no say in the matter.

HotIgneous Intruder		2012-01-07 06:26:49 PM

3 votes:

Here's the site that tracks the legislation (new window).

The way I see this is that if the men in black declare you guilty of "engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States" then you can lose your citizenship and then they don't have to attend to any of those pesky constitutional rights you might claim. Because you're not a citizen any more.

I think senators need to be drug tested.

BSABSVR		2012-01-07 05:49:21 PM

3 votes:

Wayne 985: Do you think that's realistic? Political dissent is a far cry from detonating a bomb in the middle of a city.

After 9/11 and before the war on terror, Ari Fleischer told dissenters that they really needed to watch what they say. Warbloggers brought up "aid and comfort" to the enemy whenever people said anything negative about Bush. I've seen liberal blogs debate over whether it's treasonous to call Obama a Kenyan Muslim*. So yes, it's realistic. never assume a prosecutor of any type will ever show any leniency or judgment, and always assume that laws will be used as broadly as possible.

Skirl Hutsenreiter		2012-01-07 05:40:16 PM

3 votes:

coco ebert: I'm just appalled that this is even floated by a mainstream politician in the U. S. in this day and age. People don't realize that this is something authoritarian regimes (see Chile under Pinochet as well) have done to people they deemed undesirables.

Yep. I hate to Godwin the thread, but one of the first things that Hitler did with the Jews is declare that any Jew who left Germany forfeited their citizenship. Then they started helping them organize emigration left and right. The bureaucracy didn't know how occupied nations would take to their own Jews being shipped to camps (when it was finally tried some put their feet down while others complied eagerly), but they were all more than willing to ship off their Jewish refugees. Which is why civilized nations now agree that you cannot strip people of their only citizenship. Everyone should have some nation obliged to claim them.

coco ebert		2012-01-07 02:48:34 PM

3 votes:

We need an Occupy the Constitution movement.

Trance750		2012-01-07 02:33:46 PM

3 votes:

coco ebert: Disgusting. Many of the political refugees that I worked with from Turkey who fled after the 1980 military coup were stripped of their citizenship. It was one way for the military government to ensure they would never return. Many of them took the government to the European Court of Human Rights and won as it is actually illegal under international law to do so. Some got their citizenship back. I'm just appalled that this is even floated by a mainstream politician in the U. S. in this day and age. People don't realize that this is something authoritarian regimes (see Chile under Pinochet as well) have done to people they deemed undesirables.

The sad fact is most people don't even care, until it happens to them. The level of apathy I see every single day, makes me cringe.

Mugato		2012-01-07 01:10:30 PM

3 votes:

Trance750: I agree McCain would have been horrible and was amazed he even made it past the Primary

If he was elected President, I'd be surprised if he made it past the inauguration. As in he would have dropped dead, probably in the first year or so. Being a President ages a person and he's already kind of an idiot now and if he died, we all know what that would have meant.

www.truthdig.com

Aarontology		2012-01-07 11:13:51 AM

3 votes:

Just think.

if fifteen years ago someone told you the government would attempt to pass laws that would give them the authority to revoke your citizenship without due process and imprison you indefinitely, people would have laughed you out of town.

danny_kay		2012-01-07 09:09:36 PM

2 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: danny_kay:
It trivializes the deaths of these people if we put the holocaust and its victims onto a pedestal,.

you want to put the holocaust onto a pedestal? Are you farking nuts? Or a Nazi?

Sick.

Okay let me explain that:

Wayne 985 originally said:
Then don't. You're comparing the crime of exterminating 11 million innocent people to a policy of what is essentially banishment for terrorist activity. It's faulty logic and it trivializes the deaths of those people.

In my opinion, *he* puts the holocaust on a pedestal by viewing it as a monolithic event that bears no comparison to anything EVAR.

Of course the extermination of a significant segment of our population is an event against which everything else pales in comparison.

But we can't forget that the gas chambers did not exist in a vacuum, but they were the last step in a long chain of events.
I think there must be a way to grieve for the victims of the holocaust and to acknowledge the horrible enormity of it, while *at the same time* examining the processes that led up to it.

And so it should be valid to say "well, the Jews were stripped of their citizenship and ordered out of the country, too. And we all know how that ended. So let's think about whether this bill is a good idea"

Of course, being stripped of one's citizenship and deported is nothing against being killed - actually the ones who were kept from returning to Germany were the lucky ones, as we know today.

But we can't lose sight of the fact that the citizenship thing was one piece of the chain of events that finally ended in the gas chambers
And it should be possible to discuss it in detail without someone crying "wah! People got *killed* in the Third Reich! Why are you discussing citizenships at all if people got *killed*?"

Does that make it more clear?

And in the interest of full disclosure: I am German, and I do consider the holocaust to be one of the most horrible things to ever happen on this planet. This is why I consider it my task to turn over some snowballs and examine them for their danger of becoming unstoppable avalanches.

technicolor-misfit		2012-01-07 08:22:55 PM

2 votes:

Aarontology: Just think.

if fifteen years ago someone told you the government would attempt to pass laws that would give them the authority to revoke your citizenship without due process and imprison you indefinitely, people would have laughed you out of town.

Yes, as little as ten years ago, when we began down this road, they did just that. As everyone bemoaned the Patriot Act, torture, warrantless wiretaps, and all the other post-9/11 bullshiat, right-wingers kept going "Oh yeah, it's just like Nazi Germany here... Oh noes! Look, bottom line is if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!!!"

And even now, Americans won't do shiat. They won't believe where we're headed till we get there. As I have long semi-joked, the point is stopping it before there are SS stormtroopers standing on the street corner. You don't wait until you get to the "papers, please!!!" and go "Now, THIS is fascism!!! We should totally do something about it."

HotIgneous Intruder		2012-01-07 07:34:04 PM

2 votes:

stevenr868: it's this kind of thinking that will be the end of America as we know it

Not exactly. Read the psychopath's senate bill (And make no mistake, Lieberman is a psychopath) and see what it does and to what law, then get back to yourself on that. It just adds buying a Capri Sun for the Taliban to the list of reasons you can lose your rights.

/Dude, don't do it

Amos Quito		2012-01-07 06:32:16 PM

2 votes:

bugontherug: HellRaisingHoosier: That's the stupidest statement ever. I wasn't even able to vote until just after the 2004 election. The only Presidents I can really remember are President Obama and President Bush. I vaguely remember President Clinton, but I really didn't know a thing about politics in my early teens.

How exactly do I, and millions of Millennials, deserve this shiat?

It's not fair on an individual level. But as long as we're speaking in general terms, the answer is:

Because you don't vote, or you waste your vote on impotent protest candidates.

Speaking generationally, young people get exactly what they deserve for their refusal to participate, and irrational voting.

The problem is that at this stage, there is no "rational" choice among the candidates. The two-party system is a good-cop bad-cop illusion.

Amos Quito		2012-01-07 06:18:31 PM

2 votes:

HotIgneous Intruder		2012-01-07 06:15:44 PM

2 votes:

Many members of the US senate are some sick farks.
And I mean clinically defined, DSM-IV-type sick and twisted mutherfarkers.

This is just more proof.

threeoclockrock		2012-01-07 06:11:41 PM

2 votes:

Wayne 985: Trance750: Wayne 985: Dimensio: Wayne 985: you can be stripped of your nationality for "engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States."

Good. Why is this a bad thing? It reminds me of the doofus who tried detonating a bomb in Portland around a year ago. He's likely to get away with it because he was "entrapped" by the Feds. As though agreeing to detonate a bomb in a major city was a rational, normal response when asked to do so.

People like that, American citizen or not, should be effectively banished.

I am curious: do you suffer physical discomfort as a direct consequence of your demonstrable mental incompetence?

Yes.

Just to play devil's advocate here, but what happens if Washington decides to extend this to include 'political dissidants' as well?

Don't say it can never happen in America.

Do you think that's realistic? Political dissent is a far cry from detonating a bomb in the middle of a city.

LOL. Let me help you. The communist party in China is also in power in the government. Guess what happens to people who protest the communist party there. They are treated as criminals.

Trance750		2012-01-07 05:28:22 PM

2 votes:

relcec: Trance750: relcec: Trance750: relcec: Trance750: Bob16: Trance750: Both sides have been tearing at the fabric of Freedom. It's only now we're starting to really see the damage that has been done

YEah but there is a difference when repubs are in power. I've read up on what was happening in central america during the late 1970's and early 1980s and there is no doubt that when Raygun got in office the right wingers down there went crazy slaughtering their opposition because they knew the right wingers in america would cover things up for them.

"The Massacre At El Mozote" ( just one of many such massacres ) by Mark Danner provides some real insight into how blood thirsty Raygun was.

I don't doubt that one bit. Also during the Reagan Admin, we supplied weapons and secret covert ops to Saddam

what covert operations did we carry out with them? I hadn't heard of this. was it delta, seal team six?

I dunno exact, but I believe they were sent to assasinate the Ayatollah

now f*cking way. there is law against that, you know?

America has violated the Geneva Convention time and time again, and yet people turn a blind eye because we're 'the good guys'

I don't think we are the good guys. I think we do what we want almost without regard to anything. but that doesn't mean we have necessarily violated our own proscription against assassinations against foreign leaders. this proscription does not apply when we are at war of course. then they are legitimate targets as teh commander of the military.

Also don't forget we helped overthrow a democratically elected Government in Chile and helped Augusto Pinochet into power, and he was a brutal dictator who killed people by the thousand and many political protesters were often rounded up, never to be seen from again.

But because he was a good little puppet and bowed down to whatever the US said, we looked the other way

1derful		2012-01-07 05:18:48 PM

2 votes:

Dwight_Yeast: Larry Mahnken: The First Amendment trumps this. You cannot be stripped of your citizenship for protesting, even if they pass a law explicitly saying you can.

Same thing is true of the NDAA, which I suspect is why Obama signed it: the first time some asshole tries to use it, it will go up for a SOCTUS challenge and even the current, hyper-conservative court will shoot it down as unconstitutional.

How exactly do you go before the Supreme Court when you're being detained perpetually with no access to legal representation?

Trance750		2012-01-07 04:46:27 PM

2 votes:

Bob16: Weaver95:

If you look into all the coups and murdering we've been involved in in the third world it's plain we went over to the dark side a long time ago.

Both sides have been tearing at the fabric of Freedom. It's only now we're starting to really see the damage that has been done

We can no longer pretend it's only other countries or Mid-East dictators that stifle individual freedoms and liberties.

We've been doing it for years, now they are just more open and blatant about it

Weaver95		2012-01-07 04:18:47 PM

2 votes:

Bob16: It really is to the point now where if the US government considers you to be an enemy there is a good chance you are a decent human being.

well...no. I mean the government has legit enemies out there. the problem is that we're now starting to confuse criticism with terrorism. we're on the fringes of becoming an authoritarian regime. All the recent efforts to quash free speech and make corporations more powerful is us laying the legal framework for oppression and violence against you and me.

give us another 10 years and then you'll see the violence inherent to the system.

pippi longstocking		2012-01-07 03:25:57 PM

2 votes:

They are doing all of that because the economy isn't going to recover, it's just going to get worst, and the direction your damn dear conservative leaders are taking you is back a few hundred years where you work 100 hours a week for next to nothing pay in order to pay for the basics like food, gas, health, and home. Congrats you are now living like the rest of the developing world, maybe even worst.

ultraholland		2012-01-07 03:21:13 PM

2 votes:

attempting to pass this is a hostility against the United States

Weaver95		2012-01-07 02:50:16 PM

2 votes:

SilentStrider: Jesus Christ what the hell is the matter with these people?
One thing happens 10 years ago, and its like everyone has an excuse to continually shiat themselves in fear ever since.

we're a culture that lives on fear. we use fear (and sex) to sell products and get elected. fear motivates us to get out of bed and go to work. fear keeps people in church. fear keeps them from asking too many questions. fear prevents people from standing up against government.

is it any surprise that someone would use fear to scare people into accepting yet more asinine oppressive policies?

Weaver95		2012-01-07 02:45:58 PM

2 votes:

coco ebert		2012-01-07 02:35:26 PM

2 votes:

Trance750: coco ebert: Disgusting. Many of the political refugees that I worked with from Turkey who fled after the 1980 military coup were stripped of their citizenship. It was one way for the military government to ensure they would never return. Many of them took the government to the European Court of Human Rights and won as it is actually illegal under international law to do so. Some got their citizenship back. I'm just appalled that this is even floated by a mainstream politician in the U. S. in this day and age. People don't realize that this is something authoritarian regimes (see Chile under Pinochet as well) have done to people they deemed undesirables.

The sad fact is most people don't even care, until it happens to them. The level of apathy I see every single day, makes me cringe.

What's even sadder is that I could see Obama signing off on this. With "reservations" of course. *sarcastic tone*

wejash		2012-01-07 12:21:32 PM

2 votes:

eddyatwork: What about the Kardashians? Did Khloe get a new boyfriend? Is Kim getting divorced? I need to know!

Anyone who says this, they get an instant freebie sterilization. I'd throw in a lobotomy but cable TV already took care of that.

GAT_00		2012-01-07 12:05:37 PM

2 votes:

cman: No way this will pass SCOTUS scrutiny.

Haha, yes it will.

Trance750		2012-01-07 10:42:42 AM

2 votes:

Well you get the Government you deserve.

Ishkur		2012-01-08 08:44:30 PM

1 votes:

Aarontology: if fifteen years ago someone told you the government would attempt to pass laws that would give them the authority to revoke your citizenship without due process and imprison you indefinitely, people would have laughed you out of town.

The government's always had this power.

It's called the War Measures Act.

It's usually only invoked in extreme circumstances, like there's a World War or something. What, you think the rationing of resources, the blackouts and curfews, and the internment of Japanese citizens was just for fun? No.... when there's a crisis, the government has the power to suspend the rights and privileges of the citizenry to deal with the threat.

The difference between Democracies and dictatorships, however, is that after the threat is over, the government usually restores those privileges.

/one could argue that the threat of terrorism makes the crisis indefinite
//and thus, the suspension of rights and privileges indefinite
///which is technically the plot of 1984

Ambivalence		2012-01-08 05:54:57 PM

1 votes:

Even if this bill passes into law (which is about as unlikely as a meteorite striking Joe Lieberman straight on his head), there is no way this passes constitutional muster, especially for native born citizens.

The 14th Ammendment is unambiguous: If you were born in the U.S. you are a citizen of the U.S....period. You are protected by the U.S. Constitution which INCLUDES due process.

The entire supreme court would have to be on LSD to even come close to enough votes to uphold this law as constitutional.

cman		2012-01-08 08:49:40 AM

1 votes:

bugontherug: Amos Quito: Indeed I'm quite sure that you have no problem with the idea of Centralized Authoritarian Control, PROVIDED that you BELIEVE that said control and power will serve YOUR PERCEIVED INTERESTS.

Amirite?

No, you're not right. You don't seem to be reading my posts. I dislike the erosion of our civil liberties. But irrationally casting your vote to increase the likelihood of bad outcomes only makes things worse.

The way you effectuate the kind of change you're seeking is not to give the government lock, stock, and barrel to the party with the historically worse civil liberties record. It is to advocate, and change public opinion. When a substantial, sustained majority agrees with you, policy change will follow. For example, we didn't get DADT repeal (a civil liberties issue you seem to ignore) by letting Republicans win. And it wouldn't have happened at all had even one more Republican been elected to the Senate. We got DADT repeal because public opinion changed, and the better political party was given the power to repeal it.

You are what is wrong with America today.

"My team is better than yours!" is an idiotic way to look at the world. Usually politicians do what is most politically popular for them to do. Thats why you have these closeted gay Republicans voting against their own people.

American memory is short. By November, you will forget about the Democrats that pushed for NDAA and vote to reelect them.

/Go fark yourself you farking tool

thisispete		2012-01-08 12:50:04 AM

1 votes:

But there's the pesky Constitution - in particular, section 1 of the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

DrPainMD		2012-01-07 11:21:09 PM

1 votes:

FTA: This bill would give the US government the power to strip Americans of their citizenship without being convicted of being "hostile" against the United States. In other words, you can be stripped of your nationality for "engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States."

Good. The first people to be expatriated should be all the TSA and DEA employees.

hicksfa2		2012-01-07 09:55:55 PM

1 votes:

WhyteRaven74: Dwight_Yeast: Same thing is true of the NDAA,

The NDAA isn't a problem, it's a defense appropriations bill. The problem is a couple sections of it. And what Congress managed to do was to get it to Obama so late that if he vetoed it there was no way Congress could either override the veto or put together a new bill before the old NDAA, there's one for every fiscal year, expired. Which would mean the DoD has no money for things like, oh, covering paychecks.

In other words- Congress intentionally got Obama the bill too late, because they KNEW he had to sign it regardless of if there was 'troublesome' language in it or not?

And you don't see a problem with that?

bugontherug		2012-01-07 09:19:10 PM

1 votes:

HotIgneous Intruder: bugontherug: That means accepting that you can't get all beneficial outcomes, and it also means casting your vote to minimize harmful outcomes.

Lesser evils are OK then?

No. Not any more. Do not vote for democrats or republicans if you want change.

Allow me to retort:

1) In the American system, if you don't vote for the lesser evil, you get the greater evil. Unfortunately, we do not have a system that rewards voters who vote for their first choice. Instead, we have a system that punishes voters who fail to vote against their last choice. Voting for a third party with no plausible chance of winning, or refraining from voting, is not only impotent, but counterproductive. Maurice Duverger articulated the reasons why in the middle of the last century.

Link (new window)

2) Thus, voters who stick to one of the "big two" parties have rationally calculated their vote to maximize beneficial outcomes according to their values. For example, I disagree with the indefinite detention law. But however much I dislike it, neither voting third party nor refraining from voting has any realistic chance of producing a different policy outcome. Not only that, but I generally agree with the Democrats on most other issues, and I strongly disagree with the Republicans on many more .Therefore, voting for a third party with no realistic chance to win, or refraining from voting, fails to maximize beneficial outcomes for me. Not only will the indefinite detention policy not change because of it, but by doing so, I increase the likelihood of maximizing harmful outcomes.

However angry indefinite detention makes you, it makes no sense to impotently vote third party, or not to vote. Not only will it fail to produce the change you want, but it will increase the likelihood of many other changes you don't want. That's the basic reality of our system. Successful rational actors adjust their actions to suit reality, rather than blanking it out with heady utopian pipe dreams.

Lunaville		2012-01-07 08:50:24 PM

1 votes:

HotIgneous Intruder: stevenr868: it's this kind of thinking that will be the end of America as we know it

Not exactly. Read the psychopath's senate bill (And make no mistake, Lieberman is a psychopath) and see what it does and to what law, then get back to yourself on that. It just adds buying a Capri Sun for the Taliban to the list of reasons you can lose your rights.

/Dude, don't do it

There are some Christian organizations that send humanitarian aid to stated enemies of the USA: things like blankets, over the counter meds, and children's' clothing. These groups, generally, send a letter to the government advising the government of their intent to violate given restrictions in sending these goods and why they are doing so. This insignificant (as you seem to view it) tidbit of Liebermans' would put all of these folks at risk of losing citizenship. This, to you, is a casual, no-big-deal-dude, kind of thing?

BSABSVR		2012-01-07 08:07:43 PM

1 votes:

Wayne 985: Don't waste time getting angry over dumb blogs

It's not that it's dumb blogs, exactly. It's that these ideas go from fringe to mainstreams easily.

stevenr868		2012-01-07 07:31:16 PM

1 votes:

HotIgneous Intruder: So if I go off and fight with the Taliban or start a Taliban unit here, I'm gonna lose my citizenship. Check. Gotcha.

/Trolled by an alarmist blog and fark headline, how does it work

it's this kind of thinking that will be the end of America as we know it

Whodat		2012-01-07 07:13:19 PM

1 votes:

So they want to be able to strip you of your citizenship if you are hostile to the USA. Wouldn't they be the first to go?

Churchy LaFemme		2012-01-07 07:02:07 PM

1 votes:

bugontherug: Incorrect.

Those are nice things, bug.

And not one of them is more important or worth more than your basic civil liberties. Not one.

HotIgneous Intruder		2012-01-07 06:54:09 PM

1 votes:

Gawdammit so much, this never-ending nonsense is depressing and debilitating.

bugontherug		2012-01-07 06:53:18 PM

1 votes:

Amos Quito: The problem is that at this stage, there is no "rational" choice among the candidates. The two-party system is a good-cop bad-cop illusion.

Incorrect.

1) President Obama has ended the US practices of torture and rendition to torture. Romney will be under tremendous political pressure from his own party to begin them again.

2) President Obama has withdrawn our forces from Iraq. McCain wanted a "super surge" in Iraq, followed by continuing US occupation for at least another decade.

3) President Obama has not bombed Iran. McCain advocated escalation with Iran, and hinted at bombing it.

4) President Obama has softened our diplomatic stance toward the rest of the world, improving America's image and helping to restore it to the leadership position it held before Bush. McCain would most likely have continued Bush's bellicose stance, further alienating the US from our former allies, and strengthening the hand of those who seek to form a coalition against us.

5) President Obama signed into law all of the following legislation, nearly all of it passed over a solid wall of Republican opposition:

Link (new window)

Enacted
Main article: Acts of the 111th United States Congress

* January 29, 2009: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-2
* February 4, 2009: Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (SCHIP), Pub.L. 111-3
* February 17, 2009: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), Pub.L. 111-5
* March 11, 2009: Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub.L. 111-8
* March 30, 2009: Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-11
* April 21, 2009: Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, Pub.L. 111-13
* May 20, 2009: Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-21
* May 20, 2009: Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-22
* May 22, 2009: Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-23
* May 22, 2009: Credit CARD Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-24
* June 22, 2009: Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, as Division A of Pub.L. 111-31
* June 24, 2009: Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 including the Car Allowance Rebate System (Cash for Clunkers), Pub.L. 111-32
* October 28, 2009: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, including the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, Pub.L. 111-84
* November 6, 2009: Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-92
* December 16, 2009: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub.L. 111-117
* February 12, 2010: Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act, as Title I of Pub.L. 111-139
* March 4, 2010: Travel Promotion Act of 2009, as Section 9 of Pub.L. 111-145
* March 18, 2010: Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act, Pub.L. 111-147
* March 23, 2010: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub.L. 111-148
* March 30, 2010: Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, including the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, Pub.L. 111-152
* May 5, 2010: Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-163
* July 1, 2010: Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-195
* July 21, 2010: Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub.L. 111-203
* August 3, 2010: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-220
* August 10, 2010: SPEECH Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-223
* September 27, 2010: Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-240
* December 8, 2010: Claims Resolution Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-291
* December 13, 2010: Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-296
* December 17, 2010: Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-312, H.R. 4853
* December 22, 2010: Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-321, H.R. 2965
* January 2, 2011: James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-347, H.R. 847
* January 4, 2011: Shark Conservation Act, Pub.L. 111-348, H.R. 81
* January 4, 2011: Food Safety and Modernization Act, Pub.L. 111-353, H.R. 2751

Highlights from that list:

1) The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act has eased the burden of paying back college loans for tens of millions of college graduates. It will continue to help bring the benefits of college education to more Americans.

2) S-CHIP provided health insurance to millions of children who would not have otherwise had it. The Republican Congress has declined to renew it.

3) The CARD Act has improved the terms under which millions of Americans deal with credit card corporations. The Republicans filibustered it.

4) The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act restored the ability of victims of sex discrimination to sue, after far right activists on the Supreme Court effectively abolished it in almost all cases.

No, Obama and the Democrats aren't perfect on every issue. But the notion that the difference between the parties is "illusion" as you say is simply uninformed. There is wide consensus on many issues, but the differences between the parties have never been more pronounced in a generation. There is a fundamental split in their philosophies of government, and that split is reflected in our politics.

Skirl Hutsenreiter		2012-01-07 06:47:34 PM

1 votes:

Wayne 985: Skirl Hutsenreiter: Yep. I hate to Godwin the thread...

Then don't. You're comparing the crime of exterminating 11 million innocent people to a policy of what is essentially banishment for terrorist activity. It's faulty logic and it trivializes the deaths of those people.

If you're legitimately concerned with the proposal, that's respectable, but don't go off the deep end and compare it to what may be the most heinous crime in human history.

You're the one comparing the scale of the two. I'm merely pointing out that there's a reason we don't strip people of citizenship, and it's because it enables horrible crimes against them.

\Apparently now we can't talk about lessons learned from history because it trivializes history.

torquestripe		2012-01-07 06:27:28 PM

1 votes:

cman: No way this will pass SCOTUS scrutiny.

Cannot remember the case name, but you cannot be stripped of citizenship as a punishment

Yet!
But it's inevitable in this age.

Nuclear Monk		2012-01-07 06:27:21 PM

1 votes:

1) Lose my citizenship
2) sneak back in as an illegal
3) skip paying taxes
4) profit!

HotIgneous Intruder		2012-01-07 06:11:01 PM

1 votes:

Trance750: HotIgneous Intruder: Trance750: Funny thing is this bill was sponsored by a Republican.

And Lieberman, who is to hugely mendacious and back-stabbing to be acceptable to any political party. The "I" stands for Israel, not "Independent."

Well ol' Joe is almost a Republican. He's got the derp in him, that much is true

True, that. He's beyond republican.

HotIgneous Intruder		2012-01-07 06:09:46 PM

1 votes:

Wayne 985: It's faulty logic and it trivializes the deaths of those people.

Yes. That.
However, the process of setting the conditions for the murdering began in a strikingly similar way. The irony in a Jew proposing this is not the Alanis Morrisette kind of irony, either.

Karma Curmudgeon		2012-01-07 06:09:42 PM

1 votes:

HotIgneous Intruder: Trance750: Funny thing is this bill was sponsored by a Republican.

And Lieberman, who is to hugely mendacious and back-stabbing to be acceptable to any political party. The "I" stands for Israel, not "Independent."

img847.imageshack.us

Trance750		2012-01-07 05:58:07 PM

1 votes:

HotIgneous Intruder		2012-01-07 05:56:22 PM

1 votes:

Trance750: Funny thing is this bill was sponsored by a Republican.

And Lieberman, who is to hugely mendacious and back-stabbing to be acceptable to any political party. The "I" stands for Israel, not "Independent."

HotIgneous Intruder		2012-01-07 05:52:05 PM

1 votes:

Amos Quito: No, my point is that during the course of human events, there occasionally comes a time when the people need to remind those that govern who is in charge, and whose interests they are sworn to serve.

Yes, and when that government passes a law that says it can use its entire power apparatus to bury you in a gulag forever without access to counsel or any other damned thing, it becomes really difficult to "remind" anyone of anything.

See also: Enabling Act (new window).

Trance750		2012-01-07 05:39:27 PM

1 votes:

Wyalt Derp: This is nothing but a thinly-veiled attempt to make Obama ineligible for the Presidency.

Funny thing is this bill was sponsored by a Republican. You know the 'anti big Govt' people

Trance750		2012-01-07 05:33:25 PM

1 votes:

Wayne 985: Trance750: Wayne 985: Dimensio: Wayne 985: you can be stripped of your nationality for "engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States."

Good. Why is this a bad thing? It reminds me of the doofus who tried detonating a bomb in Portland around a year ago. He's likely to get away with it because he was "entrapped" by the Feds. As though agreeing to detonate a bomb in a major city was a rational, normal response when asked to do so.

People like that, American citizen or not, should be effectively banished.

I am curious: do you suffer physical discomfort as a direct consequence of your demonstrable mental incompetence?

Yes.

Just to play devil's advocate here, but what happens if Washington decides to extend this to include 'political dissidants' as well?

Don't say it can never happen in America.

Do you think that's realistic? Political dissent is a far cry from detonating a bomb in the middle of a city.

I'm sure people in pre-Hitler Germany also thought the same as well.

Trance750		2012-01-07 05:22:37 PM

1 votes:

1derful: Dwight_Yeast: Larry Mahnken: The First Amendment trumps this. You cannot be stripped of your citizenship for protesting, even if they pass a law explicitly saying you can.

Same thing is true of the NDAA, which I suspect is why Obama signed it: the first time some asshole tries to use it, it will go up for a SOCTUS challenge and even the current, hyper-conservative court will shoot it down as unconstitutional.

How exactly do you go before the Supreme Court when you're being detained perpetually with no access to legal representation?

My guess is you would be on your own

WhyteRaven74		2012-01-07 05:22:12 PM

1 votes:

Dwight_Yeast: Same thing is true of the NDAA,

The NDAA isn't a problem, it's a defense appropriations bill. The problem is a couple sections of it. And what Congress managed to do was to get it to Obama so late that if he vetoed it there was no way Congress could either override the veto or put together a new bill before the old NDAA, there's one for every fiscal year, expired. Which would mean the DoD has no money for things like, oh, covering paychecks.

Trance750		2012-01-07 05:17:51 PM

1 votes:

relcec: Trance750: relcec: Trance750: Bob16: Trance750: Both sides have been tearing at the fabric of Freedom. It's only now we're starting to really see the damage that has been done

YEah but there is a difference when repubs are in power. I've read up on what was happening in central america during the late 1970's and early 1980s and there is no doubt that when Raygun got in office the right wingers down there went crazy slaughtering their opposition because they knew the right wingers in america would cover things up for them.

"The Massacre At El Mozote" ( just one of many such massacres ) by Mark Danner provides some real insight into how blood thirsty Raygun was.

I don't doubt that one bit. Also during the Reagan Admin, we supplied weapons and secret covert ops to Saddam

what covert operations did we carry out with them? I hadn't heard of this. was it delta, seal team six?

I dunno exact, but I believe they were sent to assasinate the Ayatollah

now f*cking way. there is law against that, you know?

America has violated the Geneva Convention time and time again, and yet people turn a blind eye because we're 'the good guys'

Trance750		2012-01-07 05:16:10 PM

1 votes:

Wayne 985: Dimensio: Wayne 985: you can be stripped of your nationality for "engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States."

Good. Why is this a bad thing? It reminds me of the doofus who tried detonating a bomb in Portland around a year ago. He's likely to get away with it because he was "entrapped" by the Feds. As though agreeing to detonate a bomb in a major city was a rational, normal response when asked to do so.

People like that, American citizen or not, should be effectively banished.

I am curious: do you suffer physical discomfort as a direct consequence of your demonstrable mental incompetence?

Yes.

Just to play devil's advocate here, but what happens if Washington decides to extend this to include 'political dissidants' as well?

Don't say it can never happen in America.

Trance750		2012-01-07 05:01:38 PM

1 votes:

Bob16: Trance750: Both sides have been tearing at the fabric of Freedom. It's only now we're starting to really see the damage that has been done

YEah but there is a difference when repubs are in power. I've read up on what was happening in central america during the late 1970's and early 1980s and there is no doubt that when Raygun got in office the right wingers down there went crazy slaughtering their opposition because they knew the right wingers in america would cover things up for them.

"The Massacre At El Mozote" ( just one of many such massacres ) by Mark Danner provides some real insight into how blood thirsty Raygun was.

I don't doubt that one bit. Also during the Reagan Admin, we supplied weapons and secret covert ops to Saddam

Dwight_Yeast		2012-01-07 04:59:39 PM

1 votes:

Larry Mahnken: The First Amendment trumps this. You cannot be stripped of your citizenship for protesting, even if they pass a law explicitly saying you can.

Same thing is true of the NDAA, which I suspect is why Obama signed it: the first time some asshole tries to use it, it will go up for a SOCTUS challenge and even the current, hyper-conservative court will shoot it down as unconstitutional.

Bob16		2012-01-07 04:56:27 PM

1 votes:

Trance750: Both sides have been tearing at the fabric of Freedom. It's only now we're starting to really see the damage that has been done

YEah but there is a difference when repubs are in power. I've read up on what was happening in central america during the late 1970's and early 1980s and there is no doubt that when Raygun got in office the right wingers down there went crazy slaughtering their opposition because they knew the right wingers in america would cover things up for them.

"The Massacre At El Mozote" ( just one of many such massacres ) by Mark Danner provides some real insight into how blood thirsty Raygun was.

sheilanagig		2012-01-07 04:49:58 PM

1 votes:

It sounds like we need to vote all of the incumbents out of office.

Mugato		2012-01-07 04:41:03 PM

1 votes:

IlGreven: Then you really did get the government you deserve.

/Unless you voted for someone else, then...next time get more buddies.

Get 200 million more buddies. I'll get right on that. I have 15 so I'm off to a good start.

Bob16		2012-01-07 04:36:44 PM

1 votes:

Weaver95: the problem is that we're now starting to confuse criticism with terrorism.

Ten years Ari Fleischer told americans they need to watch what they say. Thats pretty anti american / anti-free speech and it's not something we just started doing.

If you look into all the coups and murdering we've been involved in in the third world it's plain we went over to the dark side a long time ago.

Trance750		2012-01-07 04:28:56 PM

1 votes:

Larry Mahnken: The First Amendment trumps this. You cannot be stripped of your citizenship for protesting, even if they pass a law explicitly saying you can.

For now, yes. But the Constitution can be changed through the Amendment process. It requires a 2/3 vote from both the House and Senate, as well as a Presidental signature

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face		2012-01-07 04:03:21 PM

1 votes:

namatad: This term? Try every Term since Washington.

Yep. We do get better. Eventually. It just sucks while we're still mucking our way to that point.

The Loaf		2012-01-07 04:00:37 PM

1 votes:

Notabunny: Trance750: Well you get the Government you deserve.

The Photographs of Your Junk (will be publicized!) (new window)

The otherwise poignant counter-cultural rant has been brought to you by Ipad 2. Apple - Think Different

Trance750		2012-01-07 03:51:30 PM

1 votes:

maxheck: Mugato:

Trance750: Well you get the Government you deserve.

Ugh, that old cliche. I didn't vote for any of this shiat. And when Obama is raping us almost as badly as Bush (and don't all smug about that, republicans. McCain would have been no better), we're not getting the gov't we deserve. The game is rigged. We get no say in the matter.

Whenever someone brings up that little chestnut I reply "Funny, I don't recall knife-raping any nuns..."

I like Mencken's version better...

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

Ben Franklin: A Democracy are two wolves and one lamb voting on what to have for dinner

maxheck		2012-01-07 03:49:51 PM

1 votes:

Mugato:

Trance750: Well you get the Government you deserve.

Ugh, that old cliche. I didn't vote for any of this shiat. And when Obama is raping us almost as badly as Bush (and don't all smug about that, republicans. McCain would have been no better), we're not getting the gov't we deserve. The game is rigged. We get no say in the matter.

Whenever someone brings up that little chestnut I reply "Funny, I don't recall knife-raping any nuns..."

I like Mencken's version better...

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

dudemanbro		2012-01-07 03:49:48 PM

1 votes:

Because People in power are Stupid: Is this a Kim Kardashian thread?

I'd have congress with that.

cig-mkr		2012-01-07 03:48:29 PM

1 votes:

This kind of puts your freedom of speech in the crapper doesn't it ?

namatad		2012-01-07 03:38:03 PM

1 votes:

Trance750: heinekenftw: Congress is intent on destroying the Constitution this term aren't they?

NDAA, SOPA, and now this?

This term? Try every Term since Washington.

ftfy

Churchy LaFemme		2012-01-07 03:34:59 PM

1 votes:

Cue the guys who, even if Obama were to sign such a bill into law, will explain how it's still of supreme importance that we vote for him SO WE DON'T GET THOSE OTHER GUYS WHO WILL RAPE US FASTER.

It's a helluva thing to watch a man rationalize his civil liberties away...

heinekenftw		2012-01-07 03:30:20 PM

1 votes:

Congress is intent on destroying the Constitution this term aren't they?

NDAA, SOPA, and now this?

IlGreven		2012-01-07 03:29:36 PM

1 votes:

Don't worry...as long as you either come armed or come with a sign that says you came unarmed (this time) and protest against things your corporate sugar-daddies want, you'll be fine.

But may God help you if you stay for more than four hours and protest against your corporate sugar-daddies.

Guidette Frankentits		2012-01-07 03:23:04 PM

1 votes:

Notabunny		2012-01-07 03:23:00 PM

1 votes:

Trance750: Well you get the Government you deserve.

The Photographs of Your Junk (will be publicized!) (new window)

sinanju		2012-01-07 03:22:54 PM

1 votes:

Why not just bring back the Alien and Sedition Acts?

Don't Troll Me Bro!		2012-01-07 03:22:26 PM

1 votes:

Why are we trying so hard to be remembered alongside the worst civilizations in modern history?

bdub77		2012-01-07 03:03:55 PM

1 votes:

I'm in favor of deporting Joe Lieberman to Iran.

seventypercent		2012-01-07 02:57:54 PM

1 votes:

cman: No way this will pass SCOTUS scrutiny.

Cannot remember the case name, but you cannot be stripped of citizenship as a punishment

Trop V. Dulles, 1958

Because People in power are Stupid		2012-01-07 02:55:04 PM

1 votes:

Is this a Kim Kardashian thread?

1.bp.blogspot.com

Trance750		2012-01-07 01:38:03 PM

1 votes:

SilentStrider: Jesus Christ what the hell is the matter with these people?
One thing happens 10 years ago, and its like everyone has an excuse to continually shiat themselves in fear ever since.

According to TFA, ths bill was submitted in 2011, and was the first I've heard about it. Most dubious bills and laws you never even know about, until they are already signed and mandated.

Which is the way Washington wants it.

SilentStrider		2012-01-07 01:31:01 PM

1 votes:

Jesus Christ what the hell is the matter with these people?
One thing happens 10 years ago, and its like everyone has an excuse to continually shiat themselves in fear ever since.

Trance750		2012-01-07 12:23:38 PM

1 votes:

cman: Trance750: GAT_00: Aarontology: Occasionally, there's a reason to wear the tin foil.

I've been reading a book on the Cold War. This seems more expected now. Actually, it seems like the author blames Eisenhower for starting a lot of this stuff, like the big expansive government, which is interesting. He usually doesn't get blamed for that.

And supposedly he was willing to nuke China or really anyone as a method of not starting another war like Korea, which is terrifying.

Runaway Govt started with LBJ

It is fruitless to attribute blame. It happened so long ago. What we need to do instead is focus on how the hell we are gonna undo a lot of these changes.

/We havent had a good President since Teddy Roosevelt
//Sorry, never was a big fan of FDR

Kinda hard to initiate change when both parties are against it. Gotta protect the Status Quo, you know.

cman		2012-01-07 12:14:46 PM

1 votes:

Trance750: GAT_00: Aarontology: Occasionally, there's a reason to wear the tin foil.

I've been reading a book on the Cold War. This seems more expected now. Actually, it seems like the author blames Eisenhower for starting a lot of this stuff, like the big expansive government, which is interesting. He usually doesn't get blamed for that.

And supposedly he was willing to nuke China or really anyone as a method of not starting another war like Korea, which is terrifying.

Runaway Govt started with LBJ

It is fruitless to attribute blame. It happened so long ago. What we need to do instead is focus on how the hell we are gonna undo a lot of these changes.

/We havent had a good President since Teddy Roosevelt
//Sorry, never was a big fan of FDR

Trance750		2012-01-07 12:11:19 PM

1 votes:

GAT_00: cman: No way this will pass SCOTUS scrutiny.

Haha, yes it will.

I agree. This will be passed. Now they may have to slip it through the backdoor and do so in secret, but it will be passed.

wejash		2012-01-07 12:06:27 PM

1 votes:

Aarontology: Trance750: Yep looks like the crazy old man wasen't so crazy after all....

You know what the worst part is? Occasionally, there's a reason to wear the tin foil.

Shostie: Fifteen years ago I was more concerned with getting a girl to tug on my wiener.

Yeah, but now she might be an informer! "ooh, i like that erection? you know what else I like? insurrection. how bout you?"

We won a jury trial by bringing in the very hot GF of our 20-yr old client who had inspired him to be a bad boy. She showed up wearing almost nothing and wearing it very well. The jury of older mothers and retirees just started smirking. They acquitted in less than an hour.

So...bring on the insurrection.

GAT_00		2012-01-07 12:04:48 PM

1 votes:

Aarontology: Occasionally, there's a reason to wear the tin foil.

I've been reading a book on the Cold War. This seems more expected now. Actually, it seems like the author blames Eisenhower for starting a lot of this stuff, like the big expansive government, which is interesting. He usually doesn't get blamed for that.

And supposedly he was willing to nuke China or really anyone as a method of not starting another war like Korea, which is terrifying.