re: "Thank you, Consul"

americanexpat said some useful things in the comment thread of Jeff Emanuel's post at RedState, on February 9, at 8:34 PM:

"I don’t have the knowledge to respond to a lot of the specific criticisms. Frankly, I don’t always have a lot of respect for those high up in Department hierarchy. But I’ve found that there is a lot of misunderstanding of diplomats and diplomatic families, and a lot of blaming us for policies over which we have no control. My husband is an IT specialist, for crying out loud–his job is to make sure that the embassy here has secure communications with headquarters, something I’d hope everyone agrees is important. Yet some people act as if we alone are responsible for all the things in US foreign policy with which they disagree, and I find myself constantly saying “Now this is just my opinion, not the position of the US government,” even when speaking with other Americans. And I’m not even the employee!

All that to say, thank you for providing a voice of experience and reason in response to these criticisms."

2/9

re: "al-Awlaki and Citizenship"

Peter Spiro at Opinio Juris ("a forum for informed discussion and lively debate about international law and international relations") discusses AAA and what to do about his like in the future.

Money quote(s):

"Al-Awlaki obviously was obviously hostile to the United States; in an older world, in which our adversaries were also states, he would have lost his US citizenship as a member of the armed forces of another state. But the only way to lose your citizenship today is to walk into a US consulate and formally renounce it, a step al-Awlaki wasn’t in a position to undertake.

One response would be to adopt a Lieberman-type terrorist expatriation measure. I don’t think that would do a lot of good, other than generate yet another layer of litigation, this one over whether particular conduct evinced an intent to relinquish citizenship (constitutionally required, as per Afroyim v. Rusk). So that leaves us with some citizens who don’t really seem like citizens, which means that the citizen/non-citizen differential for rights purposes will get smaller still."

The laws regarding expatriation and expatriating acts are still on the books; this business about only those who voluntarily relinquish citizenship is a function of judicial interpretation, which can be overturned. And should be.

10/5

re: "Barack Obama: Anti-Terror Warrior?"

MikeM. at Confederate Yankee ("Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.") still has a liberal friend (or two).

Money quote(s):

"(H)e was also exercised that al-Awlaki, an American citizen, was not given a proper civilian trial before being executed. Irony challenged, my acquaintance.

As to Awlaki's citizenship, the facts are clear. Awlaki was an American citizen, but a citizen who took up arms against America. We know this because he explicitly told us, many times, that he was at war with America. We know that he was a top enemy commander and that he was directly involved in the planning and execution of attacks against America, American interests and Americans, attacks resulting in American deaths, the Fort Hood attack being only a single example.Arguably, this would make Awlaki guilty of treason, and if captured, he could be tried for that offense. However, capture and trial were not required for one very powerful and well understood—legally speaking—reason: we are at war.

It is hard for most Americans to understand this simple fact: we are at war and have been since at least the first attack on the World Trade Center on Feb. 26, 1993 and probably since the Islamic takeover of Iran in late 1979. Because most Americans have to make no sacrifice, because the ongoing war does not disrupt or directly affect their lives in any way, the very concept of war seems a matter of semantics, a debating topic, not a deadly, personal or national reality. We will almost certainly be at war for a generation or more. We may not consider ourselves to be at war with our Islamist enemy, but he does not share our peaceful convictions.

In war, our declared enemies may be killed whenever and wherever they are found. This simple fact does not change because of the nationality of the enemy. This too is a well-settled fact of law. There are no clear demarcation lines on a worldwide battlefield. Americans have, in past wars, gone over to the side of America's enemies and have as a result become indistinguishable from any other enemy soldier or leader. We have killed them when necessary and captured them when possible. When captured they were tried by military commissions." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

These are facts, stated plainly and without adornment. It pains me how many of my fellow citizens, even some of my FS colleagues, seem not to understand them.

"Some have suggested that due to the unique nature of our current world wide conflict, the Congress should enact standards for stripping Americans of citizenship so that they may be killed without trial when acting as an enemy of America, but this is unnecessary and likely designed to impede rather than assist America in her war fighting efforts. American and international laws and standards are quite clear on all of the issues involved and have been since the early 1900s."

Standards already exist for expatriation (i.e., loss of citizenship) as part of the public law, incorporated as part the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. I'm sure I don't understand why this hasn't been utilized, but I'm not sure it's ever even been considered in cases like these. Perhaps the legal bar is simply too high, would provide a public soapbox for avowed enemies of the U.S. as they (or their lawyers; i.e., lawfare) appealed such measures, and it's purely simpler (and just as legal) to kill them.

10/2

re: "The Left's Rage Over 'Assassination' Of US Citizens Begins"

Jason Bradley at Big Peace addresses some of the proper issues surrounding "Triple-A" 's death.

Money quote(s):

"Assassinating US citizens without due process is in fact wrong. But there is nothing basic about the kind of terrorists’ threats we face daily. We do not have drones patrolling the skies of Los Angles and we are not targeting American civilians in all out military offensive. These terrorists are not simply breaking laws. They are more than just your common criminal or gangbanger. They are continuously plotting to kill as many Americans as possible. They are financed and organized by governments and terrorists organizations that stretch the globe and have plenty of resources from which to operate. That makes them threatening in such a way that due-process would actually be a hindrance in protection of the homeland.

Al-Awlaki’s ‘citizenship’ is the product of an outdated and erroneous interpretation of the 14th Amendment. He is about as much of a citizen of the US as Osama bin Laden was. If he was truly a US citizen he would live here, pay his taxes, and be a productive member of society. If individuals like al-Awlaki can be considered a US citizen with a straight face, then perhaps there is need to approach the ideas that constitute citizenship. Al-Awlaki stopped being a US citizen the moment he sat down with terrorists and collaborated with them to kill American citizens."

1. Al-Awlaki got precisely the due process (under the laws of land warfare) that any other enemy of the United States gets; not a trial by jury in a courtroom, to be sure, but by targeteers and military commanders performing their lawful duties.

2. There are those who make this fairly reasonable argument, that children born to foreign citizens who are not themselves legal residents (a broader category than illegal aliens, by the way) in the U.S. aren't due American citizenship under 14th Amendment authority. So far this hasn't been the interpretation of the SCOTUS, but it's not that unreasonable an interpretation.

3. Mr. Bradley's point with regards to expatriation (i.e., loss of U.S. nationality), is meaningful and well-taken. There are existing laws, on the books, to strip U.S. citizenship from those who wage war against America. They ought to exercised.

(10/1)

AFP - US 'enemy's' secret weapon? The US passport, some say.

From my archive of press clippings:

AFP

US 'enemy's' secret weapon? The US passport, some say

Fri, May 07, 2010

AFP


US 'enemy's' secret weapon? The US passport, some say


NEW YORK - Islamist militants attacking the United States have a new secret weapon: the US passport.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"Everything from hijacked airliners to handguns have featured in attacks on US soil over the last decade. Maybe the slim, blue booklet labeled PASSPORT, and decorated in gold with an eagle, should be added to that list.

Certainly US passports allow militants to infiltrate the country in a way no foreign jihadist could ever match. And if a militant is caught, he gets the same legal protections as everyone else in the country he was trying to fight."

"Border controls have been severely tightened since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon."

"So few disagree that a US passport might be valuable. It's also true that the number of citizens involved in terrorist incidents is steadily growing.
Faisal Shahzad, the suspect in the failed Times Square car bomb, entered the United States on a student visa a decade ago and was granted citizenship in 2009.

US Army Major Nidal Hasan, a devout Muslim disturbed by the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, gunned down 13 people and wounded 42 last November at the Fort Hood, Texas army base where he served.

Just a week ago a New York man, Sabirhan Hasanoff, was charged with helping Al-Qaeda.

Tellingly, this US citizen is accused by prosecutors, in part, of urging another citizen "not to use his US passport when traveling because a US passport with fewer immigration stamps would be more valuable to Al-Qaeda." "

"At issue is the question of what it means to be a citizen of one of the most open countries in the world - a country built on welcoming newcomers.

Some are using the fear of terrorism to push for a clampdown on the millions of illegal immigrants working and living productively here, often for years.

Proposals to grant those illegal immigrants amnesty "will legalize more terrorists," writes the right-wing Human Events."

&

"The left-leaning New York Times warns that undermining the inalienable rights of citizenship means entering "dark territory." "

NYT - Bill Targets Citizenship of Terrorists’ Allies

From my archive of press clippings:

New York Times

Bill Targets Citizenship of Terrorists’ Allies

By CHARLIE SAVAGE and CARL HULSE

Published: May 6, 2010

WASHINGTON — Proposed legislation that would allow the government to revoke American citizenship from people suspected of allying themselves with terrorists set off a legal and political debate Thursday that scrambled some of the usual partisan lines on civil-liberties issues.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"The Terrorist Expatriation Act, co-sponsored by Senators Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, and Scott Brown, Republican of Massachusetts, would allow the State Department to revoke the citizenship of people who provide support to terrorist groups like Al Qaeda or who attack the United States or its allies."

"Identical legislation is also being introduced in the House by two Pennsylvania congressmen, Jason Altmire, a Democrat, and Charlie Dent, a Republican. The lawmakers said at a news conference that revoking citizenship would block terrorism suspects from using American passports to re-enter the United States and make them eligible for prosecution before a military commission instead of a civilian court.
Citing with approval news reports that President Obama has signed a secret order authorizing the targeted killing of a radical Yemeni-American cleric, Anwar Al-Awlaki, Mr. Lieberman argued that if that policy was legal — and he said he believed it was — then stripping people of citizenship for joining terrorist organizations should also be acceptable.

Several major Democratic officials spoke positively about the proposal, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Noting that the State Department already had the authority to rescind the citizenship of people who declare allegiance to a foreign state, she said the administration would take “a hard look” at extending those powers to cover terrorism suspects."

&

"The proposal would amend an existing, although rarely used, program run by the State Department. It dates to a law enacted by Congress in 1940 that allowed the stripping of citizenship for activities like voting in another country’s elections or joining the army of a nation that is at war with the United States. People who lose their citizenship can contest the decision in court.

The Supreme Court later narrowed the program’s scope, declaring that the Constitution did not allow the government to take away people’s citizenship against their will. The proposal does not alter the requirement of evidence of voluntariness.

That means that if the proposal passed, the State Department would have to cite evidence that a person not only joined Al Qaeda, but also intended to relinquish his citizenship, and the advantages it conveys, to rescind it."