Why all the anti-Islamic sentiment?
Where? I didn't notice any.
Why all the anti-Islamic sentiment?
Why all the anti-Islamic sentiment?
AND ... Padilla was not indicted for any of the original charges for which the .gov detained him. They made up new charges for the indictment. Their cover story was that "national security" would have been compromised if they had to bring the original charges in open court. Translation: "We'll look like idiots if we have to try him on this."Wooderson said:Padilla was only indicted in 2005.
I don't remember his name, but the answer is that attorney in either Washington state or Oregon. He is an American by birth and Caucasian by ethnicity, but he is a convert to Islam. He was arrested and incarcerated as a "terrorist" because the FBI claimed they had a fingerprint linking him to the train bombing in Spain. Of course, the Spanish authorities had already told the FBI that the print wasn't a match, but he was arrested nonetheless, and treated much the ame as Padilla: no charges, no access to lawyers, no habeus corpus.STAGE2 said:Secondly, besides Padilla, what US citizen has been detained indefinately without trial or access to the courts.
But it did give those unlawful actions the color of law. So now these kind of despotic actions cannot be fought on the grounds that they are illegal. That is the real worry. Before the USG had to be careful because its action were illegal, now that is no longer the case and they can act with impunity.
Which in effect is denying him his Constitutional right to a fair trial.
Okay you may think he is an idiot but it still does not change the position of the US Government. The USAG is the government when it comes to legal matters of the state.
Why not? What prevents it? Please point out the part that says that it can not be done. Also explain why citizenship can not be revoked as I demonstrated and then the "former" citizen tried under MCA. As far I as can tell there is nothing to stop it either one from happening.
Um, Flatrock, you just said that he deserves a trial to determine whether he's guilty--but he doesn't deserve a civilian trial, because he's guilty.The guy deserves a military hearing to determine if he is a enemy combatant...
We are at war with Al Qaeda, and he is a foreign agent of Al Qaeda...
True- Despite whatever the executive branch thinks it is they are not the final ''decider'' on the law the courts are but; they represent the government's position. You would support such a position?
You have not cited a single place in the act where it makes it ''crystal clear'' that habeas can be suspeneded for ''only'' aliens and/or where it can ''not'' be suspended for US citizens. Still patiently waiting for the citation. I provided you with the source doc so this should not be hard....
I already know why you are not poviding it though; it ain't in there. You saying it is won't make it so.
Strange that it was in quotes but you need to go back and read the US Code again. That only applies to natualized resident that have been so for more than ten years. If otherwise and someone fails to testify on ''subversive activities'' (by say invoking rights) than they CAN be stripped of citizenship simply on the grounds of failing to testify.
Clarify what you mean by "this position". As far as the courts, the executive has been gung ho about their policies and have been repeatedly rebuked by the courts so the idea that its one big happy government just isn't so.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. In order for a federal court to pass judgment upon the parties, that court must have both subject-matter and personal jurisdictions. Subject-matter jurisdiction addresses limitation of the federal court’s power. Article III of the United States Constitution sets forth that limitation by defining the subject-matter which a federal court may preside over. Thus subject-matter jurisdiction acts is a restriction on federal power and contributes to the characterization of the federal sovereign. Consequently, no action of the parties can confer subject matter jurisdiction upon a federal court. Additionally, in the exercise of its appellate power, an appellate court may sua sponte find lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and a party may object on the basis of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction anytime during the trial or on appeal, even if no objections were made during trial. On the other hand, personal jurisdiction addresses an individual’s liberty and not federal sovereignty power. Personal jurisdiction derived not from Article III, but from the Due Process Clause. It recognizes and protects an individual’s liberty interest. Because personal jurisdiction is a legal right protecting an individual, it may be intentionally waived or defendant may, for various reasons, be estopped from raising it as an issue. The expression of legal rights is often subject to certain procedural rules and failure to follow these rules may result in the curtailment of those rights. The action of a defendant may amount to voluntary or involuntary submission to the court’s jurisdiction. Thus under Rule 12(h)(1) of the FRCP, a party who failed to timely object on the basis of lack of personal jurisdiction, is deemed to have waived that objection. Because personal jurisdiction is subject to involuntary waiver, a sanction under Rule 37(b)(2)(a) consisting of a finding of personal jurisdiction has precisely the same effect as the defendant’s failure to raise a timely objection to personal jurisdiction under Rule 12 (h)(1). Therefore, a Rule 37 sanction applied to a finding of personal jurisdiction creates no more of a due process problem than a Rule 12.
The defendant is always free to ignore the judicial proceedings, risk a default judgment, and then challenge that judgment on jurisdictional grounds in a collateral proceeding. Therefore, by submitting to the jurisdiction of the court for the limited purposes of challenging jurisdiction, the defendant agreed to play by the procedural rules of that court and to abide by that court’s
determination on the issue of jurisdiction. The mere use of procedural rules does not in itself violate the defendant’s due process rights.
340 REVOCATION OF NATURALIZATION
SEC. 340. [8 U.S.C. 1451]
(a) It shall be the duty of the United States attorneys for the respective districts, upon affidavit showing good cause therefor, to institute proceedings in any district court of the United States in the judicial district in which the naturalized citizen may reside at the time of bringing suit, for the purpose of revoking and setting aside the order admitting such person to citizenship and canceling the certificate of naturalization on the ground that such order and certificate of naturalization were illegally procured or were procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation, and such revocation and setting aside of the order admitting such person to citizenship and such canceling of certificate of naturalization shall be effective as of the original date of the order and certificate, respectively: Provided, That refusal on the part of a naturalized citizen within a period of ten years following his naturalization to testify as a witness in any proceeding before a congressional committee concerning his subversive activities, in a case where such person has been convicted for contempt for such refusal, shall be held to constitute a ground for revocation of such person's naturalization under this subsection as having been procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation. If the naturalized citizen does not reside in any judicial district in the United States at the time of bringing such suit, the proceedings may be instituted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or in the United States district court in the judicial district in which such person last had his residence.
(b) The party to whom was granted the naturalization alleged to have been illegally procured or procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation shall, in any such proceedings under subsection (a) of this section, have sixty days' personal notice, unless waived by such party, in which to make answer to the petition of the United States; and if such naturalized person be absent from the United States or from the judicial district in which such person last had his residence, such notice shall be given either by personal service upon him or by publication in the manner provided for the service of summons by publication or upon absentees by the laws of the State or the place where such suit is brought.
(c) If a person who shall have been naturalized after December 24, 1952 shall within five years next following such naturalization become a member of or affiliated with any organization, membership in or affiliation with which at the time of naturalization would have precluded such person from naturalization under the provisions of section 313, it shall be considered prima facie evidence that such person was not attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States and was not well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States at the time of naturalization, and, in the absence of countervailing evidence, it shall be sufficient in the proper proceeding to authorize the revocation and setting aside of the order admitting such person to citizenship and the cancellation of the certificate of naturalization as having been obtained by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation, and such revocation and setting aside of the order admitting such person to citizenship and such canceling of certificate of naturalization shall be effective as of the original date of the order and certificate, respectively.
(d) [Former subsection (d) was repealed by Sec. 104(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-416, 108 Stat. 4308, Oct. 25, 1994), applicable to persons admitted to citizenship on or after October 25, 1994 under Sec. 104(e) of that Act. Subsequent subsections were redesignated respectively by Sec. 104(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-416, 108 Stat. 4308, Oct. 25, 1994) .]
(d) Any person who claims United States citizenship through the naturalization of a parent or spouse in whose case there is a revocation and setting aside of the order admitting such parent or spouse to citizenship under the provisions of subsection (a) of this section on the ground that the order and certificate of naturalization were procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation shall be deemed to have lost and to lose his citizenship and any right or privilege of citizenship which he may have, now has, or may hereafter acquire under and by virtue of such naturalization of such parent or spouse, regardless of whether such person is residing within or without the United States at the time of the revocation and setting aside of the order admitting such parent or spouse to citizenship. Any person who claims United States citizenship through the naturalization of a parent or spouse in whose case there is a revocation and setting aside of the order admitting such parent or spouse to citizenship and the cancellation of the certificate of naturalization under the provisions of subsection (c) of this section, or under the provisions of section 329(c) of this title on any ground other than that the order and certificate of naturalization were procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation, shall be deemed to have lost and to lose his citizenship and any right or privilege of citizenship which would have been enjoyed by such person had there not been a revocation and setting aside of the order admitting such parent or spouse to citizenship and the cancellation of the certificate of naturalization, unless such person is residing in the United States at the time of the revocation and setting aside of the order admitting such parent or spouse to citizenship and the cancellation of the certificate of naturalization.
(e) When a person shall be convicted under section 1425 of title 18 of the United States Code of knowingly procuring naturalization in violation of law, the court in which such conviction is had shall thereupon revoke, set aside, and declare void the final order admitting such person to citizenship, and shall declare the certificate of naturalization of such person to be canceled. Jurisdiction is hereby conferred on the courts having jurisdiction of the trial of such offense to make such adjudication.
(f) Whenever an order admitting an alien to citizenship shall be revoked and set aside or a certificate of naturalization shall be canceled, or both, as provided in this section, the court in which such judgment or decree is rendered shall make an order canceling such certificate and shall send a certified copy of such order to the Attorney General. The clerk of court shall transmit a copy of such order and judgment to the Attorney General. A person holding a certificate of naturalization or citizenship which has been canceled as provided by this section shall upon notice by the court by which the decree of cancellation was made, or by the Attorney General, surrender the same to the Attorney General.
(g) The provisions of this section shall apply not only to any naturalization granted and to certificates of naturalization and citizenship issued under the provisions of this title, but to any naturalization heretofore granted by any court, and to all certificates of naturalization and citizenship which may have been issued heretofore by any court or by the Commissioner based upon naturalization granted by any court, or by a designated representative of the Commissioner under the provisions of section 702 of the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended, or by such designated representative under any other Act.
(h) Nothing contained in this section shall be regarded as limiting, denying, or restricting the power of the Attorney General to correct, reopen, alter, modify, or vacate an order naturalizing the person.
The position of the Executive that no such right as Habeas exists. You are Republican do you support your party on this legal issue? You calling the AG an "idiot" is kind of open ended since he has been in the news a lot.
But there are always legal end runs on jurisdiction. For example in Insurance Corp. of Ireland, LTD v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694 (1982) The court found:
Regardless, on the other question I do not see your point. The section of code you quoted on citizenship covers only Voluntarily (1481) giving up citizenship. The section I quoted covers revocation (1451). These are two different animals. I say the US Government can revoke citizenship under that line of the code. You are saying that they can not for some other unspecified reason that I don't follow.... But the real question is have they?
And just for the record, the government ISN'T snatching up people and locking them away.
The government DOESN'T have the power to detain citizens indefinately.
How does one come forward, if one is being held with habeas?To this day, a single american hasn't come forward alleging that they personally had their rights violated by the government. Feds aren't breaking down doors in the dead of night, and citizens aren't being jailed indefinately.
Without habeas, there is no difference between citizens and non-citizens, just as there is no difference between the innocent and the guilty.It denies habeas to ALIEN enemy combatants. Its specifically goes to the trouble of explaining that only non-citizens can have their habeas rights suspended.
Its also says that ALIENS can't petition to contest their detention.
That's nonsense. For one, José Padilla is an American citizen. For another, you're overlooking thousands of people involved in "wrong-door", "no-knock" raids, asset forfeiture cases, Kelo v New London, etc.To this day, a single american hasn't come forward alleging that they personally had their rights violated by the government.
To this day, a single american hasn't come forward alleging that they personally had their rights violated by the government.
Feds aren't breaking down doors in the dead of night,
and citizens aren't being jailed indefinately.
You appear to be obfuscating the issue. Your first statement clearly identifies Padilla's process as a 'trial' in response to statements about being held without going to trial (ie indictment and criminal proceedings). The rest of your statements pertain to Padilla's various legal appeals specifically regarding his being held without charges or indictment.
If one is charged in 2002, proceeds to trial and has appealed to the Supreme Court within two years, that is an exceptionally speedy process.
That is not the Padilla situation. Padilla's petition for a writ of habeas corpus reached the Supreme Court within two years. That is an exceptionally long time for a habeas hearing.
How would you know if they did, if prisoners can be held without access to the courts?
How does one come forward, if one is being held with habeas?
Without habeas, there is no difference between citizens and non-citizens, just as there is no difference between the innocent and the guilty.
All prisoners without access to the courts are equal - equally invisible.
Hoe do you prove you’re NOT an alien, if you can’t protest your detention?
That's nonsense. For one, José Padilla is an American citizen. For another, you're overlooking thousands of people involved in "wrong-door", "no-knock" raids, asset forfeiture cases, Kelo v New London, etc.
Yep, it has been a few dozen just over the Patriot Act.
Now that is really funny.
I suppose we wouldn't, but since you're the one making the accusations, the bonafides are on you.How would you know if they did, if prisoners can be held without access to the courts?
You’re confusing definitions of “allow.” The law makes it possible by creating a class of persons who can have no access to the courts.There isn't a single piece of legislation that allows the govt to do this to us citizens. If it is happening the the law is being broken, and you can't blame the PA or anything else.
Without habeas, there is no difference between citizens and non-citizens, just as there is no difference between the innocent and the guilty.
All prisoners without access to the courts are equal - equally invisible
Thats legally incorrect, factually incorrect, and just plain stupid.
Exactly how does that protect me? The mass graves in Iraq and Kosovo are full of people whose citizenship was known to their captors.Because your citizenship is known to the government before you're even arrested. Its a rare case where the govt doesn't know who you are or where you're from.How do you prove you’re NOT an alien, if you can’t protest your detention?
Not so. All I’m claiming is lack of knowledge, for you as well as me. (And you just admitted I’m right.) You’re the one making the claim to know something; so what is the source of your knowledge?
You’re confusing definitions of “allow.” The law makes it possible by creating a class of persons who can have no access to the courts.
That’s an unsupported assertion, not an argument. Very High Road.
Exactly how does that protect me? The mass graves in Iraq and Kosovo are full of people whose citizenship was known to their captors.
???He only gets a trial after he is charged with a criminal offense. However, if he is an enemy combatant, his crime is a war crime in violation of the rules of war rather than a civilian crime.