Crapaganda.com

A bipartisan group of legislators on Thursday introduced legislation in Congress to strip citizenship from any American found to be involved in terrorism.

If the Terrorist Expatriation Act passes, an American would lose citizenship if found to have provided material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization — as designated by the secretary of state — or participated in actions against the United States.

Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut, and Scott Brown, R-Massachusetts, co-sponsored the bill. An identical bill is being introduced in the House by Reps. Jason Altmire, D-Pennsylvania, and Charlie Dent, R-Pennsylvania.

“As the attempted terrorist attack on Times Square showed us again, our enemies today are even more willing than the Nazis or fascists were to kill innocent civilian Americans [in WWII],” Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, told reporters. “Our enemies today are stateless actors who don’t wear uniforms and plot against Americans abroad and here in the United States.”

Faisal Shahzad, an American citizen, recently admitted driving a Nissan Pathfinder into New York’s Times Square on Saturday and attempting to detonate the vehicle, which was packed with gasoline, propane tanks, fireworks and fertilizer, according to a complaint filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in New York.

Lieberman said the legislation updates the 1940 Immigration and Nationality Act, which identifies seven categories in which citizens can lose citizenship if they voluntarily perform one of the acts.

The list, according to Lieberman, includes acts such as serving in the armed forces of a “foreign state” if such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States; formally renouncing nationality whenever the United States is in a state of war; or committing treason against the United States.

“The bill we’re introducing today would simply update the 1940 law to account for the enemy that we are fighting today,” he said. “Many have said this law goes too far. Remember, this bill only updates an existing statute that has been on the books for 70 years that accounts for the terrorist enemy that we are fighting today.”

Brown, a member of Lieberman’s committee, said the bill isn’t a knee-jerk reaction. “This reflects the changing nature of war and recent events,” he said. “War has moved into a new direction.”

Brian Fallon, a spokesman for New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, said he believes “it would be found unconstitutional in this context and would also be ineffective.”

House Minority Leader John Boehner has similar worries, saying the chances of the bill passing “would be pretty difficult under the U.S. Constitution.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she likes the “spirit” of the bill, but wants to know more on what constitutes taking away an American’s citizenship.

“I do think it’s important to know on what basis [they'd lose their citizenship],” she said. “We are committed to due process in our country. … What’s the standard?”

Pelosi said she’d have to see the language of the bill before deciding whether to support it.

Similar legislation, however, has not been successful.

In 2005, Congress sought to make it a felony for a naturalized citizen to vote in an election in their home country, among other things. The bill, introduced in the House, did not muster enough support to bring it to a vote.

Legal experts, meanwhile, argue that the new bill has serious constitutional problems.

“It’s unconstitutional,” said Christopher Anders, Senior Legislative Counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union.” Taking away someone’s citizenship is a truly extraordinary step and to do that based on mere suspicion and to be giving that power to government bureaucrats without ever having a court trial will be an amazing step.”

Under the new proposed bill, the Department of State would have the ability to revoke an American’s citizenship based on a person renouncing their citizenship. The individual, Lieberman stressed, would still have the right to appeal the determination at the State Department — or take it to federal court.

When asked how the State Department would make their decision, Lieberman said a person would have declare the intent to renounce their citizenship — but added that information from other sources could also “lead the state department to make that conclusion.”

Anders said the government often makes mistakes in determining a person’s involvement in terrorism. In that case, an American citizen could be rendered stateless if they do not have dual citizenship.

Stephen Vladeck, a professor of law at American University Washington College of Law, said the government defines “providing material support to terrorism” so broadly, “that really the most benign, innocent activity could subject the most harmless Americans to this extreme sanction.”

Vladeck predicted that if a case makes its way to the courts, the statute would be in serious trouble.

“Although there have been some crimes that have been historically treated as subject to denaturalization, I think material support is so far away from the kinds of conduct that previously has been punished that way,” he said. “I think the fact that this is up to the secretary of state, and not a court, really is going to make it very hard for this statute to survive a constitutional challenge.”

The Supreme Court examined citizenship rights in the 1980 case of Vance v. Terrazas. The court’s decision held that in determining the loss of citizenship, the government “must prove an intent to surrender United States citizenship, not just the voluntary commission of an expatriating act such as swearing allegiance to a foreign nation.”

Altmire said the new bill hasn’t changed the government’s burden of proof.

“When someone wants to appeal this [ruling], the burden of proof is on the Department of State. And there’s a very high legal threshold to remain consistent with the bill. None of that has changed.”

Source: CNN

Source: OregonLive

When Robert J. Ekas decided to exercise his right to free speech, he didn’t open his mouth.

He hoisted his middle finger.

His single-digit protests, aimed at Clackamas County sheriff’s deputies last year, resulted in verbal showdowns, traffic tickets and, ultimately, a federal lawsuit.

Giving a police officer the finger may be a rude and ill-advised gesture, but it is not against the law, legal experts say.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that speech may not be prohibited simply because some may find it offensive,” said Ira P. Robbins, a law professor from American University in Washington, D.C. “Virtually every time someone is arrested for this, assuming there’s no other criminal behavior … the case is either dismissed before trial or the person is convicted at trial and wins on appeal.”

Ekas, who represents himself, sued the Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office and three of its employees, seeking corrective action and unspecified damages. Assistant County Counsel Edward S. McGlone III declined comment on the lawsuit.

Ekas, 46, a retired Silicon Valley systems analyst turned mathematician who lives in the Clackamas area, claims the traffic stops were acts of retaliation that violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights. He also wants the court to rule that the Sheriff’s Office fails to discipline employees who “chill citizens’ … free speech rights.”

Ekas gave the finger to a deputy in July 2007 while driving near Clackamas Town Center, according to the lawsuit. With the deputy in pursuit, Ekas said he opened his sunroof and again extended a middle finger. The deputy turned on his flashing lights. Ekas stopped and was cited for an illegal lane change and improper display of license plates. He was acquitted of the charges.

In August 2007, Ekas flipped off another deputy. Ekas again was detained but not issued a citation. He claims he was harassed and intimidated by the deputy and a sergeant who was dispatched after Ekas requested a supervisor be sent to the scene.

Ekas said his actions are a political statement and a protest of police violence.

“They kill unarmed people. That bothers me,” Ekas said of police officers. He cited the deaths of James P. Chasse Jr. and Aaron Campbell at the hands of Portland police and the fatal shooting of Fouad Kaady by Clackamas County officers.

“What I am expressing is the right to dissent. That is to say, ‘Look, the policies that you’ve implemented … the things you’ve done in our community are offensive to me. Here’s my response to that offense,’” Ekas said.

“I did it because I have the right to do it,” Ekas said. “We all have that right, and we all need to test it. Otherwise we’ll lose it.”

Robert Ekas on KATU News

Ekas’s method of expressing himself has a long history.

The ancient Romans called it “digitus impudicus” — the impudent finger.

Police have been known to retaliate with traffic tickets or making arrests for disorderly conduct, but criminal charges are routinely dismissed. Criminal law “generally aims to protect persons, property, or the state from serious harm. But use of the middle finger simply does not raise these concerns in most situations,” Robbins wrote in a law review article, “Digitus Impudicus: The Middle Finger and the Law.”

A Pittsburgh man, David Hackbart, won a $50,000 settlement last year after being cited for disorderly conduct for flipping off an officer. The charge was “retaliatory” and violated his constitutional rights, a federal judge ruled.

The officer’s “response to Hackbart’s exercise of his First Amendment right” was to charge him with a crime, said U.S. District Judge David Cercone.

In West Linn, Police Chief Terry Timeus took a more diplomatic approach.

After a man’s run-ins with police escalated from giving officers the finger to following them on patrol, accusing them of retaliation and shining his headlights on them during traffic stops, Timeus stepped in to try to defuse the situation.

The police chief met with the man and told him the pattern of confrontation and harassment “isn’t going to accomplish anything.”

Reached at his home, the man said he suffers from anxiety and depression and asked not to be identified. He acknowledged his history of confrontation and grievances with police but said he wanted to move on.

“Chief Timeus has made a difference,” the man said, “and I don’t want to jeopardize that.”

For more on your legal rights and “The Finger” read:
Digitus Impudicus: The Middle Finger and the Law byIra P. Robbins (pdf)