What nonsense, what twaddle worrying about the "citizenship" of people joining a foreign army actively engaged in fighting our own people.
No wonder we are a dying people as many have lost the ability to exclude. Sick!
“The issue is the joining of a foreign army actively engaged in warfare against the United States”
Is it? I read much more into the administration’s defense of the policy. Also, what constitutes “joining”? And what “army” are we talking about? Who are we at war with? These are all questions that are supposed to he settled by Congress, which has been even more lilly-livered than the courts.
Among anti-terror warriors there is a remarkably cavalier attitude to the scope and intention of the “war on terror.” I’m not speaking now of the ones who wanna nuke all muslims, whom I don’t take seriously. I mean the ones who grant gubmint license to kill basically anyone anywhere even remotely connected to the amorphous blob of muslim extremism. Not even Middle Eastern muslim extremism, and not even those that have actually engaged in terror, but basically total global “war” against anyone who might possible plan a 9/11. Which is loosely defined, to say the least.
I might not have so much a problem with it if Congress would declare war on Al-Queda and the administration could produce evidence of collusion with the person it blew up. As it is we’re sacrificing WAY too much to the whims of the fightin’ branch.
I disagree with pretty much your whole point, but let’s focus in on one little aspect. Say rights belong in mock quotes, and all these people have given them up by joining this or that foreign power which the White House claims we’re at war with. Are you willing to take their word for it that the blown up person in question had, in fact, sacrificed their rights? Need they never have to worry about producing any evidence whatsoever? Why, on earth?