I Disagree With Obama Administration's Decision On Boston Bombing Suspect (Graham)

youtube ^ | 4/23/13 | USSenLindseyGraham

[Nachum]

Senator Lindsey Graham today disagreed with President Obama's decision to rule out enemy combatant status for the Boston bombing suspect.

[Nachum]

What a mess.

Vid at link.

[Nachum]

The list, Ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list

http://www.nachumlist.com/

[Lurker]

Prissy Lindsay, wrong again.

Like it or not this monster is an American citizen who committed his crimes on US soil. He is entitled to a fair, speedy, and public trial followed by a first class execution. Nothing more and nothing less.

[sheana]

Yep. And all the senators and house people should be screaming at the top of their lungs.....you let him in, you made him a citizen, now deal with it! And then question how that happened and how many more they let in like him.....after Napolitano and all her head honchos are fired.

[rudabaga]

Absolutely correct!

[rudabaga]

Well I agree with your sentiment but this guy was let into the US in 2002 as I understand it.

[caww]

Yes, even if he received his Citizenship deceptively...until that's proven... he is a Citizen...

Either way this will go one of three ways..

He'll get off on “brainwashing” mental insanity...and submit to Psyc. hospital. until he's reprogrammed...then sent to serve a lessor sentence for good behavior.

He'll get life for considerations of his age at 19.

He'll get the death penalty...and I don't see this third one will happen. They're already billing him as a kid.

[caww]

That’s not how it works...not reality.

[sheana]

My you was directed at all bureaucrats, regardless of administration. Napolitano needs to be fired since they didn’t catch him when he left the country for 6 mnths of training and they let him back in. That is on her watch.

[Uncle Chip]

That’s just Linseed trying to act tough just before he slips into his loafers

[so_real]

Precisely right. Once a person is naturalized, they are a citizen and afforded the rights of citizenship. If we do as that idiot Graham would have us do, we would give the government the ability to revoke the rights and protections of citizenship "ex post facto" at their collective whim. With his pen he would degrade us from "citizens" to "subjects". Graham is a traitor to "We the People". If you feel like a certain group is too dangerous to keep as citizens, don't make them citizens in the first place! But once you make that mess, you have to clean it up within Constitutional constraints.

[TigersEye]

8 USC § 1451 - Revocation of naturalization

(c) Membership in certain organizations; prima facie evidence 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 1424 of this title, 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.

8 USC § 1481 - Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—

snip

(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

8 USC § 1451 - Revocation of naturalization

(c) Membership in certain organizations; prima facie evidence 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 1424 of this title, 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.

8 USC § 1481 - Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—

snip

(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

[SoFloFreeper]

Yeah, Lindsey, you’ll disagree with Hussein...right up until he threatens to release his files on you. Then you’ll roll over.

[DJ MacWoW]

Since 1972, 3,101 killed by Muslims in America in 70 terror attacks..............and he bows to them

Click The Pic To Donate

Support The Truth Serum, Donate To FR

[upchuck]

Linda, you queer dear, you're on the wrong side AGAIN!

Uber RINO Lindsey Ping
"Republican by day, Democrat by night."

Want on or off this ping list?
Just FReepmail me.

h/t to martin_fierro for the graphic

[SoCal Pubbie]

Tell it this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hans_Haupt

[TigersEye]

Even his parents were stripped of citizenship for not informing on him.

[bunkerhill7]

Here is THE LAW regarding U.S. citizens waging war [levy war =wage war; Webster Dict. 1887] against the United states:

He appears to be guilty of TREASON:

Section 3 - Treason Note
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be
convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
-U.S. Constitution

[so_real]

What you've provided is rational for revoking citizenship (future tense) after certain criteria have been met. The process of revoking citizenship begins after the fact. However, what Graham is discussing, is treating a U.S. citizen (present tense) as if he were not a U.S. citizen (present tense) because of the criteria that were met. His claim is that some acts (arbitrarily determined by government) are so heinous that government can ignore citizenship and the rights and protections afforded by it. That's criminal.

By all means initiate the process to revoke his citizenship. But do it through "due process". And treat him as every inch the citizen he was naturalized to be between now and such time as it is done.

[Empire_of_Liberty]

I agree with your sentiment, but let me put forth the following.

If you let them grant naturalized citizenship to every jihadist they want and fail to distinguish between natural born and naturalized citizens and the threats they pose, you will lose exactly the Constitutional protections you are concerned about preserving.

Naturalization is a process, not a sacred rite. It can fail, as in this case. To not account for that in law is disasterous. True home-grown threats can exist, of course, but to not recognize the increased threat of foreign immigrants is to invite no end to these attacks, all with the naieve mis-applications of undesrved Constitutional protections.

I understand the “slippery slope”, but consider this “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”. Make the right decision, now, about what naturalization really means, and you will preserve your rights far better than mis-applying protections to those out to destroy you. I am not entirely sure that the Government does not even already know the risk these radical imports represent, and sees this muddying of the waters as a way to encroach on our liberties.