By Douglas V. Gibbs
The PATRIOT Act had many Americans concerned that the federal government was going too far in its war on terror by being willing to secretly monitor Americans' Emails, phone calls, and whereabouts.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) signed by Barack Obama on New Years Eve authorizes the indefinite detention of persons deemed to be terrorists on American Soil, including Americans.
Both of these acts are seen by many as being an egregious assault on our liberties, but neither of them goes as far as HR 3166 and S 1698, the "Enemy Expatriation Act," which would give the federal government the authority to take away a person's American citizenship if they are deemed to be "hostile" against the United States.
I understand the intent, and I get that we have to defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. But to strip an American of their Constitutional rights by taking away their citizenship, which also means the elimination of due process, is taking it a little too far. The penalty of treason is death, but short of that Americans should still be given every Constitutional courtesy, until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers.
The bills are sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA), and are receiving very little opposition. The acts take the concept that America is a part of the battleground in the war on terror that the NDAA presented, and enables the government to decide that if an American is 'engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States,' their citizenship can be stripped from them.
The Pandora's Box this opens has to do with definitions. Sure, everything is fine while "hostilities" and "terrorism" maintains the current definitions we apply to the terms. But what happens when the federal government decides to broaden those definitions? How long before protesters fall under the those definitions? What about language criticizing the government? Will that also be considered hostile against the United States?
The definitions have been ambiguous and encompassing before, and this act opens up opportunities for the federal government that I think is wise not to entertain. It could get to the point that any action the government sees as in opposition to them could be labeled as hostile against the federal government, or supporting terrorism. This act could be the loophole the supporters of the NDAA were looking for to indefinitely detain Americans. Under the Enemy Expatriation Act to be accused of supporting hostilities could be defined any way the government sees fit. Then, if they decide you are hostile towards the U.S. Government, they could simply strip your citizenship and apply the indefinite detention section of the NDAA without the benefit of due process.
What the Enemy Expatriation Act looks like to me is, combined with the NDAA, a big government opportunity to declare war on the American people.
Simply put, all they have to do is deem you as the enemy, and you will suddenly fall under the tightening grip of the federal government - and with these "Acts" it will be perfectly legal for them to do so.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Text of H.R. 3166: Enemy Expatriation Act - GovTrack.us
No comments:
Post a Comment