Like Fallujah before it....

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**NuggzTheNinja**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Iraq is our unresolved mess, and if the Iraqi government requests aid then I think we have an obligation to do so, but invading it in the first place was a mistake. Striking against Bashar Asad and removing him from power like Saddam would left Syria in similar state to Iraq.

By trying to police the world and remaking in our own image, countries that are actually very different to us culturally we've helped leave the world in a worse state.

Your point about Syria is spot on. Don't get me wrong - there's no love lost between myself and Syria as half of the targets in our training were "Commando Suri" (Syrian commandos), but at the same time if we are picking and choosing between a heavy handed yet rational dictator, and a completely insane group of Islamic Death Cultists (tm), Assad is definitely the safer option.

We're talking about a part of the world where people have been ruled by force for centuries. ALL leaders there are heavy-handed. Saddam was a jerk but at least he could be bought...not much you can do about a guy who thinks that the afterlife matters more than this world.

**whembly**

Uncle has an idea...

People ask, I answer
People say to me “Hey Uncle, if you’re so smart, what would you do if you were the president?” And I say “Not play golf while my microphone is still warm”

So, this came up today at lunch. If I was president and a citizen was beheaded and it was put on youtube in a manner taunting America for being pussies. I thought for a few and basically said this:

I’d get 10 different special forces groups of different degrees of skill (not that one is better or worse, I’d just want some SEALs and Green Berets because their skill sets are different) and 10 sniper teams. I’d send them to the areas in Iraq that are controlled by ISIS. And I would tell them that their objective is not to secure gak. Not to monitor strategic any thing. We’re not taking towns, securing infrastructure or rescuing anyone. We’re not restoring peace.

Your goal is to kill terrorists. Kill all members of ISIS you encounter. Kill fething terrorists. No hostages. Get a body count and move on. Kill them quickly and don’t play nice. Ignore borders. Then I’d disclose the body count in a weekly address to the nation.

I don't know about disclosing weekly body counts, but... hey, let loose the SF dawgs!

**AlmightyWalrus**

whembly wrote:
Uncle has an idea...

People ask, I answer
People say to me “Hey Uncle, if you’re so smart, what would you do if you were the president?” And I say “Not play golf while my microphone is still warm”

So, this came up today at lunch. If I was president and a citizen was beheaded and it was put on youtube in a manner taunting America for being pussies. I thought for a few and basically said this:

I’d get 10 different special forces groups of different degrees of skill (not that one is better or worse, I’d just want some SEALs and Green Berets because their skill sets are different) and 10 sniper teams. I’d send them to the areas in Iraq that are controlled by ISIS. And I would tell them that their objective is not to secure gak. Not to monitor strategic any thing. We’re not taking towns, securing infrastructure or rescuing anyone. We’re not restoring peace.

Your goal is to kill terrorists. Kill all members of ISIS you encounter. Kill fething terrorists. No hostages. Get a body count and move on. Kill them quickly and don’t play nice. Ignore borders. Then I’d disclose the body count in a weekly address to the nation.

I don't know about disclosing weekly body counts, but... hey, let loose the SF dawgs!

At which point the usual suspects would start shouting about unauthorized use of military force, the President overreaching his authority and the like.

**Jihadin**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
whembly wrote:
Uncle has an idea...

People ask, I answer
People say to me “Hey Uncle, if you’re so smart, what would you do if you were the president?” And I say “Not play golf while my microphone is still warm”

So, this came up today at lunch. If I was president and a citizen was beheaded and it was put on youtube in a manner taunting America for being pussies. I thought for a few and basically said this:

I’d get 10 different special forces groups of different degrees of skill (not that one is better or worse, I’d just want some SEALs and Green Berets because their skill sets are different) and 10 sniper teams. I’d send them to the areas in Iraq that are controlled by ISIS. And I would tell them that their objective is not to secure gak. Not to monitor strategic any thing. We’re not taking towns, securing infrastructure or rescuing anyone. We’re not restoring peace.

Your goal is to kill terrorists. Kill all members of ISIS you encounter. Kill fething terrorists. No hostages. Get a body count and move on. Kill them quickly and don’t play nice. Ignore borders. Then I’d disclose the body count in a weekly address to the nation.

I don't know about disclosing weekly body counts, but... hey, let loose the SF dawgs!

At which point the usual suspects would start shouting about unauthorized use of military force, the President overreaching his authority and the like.

More likely ISIS would media blitz the US Military killing innocent civilians..

**Ouze**

We're performing about 7 or 8 drone strikes a day against ISIL, so it's not like we're not doing anything. And again, even this is, I think, technically a violation of the War Powers Resolution.

**Dreadclaw69**

whembly wrote:
So... the Obama administration did, indeed, violate the law in releasing those 5 terrorists:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/665390.pdf
Key bit...

The Department of Defense (DOD) violated section 8111 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014 when it transferred five individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the nation of Qatar without providing at least 30 days notice to certain congressional committees. Section 8111 prohibits DOD from using appropriated funds to transfer any individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay unless the Secretary of Defense notifies certain congressional committees at least 30 days before the transfer. As a consequence of using its appropriations in a manner specifically prohibited by law, DOD also violated the Antideficiency Act.

Not holding my breath for Holder* to prosecute this...

*Ouze! I spelt his name right!

Hard drives have already been lost

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
I'm not religious but a crusade would be sort of awesome, in a way. I mean, gleaming armor, tabards with red crosses - those were pretty pimp outfits.

http://gamertherapist.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Crusader-Man1.jpg

right?

I see that image and think of this;

**Jihadin**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
whembly wrote:
So... the Obama administration did, indeed, violate the law in releasing those 5 terrorists:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/665390.pdf
Key bit...

The Department of Defense (DOD) violated section 8111 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014 when it transferred five individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the nation of Qatar without providing at least 30 days notice to certain congressional committees. Section 8111 prohibits DOD from using appropriated funds to transfer any individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay unless the Secretary of Defense notifies certain congressional committees at least 30 days before the transfer. As a consequence of using its appropriations in a manner specifically prohibited by law, DOD also violated the Antideficiency Act.

Not holding my breath for Holder* to prosecute this...

*Ouze! I spelt his name right!

Hard drives have already been lost

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
I'm not religious but a crusade would be sort of awesome, in a way. I mean, gleaming armor, tabards with red crosses - those were pretty pimp outfits.

http://gamertherapist.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Crusader-Man1.jpg

right?

I see that image and think of this;

Replace Bible with cross. Then again the swords were flipped to imitate a Cross

**Kelly502**

Medium of Death wrote:
Iraq has been left in a shameful state. Almost guaranteed to have been better under Saddam, which is very sad.

Really? Not much different when he used nerve agent on ethnic groups like the Kurdish people, dropped paratroopers in on villages, destroying familes and killing people.

**BaronIveagh**

If we're rolling the bombers, here's a good place to help out:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28910674

**NuggzTheNinja**

I guess this is the thread for this...

Has anyone actually watched the Foley beheading? I'm obviously not going to link it here. Note - I'm absolutely not interested in conspiracy theories or otherwise, nor do I have any real reason to believe it's fake. Just want to raise a few points.

Normally those videos are completely graphic - they show the entire procedure. There are videos of scores of Nepalese contractors being beheaded, Americans being beheaded, etc. The procedure usually involves them reading (in Arabic) a long diatribe, then tackling the condemned and sawing his head off. In this case, you see the terrorist pull Foley's head back and run the knife back and forth at his throat, but there's no blood while this is happening. Then, you see a decapitated body that looks like Foley with the head placed on the back - this is standard operating procedure for Islamic terrorists during beheadings.

Does anybody else think it's strange that the video completely omits the actual beheading procedure, and that the beheading is carried out the way it is? Why do you think they chose to film it this way?

**CptJake**

All kinds of reasons.

Could be during the actual head separation the scum bags mask came loose so they edited it out. Could be they are saving the gruesome part for another release. Could be something as simple as camera or operator error. Could be their pre-execution focus groups liked this method better.

Who knows?

**Easy E**

Just heard that an American in Syria was killed fighting for the Islamic State. Some guy named Douglas McCain.

The claim 140 to 150 Americans are fighting in Syrian, but we aren;t exactly sure who they are fighting for. Some might by the Islamic State but their are a bunch of other groups the Americans could be aligning with inluding the Syrian Government.

**Frazzled**

How come their passports aren't revoked?

**squidhills**

If you join a military/paramilitary/terrorist group that is opposed to the US, isn't there some method of having your citizenship revoked?

I mean, I'm all for disagreeing with the US gov and taking a political position that is in direct opposition to it... but fighting with ISIS and beheading journalists and participating in sustained ethnic/religious cleansing operations against civilians is an order of magnitude beyond "disagreeing" with the US gov. Heck, at that point you aren't opposed to the US you are opposed to all of human civilization.

I'd really like to see some citizenships revoked, is what I'm saying.

**Easy E**

Asd I said, we don't really know whois fighting for who.

Also, can anyone point me to the provision int eh constitution tat talks about where we can revoke citizenship? I'm genuinely curious so I can read it for myself. I don't seem to recall it talking about revoking, only granting.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Frazzled wrote:
How come their passports aren't revoked?

Because they have the right to a fair trial, same as everyone else.

When they're tried fairly in a court of law, with legal representation, and found guilty then by means let's strip them of citizenship and banish them for life. Or, failing that, jail them for a very long time.

But until guilt is proven, they are "innocent".

Civil Liberties don't mean gak if we can just arbitrarily deny them to people we don't like or who we suspect.

**CptJake**

If they are naturalized citizens they can be de-naturalized:

http://immigration.findlaw.com/citizenship/can-your-u-s-citizenship-be-revoked-.html

Membership in Subversive Groups: Your citizenship may be revoked if the U.S. government can prove that you joined a subversive organization within five years of becoming a naturalized citizen. Membership in such organizations is considered a violation of the oath of U.S. allegiance. Examples include the Nazi Party and Al Qaeda.

According to this site: http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2012/06/can-you-lose-us-citizenship-renounce-it.html

Can you lose citizenship?

The Constitution prevents the U.S. government from involuntarily stripping individuals of their citizenship. However, a person will no longer be a U.S. citizen if, by a preponderance of the evidence, officials can prove that the individual intended to renounce his U.S. citizenship.

Federal law lists a number of "potentially expatriating acts." If done voluntarily and with the intent to relinquish citizenship, the following acts will cause you to lose citizenship:

Serving in the armed forces of a foreign country engaged in hostilities against the U.S.
Taking an officer position in the armed forces of a foreign state
Being convicted of treason
Taking an oath or affirmation to a foreign state
Working for a foreign government when you are of that nationality
Can you renounce U.S. citizenship?

You can, but to be valid, you must (1) sign an oath of renunciation (2) in front of a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer (3) while in a foreign country. You're also not allowed to renounce your child's citizenship, although he or she may do so if old enough to understand the consequences of doing so.

Minors may revoke their renunciation if done within six months of turning 18. Adults who renounce U.S. citizenship lose citizenship for life.

So if you can prove an expatriating act (joining IS may be one, the courts have yet to decide) and prove intent to renounce even if they did not go through the formal procedure of showing up at a DoS office overseas and filing the appropriate papers (this intent will rightfully be an absolute bitch to prove in court) in theory you could strip citizenship.

There was a bill in the senate to remove the 'intent' element from the requirement. I don't think it would pass and doubt it would hold up in court even if it did.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
There was one guy they caught in NY (I think) attempting to fly to Syria and join up they arrested. I personally would have let him get on the plane, and when it landed OCONUS would have had a DoS rep meet the punk with the relevant renunciation paperwork all filled out and tried to get him to sign it. Once he did I would have voided his passport (electronically if he refused to give it up) and wished him well.

**NuggzTheNinja**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
How come their passports aren't revoked?

Because they have the right to a fair trial, same as everyone else.

When they're tried fairly in a court of law, with legal representation, and found guilty then by means let's strip them of citizenship and banish them for life. Or, failing that, jail them for a very long time.

But until guilt is proven, they are "innocent".

Civil Liberties don't mean gak if we can just arbitrarily deny them to people we don't like or who we suspect.

To play devil's advocate, we are more than willing to bend (or break) the rules for things such as drunk driving.

Implied Consent chemical test refusals are one example. They are blatant violations of the 5th amendment, basically blackmailing you to provide chemical evidence testifying against yourself under threat of license suspension FOR A YEAR. Obtaining a warrant and jamming a needle into someone's arm violates the 4th amendment - there's nothing more unreasonable than seizing someone's tissue. It's no different than cutting off someone's fingertips because you want to run the prints.

However, Mothers Against Drunk Driving have complained hard and long enough to get their way. All we need is a Mothers Against Islamic Jihad to make some headway in violating these peoples' constitutional rights.

**Frazzled**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
How come their passports aren't revoked?

Because they have the right to a fair trial, same as everyone else.

When they're tried fairly in a court of law, with legal representation, and found guilty then by means let's strip them of citizenship and banish them for life. Or, failing that, jail them for a very long time.

But until guilt is proven, they are "innocent".

Civil Liberties don't mean gak if we can just arbitrarily deny them to people we don't like or who we suspect.

Not charging them with a crime. Just not allowing them to come back into the country without reapplying. Beats going to war and killing thousands of people or having them come back and kill thousands of us.

Seriously, come on already.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
How come their passports aren't revoked?

Because they have the right to a fair trial, same as everyone else.

When they're tried fairly in a court of law, with legal representation, and found guilty then by means let's strip them of citizenship and banish them for life. Or, failing that, jail them for a very long time.

But until guilt is proven, they are "innocent".

Civil Liberties don't mean gak if we can just arbitrarily deny them to people we don't like or who we suspect.

To play devil's advocate, we are more than willing to bend (or break) the rules for things such as drunk driving.

Implied Consent chemical test refusals are one example. They are blatant violations of the 5th amendment, basically blackmailing you to provide chemical evidence testifying against yourself under threat of license suspension FOR A YEAR. Obtaining a warrant and jamming a needle into someone's arm violates the 4th amendment - there's nothing more unreasonable than seizing someone's tissue. It's no different than cutting off someone's fingertips because you want to run the prints.

However, Mothers Against Drunk Driving have complained hard and long enough to get their way. All we need is a Mothers Against Islamic Jihad to make some headway in violating these peoples' constitutional rights.

Nuggz has the way of it.

As noted I'm not charging them with anything.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
How come their passports aren't revoked?

Because they have the right to a fair trial, same as everyone else.

When they're tried fairly in a court of law, with legal representation, and found guilty then by means let's strip them of citizenship and banish them for life. Or, failing that, jail them for a very long time.

But until guilt is proven, they are "innocent".

Civil Liberties don't mean gak if we can just arbitrarily deny them to people we don't like or who we suspect.

To play devil's advocate, we are more than willing to bend (or break) the rules for things such as drunk driving.

Implied Consent chemical test refusals are one example. They are blatant violations of the 5th amendment, basically blackmailing you to provide chemical evidence testifying against yourself under threat of license suspension FOR A YEAR. Obtaining a warrant and jamming a needle into someone's arm violates the 4th amendment - there's nothing more unreasonable than seizing someone's tissue. It's no different than cutting off someone's fingertips because you want to run the prints.

However, Mothers Against Drunk Driving have complained hard and long enough to get their way. All we need is a Mothers Against Islamic Jihad to make some headway in violating these peoples' constitutional rights.

I'm British...probably not the most appropriate person to share a debate on the American Constitution.

**kronk**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Implied Consent chemical test refusals are one example. They are blatant violations of the 5th amendment, basically blackmailing you to provide chemical evidence testifying against yourself under threat of license suspension FOR A YEAR.

Show me where you have the RIGHT to a driver's license. It is a privilege, not a right. The 5th amendment is still allowing you to refuse breathalyzer or pee test.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Obtaining a warrant and jamming a needle into someone's arm violates the 4th amendment - there's nothing more unreasonable than seizing someone's tissue. It's no different than cutting off someone's fingertips because you want to run the prints.

First: Removing blood is 1000x times less evasive than removing someone’s fingertips. Keep the hyperbole in check, please.
Second: They have a warrant for a blood sample? Cry me a river.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Frazzled wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
How come their passports aren't revoked?

Because they have the right to a fair trial, same as everyone else.

When they're tried fairly in a court of law, with legal representation, and found guilty then by means let's strip them of citizenship and banish them for life. Or, failing that, jail them for a very long time.

But until guilt is proven, they are "innocent".

Civil Liberties don't mean gak if we can just arbitrarily deny them to people we don't like or who we suspect.

Not charging them with a crime. Just not allowing them to come back into the country without reapplying. Beats going to war and killing thousands of people or having them come back and kill thousands of us.

Seriously, come on already.

So you think a Government, any government, should have the right to strip people of citizenship without justifying it in a court of Law? Thats draconian and totalitarian in the extreme. NO government should have the power to do that. Those American and British insurgents fighting in the Middle East still have the same constitutional/legal rights as you and I. If our governments can't justify stripping them of their citizenship by proving in Court beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is a terrorist, then they have no right to do it.

If American/British citizens are suspected of extremism and participating in the conflicts in the Middle East and Africa, then put them on trial, present the evidence against them in Court and prove their guilt.

I despise Islamic extremism as much as anyone but I'd rather my country / America not turn into the Fourth Reich in the process, by stripping away OUR civil liberties in the name of the War on Terror.

America, Land of the Free my arse.

Seriously, come on already.

What does that even mean?

**Hordini**

The problem, as has already been noted, is proving intent to renounce.

It's also possible that some of the Americans could be aligned with the Free Syrian Army, which is more secular and opposed to both the Syrian government as well as the more extremist groups such as ISIS. I believe there were Americans joining the FSA before ISIS was even really a thing.

At the end of the day, even Anwar al-Awlaki didn't lose his citizenship, so I doubt a small time fighter in Syria or Iraq would either.

**Jihadin**

There's a Bill making its way through Congress where it denies benefits to the individual family if they fight for/die for ISIS. More of a deterrence for the individual to go over. Because one has to prove this individual fought for/fighting with ISIS for it to go into effect. Basically getting captured or killed would be the confirmation.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Jihadin wrote:
There's a Bill making its way through Congress where it denies benefits to the individual family if they fight for/die for ISIS. More of a deterrence for the individual to go over. Because one has to prove this individual fought for/fighting with ISIS for it to go into effect. Basically getting captured or killed would be the confirmation.

What kind of benefits are they trying to deny? I mean, Life insurance generally has a clause that prohibits a payout if the subject of the policy dies while committing a felony, or dies in an act of war (act of war being an active combatant, not some dude who happens to live on the street where fighting is happening). There are VERY few life insurance companies that provide coverage and payout of benefits in the event of an act of war...

**Jihadin**

I've no idea.

What if his/her spouse was falsely collecting unemployment under their name while they were off fighting. Then they would have to pay it back.
Apply for Disability from injuries sustain in a conflict

No idea

**Experiment 626**

CptJake wrote:

Can you lose citizenship?

The Constitution prevents the U.S. government from involuntarily stripping individuals of their citizenship. However, a person will no longer be a U.S. citizen if, by a preponderance of the evidence, officials can prove that the individual intended to renounce his U.S. citizenship.

Federal law lists a number of "potentially expatriating acts." If done voluntarily and with the intent to relinquish citizenship, the following acts will cause you to lose citizenship:

Serving in the armed forces of a foreign country engaged in hostilities against the U.S.
Taking an officer position in the armed forces of a foreign state
Being convicted of treason
Taking an oath or affirmation to a foreign state
Working for a foreign government when you are of that nationality
Can you renounce U.S. citizenship?

You can, but to be valid, you must (1) sign an oath of renunciation (2) in front of a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer (3) while in a foreign country. You're also not allowed to renounce your child's citizenship, although he or she may do so if old enough to understand the consequences of doing so.

Minors may revoke their renunciation if done within six months of turning 18. Adults who renounce U.S. citizenship lose citizenship for life.

So if you can prove an expatriating act (joining IS may be one, the courts have yet to decide) and prove intent to renounce even if they did not go through the formal procedure of showing up at a DoS office overseas and filing the appropriate papers (this intent will rightfully be an absolute bitch to prove in court) in theory you could strip citizenship.

There was a bill in the senate to remove the 'intent' element from the requirement. I don't think it would pass and doubt it would hold up in court even if it did.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
There was one guy they caught in NY (I think) attempting to fly to Syria and join up they arrested. I personally would have let him get on the plane, and when it landed OCONUS would have had a DoS rep meet the punk with the relevant renunciation paperwork all filled out and tried to get him to sign it. Once he did I would have voided his passport (electronically if he refused to give it up) and wished him well.

So would charging suspected home-grown militants who go over and fight with ISIS or any other declared terrorist organisation with treason be a decent way to go about stripping them of citizenship?
I do believe that most western governments consider entities like ISIS to be an enemy of the state. A citizen going over to fight for them is effectively defecting to the enemy at that point, which would make them traitors.

I seriously wish our governments would do something to keep these gakkers from ever returning, before they get a chance to blow up a bunch of innocents.

**Jihadin**

Experiment 626 wrote:
CptJake wrote:

Can you lose citizenship?

The Constitution prevents the U.S. government from involuntarily stripping individuals of their citizenship. However, a person will no longer be a U.S. citizen if, by a preponderance of the evidence, officials can prove that the individual intended to renounce his U.S. citizenship.

Federal law lists a number of "potentially expatriating acts." If done voluntarily and with the intent to relinquish citizenship, the following acts will cause you to lose citizenship:

Serving in the armed forces of a foreign country engaged in hostilities against the U.S.
Taking an officer position in the armed forces of a foreign state
Being convicted of treason
Taking an oath or affirmation to a foreign state
Working for a foreign government when you are of that nationality
Can you renounce U.S. citizenship?

You can, but to be valid, you must (1) sign an oath of renunciation (2) in front of a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer (3) while in a foreign country. You're also not allowed to renounce your child's citizenship, although he or she may do so if old enough to understand the consequences of doing so.

Minors may revoke their renunciation if done within six months of turning 18. Adults who renounce U.S. citizenship lose citizenship for life.

So if you can prove an expatriating act (joining IS may be one, the courts have yet to decide) and prove intent to renounce even if they did not go through the formal procedure of showing up at a DoS office overseas and filing the appropriate papers (this intent will rightfully be an absolute bitch to prove in court) in theory you could strip citizenship.

There was a bill in the senate to remove the 'intent' element from the requirement. I don't think it would pass and doubt it would hold up in court even if it did.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
There was one guy they caught in NY (I think) attempting to fly to Syria and join up they arrested. I personally would have let him get on the plane, and when it landed OCONUS would have had a DoS rep meet the punk with the relevant renunciation paperwork all filled out and tried to get him to sign it. Once he did I would have voided his passport (electronically if he refused to give it up) and wished him well.

So would charging suspected home-grown militants who go over and fight with ISIS or any other declared terrorist organisation with treason be a decent way to go about stripping them of citizenship?
I do believe that most western governments consider entities like ISIS to be an enemy of the state. A citizen going over to fight for them is effectively defecting to the enemy at that point, which would make them traitors.

I seriously wish our governments would do something to keep these gakkers from ever returning, before they get a chance to blow up a bunch of innocents.

That something will come after it happens

**BaronIveagh**

The problem is proof and the difficulties in presenting a case in absentia.

If you make a law allowing revocation of citizenship without trial, well, needless to say, there are a whole bunch of possible abuses there.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

BaronIveagh wrote:
The problem is proof and the difficulties in presenting a case in absentia.

If you make a law allowing revocation of citizenship without trial, well, needless to say, there are a whole bunch of possible abuses there.

Precisely. This is not a power that any government should be able to exercise without judicial oversight.