Citizenship Stripping Proponents Misunderstand The Sixth Amendment

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Fri May 07, 2010 at 09:54:39 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Citizenship stripping proponents seem to have as their goal removing terror trials from the federal courts:

“It reflects the changing nature of war and recent events,” [Sen. Scott] Brown [R-MA] said Thursday. “War has moved into a new dimension. Individuals who pick up arms — this is what I believe — have effectively denounced their citizenship, and this legislation simply memorializes that effort. So somebody who wants to burn their passport, well, let’s help them along.”

Identical legislation is also being introduced in the House by two Pennsylvania congressmen, Jason Altmire, a Democrat, and Charlie Dent, a Republican. The lawmakers said at a news conference that revoking citizenship would block terrorism suspects from using American passports to re-enter the United States and make them eligible for prosecution before a military commission instead of a civilian court.

(Emphasis supplied.) This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Sixth Amendment rights are not limited to citizens. The stripping of citizenship will not in any way affect a suspected terrorists Sixth Amendment rights to a civil trial in federal court for criminal charges.

As I wrote earlier, to get the criminal justice system out of the fight against terrorism, Congress will have to repeal all federal laws the criminalize terrorism. It is a s simple as that.

Speaking for me only

< Hillary Clinton's Bizarre Statement On Citizenship Stripping | Laws Of War And Citizenship Stripping >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Citizenship Stripping Proponents Misunderstand The Sixth Amendment | 17 comments (17 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

In fairness to their proposal, (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Peter G on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:35:25 AM EST

which is by no means the same as agreeing with it, the point is not that revoking terror suspects' citizenship would make them ineligible for a criminal trial, but that it would make them eligible, under the present rules, for trial by military commission. However, as others have pointed out in earlier related threads, an American citizen who takes up arms against the U.S. and then fights in violation of the law of war could be subjected to trial by military commission. It's just that the commissions as presently structured, first by the Bush Administration and then as modified by Obama, don't allow for it. This proposal seeks, in a roundabout way, to overturn the Commander in Chief's authority to define the present scope of the military commissions. Whether Congress has the constitutional power to do that ironically raises some of the same separation of powers issues that arose during the Bush years.

If the statutory impediment is their concern (none / 0) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:39:45 AM EST

Then change that statutory impediment.

Seems a much more direct way of handling the matter.


Isn't a statutory amendment (none / 0) (#7)
by Peter G on Fri May 07, 2010 at 11:07:15 AM EST

exactly their proposal -- that is, to add commission of a war-like terrorist act (definition, of course, is a big problem) as a statutory ground for loss of citizenship?


Not the statute I am talking about (none / 0) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 07, 2010 at 11:13:27 AM EST

And indeed, not a solution to the problem they are trying to solve.

Stripping citizenship will not allow them to violate the Sixth Amendment.

Let me ask it of you this way - how many criminal trials will be held in a military commission? The answer is none.

To make it clearer for you, what Lieberman wants to do is have citizens tried in military commissions. All he would need to do for that is change the military commissions law.

You seem to think that Lieberman's proposal fixes the problem he is trying to solve.

I think it clearly does not and actually adds to the litigation morass.

Just think about it. Before you can have the military commission trial, you have to go through a citizenship stripping proceeding.

This makes sens to you why?

Frankly,I am not understanding your argument in the least.


: I did misunderstand what statute (none / 0) (#11)
by Peter G on Fri May 07, 2010 at 12:08:49 PM EST

you were referring to. And I should not have relied on my memory for the notion that it was an Executive Order that placed the limitation of non-citizenship on who can be tried by military commission. You are right, it was the Military Commissions Act of 2006 -- under which Congress authorized the Military Commissions but limited their use to "alien enemy combatants." I apologize for muddying up the thread. (Although I wish you had named the statute you meant, or included a pointer. Nevertheless, my bad.)

So... (none / 0) (#1)
by lilburro on Fri May 07, 2010 at 09:59:24 AM EST

I just don't understand the point of these proposals other than picking up a few political points. Are there no lawyers on the Hill?

Stirring Up The Base (none / 0) (#2)
by squeaky on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:11:56 AM EST

None of these voters seem to care about silly things like the law and the constitution. Shame on the Pols who pander to lawlwss mob rule.


Can't blame them .. (none / 0) (#9)
by nyrias on Fri May 07, 2010 at 11:36:31 AM EST

common people are NOT legal scholars and they care very little about the fine rules of the law, beyond what they can get in Law & Order.

All they know is that terrorists are bad guys and something need to be done.

Expecting anything else from a general population is UNREALISTIC.


Can't Blame Mob Rule (none / 0) (#12)
by squeaky on Fri May 07, 2010 at 03:49:11 PM EST

What are you crazy? Of course you can blame mob rule, that is why we have laws. Otherwise people you seem to be supporting would be hanging whoever they wanted from the lampposts and tree limbs.


let me rephrase ... (none / 0) (#13)
by nyrias on Fri May 07, 2010 at 05:39:24 PM EST

you cannot get rid of mob rule .. or the need for it. People are just not caring enough to be educated about the fine points of the rule.

I didn't say i SUPPORT it but i would not dismiss it as something unimportant.


Rephrase Away (none / 0) (#14)
by squeaky on Fri May 07, 2010 at 05:49:19 PM EST

Loserman et al are pandering to the lowest common denominator: aka mob rule.

That is despicable, imo.


There are plenty of people ... (none / 0) (#15)
by nyrias on Fri May 07, 2010 at 06:00:01 PM EST

you find despicable anyway.

That does not make them go away or less real.

And if those common denominators are millions of American voters, you can ignore them at your own peril.


Sounds a lot like you're saying (none / 0) (#16)
by Raskolnikov on Sat May 08, 2010 at 07:32:15 AM EST

these people don't know any better, so we should lie to them to score political points? Isn't expecting those millions of voters to not know any better, and then pandering to them with proposals that are legally or constitutionally difficult or impossible also ignoring them?


: I am saying ... (none / 0) (#17)
by nyrias on Sat May 08, 2010 at 09:30:12 PM EST

you are going to LOSE the political fight if you don't account for the millions of voters who do not know better.
It is CLEAR that voters can be manipulated. Manipulate them to your cause instead of arguing on fine points which are lost on them (which I am SURE you already know).

Heh, I mentioned this back in the first (none / 0) (#3)
by me only on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:21:39 AM EST

thread. I should get some credit. Especially since I never took a law class, never took a civics class and never studied the civil rights movement.

Gotta make sure Patsies can't tell what they know (none / 0) (#6)
by Yes2Truth on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:49:01 AM EST

Since nearly all of the so-called terrorists in question are, in reality, homegrown Patsies who were duped into taking part in a false flag
operation,

it's vital to make sure they do NOT have an open
trial where they public might be able to hear them
tell the truth about what happened to them...at least to the extent that they, their lawyer, and their investigators can discover.

The public is too naive, too gullible, and too lazy
to learn what FOX "news" won't tell them -- and the sooner the public learns the truth about these false flag operations, the better off we'll all be.

I agree. (none / 0) (#10)
by robotalk on Fri May 07, 2010 at 12:04:33 PM EST

Seems the real issue here is when and how a person can be determined to be an enemy combatant, not whether he or she is a citizen or not, or whether citizenship can be stripped without due process itself.

Clearly due process rights apply to all criminal statutes. Whether and to what extent the due process clause applies to enemy combatants--obviously not so clear.

I think they know better and this is all political posturing.