Post: #51

It's all great until Secretary of State Gillibrand strips you of your citizenship for exploitative misogyny while you're in Cebu.

Post: #52

Seems to me that these women defected from their home countries and are now citizens of the "Islamic State". They should be just fine

Post: #53

(02-20-2019 06:41 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  It's all great until Secretary of State Gillibrand strips you of your citizenship for exploitative misogyny while you're in Cebu.

That ship has sailed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

Al-Awlaki became the first U.S. citizen to be targeted and killed by a U.S. drone strike without the rights of due process being afforded. President Barack Obama ordered the strike.[15] His son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki (a 16-year-old U.S. citizen), was killed in a U.S. drone strike ordered by Barack Obama two weeks later.[16] On January 29, 2017, al-Awlaki's 8-year-old daughter, Nawar Al-Awlaki, was killed in a U.S. commando attack in Yemen that was ordered by President Donald Trump.

Post: #54

(02-20-2019 06:41 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  It's all great until Secretary of State Gillibrand strips you of your citizenship for exploitative misogyny while you're in Cebu.

Frankly, she'd be doing them a favor.

Post: #55

(02-20-2019 06:57 PM)getdownonit Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 06:41 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  It's all great until Secretary of State Gillibrand strips you of your citizenship for exploitative misogyny while you're in Cebu.

That ship has sailed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

Al-Awlaki became the first U.S. citizen to be targeted and killed by a U.S. drone strike without the rights of due process being afforded. President Barack Obama ordered the strike.[15] His son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki (a 16-year-old U.S. citizen), was killed in a U.S. drone strike ordered by Barack Obama two weeks later.[16] On January 29, 2017, al-Awlaki's 8-year-old daughter, Nawar Al-Awlaki, was killed in a U.S. commando attack in Yemen that was ordered by President Donald Trump.

This was a long time coming, as you mentioned it already happened under Obama, who laid the groundwork for all this and the continued expansion of presidential power. Before him, Bush and Clinton were doing all sorts of questionable things to expand the Executive and further the war on terror. Although if you want to look back further, it was around World War I that the US stripped Emma Goldman (foreign born anarchist and naturalized US citizen) and others of their citizenship for being anti-war. Remember, very few people in the US were alarmed about the Obama stuff at the time. The UK is much more methodical about doing it, and has being doing it for a while, no surprise there.

Post: #56

(02-20-2019 06:41 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  It's all great until Secretary of State Gillibrand strips you of your citizenship for exploitative misogyny while you're in Cebu.

I just read a article that stated international law doesn't allow countries to make their citizens stateless. Is that not the case?

Post: #57

It's true, but "international law" hasn't been worth much since Bush went sniffing for WMDs in Iraq, or since hundreds of millions of people started being considered refugees despite not stopping in the nearest safe country - or perhaps since forever. The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.

Post: #58

(02-20-2019 08:42 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 06:41 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  It's all great until Secretary of State Gillibrand strips you of your citizenship for exploitative misogyny while you're in Cebu.

I just read a article that stated international law doesn't allow countries to make their citizens stateless. Is that not the case?

I mean it happens all the time, even though it isn’t technically supposed to happen. If they have dual passports there is no hesitation to strip them of citizenships, although it has happened with people with only one passport.

As I mentioned people in the US have been made stateless before.

Post: #59

(02-20-2019 08:54 PM)Heuristics Wrote:  I mean it happens all the time, even though it isn’t technically supposed to happen. If they have dual passports there is no hesitation to strip them of citizenships, although it has happened with people with only one passport.

As I mentioned people in the US have been made stateless before.

I didn't realize that was happening. I'm wondering if we will find out to what extent this is possible with the British woman getting her citizenship stripped. Apparently she doesn't have another citizenship which could open this up to a legal fight.

I agree with Sp5 that this is a serious "slippery slope" that could become a very bad thing. It would be better for all of our rights if they took the person into custody and put her on trial as a citizen.

Post: #60

Back during the Omar Khadar case, my opinion was thus: we take care of our own.

One of ours is a terrorist? WE deal with it. If I'd been in charge of Canada, I would have demanded that the United States hand him over, so that we could draw and quarter him ourselves.

The UK gave her citizenship; the UK needs to be responsible for executing her, not pawning it off to somebody with more grit.

Post: #61

(02-20-2019 08:59 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 08:54 PM)Heuristics Wrote:  I mean it happens all the time, even though it isn’t technically supposed to happen. If they have dual passports there is no hesitation to strip them of citizenships, although it has happened with people with only one passport.

As I mentioned people in the US have been made stateless before.

I didn't realize that was happening. I'm wondering if we will find out to what extent this is possible with the British woman getting her citizenship stripped. Apparently she doesn't have another citizenship which could open this up to a legal fight.

I agree with Sp5 that this is a serious "slippery slope" that could become a very bad thing. It would be better for all of our rights if they took the person into custody and put her on trial as a citizen.

Absolutely without question she should be allowed to return. From what I read, she was born in the UK, grew up there, and the place they're claiming she has other ties (Bangladesh) she's never been to.

By all means, string her up, send her to jail for supporting terrorism, throw the book at her with no sympathy, but these are two entirely different issues in my opinion.

It's far more disconcerting that a good many people's here principles are so flexible. Supposedly people support free speech, presumption of innocence, real trials vs media kangaroo circuses, and not having your citizenship taken away on a whim, but are only too happy to applaud these very injustices when the victim on the receiving end is an enemy.

This is outcome independence. Forget she's a terrorist for a second. The question you need to ask, is "are there things that are so egregious that you should deserve to have your citizenship acquired by birth stripped?" Similarly "Are there things that warrant your very own gov't killing you without trial" like they did to some poor bastard years back via drone?

For me the answer to both these questions is a resounding no. Yes this lady is a pretty fringe case whom just about everyone should rightfully despise. It's for these instances when you need to be as steadfast as you can in your commitment to the rule of law. Because if you support her being stripped of her citizenship, who gets to decide which cases result in that down the road as she certainly won't be the last? Many would equate her hatred of the west with many's on here supposed 'hatred' of women, so anyone here could be next in line and told to fuck off to a country with tenuous links that they've never been to.

Post: #62

Colour me surprised the Brits of all folk, denied their ISIS hussy...

Post: #63

(02-20-2019 09:37 PM)Seadog Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 08:59 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 08:54 PM)Heuristics Wrote:  I mean it happens all the time, even though it isn’t technically supposed to happen. If they have dual passports there is no hesitation to strip them of citizenships, although it has happened with people with only one passport.

As I mentioned people in the US have been made stateless before.

I didn't realize that was happening. I'm wondering if we will find out to what extent this is possible with the British woman getting her citizenship stripped. Apparently she doesn't have another citizenship which could open this up to a legal fight.

I agree with Sp5 that this is a serious "slippery slope" that could become a very bad thing. It would be better for all of our rights if they took the person into custody and put her on trial as a citizen.

Absolutely without question she should be allowed to return. From what I read, she was born in the UK, grew up there, and the place they're claiming she has other ties (Bangladesh) she's never been to.

By all means, string her up, send her to jail for supporting terrorism, throw the book at her with no sympathy, but these are two entirely different issues in my opinion.

It's far more disconcerting that a good many people's here principles are so flexible. Supposedly people support free speech, presumption of innocence, real trials vs media kangaroo circuses, and not having your citizenship taken away on a whim, but are only too happy to applaud these very injustices when the victim on the receiving end is an enemy.

This is outcome independence. Forget she's a terrorist for a second. The question you need to ask, is "are there things that are so egregious that you should deserve to have your citizenship acquired by birth stripped?" Similarly "Are there things that warrant your very own gov't killing you without trial" like they did to some poor bastard years back via drone?

For me the answer to both these questions is a resounding no. Yes this lady is a pretty fringe case whom just about everyone should rightfully despise. It's for these instances when you need to be as steadfast as you can in your commitment to the rule of law. Because if you support her being stripped of her citizenship, who gets to decide which cases result in that down the road as she certainly won't be the last? Many would equate her hatred of the west with many's on here supposed 'hatred' of women, so anyone here could be next in line and told to fuck off to a country with tenuous links that they've never been to.

In the West we find ourselves drifting away from valuing the process, and instead valuing expediency, or outcome more accurately, in of itself. Thus we live in an age of mob rule, and laws are now flexible and meant to be bent at the slightest level of outrage, or provided the "correct" justification. They call these "extraordinary measures", but they are becoming more and more ordinary by the day. What consequences will it have down the road, maybe affecting all of us as the dragnet expands, not just terrorists or terrorist sympathizers...? Who knows. But troubling, truly.

Post: #64

(02-19-2019 11:02 AM)CleanSlate Wrote:  Allow them back in, but charge them with treason. Arrest them as soon as they get through passport control.

No way. Cancel their passports and leave them stateless. Fuck them, if they want to do something like that they do not deserve due process or any rights. Never let them back into the country again.

Post: #65

(02-21-2019 07:25 AM)Kdog Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 11:02 AM)CleanSlate Wrote:  Allow them back in, but charge them with treason. Arrest them as soon as they get through passport control.

No way. Cancel their passports and leave them stateless. Fuck them, if they want to do something like that they do not deserve due process or any rights. Never let them back into the country again.

How do you know that's the case? Because the media reported on it? These are the same people who said Roosh was a rapist, and promoted rape, and said it should be legal on private property, full stop.

It's like when the US was holding suspected terrorists in Cuba with neither charges nor due process. "Well they're terrorists!" Then fucking charge them. Once that precedent has been set of secret courts, secret charges, secret laws, it's impossible to roll the clock back save revolution. Because what happens when they come for you? You apparently trust these people far more than me to the extent that at least some will not abuse these powers for personal gain.

This is a similar argument that any despot in the history of the world has made. "They're an enemy of the state. Why? Because I said so, I'm in power, and I have the guns. Line them up - and use clubs to save pricey bullets". This has been the case hundreds of times throughout history. Why do you think gov'ts all of a sudden have figured out how to use these powers judiciously? You need look no farther than the start of this century to see the sort of gross overreaches the patriot act resulted in. Not only did they make use of all their new found powers, but they legally over stepped them to any degree foreseeable with prism, and the biggest number of people caught in that drag net weren't true blue terrorists, but petty criminals, and other undesirables in their books. Hate to break it to you folks, but a good number of us register as 'undesirable' to others who would only all too happily suspend enshrined rights if it means they get to string you up. We're better than that.

It's amazing how on one hand people can applaud a $250m case brought against some of the biggest heads of the news media for "fake news", then on the other say 'they're so trustworthy that all due process and the concept of birth right citizenship should be usurped - depending on what they're saying, and who they're saying it about that is. "Tell me the result - then I'll tell you if I agree with the process or not" Come on. That's a child's argument.

Post: #66

If she admits to doing the deed then it's not really a case of "trusting the media" but you're points are all legitimate otherwise.

Who honestly thinks the UK government gives a single fuck about dropping ISIS head hackers into Britain? They came over in droves during the refugee surges.

A usual when the rulers appear to be regaining their marbles it's actually an end run to sucker conservatives into selling a few more of their rights away. As mentioned before, why not just take her admission and charge her with providing material support to a terrorist organisation? Bet your ass if they banned Roosh from entering the UK then you Britbongs are only one international flight from getting the same treatment as this ISIS chick if this becomes normalized.

Post: #67

Post: #68

Post: #69

What's the agenda?

Post: #70

@realDonaldTrump
Feb 21

Quote:I have instructed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and he fully agrees, not to allow Hoda Muthana back into the Country!

Post: #71

(02-21-2019 05:07 PM)ed pluribus unum Wrote:  What's the agenda?
,,,

Millions of anonymous third world migrants get through the Wall sieve, but not the one with her name and picture everywhere who is personalized and elevated as the focus of the debate. We stopped her, woohoo!...

A Single Death is a Tragedy; a Million Deaths is a Statistic -Joe Stalin-.

Post: #72

So if you bang one of these ISIS brides in a Syrian refugee camp, which flag do you get to claim for your notch- ISIS, American, Syrian?

Post: #73

^
Careful with the use of the word 'bang' in that instance...

Post: #74

Hard pass.

Post: #75

If she was born British then it should be cut and dry that they have to take her back and that the kid is entitled to citizenship. If she was naturalized then they can look at stripping her of her citizenship (unless it leaves her stateless) or else do exactly what they are doing now: nothing.

The US case is different because she isn't a citizen and AFAIK her parents were diplomats, which nullifies the archor baby status.