So, a debate on foreign policy and citizenship sounds fun right now.
There are various measures going through legislative bodies all over the world right now, attempting to decide what to do with citizens of country A that aid "in foreign wars" or "terroristic activity" related to countries Q, R, S, and T.
Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/world/middleeast/isis-recruits-prompt-laws-against-foreign-fighters.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=fb-nytimes&bicmst=1409232722000&bicmet=1419773522000&smtyp=aut&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&_r=0
My knee-jerk, 7the generation American reaction is to say, "If they leave here to join ISIS or the Islamic Brotherhood or whoever else thinks it's okay to carbomb public buildings and unleash nerve gas on toddlers, they need their US citizenship revoked and a GPS tracker for the Navy SEALS shoved up their asses."
And then I realize that the 16 year old child bride of a 39 year old (now, thank you US flight schools) pilot sold off from New Jersey in a "traditional" marriage and compelled onto a plane to live in Turkey doesn't deserve to lose the protection of citizenship in her home country. Her children don't deserve to lose the protection of their mother's citizenship either; she didn't decide to be married to a terrorist. But, what if the family in the next house *did* decide together to join a radical religio-political murder movement? Shouldn't that wife be punished too?
In no particular order:
Netherlands-- seeking to revoke citizenship of those volunteering with a terrorist organization, applying to those with dual citizenship only. (What I don't understand: isn't helping a group that wants to "Kill the Infidels" still treasonous from someone with single citizenship?)
Germany-- seeking to revoke the Government ID cards of terrorist organization participants, thereby limiting their movement within the continent. (Besides the treason question, what does that do to their ability to leave the continent if they possess other papers like a passport/travel visa? I'm unfamiliar with the national identity card, though I think I know how to ask to see it.)
French-- considering revoking the need for a court order for police to stop a citizen leaving the country. (Will they use it for the intended situation without expanding the power based on the precedent the decision sets?")
Britain-- can revoke citizenship of dual citizen involved with terrorist groups. Considering expansion of that power to delay the return to UK of born and single citizens suspected of terrorist activity, and prosecuting over 4 dozen British citizens with known ties to terrorist groups on the continent who have returned to UK.
But here's the sticky wicket for me:
"Counterterrorism officials recommend that countries share data to detect the recruitment of foreign fighters, monitor online communications more aggressively, share airline passenger information in advance, and criminalize travel abroad to fight."
Translation: "We think a guy named Abdulla Mohammad al Hussien is traveling to Syria even though his ticket is to Egypt where he has family. You should detain him on his stop over in London until we can get a session in with him. We're sending CIA agents to help pick him up at 09:00 hrs."
My fear: all that information sharing and preemptive prosecution by intelligence opens the door for someone else's back yard to become the setting of "unseen" acts of torture and illegal detention in the name of keeping Americans safe, at the expense of any corporate money-grubber that wants to having full access to *my* browsing history by greasing the right palms.
Thoughts flist?
Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/world/middleeast/isis-recruits-prompt-laws-against-foreign-fighters.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=fb-nytimes&bicmst=1409232722000&bicmet=1419773522000&smtyp=aut&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&_r=0
My knee-jerk, 7the generation American reaction is to say, "If they leave here to join ISIS or the Islamic Brotherhood or whoever else thinks it's okay to carbomb public buildings and unleash nerve gas on toddlers, they need their US citizenship revoked and a GPS tracker for the Navy SEALS shoved up their asses."
And then I realize that the 16 year old child bride of a 39 year old (now, thank you US flight schools) pilot sold off from New Jersey in a "traditional" marriage and compelled onto a plane to live in Turkey doesn't deserve to lose the protection of citizenship in her home country. Her children don't deserve to lose the protection of their mother's citizenship either; she didn't decide to be married to a terrorist. But, what if the family in the next house *did* decide together to join a radical religio-political murder movement? Shouldn't that wife be punished too?
In no particular order:
Netherlands-- seeking to revoke citizenship of those volunteering with a terrorist organization, applying to those with dual citizenship only. (What I don't understand: isn't helping a group that wants to "Kill the Infidels" still treasonous from someone with single citizenship?)
Germany-- seeking to revoke the Government ID cards of terrorist organization participants, thereby limiting their movement within the continent. (Besides the treason question, what does that do to their ability to leave the continent if they possess other papers like a passport/travel visa? I'm unfamiliar with the national identity card, though I think I know how to ask to see it.)
French-- considering revoking the need for a court order for police to stop a citizen leaving the country. (Will they use it for the intended situation without expanding the power based on the precedent the decision sets?")
Britain-- can revoke citizenship of dual citizen involved with terrorist groups. Considering expansion of that power to delay the return to UK of born and single citizens suspected of terrorist activity, and prosecuting over 4 dozen British citizens with known ties to terrorist groups on the continent who have returned to UK.
But here's the sticky wicket for me:
"Counterterrorism officials recommend that countries share data to detect the recruitment of foreign fighters, monitor online communications more aggressively, share airline passenger information in advance, and criminalize travel abroad to fight."
Translation: "We think a guy named Abdulla Mohammad al Hussien is traveling to Syria even though his ticket is to Egypt where he has family. You should detain him on his stop over in London until we can get a session in with him. We're sending CIA agents to help pick him up at 09:00 hrs."
My fear: all that information sharing and preemptive prosecution by intelligence opens the door for someone else's back yard to become the setting of "unseen" acts of torture and illegal detention in the name of keeping Americans safe, at the expense of any corporate money-grubber that wants to having full access to *my* browsing history by greasing the right palms.
Thoughts flist?