Posts Tagged ‘Terrorism’

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
July 23, 2011

Prior to the events in Norway, the Department of Homeland Security released a propaganda video characterizing white middle class Americans as terrorists and members of white al-Qaeda, a term designed to conflate the image of the CIA-created Islamic terror group and “rightwing extremists” in America.

The DHS video is part of the government’s “See Something, Say Something” mass hysteria campaign and follows its report leaked to the media in 2009 designating libertarians and Second Amendment advocates as terrorists and right-wing extremists.

The alleged perpetrator in the Norway bombing and shooting is being described as a right-wing extremist who was a former member of a popular political party that regards itself to be a “libertarian people’s party” with an ideology based on classical liberalism.

Anders Behring Breivik was at one time a member of the Progress Party, according to news reports. He was a member from 2004 to 2006 and in its youth party from 1997-2006 through 2007.

The Progress Party platform preamble identifies the organization as populist libertarian and its main declared goal as a reduction in taxes and government intervention. The CFR says the Progress Party and similar political parties in Sweden and Finland represent a European Tea Party movement on the rise. In the U.S., the Tea Party has opposed government bailouts to the banksters and has called for ending the Federal Reserve.

The EU, the IMF and the international bankers are worried about growing populism in Europe. “Rising political populism around Europe, driven by public anger over the impact of the financial crisis, threatens to make solving the euro zone’s debt woes increasingly difficult,” Reuters reported in April.

Millions of Europeans are opposed to raiding their treasuries to pay for debt contrived by the bankers and have turned in large numbers to political parties such as the True Finns.

The True Finns’ main campaign plank is opposition to funding a bailout for Portugal. In April, the Finnish party emerged from relative obscurity and moved into the political limelight. Its sudden popularity took the European establishment by surprise.

The false flag attack in Norway arrives as populism grows in Germany, Europe’s reluctant paymaster for the contrived debt-based economic crisis.

Establishment politicians in Germany have balked at a second bankster bailout. “We did it once, and we cannot do it a second time, we simply can’t,” said Jochen Sanio, head of the German financial market watchdog BaFin. Sanio said if the government raided the German treasury again the “taxpayers would come and hang all of us.”

The EU and the European political establishment are beholden to the bankers and their “free market” – as in free to loot and plunder – neoliberal policies and have now pulled out all the stops in an effort to crush resistance to endless bailouts designed to crash local economies and destroy national sovereignty.

It is no mistake the corporate media is comparing Anders Behring Breivik to Timothy McVeigh. Hours after the terrorist attack, Norway’s public broadcaster NRK cited Tore Bjørgo at the Police College in Oslo who said the attack resembled the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City. The 1995 attack blamed on Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people.

Bjørgo mentioned The Turner Diaries, the “anti-government” novel written by William Luther Pierce, the former leader of the white nationalist organization National Alliance. The novel was introduced as evidence during the trial of Timothy McVeigh, the government agent patsy set-up to take the fall for the bombing.

The Oklahoma City bombing was a false flag event used to roll out several draconian aspects of the police state in the 1990s. Following the attack, Congress passed at the behest of then president Clinton a number of national security proposals that built the foundation and established antecedents for the PATRIOT Act in response to the staged attacks of September 11, 2011.

In addition to establishing a basis for so-called anti-terror legislation, the Oklahoma City bombing was used to demonize the patriot movement that formed in response to the brazen government attack on the Branch Davidians at Waco on April 19, 1993.

False flag attacks followed by intense propaganda campaigns are one of several methods used by government to neutralize political opposition.

Breivik is obviously a patsy for a Gladio operation to destroy political opposition to the bankers. Operation Gladio was a “strategy of tension” devised by the elite that employed terrorism – assassination and bombings – to discredit political opponents in Europe. It was set-up by the CIA and staffed in part with former members of Mussolini’s secret police.

In the days ahead, we can expect more false flag terror events. These will be used by the corporate media to portray opponents to the bankster scam as child killing terrorists. For the global elite, mass murder blamed on political opponents is a legitimate tool in the plan to take down national economies and install a one-world totalitarian government and banking system run in neofeudal fashion.

Alex Jones & Aaron Dykes
TheAlexJonesChannel
May 12, 2011

Alex Jones debunks the legacy of lies that fill the pages of the phony War on Terror narrative– killing bin Laden, 9/11, Iraq, all of it– in a special video address. This “war” which has consumed our society is nothing more than a dramatized narrative meant to frighten the simple, captive public into accepting greater societal control.

Bin Laden was a strawman-villain concocted by the Western intelligence apparatus to take the blame for the orchestrated terror that is scripted and carried out by the globalist-allied factions. The Phantom Osama bin Laden was a skeleton key opening the door to foreign intervention in the middle east or anywhere al Qaeda might be. The motive is simple– ever-expanding wars for the military industrial complex, and the often more lucrative periods of reconstruction (i.e. you break it, you buy it). The occupation continues here at home with the creation of a police state supposedly meant to combat terrorism.

So rotten is the “big lie” of the War on Terror, that the most iconic events of the period are the most contrived. The official story about the killing of bin Laden disintegrated in mere days, as no one could keep the story straight. But it’s just the latest episode of a fairy tale that’s been sold to the public for nearly a decade; this story, told with a straight face, is not simply riddled with lies, but wholly subsists of them.

Everything has been lie– cooked-evidence about WMDs in Iraq, bogus claims about mobile weapons labs & yellow cake, the Hollywood-scripted Jessica Lynch-incident, the shameful murder of Pat Tillman, the false-flag attacks on 9/11, sticking it to the victims’ families & first responders, manufacturing links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, false-flag scenarios in the Downing Street memos, planted flash mobs at the White House & Ground Zero cheering ‘We got him’ to boost appeal for Obama, phony bin Laden videos faked by assets at SITE and the Intel Center, Osama’s CIA identity Tim Osman, secret backing for the Taliban in 1979, fake terror alerts– all of it.

Alex appeals to the facts in the historical record and an instinctual rejection of the pure lies put out by the establishment. You don’t want to miss this video; hopefully you can use it to reach those who felt “renewed” by reports of bin Laden’s death and are accepting the big lies all over again for the thrill of celebrating “the kill.” It’s a shoddy hoax to bolster public support, but even that illusion is falling apart. The L.A. Times reports that Obama’s “bin Laden bump” has already fallen back to Earth with the rate of gravity.

After all, the system has no credibility, and cheap lies about bin Laden have minimal value. Such easily exposed lies can be dumped on Obama as political baggage just as easily as it can boost him in the polls. The persistence of the Left-Right paradigm allows Obama & Bush alike to be dumped on for the failures & frauds of the system, actually giving cover to the continuity of government agenda, which milks power from the perceived need for greater “safety” measures as well as failed leadership.

So I guess that the Tea Party Movement didn’t bring change after all.

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
February 15, 2011

Now that establishment Republicans have managed to steer the Tea Party into the political Borg Hive and run off the real patriots, it is time to get the neocon total war agenda back on track.

Rep. Michele Bachmann: Just another tool for the neocon mass murder agenda.

Minnesota’s Michele Bachmann, like Alaska’s Sarah Palin, likes to pretend she is at the center of the Tea Party movement. She talks loud and long about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Last week Bachmann voted for an extension of the Constitution-busting PATRIOT Act.

“Today I voted for a temporary extension of three legal authorities in the Patriot Act,” Bachmann wrote on her Facebook on February 8. “This vote was not for a full reauthorization of the Patriot Act. As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I look forward to briefings and reports from our intelligence community that will help us develop longer term solutions as we protect our nation against international terrorism.”

“Today’s vote was for a ten-month extension of three provisions that would have expired later this month,” she posted on her House page. “These provisions maintain the flexibility that our intelligence community needs to monitor terror suspects and protect our country against international terrorism. As a mother of five and a foster mother to 23 children, I voted for these authorities so that our laws keep pace with the evolving threats posed by terrorists.”

Michelle Bachmann is un-principled, and unfit to be talking of the Constitution when she votes for something as draconian as the Patriot Act.  “As a mother of five and foster mother to 23?”  I guess that I missed the part where that has any bearing as to whether or not you’re going to vote for a Constitution buster.  It apparently escapes the mind of those like Bachmann, that Americans have a greater chance of being killed in a car or plane crash, or being struck by lightning.

The Patriot Act has very little – in fact, it has nothing to do with patriotism.  What it has to do with is the abuse of government power.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.  “When it looks like it, acts like, and smells like it, you call it what it is – fascism.”

As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, it is fair to assume Ms. Bachmann is a tool for the CIA and the Pentagon and buys into their phony war on manufactured terror.

But then she always was a dupe for the neocons. Michelle Bachmann was so enamored with the war criminal George W. Bush, she felt compelled to hug and kiss him after his State of the Dis-functional Union teleprompter speech a few years ago.

The Bachmann-Palin neocons in Tea Party camouflage are going to take us down the same road as Bush – the same road followed unswervingly by Obama.

The globalist puppet masters need world war in order to sell their snake oil of globalist government and a return of serfdom to the masses.

Bachmann is on the Order Out o Chaos gang’s team.

The question is… does she even realize it?

Before you read the following post; I would like to make a point.  You know, I hear the “fighting for our freedoms” get thrown around a lot, and it really sticks in my crawl.  And I’ll tell you why.  For the last sixty years we have been meddling in the Middle East and manipulating their political systems, so is it too far out the American stretch of the imagination to understand why some people hate us?

True threats to freedom come from legislation, not invasion.  As I’ve stated earlier, to understand the Constitution and the principles of which it was founded, we must first understand the concept of freedom and liberty for all Americans.

For as Thomas Jefferson once said: “When the people fear the government there is tyranny; when the government fear the people there is liberty.”

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, January 24, 2011

News that an alleged suicide bomber killed 31 people and injured over a hundred after an explosion at Russia’s biggest airport is sure to provide the establishment media and governments in the west with more grist through which to sell their fearmongering agenda, when in reality, Americans are just as likely to be killed by peanut allergies, accident-causing deer, and lightning strikes than they are by terrorists.

Roughly the same number as those unfortunately killed in today’s suicide bombing will die on America’s roads today, as well as tomorrow and in fact every day of the year – an average of 115 Americans are killed in car accidents daily, about one every 13 minutes, but you will never see it make the national headlines never mind gain global attention.

And why is that? Because every time we climb into our cars we subconsciously accept the price of freedom – which is the chance of being injured or killed. We take the same gamble every time we board an airplane, cascade down a ski slope or go up in a hot air balloon. We do so because the benefits of being a free human being are infinitely more rewarding than living in constant fear and demanding omnipresent “security,” which is never achievable anyway.

Despite the constant drumbeat of establishment fearmongering about the imminent threat of terrorist attacks, the likelihood of actually being a victim of one is infinitesimally small, and only highlights how such threats are hyperbolically exaggerated for political purposes.

To equal the danger that Americans place themselves in every day by driving their car down the highway, there would have to be a September 11 every month. To reach the same level of risk that one undertakes in boarding an airline, you only have to travel eleven miles in a car.

“Until 2001, far fewer Americans were killed in any grouping of years by all forms of international terrorism than were killed by lightning, and almost none of those terrorist deaths occurred within the United States itself. Even with the September 11 attacks included in the count, the number of Americans killed by international terrorism since the late 1960s (which is when the State Department began counting) is about the same as the number of Americans killed over the same period by lightning, accident-causing deer, or severe allergic reaction to peanuts,” writes Ohio University’s John Mueller in a report entitled A False Sense Of Insecurity.

“For all the attention it evokes, terrorism actually causes rather little damage and the likelihood that any individual will become a victim in most places is microscopic,” concludes Mueller.

Which is precisely why Homeland Security’s gradual takeover of American society and its attempt to make citizens spy on each other in the name of preventing terrorism has nothing to do with providing some phantom sense of “security” and everything to do with indoctrinating the slaves to maintain complete obedience to their would-be slave masters.

This is about eviscerating constitutional rights by characterizing the exercise of those rights to dissent against the state as an abnormal behavior. This is not our claim – the DHS’ own internal documents list Ron Paul supporters, gun owners, gold bullion enthusiasts, and a myriad of other banal political interests as possible extremism and/or terrorism.

In addition, the US State Department defines the right to peaceably assemble and protest as “low-level terrorism”.

The fact that genuine acts of terror pose a miniscule level of real-world threat to Americans is known and fully understood by the likes of Homeland Security and the State Department. The fact that such agencies are now more concerned with persecuting politically-active Americans as terrorists explains the true intention behind programs like “See Something, Say Something,” which is firmly focused around chilling the 1st Amendment by creating a climate of constant fear and mistrust.

On the contrary, the V For Victory campaign is about creating a climate of solidarity, trust, and a bond of freedom amongst the American people, which is why we urge you to become part of the resistance against big government tyranny by re-asserting your status as a free-thinking, liberty-minded individual who rejects the odious historical connotations of recruiting citizen spies to tattle on their friends, colleagues and fellow Americans.

I think its like a person told me not long ago: “If terrorist attack happens and doesn’t succeed; it’s terrorists.  When they do, its the govenment.”

Aaron Dykes
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, September 23, 2010

Obama Admin predicts small scale terror… in time for elections, again?  23obama“Terrorism” concerns necessarily hinge on fear, and it is now completely predictable that an otherwise unpopular Obama Administration would roll out the threat of terror to bolster support for the 2010 elections. The Washington Post reports that the Risk of small-scale attacks by al-Qaeda and its allies is rising, officials say.” This alarming headline comes in concert with comments from President Obama about absorbing a terror attack, as well as hyperbolic warnings from Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano before Congress that al Qaeda is recruiting for homeland attacks. The Washington Post writes:

Al-Qaeda and its allies are likely to attempt small-scale, less sophisticated terrorist attacks in the United States, senior Obama administration officials said Wednesday, noting that it’s extremely difficult to detect such threats in advance.

“Unlike large-scale, coordinated, catastrophic attacks, executing smaller-scale attacks requires less planning and fewer pre-operational steps,” said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, testifying before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. “Accordingly, there are fewer opportunities to detect such an attack before it occurs.”

The main thrust of these timely “warnings” is to scare the public, not to share intelligence analysis or stop an attack. It is clear from the context that there is no basis for expecting an attack– the ‘evidence’ cited by Napolitano & co. includes reference to the attempted “underwear bombing” on a flight to Detroit– proven to be a falsehood, as eyewitnesses on the plane contradict the official account. Homeland Security also cites the ‘failed’ Times Square car bombing– an incident that didn’t include any real explosives or any connection to al Qaeda at all. Napolitano further links this terror threat with the alleged “rise” of domestic extremism, which has never been qualified or demonstrated, but only hyped via the MIAC and Homeland Security reports issued by DHS earlier in the Obama Administration. Those reports merely speculate that incidents will likely occur based on blanket-mass profiling– a mirror of the Administration’s current attempt to spark worry and fear.

These are the same tactics the Bush Administration admittedly used for political expediency post-9/11– threats without substance, but useful for enlarging a projected threat. Recall that so-called Bin Laden tapes would consistently emerge just prior to key elections or that the terror alert levels would be elevated to re-enforce the fear in the populace for purely political purposes. CIA officials have now admitted to faking Bin Laden videos.

Is it any wonder Obama would now discuss absorbing a terror attack in the U.S. or that Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano would revive the script of homeland terror threats and the pre-programmed idea of small-scale al Qaeda attacks? Is it a coincidence that Obama advisor Robert Shapiro suggested this summer that only a large-scale terror attack could counter President Obama’s “credibility crisis”:

“He has to find some way between now and November of demonstrating that he is a leader who can command confidence and, short of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City bombing, I can’t think of how he could do that.”

Who orchestrates these talking points and baseless forecasts of terror? Why is Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham simultaneously also cynically stating that another terror attack is imminent? Political expediency, not the omnipresence of al Qaeda, is the only logical answer. If the administration has verifiable intel, they should stop any such attempts, not scare up political points.

The bombed remains of automobiles with the bom...

Image via Wikipedia

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, September 22, 2010

President Obama’s ominous claim that America can “absorb” a terror attack will have many fearing that staging some kind of false flag event will be the only way the government can overturn the massive resistance to big government that has grown exponentially since Obama took office.

During an interview with journalist Bob Woodward, the president said, “We can absorb a terrorist attack. We’ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger.”

However, the only thing that was made stronger by 9/11 was the federal government’s power to harass, shake down and spy on the American people, as was exemplified yet again recently when Pennsylvania’s Office of Homeland Security was caught conducting surveillance on peaceful protest groups with the aid of an Israeli security company who listed Second Amendment groups amongst others as terrorists.

Given how both Bush and Clinton before him exploited terror attacks on U.S. soil to boost their flagging political agendas, we should be wary of Obama and his masters making good use of their own “October surprise” to counter record low approval figures for Congress on the eve of the midterm elections.

Talk show hosts such as Michael Savage have long been warning of a “Reichstag fire-like event” would be concocted to reinvigorate support behind Obama and given that his advisors include such ruthless individuals as Rahm Emanuel, the knife wielding son of a former Israeli terrorist who was involved in bombing hotels, marketplaces as well as massacres, we would be naive to put anything past these people.

Indeed, it was only two months ago that former Clinton advisor Robert Shapiro wrote in the Financial Times that the only thing that could save Obama’s tenuous grip on power was a terror attack on the scale of Oklahoma City or 9/11.

“The bottom line here is that Americans don’t believe in President Obama’s leadership,” said Shapiro, adding, “He has to find some way between now and November of demonstrating that he is a leader who can command confidence and, short of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City bombing, I can’t think of how he could do that.”

Shapiro was clearly communicating the necessity for a terror attack to be launched in order to give Obama the opportunity to unite the country around his agenda in the name of fighting terrorists, just as President Bush did in the aftermath of 9/11 when his approval ratings shot up from around 50% to well above 80%.

Similarly, Bill Clinton was able to extinguish an anti-incumbent rebellion which was brewing in the mid 1990’s by exploiting the OKC bombing to demonize his political enemies as right-wing extremists. As Jack Cashill points out, Clinton “descended on Oklahoma City with an approval rating in the low 40s and left town with a rating well above 50 and the Republican revolution buried in the rubble.”

Only by exploiting a domestic terror attack which can be blamed on right-wing radicals, or by rallying the country round another war in the middle east, can Obama hope to reverse the tide of anti-incumbency candidates that threaten to drastically dilute the power monopoly of establishment candidates from both major political parties in Washington.

Shapiro is by no means the first to point out that terror attacks on U.S. soil and indeed anywhere in the world serve only to benefit those in positions of power.

During the latter years of the Bush presidency, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld mused with Pentagon top brass that shrinking Capitol Hill support for expanding the war on terror could be corrected with the aid of another terror attack.

Lt.-Col. Doug Delaney, chair of the war studies program at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario, told the Toronto Star in July 2007 that “The key to bolstering Western resolve is another terrorist attack like 9/11 or the London transit bombings of two years ago.”

The same sentiment was also explicitly expressed in a 2005 GOP memo, which yearned for new attacks that would “validate” the President’s war on terror and “restore his image as a leader of the American people.”

In June 2007, the chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party Dennis Milligan said that there needed to be more attacks on American soil for President Bush to regain popular approval.

The Obama administration has proven itself to be alarmingly adept at lying about every issue under the sun, so why should we believe any different when it comes to the terror threat to America?

Using terror or the threat of terror as a political tool has been a routine ploy in recent years, and was acknowledged by former Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge when he admitted he was forced to issue fake terror alerts shortly before elections to influence the outcome.

Threatening terror has also been a tactic of some of Obama’s biggest supporters in the Democratic party, people like former Senator Gary Hart, who in 2007 wrote a thinly veiled threat to Iranian leaders pointing out that the U.S. has been involved in numerous staged provocations over the years to achieve political agendas, mentioning specifically the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the sinking of the Maine.

Given the documented history of staged false flag events being used to manipulate both domestic and geopolitical affairs, added to the numerous threats of such provocations from several highly respected political operatives, it would be foolish to rule out the notion that the Obama administration could turn to such desperate measures in a last gasp effort to salvage power and demonize its growing legions of political adversaries.

Joseph Lieberman’s latest assualt on the Constitution comes on the heals of President Obama characterizing anti-government sentiment as a means to violence and S. 3081 – the Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010, of which he co-sponsored with Senator John McCain.

The problem with S. 3081 is that it does not seperate the difference between a foreign terrorist and a domestic militian member, thusly, stripping the militia member of his Constitutional rights.

The problem with this bill is simple: it strips the right of any American suspected of any kind of terrorism of their citizenship.  On a moral and Constitutional basis I cannot support this.  Under no circumstances should an American’s right be stripped from them.

I don’t know how much more simple I can say this: in the last year we have seen some of the worst corruption come out of Washington and Wall Street.  Congressional and White House approval ratings are low, Congress’ is at an all-time low.  Washington is saying that they are fixing the problem but the American people are wising up to their old tricks.

“engaging in specific activities render the following groups ineligible for citizenship: persons who oppose or assist organizations that oppose organized government or promote the overthrow of the U.S. government; convicted avoiders of draft or deserters of military or naval forces during times of war were ineligible for citizenship.”

The basic is, is that the government is not concerned with our rights, in fact, they could care less about them, they only want the continuity of government as expressed in REX-84.

I ask a question as quoted in one of my favorite movies, “Is the government worth preserving when it lies to the American peope…let justice be done though the heavens fall.”

Washington (CNN) — A bipartisan group of legislators on Thursday introduced legislation in Congress to strip citizenship from any American found to be involved in terrorism.

 If the Terrorist Expatriation Act passes, an American would lose citizenship if found to have provided material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization — as designated by the secretary of state — or participated in actions against the United States.

 Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut, and Scott Brown, R-Massachusetts, co-sponsored the bill. An identical bill is being introduced in the House by Reps. Jason Altmire, D-Pennsylvania, and Charlie Dent, R-Pennsylvania.

 “As the attempted terrorist attack on Times Square showed us again, our enemies today are even more willing than the Nazis or fascists were to kill innocent civilian Americans [in WWII],” Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, told reporters. “Our enemies today are stateless actors who don’t wear uniforms and plot against Americans abroad and here in the United States.”

 Faisal Shahzad, an American citizen, recently admitted driving a Nissan Pathfinder into New York’s Times Square on Saturday and attempting to detonate the vehicle, which was packed with gasoline, propane tanks, fireworks and fertilizer, according to a complaint filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in New York.

 Lieberman said the legislation updates the 1940 Immigration and Nationality Act, which identifies seven categories in which citizens can lose citizenship if they voluntarily perform one of the acts.

 The list, according to Lieberman, includes acts such as serving in the armed forces of a “foreign state” if such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States; formally renouncing nationality whenever the United States is in a state of war; or committing treason against the United States.

 “The bill we’re introducing today would simply update the 1940 law to account for the enemy that we are fighting today,” he said. “Many have said this law goes too far. Remember, this bill only updates an existing statute that has been on the books for 70 years that accounts for the terrorist enemy that we are fighting today.”

 Brown, a member of Lieberman’s committee, said the bill isn’t a knee-jerk reaction. “This reflects the changing nature of war and recent events,” he said. “War has moved into a new direction.”

Brian Fallon, a spokesman for New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, said he believes “it would be found unconstitutional in this context and would also be ineffective.”

 House Minority Leader John Boehner has similar worries, saying the chances of the bill passing “would be pretty difficult under the U.S. Constitution.”

 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she likes the “spirit” of the bill, but wants to know more on what constitutes taking away an American’s citizenship.  (What kind of language do you need?  It suspends the rights of American citizens!)

“I do think it’s important to know on what basis [they’d lose their citizenship],” she said. “We are committed to due process in our country. … What’s the standard?”

 Pelosi said she’d have to see the language of the bill before deciding whether to support it.

Similar legislation, however, has not been successful.

 In 2005, Congress sought to make it a felony for a naturalized citizen to vote in an election in their home country, among other things. The bill, introduced in the House, did not muster enough support to bring it to a vote.

 Legal experts, meanwhile, argue that the new bill has serious constitutional problems.

“It’s unconstitutional,” said Christopher Anders, Senior Legislative Counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union.” Taking away someone’s citizenship is a truly extraordinary step and to do that based on mere suspicion and to be giving that power to government bureaucrats without ever having a court trial will be an amazing step.”

 Under the new proposed bill, the Department of State would have the ability to revoke an American’s citizenship based on a person renouncing their citizenship. The individual, Lieberman stressed, would still have the right to appeal the determination at the State Department — or take it to federal court.

 When asked how the State Department would make their decision, Lieberman said a person would have declare the intent to renounce their citizenship — but added that information from other sources could also “lead the state department to make that conclusion.”

 Anders said the government often makes mistakes in determining a person’s involvement in terrorism. In that case, an American citizen could be rendered stateless if they do not have dual citizenship.

 Stephen Vladeck, a professor of law at American University Washington College of Law, said the government defines “providing material support to terrorism” so broadly, “that really the most benign, innocent activity could subject the most harmless Americans to this extreme sanction.”

 Vladeck predicted that if a case makes its way to the courts, the statute would be in serious trouble.

“Although there have been some crimes that have been historically treated as subject to denaturalization, I think material support is so far away from the kinds of conduct that previously has been punished that way,” he said. “I think the fact that this is up to the secretary of state, and not a court, really is going to make it very hard for this statute to survive a constitutional challenge.”

 The Supreme Court examined citizenship rights in the 1980 case of Vance v. Terrazas. The court’s decision held that in determining the loss of citizenship, the government “must prove an intent to surrender United States citizenship, not just the voluntary commission of an expatriating act such as swearing allegiance to a foreign nation.”

 Altmire said the new bill hasn’t changed the government’s burden of proof.

“When someone wants to appeal this [ruling], the burden of proof is on the Department of State. And there’s a very high legal threshold to remain consistent with the bill. None of that has changed.”

Who’s the threat?  read this about government documents pertaining to labor/concentration/internment camps.

http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r210_35.pdf

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/140410p.pdf

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc111/h645_ih.xml