Senate report concludes: no proof of contact between

[Occhidiangela]

A question of semantics. I am an 'immigrant' (a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence) and I am a citizen. Under the existing laws, my citizenship, unlike that of a person born on American soil, is subjected to revocation.

Hmmm. :( Must do a bit more reading. They can do the same to Ahnold, in that case, eh?

Thus, it is not at all impossible that by speaking out against the policies of a popular administration at a time of heightened feelings I could be accused of treason (shortly after 9/11, for example). The right conservative judge and a jury of rednecks could then have put me in a position where my citizenship would be stripped.

People are still burning flags and not going to jail.

And the bill we are discussing could then have made my observation that Shrub is an idiot a crime meriting a life sentence. Far fetched? Yes. But in a true democracy, laws should make even far fetched possibilities like that impossible rather than enabling them.

I fail to see how your exercising First Amendment rights can be charged as Treason. I understand the pundits playing fast and loose with that term, but not any DA worthy of the name.

That is exactly my contention. But what seems to be a minor point to you is the major reason that I find the bill so offensive. I see a huge difference between locking people up with and without probable cause.

Minor or not, I agree with you that probable cause needs to be part and parcel of the language.

I agree, but maintain that this is a different topic. The bill in question applies to aliens who are in the USA legally as well as illegally and to people who are not and may never have been in the USA at all.

Good, then they can go and pick up Swiss Mercenary, arrest him, torture him, get him to confess, and he can then tell us all about how it went. :rolleyes: Then, they can turn him over to the ICC.

Occhi