U.S. State Department on Sunday commended the Israelis and Palestinians for their efforts to start the U.S.-brokered indirect talks on the Middle East peace.
Israeli-Palestinian proximity talks start
Israeli opposition makes coalition overtures as peace talks begin
Proximity talks to focus on borders, security: Palestinian official
Israel welcomes PLO's approval of proximity talks
The State Department said in statement that the U.S. Special Envoy George Mitchell had left the Middle East on Sunday after the first round of proximity talks ended, describing them as "serious and wide-ranging."
The department commended both parties for taking steps to help create a "conducive" atmosphere to start the talks.
According to the statement, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said he will prevent incitement from his side, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promised there will be no construction at the Ramat Shlomo project for two years.
In March, Israel announced plans to build 1,600 houses in Ramat Shlomo, a disputed area in East Jerusalem, triggering angry response from the U.S. and the pulling-out by the Palestinian side from the indirect talks which were scheduled for that month.
The statement also warned both parties against taking significant actions that undermine trust, vowing to hold them accountable and ensure the talks will continue.
It said that Mitchell will return to the region next week to continue the proximity talks.
Chief Palestinian peace negotiator Saeb Erekat announced on Sunday that the U.S.-sponsored proximity talks between the Palestinians and Israel have started.
sexy lingerie Saucy Lingerie Sets
sexy lingerie NEW MEN'S SEXY POUCH
sexy lingerie Chemise Lingerie
sexy lingerie Body Stocking
sexy lingerie Men's Items
http://www.darksonus.com/forums
http://www.monroeworld.com/forum
http://wampas.com/forum
http://www.nacionalnaklasa.com/forum
http://game-editor.com/forum
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Bill aims to strip certain Americans of their citizenship
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."Video: Taliban link to Times Square suspect?Video:Bloomberg talks terror on Capitol Hill
RELATED TOPICSBrown, 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.
"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 fro 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."sexy lingerie corsets
sexy lingerie Saucy Lingerie Sets
sexy lingerie MAGICGIRL
sexy lingerie Chemise Lingerie
sexy lingerie Body Stocking http://forum.alsh8d.com
http://www.caozinholegal.com/forum
http://www.diendancacanh.com/forum
http://forum.excusememoses.com
http://www.smooth-jazz.de/forum
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."Video: Taliban link to Times Square suspect?Video:Bloomberg talks terror on Capitol Hill
RELATED TOPICSBrown, 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.
"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 fro 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."sexy lingerie corsets
sexy lingerie Saucy Lingerie Sets
sexy lingerie MAGICGIRL
sexy lingerie Chemise Lingerie
sexy lingerie Body Stocking http://forum.alsh8d.com
http://www.caozinholegal.com/forum
http://www.diendancacanh.com/forum
http://forum.excusememoses.com
http://www.smooth-jazz.de/forum
When others fail
If I may speak on some of my personal qualities,nike running shoes nike running shoesI am loyal, hardworking and have the ability to get a long with all kinds of people,nike shoes I enjoy challenging work and thrive under pressure. Further more,north face jackets
nike shoes I am not afraid of responsibilities. When others fail,north face jackets
I will succeed.
http://www.junge-forschung.de
http://dark.friends-bg.com
http://www.nzom.net/vb
http://forum.mundolatino.cz
http://board.muse.mu
nike shoes I am not afraid of responsibilities. When others fail,north face jackets
I will succeed.
http://www.junge-forschung.de
http://dark.friends-bg.com
http://www.nzom.net/vb
http://forum.mundolatino.cz
http://board.muse.mu
production scheduling
Eight years working experience of a multinational corporation.spyder jackets spyder jacketsGood communication skill and team work spirit.polo shirtralph lauren polo shirts
polo shirt
Have good experience for logistics management and production scheduling. ralph lauren polo shirts As a good player for cost reduction and productivity improvement.http://www.avalanchers.co.uk
http://www.thepitbull-place.com/index
http://spektroskopie.fg-vds.de/forum
http://www.ouinsider.com/forums
http://www.atlasmod.com/phpBB3
polo shirt
Have good experience for logistics management and production scheduling. ralph lauren polo shirts As a good player for cost reduction and productivity improvement.http://www.avalanchers.co.uk
http://www.thepitbull-place.com/index
http://spektroskopie.fg-vds.de/forum
http://www.ouinsider.com/forums
http://www.atlasmod.com/phpBB3
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)