Hoda Muthana

[Dill]

(02-22-2019, 08:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Folks used that term because they wanted to vilify him for no reason.


Yeah, many changed their tune once they got the whole story. That doesn't change the fact the people/sources that vilified the kid with no proof should not be dismissed as biased and ignorant.  So yeah, SSF's comment of some are willing to give the girl a bigger pass than they did a High School child has merit. 

Haha, like people want to vilify Trump for no reason.  It's just hate.  Video was no proof.

Are you suggesting that people SHOULD rush to vilify Muthana? In what sense does she get a "pass"?  

[*bfine32*]

(02-22-2019, 10:47 PM)Dill Wrote: Haha, like people want to vilify Trump for no reason.  It's just hate.  Video was no proof.

Are you suggesting that people SHOULD rush to vilify Muthana? In what sense does she get a "pass"?  

No, nothing like Trump at all. No idea how you drew that correlation. 

Never suggested anyone SHOULD rush to vilify Muthana; not sure anyone has. There in lies the bigger pass. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-22-2019, 10:47 PM)Dill Wrote: Haha, like people want to vilify Trump for no reason.  It's just hate.  Video was no proof.

This is, quite honestly, a nonsensical argument.  A kid was vilified for wearing a MAGA hate and "smirking".  Conversely, a person who willingly joined ISIS, as vile an organization as has ever existed, is given more of the benefit of the doubt by some (many?).  You don't see a problem with that?

Quote:Are you suggesting that people SHOULD rush to vilify Muthana?

She willingly joined ISIS.  That seems like a solid foundation to judge a person on.

Quote:In what sense does she get a "pass"?  

In that anyone is willing to give her even the slightest benefit of the doubt.  I get that you're very sympathetic to Islamic causes, but even so I would hope you'd be willing to condemn ISIS unequivocally, along with anyone who willingly joined their ranks.  You are in agreement on this, no?

[Dill]

(02-22-2019, 11:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is, quite honestly, a nonsensical argument.  A kid was vilified for wearing a MAGA hate and "smirking".  Conversely, a person who willingly joined ISIS, as vile an organization as has ever existed, is given more of the benefit of the doubt by some (many?).  You don't see a problem with that?

She willingly joined ISIS.  That seems like a solid foundation to judge a person on.

In that anyone is willing to give her even the slightest benefit of the doubt.  I get that you're very sympathetic to Islamic causes, but even so I would hope you'd be willing to condemn ISIS unequivocally, along with anyone who willingly joined their ranks.  You are in agreement on this, no?

LOL you "hope" that I'll condemn ISIS unequivocally--because I have given people so much reason to doubt that? Also I don't think they are an "Islamic cause" any more than white nationalism (which I hope you'd be willing to condemn) is an American cause.

And I guess I don't know or can't tell what "benefit of the doubt" could mean here.  Like maybe Muthana thought she was moving to Jordan and it turned out to be Syria?  Soon there'll be a video showing she is a good mother?  We should wait till we have the "whole" story?

At the moment my interest in Muthana concerns only two issues--

1) the legal ramifications of her claim to citizenship--the ones I can imagine, like difficulty assigning "state" status to ISIS, and ones I can't, like where the denial of her citizenship will lead as Trump officials cross legal/policy lines.

2) the policy effects--e.g.,  What use could be made of her and Begum's stories to counter ISIS propanganda; and how will ISIS use this and the Begum case for propaganda purposes within the US and the UK (and other places). How will these countries deal with ISIS "traitors" and how will that look in AFrica and Asia?

In short, I don't see any useful point in setting a MAGA smirker who spiraled into prominence on an amateur video beside a case brought before the world by news media seeking to report and inform--and then arguing over who got a "pass."   The proper distribution of vilification between these two may eventually become interesting to me as a register of MAGA grievance against the "unbalanced" liberal press, but I am just not there yet.

[Dill]

(02-22-2019, 11:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote: Haha, like people want to vilify Trump for no reason.  It's just hate.  Video was no proof.

This is, quite honestly, a nonsensical argument.  A kid was vilified for wearing a MAGA hate and "smirking".  Conversely, a person who willingly joined ISIS, as vile an organization as has ever existed, is given more of the benefit of the doubt by some (many?).  You don't see a problem with that?

Everyday, posters who come to this forum have a choice--ignore Trump issues, criticize Trump's vulgar behavior and incompetent management, or criticize those who criticize Trump's vulgar behavior and incompetent management.

For the last three years, Bfine has consistently chosen the latter, attributing critique of Trump to "hatred" and thereby separating his actions from any kind of personal accountability, running interference for this petulant childman as he shames the nation, as well as negating the responsible and ethical behavior of Trump critics.

He is doing the same here when he insists the MAGA smirker and his tomahawk chopping friends were villified for "no reason."  I am not comparing the MAGA smirker to Muthana here.  I am noting the consistency in Bfine's methodology--the difficulty in recognizing bad behavior when it wears a MAGA hat.

[fredtoast]

(02-22-2019, 11:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   A kid was vilified for wearing a MAGA hate and "smirking". 

He was part of a group doing offensive things like the tomahawk chop.

Everyone agrees that the original story was not complete and cast the youth in a bad light, but if the crowd had not been around him acting offensive toward Mr. Phillips the boy would never had been vilified as much.

Facts matter.

[*bfine32*]

(02-25-2019, 02:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: He was part of a group doing offensive things like the tomahawk chop.

Everyone agrees that the original story was not complete and cast the youth in a bad light, but if the crowd had not been around him acting offensive toward Mr. Phillips the boy would never had been vilified as much.

Facts matter.

So the kid was vilified by the open-minded because what other kids in the crowd were doing? You sure the hat may not have had a tinsey winsey bit to do with folks rush to vilify?  

[CJD]

The way I see it, the US has two options with her:
1. Deny/revoke her citizenship, depending on where the buck lands in terms of whether she was under US jurisdiction when she was born on US soil (since her father was a diplomat). This means she isn't our problem and she won't be let back in.
2. Bring her back to America as a US citizen. And then charge her with treason for joining a terrorist group.

Either way, she won't be a free citizen in America to, potentially, be a terrorist. I don't have a strong opinion either way regarding which way the US chooses to go.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-22-2019, 12:30 PM)Dill Wrote: Another idea just came into mind. Maybe it has some applicability to the Muthana case too.

In 2002, the US did not want to accord AQ and Taliban fighters the status of POWs, calling them rather "enemy combatants." 

To do that they could not regard them as armies of a legitimate state.

To charge John Walker Lindh with treason would have possibly affected the legal status of the Taliban and all other fighters by redefining the Taliban as the army of a state, their prisoners requiring Geneva protections and the like (including international inspections), which would mean sending them all home once the hot war was over rather than the indefinite detention desired.

Muthana might present a similar set of problems. It's hard to see what the legal consequences might be for future captives, so they want to avoid the problem altogether.  This continues to be a grey area for US law. Legally we only have a round hole and a square hole, but this peg is a triangle

Good info, and very solid.
I would say the biggest and hardest part to get is 2 witnesses who both saw the same overt act that would be needed to testify against her.

The last time someone was charged AND convicted of Treason was in 1949. So it's not something that is tossed around lightly. The best we can do is leave her right where she is. Your bed, take your pill.

[CJD]

(02-21-2019, 09:34 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: When one leaves the country, and joins a group, such as ISIS, does that equate to renouncing one's citizenship?  Just asking, because I've always been under the same assumption as you;  If you were naturally born in the US, you're a citizen.

Here's why her citizenship is called into question:
 

Quote:At issue is whether she was “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” at birth, a status that her father claims she holds and that the federal government, starting in 2016, has claimed she does not....
The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution provides birthright citizenship to everyone born on US soil and “subject to the jurisdiction of” the United States. While there’s an argument (somewhat on the fringe) that “jurisdiction” doesn’t apply to unauthorized immigrants living in the US, everyone agrees that it doesn’t apply to babies born to foreign diplomats.

https://www.vox.com/world/2019/2/22/18236309/hoda-muthana-isis-citizen-trump-pompeo

As her father was a diplomat from Yemen, the argument against her citizenship falls under that jurisdiction discussion, as diplomats are given immunity and thus are not under US jurisdiction.

Now, her father lost diplomatic immunity sometime around her birth, in the mid 90s. But no one seems to know whether she was born first or if he lost his immunity first. If the former, she is not a citizen. If the latter, she is a citizen.

Quote:The US government has told Ahmed Ali Muthana (according to his lawsuit) that its records show he held diplomatic status until February 6, 1995 — that is, until after Hoda’s birth — and therefore that Hoda was born while he was still a diplomat and thus is not a US citizen, but a Yemeni one.

Ahmed Ali Muthana, on the other hand, claims in a lawsuit that he surrendered his diplomatic identity card on June 2, 1994 — months before his daughter was born.

It's a complicated matter, but if it's the former, I would just say she has no right to come back to the US. It's hard to consider her a US citizen when her father was a diplomat at the time of her birth and I don't believe he or she has applied for US citizenship at any time (and if they have, it hasn't been reported to make that clear).

If It's the latter, bring her home and charge her for terrorism.

[CJD]

(02-25-2019, 02:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So the kid was vilified by the open-minded because what other kids in the crowd were doing? You sure the hat may not have had a tinsey winsey bit to do with folks rush to vilify?  

If he wasn't wearing the hat, I don't think that story makes the news. (In that same vein, I would be willing to wager that the story likely wouldn't even have happened had he not been wearing the hat, as the racists seemed to target them specifically because of their maga-wear).

To liberals, that hat is a battle cry. An announcement of hatred. So seeing someone wearing it doing something that can be perceived (based on the brief snapshot of the situation) as hateful or racist, the story just writes itself.

I say this as a liberal who acknowledges that this is what that hat has come to mean, whether that's correct or not.

And I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that the hat is, at best, a statement that you defiantly support a president mired in nearly endless controversies, from international scandals to racism and sexism scandals all the way through to just good old fashioned shitty Republican standards, like cutting taxes for the rich and corporations and hoping the middle class is happy with the scraps left on the table.

For a very long time in this country, people often refused to even acknowledge which party they voted for, as that was seen as taboo conversation. Now, people are pronouncing it loud and clear via fashion statement. And that's a bit jarring.

That said, I don't think it's fair to assume that every person who wears that hat implicitly agrees with everything the President does and says and believes, but it's safe to assume they must share SOME beliefs with the president (otherwise, why support him by wearing that hat?). 

Then you show that hat, a young catholic white boy and a seemingly racist act, you got a recipe for media outrage.

Now, it turns out the boys were being antagonized by a group of racists and you could maybe attribute their aggression and seemingly hateful posture and mannerisms towards Nathan Phillips as...a reaction to what they felt like was a hostile environment (we've all been there as a child, where you feel like you gotta "be a man" and not be afraid of an intimidating situation), but I think the full picture can best be summarized as:

"Children initially thought to be behaving as racist jerks were being antagonized by racists and were likely behaving like regular jerks, which is perfectly normal behavior for teenagers."

That's not to excuse the tomahawk chops and apparent mockery of the chants performed, but those are relatively minor when taken into account the surrounding circumstances.

I don't buy that the kids were afraid though. There was a video of a boy taking his shirt off and leading a cheer. And you just don't do that if you're afraid. I think the closer reality is that they got into a "bigger dick" competition with the racists and that ego and machismo translated into the confrontation with Mr. Phillips.

With ALL that said, this seems like a departure from the point of the thread at hand.

[Dill]

(02-25-2019, 03:18 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: It's a complicated matter, but if it's the former, I would just say she has no right to come back to the US. It's hard to consider her a US citizen when her father was a diplomat at the time of her birth and I don't believe he or she has applied for US citizenship at any time (and if they have, it hasn't been reported to make that clear).

This can be easily sorted out if some journalist can get the record of Muthana's father's stay in the U.S.  If he lost his diplomatic status, the State Department must have a record of that.  Look at the recorded date, then Muthana's U.S. birth certificate.  

[CJD]

(02-25-2019, 04:10 PM)Dill Wrote: This can be easily sorted out if some journalist can get the record of Muthana's father's stay in the U.S.  If he lost his diplomatic status, the State Department must have a record of that.  Look at the recorded date, then Muthana's U.S. birth certificate.  

According to the Vox article:
The US government has told Ahmed Ali Muthana (according to his lawsuit) that its records show he held diplomatic status until February 6, 1995 — that is, until after Hoda’s birth — and therefore that Hoda was born while he was still a diplomat and thus is not a US citizen, but a Yemeni one.


Ahmed Ali Muthana, on the other hand, claims in a lawsuit that he surrendered his diplomatic identity card on June 2, 1994 — months before his daughter was born.

[Dill]

(02-25-2019, 04:13 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: According to the Vox article:
The US government has told Ahmed Ali Muthana (according to his lawsuit) that its records show he held diplomatic status until February 6, 1995 — that is, until after Hoda’s birth — and therefore that Hoda was born while he was still a diplomat and thus is not a US citizen, but a Yemeni one.


Ahmed Ali Muthana, on the other hand, claims in a lawsuit that he surrendered his diplomatic identity card on June 2, 1994 — months before his daughter was born.

Yow. Well I guess it is complicated then.  There must be a record of the surrender, then. To whom did he surrender it? 

This is a question for journalists now, not the State Dept. under Trump.

[SunsetBengal]

(02-25-2019, 03:18 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Here's why her citizenship is called into question:
 

https://www.vox.com/world/2019/2/22/18236309/hoda-muthana-isis-citizen-trump-pompeo

As her father was a diplomat from Yemen, the argument against her citizenship falls under that jurisdiction discussion, as diplomats are given immunity and thus are not under US jurisdiction.

Now, her father lost diplomatic immunity sometime around her birth, in the mid 90s. But no one seems to know whether she was born first or if he lost his immunity first. If the former, she is not a citizen. If the latter, she is a citizen.


It's a complicated matter, but if it's the former, I would just say she has no right to come back to the US. It's hard to consider her a US citizen when her father was a diplomat at the time of her birth and I don't believe he or she has applied for US citizenship at any time (and if they have, it hasn't been reported to make that clear).

If It's the latter, bring her home and charge her for terrorism.

Thanks for doing the research, that information gives a much better understanding of the situation.

[SunsetBengal]

(02-25-2019, 04:49 PM)Dill Wrote: Yow. Well I guess it is complicated then.  There must be a record of the surrender, then. To whom did he surrender it? 

This is a question for journalists now, not the State Dept. under Trump.

Are you really sure about that?  Most journalists these days demonstrate tremendous political bias.  Besides, I don't really think that is part of their job descriptions to be acting as defacto political operatives, in the first place.  

[BmorePat87]

(02-25-2019, 07:17 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Most journalists these days demonstrate tremendous political bias.

I'm going to disagree with this. I'd say the majority of journalist do their job and report the truth. The truth seems like bias when politicians lie as much as they do. 

[Dill]

(02-25-2019, 07:17 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Are you really sure about that?  Most journalists these days demonstrate tremendous political bias.  Besides, I don't really think that is part of their job descriptions to be acting as defacto political operatives, in the first place.  

I respect your views on this Sunset.  But I don't agree that most journalists demonstrate any tremendous political bias.  We would be in a real pickle if that were the case.

Journalists are not acting as "political operatives" when they look deeply into political matters to get the truth. Think of Woodward and Bernstein tracking a criminal break in that leads back to the Oval Office. Journalists actions may have political consequences, but that does not make the "operatives" for one side or the other. Liberal democracies require transparency, it is the job of the press above all to keep government transparent.

In this case, if there is a legitimate question of when Mr. Muthana lost his diplomatic status, I would like to see someone other than just him and/or the State Department looking into this--exactly the job for an investigative reporter.

[SunsetBengal]

(02-25-2019, 08:41 PM)Dill Wrote: I respect your views on this Sunset.  But I don't agree that most journalists demonstrate any tremendous political bias.  We would be in a real pickle if that were the case.

Journalists are not acting as "political operatives" when they look deeply into political matters to get the truth. Think of Woodward and Bernstein tracking a criminal break in that leads back to the Oval Office. Journalists actions may have political consequences, but that does not make the "operatives" for one side or the other. Liberal democracies require transparency, it is the job of the press above all to keep government transparent.

In this case, if there is a legitimate question of when Mr. Muthana lost his diplomatic status, I would like to see someone other than just him and/or the State Department looking into this--exactly the job for an investigative reporter.

I see your point, as well, and didn't intend to sound one sided.  However, things that are concrete, matters of clear cut law, shouldn't take "investigative reporting" to figure out.  Unless Mr. Muthana's status was a matter of National Security, it should be relatively simple for the records to be produced, no matter which party is in office.  We're talking about an event from 24-25 years ago, it's not like he's been tied to 911 or anything.

[Benton]

(02-25-2019, 07:17 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Most journalists these days demonstrate tremendous political bias. 

Id disagree. 

The majority of people only see or hear about a handful of journalists, chiefly those on network news programs. That's like judging all actors based off some Hollywood stars or all elected officials off Congress.