February 21, 2019

If this is a news story, why can I detect a point of view just looking at the headline and the photograph?

I'm looking at this in the NYT:



The artful photograph looks like a Madonna and Child. The woman is beautiful, serene, and intensely and spiritually maternal.

The headline tells us she's an Alabaman and she's being excluded from "Home."

Now, I'll read the text. I'm beginning at the beginning and will put an ellipsis when I make a cut:
President Trump said Wednesday the United States would not re-admit an American-born woman who traveled to Syria to join the Islamic State and now wants to come home. The woman, Hoda Muthana, does not qualify for citizenship and has no legal basis to return to the country, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said.

In 2014, Ms. Muthana, then a 20-year-old student in Alabama, traveled to Turkey, hiding her plans from her family....
Is she a citizen of Alabama or was she simply a student, temporarily in Alabama?
In fact she was smuggled into Syria, where she met up with the Islamic State and began urging attacks in the West. Now, with the militant group driven out of Syria, Ms. Muthana says she is deeply sorry, but American officials appeared intent on closing the door to her return.
She joined our military enemy, so is she asking to be prosecuted? I don't get how "deeply sorry" can work, especially coming only after the group's military defeat.
Mr. Trump said in a post on Twitter that he had directed the secretary of state “not to allow Hoda Muthana back into the Country!” Mr. Pompeo issued a statement declaring that she “is not a U.S. citizen and will not be admitted into the United States.” Mr. Pompeo said Ms. Muthana did not have “any legal basis, no valid U.S. passport, no right to a passport, nor any visa to travel to the United States.” Ms. Muthana says she applied for and received a United States passport before leaving for Turkey. And she was born in the United States — ordinarily a guarantee of citizenship....
She was born in the United States, but her father was here as a diplomat (from Yemen), and diplomats' children are an exception to the rule that those born here are citizens. Her lawyer, the article says, argues that she's not within the exception because she was born after her father lost his job as a diplomat. She was issued a U.S. passport:
After she joined the Islamic State, [her family's lawyer says], Ms. Muthana’s family received a letter indicating that her passport had been revoked. Her father sent the government evidence of his nondiplomatic status at the time of his daughter’s birth, but did not receive a response. 
After she joined the Islamic State... but was it because she joined the Islamic State? Was it that the issuing of the passport was a mistake, because she was never a U.S. citizen, or was it a consequence of her action, joining our military enemy?

Another lawyer who is advising the family says that she "is trying to turn herself in to federal authorities and face consequences for her actions."

And a former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, David Leopold, says that if her passport is "legitimate," she has an "irrebuttable presumption of citizenship in this country." He says the government can revoke citizenship — a conviction for treason would be enough — but (in the words of the NYT) "taking an oath of allegiance to a terrorist group or committing a crime like providing one with material support would not be enough."

So, the article quotes 3 legal experts who are taking Muthana's side but no one who argues the other side. It does link to Secretary of State Pompeo's statement, which says:
Ms. Hoda Muthana is not a U.S. citizen and will not be admitted into the United States. She does not have any legal basis, no valid U.S. passport, no right to a passport, nor any visa to travel to the United States. We continue to strongly advise all U.S. citizens not to travel to Syria.
Based on the last sentence, I'm inclined to understand the U.S. government's position to be that Muthana was a citizen but lost her citizenship. So I'm simply guessing that the key question is when the government can revoke your citizenship, the point discussed by Leopold, above. Did the NYT seek out legal opinion from an expert who might take a different view?

195 comments:

JML said...

Did the NYT seek out legal opinion from an expert who might take a different view?

Why in the world would they do that? It would ruin their narrative.

exhelodrvr1 said...

"Did the NYT seek out legal opinion from an expert who might take a different view? "

I assume that's rhetorical.

Lucid-Ideas said...

It was my interpretation that she was never a US citizen to begin with. Children of foreign diplomats are said to be 'under the influence' of another country. They may apply for citizenship which is usually fast-tracked, a situation I understand did nkt happen here. She's not a citizen, has no right to return, and if she was we wouldn't want her.

The picture is far more infuriating. Again with the weaponized sympathy. Again with the heartstrings.

My sympathy and compassion are at an end folks. It's past fatigue. It's anger at continually using our goodwill against us. Best case for her is to live unassumedly in ME, worst case is she and/or her child dies. I am fine with both options.

David Begley said...

Hoda is stuck in a shithole country and, on top of that, in the worst culture on Earth. Better to live in a US federal pen than being a woman in a Islamic country.

Incredible that the NYT thinks this is a sympathetic story for its open borders agenda. Keep digging you idiots.

Larry J said...

If she is a US citizen and went to give aid and comfort to ISIS, she would be a traitor and, if convicted, could be executed. If she'd not a US citizen, she doesn't belong in the US. We don't need her here.

Howard said...

Gnats and Camels

Ken B said...

Good questions. Typical that the NYT cares about none of them.

gilbar said...

The Good News Is:
Since California has declared itself to not be Bound By (United States Federal) Law
Not only can she legally live in California (like ANY illegal); she will be Welcomed (like ANY Traitor)

Robert Cook said...

The photograph chosen for use is certainly intended to create sympathy for this woman, hence, it is propaganda. I can have compassion for a passionate young woman carried away by foolish ideas, but compassion does not trump the law. If she was never a citizen, she has no claim to return. If it is determined she was a citizen, she should be permitted to return and face trial for her actions.

Rob said...

Ann is still surprised that what passes for news stories at the NYT have a point of view that can be discerned just from the headline? That’s adorable!

Ken B said...

Lucid Ideas
Yes. I wonder if the NYT posed and took that picture. I can think of other pictures more representative of her sojourn with ISIS. How about a picture of her in a blood spattered cave with a few heads lying around.

Henry said...

Ms. Muthana says she applied for and received a United States passport before leaving for Turkey.

Rather remarkable foresight.

Howard said...

Blogger Lucid-Ideas said...My sympathy and compassion are at an end folks. It's past fatigue. It's anger at continually using our goodwill against us.

What you imply is the Muzzies have won you have unconditionally surrendered by bringing you down to their small-minded, hateful, zero-sum-game level.

Nichevo said...

Gnats and Camels


Hooie, Howie, the dogma lives loudly within you dis mawnin'. Helping tangos blow up Humvees full of Marines makes baby Jesus cry. Or is it the other way around?

Wince said...

She might as well be clutching a bag of heads in that photo.

MikeR said...

When Jewish kids in America decide they want to visit Israel, and then decide they want to serve in the Israeli Army, it seems to be well known that you must not volunteer. You'll lose your US citizenship if you join a foreign army, even of an ally. Rather, you let them know, and they draft you, and then you're okay.
This lady did not join a foreign army? Why, because they're sexists and women are just camp followers?

Tommy Duncan said...

I'm with Larry J at 7:07 AM.

Henry said...

I don't think the last sentence has anything to do with Ms. Muthana. It's just a standard State Department warning.

Quaestor said...

Her lawyer, the article says, argues that she's not within the exception because she was born after her father lost his job as a diplomat.

Did Muthana's father seek and receive a visa after having "lost his job as a diplomat"? If he was still using his Yemeni diplomatic passport when he was not credentialed by the Yemeni foreign ministry then he was an illegal resident in the United States.

J Severs said...

To ask the question is to answer the question.

alanc709 said...

Agree with several above, she should only be allowed to return as a federal prisoner to face a charge of treason. Given the state of our legal system, however, I'd be extremely reluctant to accept her under those conditions, because I can think of several locations in the US in which a jury could be empaneled that would refuse to find her guilty.

Grant said...

Alabamian. Please, let us have our "i."

Can one be a "citizen" of a US state? That seems wrong, like calling a state line a "border"--well, maybe for Texas that works.

Lucid-Ideas said...

Howard is one of the 'a bit more crowd'...

The 'gluttons for punishment' crowd
The 'my misery is honorable' crowd
The 'we're the better men' crowd
The 'welcome hijabed masses yearning to destroy' crowd
Crowing their moral superiority while this chick and her friends saw his head from his body

Howard is what keeps this cycle continuing, and what keep the NYT snapping these photos

Stalin's 'useful idiots'

gilbar said...

Henry said...
Ms. Muthana says she applied for and received a United States passport before leaving for Turkey. Rather remarkable foresight.

would have been Hard to get admitted into Turkey without a Visa, Hard to get a Visa without a passport.
ShitHolistan (or Where ever daddy was from) wouldn't issue her a passport unless she jumped through lots of hoops.

J Severs said...

If Ms. Muthana were allowed to return to the USA, could she apply to have ISIS family members legally immigrate here?

Tank said...

That woman is not who we are.

If she is, we are done.

Limited blogger said...

Hopefully there are a few rules/laws that will guide the government's actions.

gilbar said...

Grant said...
Can one be a "citizen" of a US state? That seems wrong, like calling a state line a "border"


I think another person named Grant (Sam Grant, i think), worked HARD to refute the idea that you are a "citizen" of a state instead of the Federal Nation.
Two of my Great-Great-Grandfathers traveled the south with Sam Grant to make this clear to the people down there

tim maguire said...

I like birth-right citizenship because I think it's important that the government have very limited ability to decide who is and who is not a citizen. If she qualifies under birthright citizenship, then she should be allowed to reenter the US.

Then she should be hung for treason.

Howard said...

Lucid Ideas confirms my theory demonstrated by his secondary explosion of bullet points. .

Shouting Thomas said...

The NYT... butt kissing Islam at the same time that it publishes daily condemnations of Christianity... because Christianity is (get this) sexist and homophobic!

Howard said...

Blogger Tank said...

That woman is not who we are.

If she is, we are done.


Never go full cuck.

roesch/voltaire said...

As a photographer that is probably the shot I would take as that is how she wants to present herself, and as a US citizen I think if she is allowed to return she should be tried and face many years in a federal prison.

Howard said...

I remember an America where even conservatives held up their own country to higher standards than the rest of the world, let alone shitholes. You cucks have given up on American Exceptionalism.

Ann Althouse said...

"I don't think the last sentence has anything to do with Ms. Muthana. It's just a standard State Department warning."

It wouldn't be there if it had NOTHING to do with her. It has something to do with her, but we have to make an inference to have any idea what.

Bob Boyd said...

That picture ain't helping.
They should have shown her at 4th of July parade, smiling in a tank top and a ball cap, eating a corn dog.

Chuck said...

I know nothing about this story apart from the main stream stories.

But having read Althouse's analysis of just the NYT story, I feel like I know a lot more, even without additional facts.

Wonderful legal analysis.

Shouting Thomas said...

@Howard

Your comments are mind boggling in their incoherence and stupidity.

Freder Frederson said...

Then she should be hung for treason.

Should he get a trial first, or have we turned into a looking glass country. This country has never executed anyone for treason. And in fact, treason convictions are very rare. No one has even been indicted for treason since World War II (and most of those convictions were later pardoned).

If she did not participate in direct combat (unlike, e.g., Robert E Lee), a treason conviction is beyond ridiculous.

The NYT probably couldn't find a lawyer to back the government's claim because it is unsupportable.

It is also the height of hypocrisy considering the government has been encouraging European countries to take back ISIS members and try them.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

"why can I detect a point of view just looking at the headline and photograph?"

it's the tell-tale font

exhelodrvr1 said...

"You cucks have given up on American Exceptionalism."

Not at all - there are many manifestations of American Exceptionalism. One of them is doing whatever it takes to defeat an enemy. We are not the ones who have given up on it.

Howard said...

Blogger Shouting Thomas said... @Howard Your comments are mind boggling in their incoherence and stupidity.

Your endorsements mean a lot to me. Thank You

Molly said...

Can anyone in the Obama administration (John Kerry? Hillary Clinton? Obama himself) be held accountable for the heartless revocation of her US passport? Can we retroactively impeach them, or deny them federal retirement benefits? What exactly would be permitted and appropriate punishment for these despicable cogs in the US federal bureaucracy.

Howard said...

Blogger exhelodrvr1 said...You cucks have given up on American Exceptionalism."

Not at all - there are many manifestations of American Exceptionalism. One of them is doing whatever it takes to defeat an enemy. We are not the ones who have given up on it.


I don't think anyone doubts you people's commitment to a Final Solution on the Muslim question.

Ralph L said...

She's even wearing blue, like a good Madonna should.

Shouting Thomas said...

Really, Howard, you’re a dummy.

I suggest silence. It’s your best hope.

Leland said...

FFS, she joined an organization that declared war against the US. An organization that routinely ambushed non-combatants to use them in propaganda videos in which they were executed slowly and painfully. That's an admission by her, not an allegation by others. "Deeply sorry" is not a sufficient response to the choice she made and now should be forced to live with for the rest of her life.

Members of Eagle Squadron had to do more to regain their citizenship, and they fought for a US ally against the Nazis.

Best case for her is to live unassumedly in ME

I agree, and if she wants to make a big todo about her past decisions, perhaps we should allow the locals a first crack at determining what justice is necessary before extraditing her to the US.

Howard said...

Being silent when called is your shtick, Tommie.

Shouting Thomas said...

“,,, a final solution to the Muslim problem.”

I gotta give it to you, Howard.

I thought Ritmo and Inga could not be surpassed for sheer malice and stupidity.

You’ve beat them.

It must be hard work to be that stupid.

Illuninati said...

Howard said...
"Blogger Lucid-Ideas said...My sympathy and compassion are at an end folks. It's past fatigue. It's anger at continually using our goodwill against us.

What you imply is the Muzzies have won you have unconditionally surrendered by bringing you down to their small-minded, hateful, zero-sum-game level."

Interesting comment. The problem with Islam is that they follow a fanatical religious cult which enshrines an ideology that inverts human morality on its head. Thieft, rape, murder and slave raiding were favorite activities of Muhammad, Islam's perfect man.

Our modern mass media is often used as a tool to continually bombard us with images of human misery, the more heart renching the better, usually to try to get us to give money to them or to join their cause. No matter how much one gives, the same images are there again the next day with the same emotional appeal as if nothing has changed. The Islamists and their allies the left are masters at this type of emotional manipulation.

Muslims only win if we allow them to continue their centuries old campaign to rape, murder and enslave as many non-Muslims as possible without our interference. Muslims have learned that we are a compassionate people so they cynically play the victim when they are weak and don't have the power to rape and kill non-Muslims at will. So compassion fatigue is really a barrier to their success. Compassion fatigue doesn't make us like them unless we begin to actively murder, kill and enslave other people like they do.

Henry said...

It wouldn't be there if it had NOTHING to do with her. It has something to do with her, but we have to make an inference to have any idea what.

It's in the story because it's in Pompeo's (very short) statement.

The last line echoes the
Syrian travel advisory:

Do not travel to Syria due to terrorism, civil unrest, and armed conflict.

My inference is that Pompeo is covering all the bases: Ms. Muthana is not a citizen, and if you are a citizen, don't go to Syria either.

Interestingly, the travel advisory does contain a warning against the very thing Muthana did -- except that she wasn't a private U.S. citizen:

The U.S. government particularly warns private U.S. citizens against traveling to Syria to engage in armed conflict. U.S. citizens who undertake such activity face extreme personal risks, including kidnapping, injury, or death. The U.S. government does not support this activity. Our ability to provide consular assistance to individuals who are injured or kidnapped, or to the families of individuals who die in the conflict, is extremely limited.

Fighting on behalf of or providing other forms of support to designated terrorist organizations, including ISIS and al-Nusrah Front, can constitute the provision of material support for terrorism, which is a crime under U.S. law that can result in penalties including prison time and large fines.


That first paragraph I quoted is interesting. It's somewhat sympathetic to guns-for-hire, but it still says, "don't go fight Isis on your own."

stlcdr said...

Isn't providing aid to an enemy (of the United States) the definition of Treason?

JackWayne said...

Left unsaid is how criminally inane and incompetent our Congress has become. Expect more stories like this as our Congress sleepwalks us into a civil war.

Browndog said...

Suddenly, without warning, brides of ISIS w/child are found in refugee camps and US/UK media are flooded with glamour shots and sob stories for days on end.

If I didn't know better, I'd say there are some very powerful players are trying to import ISIS operatives....legally.

Otto said...

The NYT is biased, liberal and anti-Trump- Gee thanks.
Old conservatives like me and a majority of your readers have known this for many moons.
So this is stale news to us.
What you don't say is whether you agree with the NYT's viewpoint.
We know that you don't like Trump's demeanor, you didn't vote for him , you have been a progressive liberal your whole adult life and the first thing you do at 5AM is read the NYT.
Therefore I suspect that you agree with the majority of the NYT's point-of view and i suspect you agree that she should be allowed back.
So what's your point?
Are you proud that your thinking is aligned with a propaganda machine?






Howard said...

Blogger Illuninati said...

The problem with Islam is that they follow a fanatical religious cult which enshrines an ideology that inverts human morality on its head. Thieft, rape, murder and slave raiding were favorite activities of Muhammad, Islam's perfect man.


Sure, I won't quibble the details

Our modern mass media is often used as a tool to continually bombard us with images of human misery, the more heart renching the better, usually to try to get us to give money to them or to join their cause. No matter how much one gives, the same images are there again the next day with the same emotional appeal as if nothing has changed. The Islamists and their allies the left are masters at this type of emotional manipulation.

Trump, Madison Avenue, Wall Street, etc, etc all do the same thing because it works. Islam doesn't have a monopoly, but I'm sure it heartens them to know that Americans think they do.

Muslims only win if we allow them to continue their centuries old campaign to rape, murder and enslave as many non-Muslims as possible without our interference. Muslims have learned that we are a compassionate people so they cynically play the victim when they are weak and don't have the power to rape and kill non-Muslims at will. So compassion fatigue is really a barrier to their success. Compassion fatigue doesn't make us like them unless we begin to actively murder, kill and enslave other people like they do.

They can't win unless they kill our spirit because they can't defeat the west physically: they don't have the infrastructure, the equipment and practical common sense. They can drive themselves into the dirt and blow up a few buildings, but they are largely impotent. Our over-the-top reaction to them is what is keeping the jihad recruitment stations alive.

Michael said...

But, Robert Cook, if she returned home to face trial her beatific baby would be ripped from her loving arms by monsters of the state.

Annie C. said...

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...
"why can I detect a point of view just looking at the headline and photograph?"

it's the tell-tale font.

Now that's funny right there, I don't care who you are!

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Who revoked her passport? If the article doesn’t say, I think we can assume that it was the Obama administration (rebuttable presumption).

Lucid-Ideas said...

Taqqiyah…

It's not something you put on your burrito.

Tank said...

Howard does not even know what a cuck is.

Sad.

jaydub said...

"But having read Althouse's analysis of just the NYT story, I feel like I know a lot more, even without additional facts.

Wonderful legal analysis."

Obsequious Chuck is the worst Chuck.

DaveL said...

These women are coming forward only because ISIS has lost.

Given that we (the West, collectively) have for over 70 years pursued and prosecuted people who were even peripherally associated with Nazi atrocities, I think we are being extraordinarily accommodating if all we do is keep her out of our country. The UK seems to have a similar policy for returning ISIS-fancying idiots.

Tough luck, Muthana!

TestTube said...

I'm thinking about Pro wrestling a lot lately, and this post feeds into that.

Pro wrestling seeks to generate "heat" -- an emotional response that involves the crowd in the event. But the crowd knows that pro wrestling is fake, and that they are being emotionally manipulated.

Similarly, I would think that NYT readers are intelligent enough to understand that they are being emotionally manipulated by the headline and picture. The readers know Hoda Muthana's background.

I presume that the NYT also understands its audience to know that this is the sort of content they want. So, just as pro wrestling depends upon the collaboration of the wrestlers and audience in willful self-deception, the NYT is collaborating with its readers in this blatant manipulation.

So why would the readers want to participate in such an outrageous stunt?

Illuninati said...

Howard said:
"They can't win unless they kill our spirit because they can't defeat the west physically: they don't have the infrastructure, the equipment and practical common sense. They can drive themselves into the dirt and blow up a few buildings, but they are largely impotent. Our over-the-top reaction to them is what is keeping the jihad recruitment stations alive."

What makes you so sure that Muslims can't defeat us physically? Demographics is destiny. What makes you think that our reaction to Islamic terror has anything to do with jihad recruitment? Jihad is an integral part of Islam which they have been persuing for the last 1000 years. The fact that we are finally trying to defend ourselves has nothing to do with the theology written in the Koran and Hadiths over a thousand years ago.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

@Annie C
you smart gal-- We Luv U !

Stephen said...

One hand clapping: at least she’s taking the legal route trying to get in, right? The issue is really about the fate of two people; maybe the fight is really about her parents wanting to raise their grandson as an American citizen. She may well get jail time, but she’s willing to go through it all for her kid. OTOH, probably not, since NYT would have put that in to garner(!) even more sympathy.

narciso said...

Because they are conditioned like eloi, attack trump and/or tea party, defend terrorists.

Gretchen said...

Notice how sympathetic the NYT is to a terrorist. They pull the poor innocent woman card with a baby which is sexist. The same people wanted to ruin the lives of Covington Boys, for wearing red hats.

narciso said...

Remember 'Seattle man' that went berserk some weeks ago in Los Angeles, he was somali.

Dave Begley said...

Trump is so, so shrewd in how he plays the Fake News. And they don't even know they are being played.

I hope Barr files some test cases on "birthright" citizenship.

MayBee said...

I remember when Obama drone-killed a US Citizen because he was with a terrorist organization overseas. Then he drone-killed his son and his spokesman said "he should have had a better father". So this seems like delayed sympathy for the terrorists among us.

Gojuplyr831@gmail.com said...

Why the assumption that she did not engage in he killing of others? There are proven incidents of IS women armed and killing civilians.

MayBee said...

This is the NYTs, and I'm guessing more readers are triggered by the thought of Alabama than someone wanting to move back after ISIS.

narciso said...

Well he was in contact or inspired some 25 plots, and has continued to like David hemmings computer simulacrum on air wolf, his sin was hanging out with a bad crowd an Egyptian terrorist Ibrahim al banna.

narciso said...

One recalls alshahaabs former spokesman, was a resident of alabama.

Browndog said...

The media branding is despicable. "Brides of ISIS"is cute. These are not "brides". They are jihadis that fled the west to bear the offspring of ISIS fighters to someday replace those killed in battle.

I asked a friend yesterday if they had heard about the media fawning over these 'women of jihad'. She said no, and I told her to just Google "Alabama mother". Yes, top results are glamour shots and puff pieces from every single major network.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

“What you imply is the Muzzies have won you have unconditionally surrendered by bringing you down to their small-minded, hateful, zero-sum-game level.”

Muzzies and Leftists.

Faux high-mindedness never won any battle. Not one.

wendybar said...

She can stay right where she decided to go herself. Actions have consequences, and it's about time they start making the consequences stick.

Freder Frederson said...

Can anyone in the Obama administration (John Kerry? Hillary Clinton? Obama himself) be held accountable for the heartless revocation of her US passport?

They didn't revoke her passport, she burned it. Anyway, revoking a passport is not stripping someone of their citizenship, it just prevents travel abroad. I don't know how you could deny entry to a legitimate citizen of the U.S. even if the didn't have a passport.

One can renounce their citizenship, but it is a complicated and solemn process. You have to formally notify the State Department. Just burning your passport doesn't cut it. Most people do it for tax purposes (e.g., Tina Turner), and if you refuse to pay taxes just because you claim you are no longer a citizen, the IRS ain't gonna buy it.

Ralph L said...

Baby with no husband? Next she'll claim asylum because she was raped.

Xmas said...

She had two husbands, both were killed while fighting.

ga6 said...

Fiction becomes truth:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Without_a_Country

walter said...

18 U.S. Code § 2381. Treason

U.S. Code
Notes
Table of Popular Names

prev | next

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

Fernandinande said...

That fake baby she's holding probably has a surgically implanted bomb.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

As a child of diplomats she was not born American, she retained the citizenship of her diplomat father (Yemen). She never HAD a US passport.

William said...

Why the h_ll should we even let her back in? It will cost us taxpayers mucho $$$ to imprison her ... plus we will have to pay welfare benefits to pay for her child.

Fogedahaboudid!

Mike Sylwester said...

If she obtained her US passport while intending to go abroad in order to join ISIS and fight against the USA, then she obtained her US passport fraudulently.

Unknown said...

Who is paying for this persons PR and why?

Unknown said...

I hope she become Congresswoman from MN

We need her voice

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

If it is determined she was a citizen, she should be permitted to return and face trial for her actions.

That ain't how it works, Cook. Her choices would be GITMO or a firing squad for treason. She took up arms against us and used social media to promote jihad in USA (specifically using trucks to run down pedestrians, just like an ISIS sympathizer later actually did in NYC).

MayBee said...

Unknown said...
Who is paying for this persons PR and why?


Good question. News is all about the PR firms.

Freder Frederson said...

As a child of diplomats she was not born American, she retained the citizenship of her diplomat father (Yemen). She never HAD a US passport.

This is not crystal clear. Apparently, her father was a diplomat, was fired by Yemen and allowed to stay in the country. If she was born after his diplomatic status ended, then she is a U.S. citizen.

mockturtle said...

Good for Pompeo. We've clutched enough vipers to our bosom.

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

She should go home, wherever that is. It certainly isn't Alabama.

Freder Frederson said...

Her choices would be GITMO or a firing squad for treason.

She would have to be tried first. And no one has ever been executed for treason in this country.

Paul said...

Having lost her citizenship she ain't no US citizen thus she is a enemy combatant.

Release SEAL Team Six to cap her.

End of story.

mockturtle said...

DaveL observes: These women are coming forward only because ISIS has lost.

Bingo!

mockturtle said...

Fredo bleats: And no one has ever been executed for treason in this country.

Wrong!

MayBee said...

John Walker Lindh didn't get such a heart warming picture. Although was it the NYT who wrote of him being romanced by the idea of the Taliban under the star-lit sky?

mccullough said...

She should go to Mexico then come back across the border into the US. Her problem will be solved then.

Freder Frederson said...

Wrong!

Just because you write "Wrong!" does not make your assertion true. Provide a link.

walter said...

Home is wear you hang your hijab..

Browndog said...

Blogger Xmas said...

She had two husbands, both were killed while fighting.


3.

Amadeus 48 said...

Oh, the confusement!

I predict this will be settled in the courts. Did she really destroy her "US passport". What was she thinking when she did that? Her claim to US citizenship is so shaky that she should have kept every indication of it just in case.

Prediction: our no real-rules-federal court system will order this nitwit re-admitted. Then she'll run for the city council in some little Muslim enclave and win on a platform of separate day-care for the children of Islam.

Browndog said...

Only one declared candidate for 2020 has publicly stated their position on the matter.

Donald J. Trump

Why is that?

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

She would have to be tried first. And no one has ever been executed for treason in this country.

No trial needed for enemy combatants. Non-state actors like ISIS are not even covered by Geneva Convention. Summary execution or prison until "hostilities end" are the choices (hint: we'll never be done with hostilities vs jihad). And America certainly has executed enemy combatants before. Many. That GWB chose to expand GITMO instead of executing Taliban/Al Queda/ISIS soldiers was one of the poorest decisions he made.

Few would be willing to follow in her footsteps if she gets what she deserves.

gilbar said...

William Bruce Mumford, convicted of treason and hanged in 1862 for tearing down a United States flag during the American Civil War.

Wa St Blogger said...

For the lefties who are getting all heartsick over this woman and rising up to counter the positions of the righties on this board...

Exactly what do you think is appropriate for this woman? Instead of just saying "she is an American and should be allowed to return.", what about her actions? Is she just a sympathetic creature that we should accept with open arms just on her "mea culpa?" Or should there be consequences for her actions? If consequences, what should those be? Don't just say "we're better than ISIS" and then imply that anyone one who seeks consequences for declaring war and and encouraging murder should be let off with an "I'm sorry."

Freder Frederson said...

Release SEAL Team Six to cap her.

Murdering a noncombatant, or even a disarmed combatant in an internment camp, is a war crime, and flat out premeditated murder.

Any military member issued such an order has the affirmative duty, punishable under the UCMJ, to disobey such an order.

mockturtle said...

Fredo demands: Just because you write "Wrong!" does not make your assertion true. Provide a link.

Americans hanged for treason

mockturtle said...

Fredo has fallen for the 'quick Google search' ploy. Try reading history, Fredo.

walter said...

I guess she learned sometimes the bad boys really are bad boys, not fixer-uppers.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Freder what makes you so sure she is a "non-combatant"? Plenty of evidence to the contrary in her social media. She deserves death. Short of that she can stay put where she is or go "home" to Yemen.

Laslo Spatula said...

I actually feel some empathy for her.

She was no doubt raised in a continual stew of victimhood and racist-America-contextualization, shaped and reinforced by our media and our schools.

The ones who teach and preach this shit are always safe from any responsibility; they go on about their lives and leave the fools who believed them to their fates. Indeed, I would not be surprised if at least one of her teachers was secretly proud of her student going off on her Big Revolutionary Adventure, like the teacher no doubt wishes she did back in the day, before she simply settled for the paycheck and sweet retirement plan while hating the taxpayers on the taxpayers’ dime.

The NYT obviously wants this young woman to come back.

But what if she comes back with a story to tell? A story that shows the Islamic Fidel-s and Che-s as misogynist, homophobic peddlers of discontent? A story that shows feminism and Islamic culture are, perhaps, contradictory?

How would the NYT portray her, then? What photographs would they select for their article about her now denouncing pillars of the NYT editorial temple?

Because I would argue there are some NYT writers that have done more damage to this country than this woman ever did. And at least she had the integrity to outright say which side she was on.

I am Laslo.

walter said...

So..what line of work did go into after losing the diplomat gig?
Kinda curious about the home life etc.

traditionalguy said...

My suggestion is that we arrange for a U-Boat to transport her to Argentina and let the Pope's Rat Line Nazi buddies take care of her too.

LYNNDH said...

"My sympathy and compassion are at an end folks. It's past fatigue. It's anger at continually using our goodwill against us. Best case for her is to live unassumedly in ME, worst case is she and/or her child dies. I am fine with both options."

AMEN, BROTHER

Freder Frederson said...

I stand corrected. We did execute a couple of people for treason during and after the Civil War. But check out mockturtle's link, it is very interesting. And in attempting to show how wrong I am he supports my point that convictions for treason are very rare and executions even rarer (and limited to actions during and immediately following the Civil War).

Drago said...

LLR Chuck: "I know nothing about this story apart from the main stream stories.

But having read Althouse's analysis of just the NYT story, I feel like I know a lot more, even without additional facts.

Wonderful legal analysis"

LOL

Seriously, I wonder precisely what Althouse thinks of this pure unadulterated (but amusing) Eddie Haskell/June Cleaver act LLR Chuck is up to these days.

Again, its quite entertaining.

By the way Althouse, you are looking quite smashing these days.

Drago said...

Freder Frederson: "I stand corrected."

Day Ending In "Y" Department.

Birkel said...

Howard is the Left's boring answer to Titania McGrath.

McGrath is funny.
Howard is the era of "That's not funny!"

Freder Frederson said...

If consequences, what should those be? Don't just say "we're better than ISIS" and then imply that anyone one who seeks consequences for declaring war and and encouraging murder should be let off with an "I'm sorry."

This is a strawman. As far as I know, no one is arguing she should be allowed to come home and told all is forgiven. She says she is willing to accept the consequences of her actions and she should be charged and tried in U.S. court for her crimes (most likely providing material support to a terrorist organization). To assume that a jury will let her off or the punishment will not be harsh enough to satisfy you all, does not mean our country, a country based on the rule of law, should be permitted to strip of her citizenship without due process.

For a bunch of people who supposedly love the Constitution, you sure are ready to rip it up when it protects someone you don't like.

Drago said...

Birkel: "Howard is the Left's boring answer to Titania McGrath."

Careful.

Howard is likely to launch a continuous stream of "Cuck"/"neo-Con"/"Whig"/"Copperhead"/"Fifty-four Forty or Fight!"/"Luddite"/"Gunpowder Plotter!" term-stew at you.

Drago said...

Freder: "For a bunch of people who supposedly love the Constitution, you sure are ready to rip it up when it protects someone you don't like."

LOL

Do you throw up a little when you have to fake pretending to defend the Constitution?

After all, what do you care? Isn't the Constitution, like, a hundred years old or something and hard to understand?

But hey, if faking defending it is what it takes to get another terrorist back into the country, what-ev's.....

hombre said...

Even if she’s a citizen, I’m guessing an indictment for treason under 18 USC § 2381 might dampen her enthusiasm to return. After all, even Democrats, who throw the term around regularly, have claimed an aversion to treason.

Drago said...

hombre: "Even if she’s a citizen, I’m guessing an indictment for treason under 18 USC § 2381 might dampen her enthusiasm to return"

Nonsense.

The DOJ/FBI holdovers are far to busy setting up republicans. There is no time for anything else.

The DOJ/FBI Official Leak to the Lefty MSM Department remains grossly understaffed at its current 85% of DOJ/FBI Total Budget levels.

AZ Bob said...

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and ...
18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason | U.S. Code

Matt said...

After a while, you get used to the circumlocutions: Minneapolis Man Charged in Crime = Somalian killed his wife; Youths in Flash Mob = Black 17 and 18 year olds trashed and robbed a convenience store; Area Man Charged in Accident - illegal alien got drunk and drove, killed a child, then tried to run away; Clashes between protestors and counter-protestors - Antifa beat up a guy who was waiting in line.

The Drill SGT said...

OK, maybe Pop lost his UN job, but I bet anything, he was still in the country under a diplomatic passport. If he turned that in, got a regular Yemeni passport AND a US VISA, she's a cit.

regardless, the US should indict her on 5-6 felonies each worth 10 years. That will dampen her desire to return.

Birkel said...

The military should take fewer prisoners.
The ROEs should allow soldiers greater discretion if they fear for their lives.
We should be less prone to second guessing people in theater.

Sebastian said...

"Why can I detect a point of view"

Why, oh, why?

"Did the NYT seek out legal opinion from an expert who might take a different view?"

Did the NYT do anything to undermine the narrative that's fit to print?

This is getting old.

Lovernios said...

"Stalin's 'useful idiots'" - Lucid Ideas

I read that as Satan's 'useful idiots'. That works too.

mockturtle said...

"Stalin's 'useful idiots'" - Lucid Ideas

I read that as Satan's 'useful idiots'. That works too.


And I'm sure that Satan in his wildest dreams never imagined he'd have so many tools to work with.

MD Greene said...

The professor's analysis of the newspaper's POV is dead on.

In fact, straight news reporting is over. The NYTimes declared as much in a front-page story in August 2016 that explained that Donald Trump was so awful that objective coverage had to be abandoned in discussing his candidacy. In the quarter after the election, the paper reaped its benefit: 276,000 new digital subscribers, a record, presumably to signal that they shared the Times' point of view. After the election, the paper hired a "reporter" who had covered the Clinton campaign for Politico and who freely admitted that he had cleared his campaign reporting with Clinton team officials. Last year it hired another reporter who acknowledge that she had had affairs over several years with Congressional employees working for committees whose work she covered. This is now the NYT "brand."

People now get their "news" from sources that congratulate them for what they already believe. This is why l'affaire Smollet didn't get attention as a news story until too late; it did no favors to Jussie Smollet, whose life would be more peaceful today if some non-credulous reporter had investigated his claims before casting him internationally as the latest victim of rampant US racism.

Truth is messy. It doesn't always fit the templates people carry around in their heads. We don't deal with complexity well, and now neither do formerly mainstream press outlets. It's embarrassing to watch.

mockturtle said...

And in attempting to show how wrong I am he supports my point that convictions for treason are very rare and executions even rarer (and limited to actions during and immediately following the Civil War).

First of all, Fredo, I'm a 'she'. Secondly, yes, it's true that there have been few executions for treason. More, I think, for spying.

Gabriel said...

@Mike:Non-state actors like ISIS are not even covered by Geneva Convention.

Close. They are explicitly excluded by the Geneva Conventions as eligible for the protections and privileges enjoyed by prisoners of war and non-combatants. So they are "covered" in the sense that Geneva Conventions addresses the issue of the treatment due to them; of course the power that detains them can do more than the Convention requires for them, which is damned little.

JAORE said...

"...former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, David Leopold, says that (in the words of the NYT) "taking an oath of allegiance to a terrorist group or committing a crime like providing one with material support would not be enough..." to reject her returning to the US.
But, for the left, discussions about building your Nth hotel in Moscow is Treason enough to overturn an election.

I saw an interview with her where she was asked what punishment she thought appropriate. "Therapy" was the answer.

And that " began urging attacks in the West" is soft pedaling her words.

Wa St Blogger said...

As far as I know, no one is arguing she should be allowed to come home and told all is forgiven.

It's funny how the left jumps right on the issue of countering we should deny her citizenship, always attacking the righties for their exuberance in wanting to prosecute a woman who calls for murder of her supposedly own citizens (can she have it both ways? Can she claim citizenship while calling for the murder of Americans? I suppose she could start with herself. Unless she is not a citizen and then she isn't calling for her own death. Not sure about that one) while failing to denounce a) the attempts of their own side to generate sympathy for her, and b) her specific actions.

In other words, boo on the righties for wanting to punish her. Silence on the actual crimes or the attempts by lefties to excuse her actions. You have to be specifically ASKED to make a stand on that issue.

What I like about Althouse is she generally willing to look at the hypocrisy. Not so much the leftie commentariat on her blog.

JAORE said...

Hey, 2020 candidates, what is your stand on:
Letting her return, and
What to do about her actions?

Robert Cook said...

"But, Robert Cook, if she returned home to face trial her beatific baby would be ripped from her loving arms by monsters of the state."

I assume her family here would take the baby into their home.

Martin said...

Or, let her back and arrest her, hold her without bail (easy to justify) and try her for treason, for which she clearly meets the Constitutional test.

Because, if she is a citizen, she committed treason. Can't have it both ways.

Plus, whatever other crimes she committed.

Alabama seems a reasonable venue for the trial.

and btb, see how much more sympathetic they are to her than they were to Sandman and the Covington HS kids. Just so you know whom they consider their friends, and their enemies.

I though Trump was way overstating it to call the media "Enemies of the people." I am rethinking that. The phrase carries a lot of bad historical baggage, but it is not inaccurate on its face.

Gospace said...

Let's look at the law- since there is an actual law on the books covering what causes one to lose citizenship. The applicable part:
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

Well, there it is. Of the 7 reasons listed- only #7 requires a conviction by trial. And a conviction of any of the reasons listed would land her in prison for the rest of her life. And there seems to be more than enough evidence to convince a jury to reach a guilty verdict.

Robert Cook said...

"I remember when Obama drone-killed a US Citizen because he was with a terrorist organization overseas. Then he drone-killed his son and his spokesman said 'he should have had a better father.'"

Those were acts of murder.

Gospace said...

I forgot the link:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1481

narayanan said...

Robert Cook said...

"But, Robert Cook, if she returned home to face trial her beatific baby would be ripped from her loving arms by monsters of the state."

I assume her family here would take the baby into their home.

Q - But are they competent fosterers for the baby?

Freder Frederson said...

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and ...
18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason | U.S. Code


When you add emphasis to a statute or quote, the proper, and honest, procedure is to note the added emphasis with a parenthetical (e.g. emphasis added).

Earnest Prole said...

As with Obama's targeted killing of an American citizen, there are Constitutional issues of the utmost seriousness raised by the Trump Administration's actions in this case. Would it be too much to ask our paper of record to take both cases seriously rather than merely spinning the politics?

narayanan said...

Gospace said...

Let's look at the law- since there is an actual law on the books covering what causes one to lose citizenship. The applicable part:
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

My interest in Obama "birtherism" was -
- Did Obama claim to be international student after having attained the age of eighteen years; and thereby become not-US citizen?!

Robert Cook said...

"That ain't how it works, Cook. Her choices would be GITMO or a firing squad for treason. She took up arms against us and used social media to promote jihad in USA (specifically using trucks to run down pedestrians, just like an ISIS sympathizer later actually did in NYC)."

If she is a citizen, she has due process rights to a trial. (The persons held at Gitmo, who are not citizens, are also subject to our due process guarantees. Any person held under U.S. authority has due process rights. As a patriot, don't you know this?)

Freder Frederson said...

Well, there it is.

Actually, there it is not. First off, ISIS is not a "foreign state or a political subdivision thereof". Secondly, as I pointed out above, simply declaring that you are no longer a U.S. citizen is not sufficiently "formal" to pass muster.

And since the U.S. now permits dual citizenship, even for naturalized citizens, without having to jump through any special hoops. Even thirty years ago when the U.S. frowned on such things, you could make a special request, which was generally granted, especially for European countries and Israel, to have your dual citizenship recognized in the U.S. I had a friend in the late eighties who did exactly that. She petitioned the State department, after she was naturalized, to recognize her British citizenship and that of her two U.S. born children. The request was granted (it took a couple years to jump through all the hoops).

StephenFearby said...

I've referred to NYT political articles before as agitprop by American Pravada and was fully prepared to experience a similar reaction before I read this one.

Instead, it offered useful, pertinent information that I hadn't seen before suggesting that
Hoda Muthana could well be an American citizen based on birthright.

It all depends on the date that her father actually lost his diplomatic immunity as a representative of Yemen to the UN.

Given the penchant of State Department employees to sometimes fail to keep accurate records (see Clinton, Hillary), I wouldn't be surprised if it might also have happened in this case.

As usual, the lawyers will have at it to sort out which side is right.

But I was struck by the photograph, taken by Ivor Prickett an "Independent Photojournalist now based in Iraq. Googling him reveals:

Born: 1983 (age 36 years), County Cork, Ireland
Series: The Battle for Mosul
Awards: World Press Photo Award for General News
Nominations: World Press Photo of the Year, Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News Photography

His twitter account is well worth a visit to see more of his great photography.

https://twitter.com/ivorprickett?r

stevew said...

So she says she wants to come back, claims citizenship as the reason she should be readmitted. The US Government says, no can do, you aren't a citizen, you have no passport, you have no right to be here. She, and her father, say she is a citizen and should be entitled to return.

Sounds like a lawsuit is coming - should be able to sort that out pretty quickly (once it's actually heard).

The Times is pathetic and just plain terrible at the job of reporting. But that's just stating the obvious.

Rick said...

First off, ISIS is not a "foreign state or a political subdivision thereof".

This is an opinion, not a fact. ISIS claimed to be a state and acted as a state. Furthermore the issue of renouncement hinges on the person's actions so it seems reasonable to conclude their beliefs control the outcome.

Freder Frederson said...

(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

And you forgot this part:

"As already noted, the actions listed above will result in the loss of U.S. nationality if performed voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. nationality. The Department has adopted an administrative presumption that U.S. nationals intend to retain United States nationality when they: obtain naturalization in a foreign state (INA 349 (a)(1)); declare their allegiance to a foreign state (INA 349(a)(2)); serve as an officer in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States (INA 349(a)(3)); or accept non-policy level employment with a foreign government (INA 349(a)(4)). In accordance with the administrative presumption, when an individual commits one of the foregoing acts, that person will retain U.S. nationality unless he or she affirmatively, explicitly, and unequivocally asserts an intention to relinquish such nationality."

A conviction of treason can also result in citizenship revocation, but of course it explicitly requires a conviction.

Freder Frederson said...

This is an opinion, not a fact.


No, it is a fact. Any one or any entity can claim they are a sovereign nation. You only attain actual statehood when some nonzero number (and you can quibble about how many it takes) of other sovereign nations recognize your claim.

Gospace said...

Freder Frederson- administrative presumptions ARE NOT LAW. As far serving as a commissioned officer in a foreign armed force, that is a specific act that causes loss of citizenship under multiple laws. But that's not what we're dealing with.

Secretary of State Pompeo has made the administrative presumption that the law means exactly what it says. As SECSTATE, he interprets the rules, not the people under him.

As far as ISIS not being a state- what is ISIS short for: Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Well, they call themselves a state. Receive military aid from other nations. Govern territory, administer laws. Do we recognize them- diplomatically? No. Same way even though we're negotiating with North Korea- we do not recognize NK as a nation diplomatically.

Big Mike said...

Did the NYT seek out legal opinion from an expert who might take a different view?

@Althouse, don't print stuff like that where I might read it while drinking a Coke Zero. Do you have any idea what Coca Cola feels like when you snort it out of your nose???

Rick said...

You only attain actual statehood when some nonzero number (and you can quibble about how many it takes) of other sovereign nations recognize your claim.

Incorrect. This is one definition.

Any one or any entity can claim they are a sovereign nation.

Yes. The test becomes whether they act as a state.

Anonymous said...

That is a very good photo.

Nice to see the NYT attending to the quality of its propaganda, which has been (like the rest of the MSM's) so dreadfully crude of late. Not that it marks any improvement in subtlety, but the aesthetic quality is good.

Wa St Blogger said...

She either a)was never a n actual US citizen, b)renounced her citizenship through her actions or c)is a US citizen that declared war on her own country. In any case, her purpose was clear. She did not want to be a citizen, and she wanted to destroy the US. In what way should be we sympathetic to her cause and try and massage the laws in any fashion other than to grant her what she wanted: Estrangement from the country she was born in? What a screwed up system we have if someone can be a citizen, renounce it, declare war, change their mind and have it restored. And what strange people we have who want to argue on her behalf. We are not talking about minors who had no say in what their parents did. She was an adult and made her choice. She should live by the consequences of it and not get powder-puff write-ups in the NY times.

YoungHegelian said...

Me? I'm kinda happy to see the NYT finally support someone who's from Alabama.

Robert Cook said...

"She either a)was never a n actual US citizen, b)renounced her citizenship through her actions or c)is a US citizen that declared war on her own country. In any case, her purpose was clear. She did not want to be a citizen, and she wanted to destroy the US."

It is not clear she wanted to destroy the U.S. (unless there is a record of her having written or said that). She joined ISIS to help them carry out their mission...over there. Despite heated rhetoric, ISIS had no capability of ever "destroying the US" (or even harming us in any way), and I'm not aware they ever actually had that as a goal. The Muslim extremists are concerned with their lands, not ours.

Rick said...

Freder Frederson said...
To assume that a jury will let her off or the punishment will not be harsh enough to satisfy you all, does not mean our country, a country based on the rule of law, should be permitted to strip of her citizenship without due process.


Since no one is advocating she be stripped of citizenship without due process your remaining objection is that she be stripped of citizenship. Her defenders reaching this conclusion without due process demonstrates their bias.

For a bunch of people who supposedly love the Constitution, you sure are ready to rip it up when it protects someone you don't like.

For people who advocate a constitution evolving with the times you sure are certain about its meaning.

Rick said...

Despite heated rhetoric, ISIS had no capability of ever "destroying the US" (or even harming us in any way), and I'm not aware they ever actually had that as a goal. The Muslim extremists are concerned with their lands, not ours.

This is obviously wrong as ISIS advocated its supporters attack others around the globe including in America - the Pulse nightclub shooter as an example. Cook simply asserts principles which support his argument but which have no factual basis.

It's a common failing for those whose worldview exists entirely in FantasyLand.

Seeing Red said...

England has the same issue. They’re not letting her back in either.

Seeing Red said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
walter said...

Alabama would seem an odd fit for her.
Did she bring some Skynrd with her to avoid being homesick?

Seeing Red said...


This is gonna be fun.

Did she renounce her US citizenship?

We may have to expand locations because she didn’t do it formally in a consulate.

She could be stateless.

Seeing Red said...

Send her to GTMO.

Seeing Red said...

IIRC, even the Canadiens got a clue when they had to rescue dual passport holders from a war zone.

Let’s make it simple. No more dual passports.

Robert Cook said...

"ISIS advocated its supporters attack others around the globe including in America - the Pulse nightclub shooter as an example."

Such acts are as rare as they terrible, and typically carried out by wannabe malcontents who might have gone off in any event. They are tragic for the victims and their families, but they do not materially harm the U.S. Heck, more people are killed each year in the U.S. in automobile accidents than have been killed by terrorist attacks and mass shooters ever.

Wa St Blogger said...

It is not clear she wanted to destroy the U.S. (unless there is a record of her having written or said that).

"Americans wake up! Men and women altogether. You have much to do while you live under our greatest enemy, enough of your sleeping! Go on drivebys, and spill all of their blood, or rent a big truck and drive all over them. Veterans, Patriots, Memorial, etc day ... Kill them!"

Ok, maybe she doesn't want to destroy America, just the unbelieving Americans. Subtle difference.

She joined ISIS to help them carry out their mission...over there.

if you think radical Islam will be content with staying "over there" you are truly naive. Sort of like Hitler being content with Czechoslovakia. (not invoking Godwin here)

Robert Cook said...

"Send her to GTMO."

Why? Why are we holding anyone at Gitmo?

Robert Cook said...

"if you think radical Islam will be content with staying 'over there' you are truly naive. Sort of like Hitler being content with Czechoslovakia."

If you think the active Islamic radicals are equivalent to a powerful nation state with a similar potential to do damage to the U.S., or that they have the goal of eventually getting to us (or have even a scintilla of ability or likelihood to do so), you have succumbed to hysteria and the panic-mongering of our self-interested politicians.

Freder Frederson said...

Since no one is advocating she be stripped of citizenship without due process your remaining objection is that she be stripped of citizenship. Her defenders reaching this conclusion without due process demonstrates their bias.

Really?! Then I have completely misread this thread. And how does the President and the Secretary of State declaring her a non-citizen constitute "due process" by any stretch of the imagination? Not to mention, that if she is not entitled to any other citizenship (and I have no idea if she holds any other citizenship, most likely Yemeni, or not), then it is a violation of law to strip of U.S. citizenship until another country is willing to accept her.

walter said...

Wa St Blogger said...Go on drivebys, and spill all of their blood, or rent a big truck and drive all over them. Veterans, Patriots, Memorial, etc day ... Kill them!"
--
Passion runs high when in the throes of love.

Rick said...

They are tragic for the victims and their families, but they do not materially harm the U.S.

When the left thought the attack was anti-gay they considered it the worst event in modern American history. When it turned out to be committed by a political ally it miraculously converted to no big deal.

It's amazing how open they are about applying different standards based on whether they find it politically useful. Remember this is the same guy who last week pronounced Elliott Abrams and America evil even though there is no evidence they knew of or supported the massacre he blames on them.

Revealing.

Wa St Blogger said...

If you think the active Islamic radicals are equivalent to a powerful nation state with a similar potential to do damage to the U.S., or that they have the goal of eventually getting to us (or have even a scintilla of ability or likelihood to do so)

Equivalent to a powerful nation state? No. Not from want of trying, but more from diligent intervention on our part. Diligence which, according to the left, inflames their hated even more. Once upon a time Germany was not capable of attempting word domination. That changed. We would be foolish to assume that someone else cannot.

We learned the hard way that they CAN strike and do damage if we are not paying attention. Or was 9/11 just a single crazed "pulse Nightclub" lone wolf?

So yes, radical islam has the goal of hitting us and has a scintilla of ability to do so. They are not a Threat like China, but I still don't want them killing anyone if we can prevent it.

Gospace said...

So- was the Confederate States of America a nation or wasn't it? Note- the U.S. Congress never declared war against the CSA. In the view of the United States, they were never a nation. We fought a pretty horrendously destructive war against a non-state.

Robert Cook said...

"When the left thought the attack was anti-gay they considered it the worst event in modern American history. When it turned out to be committed by a political ally it miraculously converted to no big deal."

I don't know what "left" you're referring to, but I am not part of whatever cohort you're imagining. I don't even know what you mean that anyone ever considered the mass shooting at the gay nightclub was "the worst event in modern American history." (That, obviously, was 9/11.) Every mass shooting is a terrible tragedy and crime. However, such events do not materially harm the U.S., (as opposed to an actual invasion of the country by armed forces, for example).

Robert Cook said...

"Once upon a time Germany was not capable of attempting word domination. That changed. We would be foolish to assume that someone else cannot."

Not if they're not a modern armed nation-state with all the apparatus and manpower necessary to mount and sustain prolonged warfare on another modern armed nation-state, they can't.

Wa St Blogger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Wa St Blogger said...

Not if they're not a modern armed nation-state with all the apparatus and manpower necessary to mount and sustain prolonged warfare on another modern armed nation-state, they can't.,

We are getting a little off track here. Does radical islam want to do damage to us? Yes. Can they? yes. Are they an existential threat to the country? No. #3 does not mitigate 1 and 2. The fact that they are not China does not mean they don't want to or are in capable of harming us and our citizens. We have every right and obligation to prevent that. You are just dancing around the key issue which you apparently decided was not defensible.

What is it you are arguing here? That we should ignore radical islam because they are not Germany? That we should not take seriously a large number of radical jihadists who want to harm Americans? That we should let a young woman back into the country because she is a sympathetic individual, despite her desire to commit atrocities to other people?

What IS your position on resident's of America heading off to fight for murderous insurgencies and calling for the death of American residents? Is it simply: "well they can't really hurt us as a nation, so we should just give em a big ole hug and a welfare check and let them settle in some suburb"?

Gahrie said...

If you think the active Islamic radicals are equivalent to a powerful nation state with a similar potential to do damage to the U.S.,

The violence and terror are sideshows. Islam is invading Western civilization through immigration. Ask the people of Dearborn and Minneapolis of their progress.

or that they have the goal of eventually getting to us

They're religion demands it.

(or have even a scintilla of ability or likelihood to do so),

Ask Vlad and Charles about that.

mockturtle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mockturtle said...

Angle-Dyne observes: That is a very good photo.

Nice to see the NYT attending to the quality of its propaganda, which has been (like the rest of the MSM's) so dreadfully crude of late. Not that it marks any improvement in subtlety, but the aesthetic quality is good.


The only thing they missed: She should have been cradling the child to her left, the side closer to the heart. The more natural maternal gesture.

Seeing Red said...

Not if they're not a modern armed nation-state with all the apparatus and manpower necessary to mount and sustain prolonged warfare on another modern armed nation-state, they can't.

So Cookie, how do you suggest we protect the ballot box?

Freder Frederson said...

First of all, Fredo, I'm a 'she'.

Since you have chosen a male fictional character as your avatar, I assumed you preferred masculine pronouns. Perhaps I will just call you "they" in the future.

This gender fluidity is so confusing.

Freder Frederson said...

Ask Vlad and Charles about that.

Really?! You are comparing ISIS the Ottoman Empire and Spanish Emirates and the current Western Powers to the bickering, plague depleted, chaos after the Fall of the Roman Empire, Europe?

Let's get real.

Bunkypotatohead said...

I'm interested to see if the president's political opponents can resist their urge to advocate for her reurn. After all, if Trump is for it then it must be wrong, correct?
Maybe Warren can amend her plan for free child care to include terrorists kids.

Achilles said...

She is just lucky Obama isn't president.

He would have had her hit with a drone by now. Her citizenship would't have saved her.

DEEBEE said...

Why not just get her back and try her for treason with a death penalty at the end. That should cure her

Gahrie said...

Why not just get her back and try her for treason with a death penalty at the end. That should cure her

1) The federal government has never executed anyone for treason. The only person executed for treason in the United states was John Brown who was executed for treason by the state of Virginia.

2) Quite sure that a federal court would rule that since there was no declared war between the U.S. and ISIS, she cannot be guilty of treason.

3) if she was liable, in order to be convicted two eyewitnesses to any act of treason would be required to testify.

stlcdr said...

Why does Britain have exactly the same story, Shamima Begum, at the same time with exactly the same issues (baby and citizenship)?