Former British citizens killed by (US) drone strikes after passports revoked

[morningfog]

The government has secretly ramped up a controversial programme that strips people of their British citizenship on national security grounds – two of whom have been subsequently killed by US drone attacks.

An investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and published in the Independent has established that since 2010 the Home Secretary Theresa May has revoked the passports of 16 individuals many of whom are alleged to have had links to militant or terrorist groups.

Critics of the programme warn that it also allows ministers to ‘wash their hands’ of British nationals suspected of terrorism who could be subject to torture and illegal detention abroad. They add that it also allows those stripped of their citizenship to be killed or ‘rendered’ without any onus on the British government to intervene.

At least five of those deprived of their UK nationality by the Coalition government were born in Britain, and one man had lived in the country for almost 50 years. Those affected have their passports cancelled, and lose their right to enter the UK – making it very difficult to appeal the Home Secretary’s decision.

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2013/02/27/former-british-citizens-killed-by-drone-strikes-after-passports-revoked/

[dixiegrrrrl]

1. Good lord..wonder if they even knew they had citizenship revoked?

What a slippery slope...

[itsrobert]

2. Terrorists?

could be

[PDJane]

3. That revoking citenzenship has been done before.

The Nuremberg laws did that to Jews, and considered that religion to be a racial taint. How far from those laws are these laws? The only difference is scope, and this is beginning to leave me very frightened.

[FarCenter]

4. Most countries consider citizenship to be inherited, not determined by where you are born.

So "At least five of those deprived of their UK nationality by the Coalition government were born in Britain" really carries no weight.

[leveymg]

5. The UK is a citizenship by birth country, as is the US. This carries enormous weight under our

Last edited Fri Mar 1, 2013, 08:35 AM - Edit history (1)

shared tradition of law. Your argument is fatuous.

It's no more legal to drone someone who's had his passport lifted than it is to execute him without due process because he never applied for a passport. Passports didn't even exist up until the First World War, and citizenship is independent of whether or not one has a valid government-issued travel document.

[dipsydoodle]

8. In this particular case

the absense of a valid passport would theoretically prevent them from getting back in the UK. Part of the general background of this is to lock out endless appeals to the European Court of Human Rights.

I agree with you that the subject doesn't justify droning someone.

[leveymg]

9. Seems to be raised as a legal justification, or may be misinterpreted as such, by some.

It's a deeply offensive and frightening suggestion of a legal distinction that doesn't exist.

Are you sure the European Court of Human Rights has no jurisdiction for EU nationals located in 3rd countries? I'd double-check that.

[FarCenter]

11. Citizenship by birth in the UK requires a parent with British citizenship or permanent residence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nationality_law#British_citizenship_by_birth_in_the_United_Kingdom

In many cases, the British citizenship of dual citizenship holders is what is revoked. They have dual citizenship because they were born to non-British citizens or to dual citizenship holders from former colonies.

[leveymg]

13. I do wish that people would learn to read. You missed this:

If the child lives in the UK until age 10 there is a lifetime entitlement to register as a British citizen. The immigration status of the child and his/her parents is irrelevant.

[jambo101]

6. If you are a terrorist

You cant hide behind a passport any longer.

[leveymg]

7. If you are a citizen, you no longer have a reasonable expectation of due process anymore.

Last edited Fri Mar 1, 2013, 09:46 AM - Edit history (1)

"Terrorist" without criminal conviction is just a convenient political label. That makes us all potential terrorists subject to extrajudicial execution. Under current Administration policy, we also no longer have any means to contest our innocence.

[Baitball Blogger]

10. It just keeps getting worse.

Government papers are barely fit to wipe our asses with.

[woo me with science]

12. Good fucking god.

[woo me with science]

14. kick

[progressivebydesign]

15. I don't care if someone lives there for 100 years,

if you're a terrorist, you're a terrorist. So what.

[dixiegrrrrl]

16. kicking, in light of Snowden's passport being revoked.

I hear the music from Jaws in my mind............