'Corruption Of Blood' Bill Would Convict Family Of Iran Sanctions Violators

[jimmy olsen]

What a loon.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/tom-cotton-corruption-of-blood_n_3322251.html

Tom Cotton 'Corruption Of Blood' Bill Would Convict Family Members Of Iran Sanctions Violators


Posted: 05/22/2013 6:36 pm EDT Updated: 05/23/2013 2:52 pm EDT

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) on Wednesday offered legislative language that would "automatically" punish family members of people who violate U.S. sanctions against Iran, levying sentences of up to 20 years in prison.

The provision was introduced as an amendment to the Nuclear Iran Prevention Act of 2013, which lays out strong penalties for people who violate human rights, engage in censorship, or commit other abuses associated with the Iranian government.

Cotton also seeks to punish any family member of those people, "to include a spouse and any relative to the third degree," including, "parents, children, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces, grandparents, great grandparents, grandkids, great grandkids," Cotton said.

"There would be no investigation," Cotton said during Wednesday's markup hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "If the prime malefactor of the family is identified as on the list for sanctions, then everyone within their family would automatically come within the sanctions regime as well. It'd be very hard to demonstrate and investigate to conclusive proof."

The amendment immediately sparked objections from several members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who noted that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees due process rights to anyone charged with a crime under American law.

"An amendment is being offered literally to allow the sins of the uncles to descend on the nephews," Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) said. "The amendment that's being offered doesn't even indicate a requirement of knowing violation. ... I really question the constitutionality of a provision that punishes nephews for the sins of the uncles."

Article III of the Constitution explicitly bans Congress from punishing treason based on "corruption of blood" -- meaning that relatives of those convicted of treason cannot be punished based only on a familial tie.

Family members of people suspected to be political dissidents in North Korea frequently disappear or are punished by the North Korean government.

Cotton warned that some wrongdoers in Iran may shift financial assets to family members to avoid forfeiture under U.S. laws, so family members must automatically be guilty of sanction violations as well.

"Iranian citizens do not have constitutional rights under the United States Constitution," Cotton said. "I sympathize with their plight if they are harmless, innocent civilians in Iran. I doubt that that is often the case."

The Fifth Amendment reads "no person ... shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," and makes no distinctions regarding citizenship. In Wong Wing v. United States, the Supreme Court found that noncitizens charged with crimes are protected by the Fifth Amendment, along with the Sixth and 14th Amendments. The case was decided in 1896.

Several members of the Foreign Affairs Committee acknowledged that stashing assets with family members can be a problem. But they noted that other provisions in the bill would ensnare family members who conspired with those who violate the sanctions. Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.) suggested that Cotton withdraw his amendment and narrow its language.

After some back-and-forth with Grayson and Royce, Cotton relented and withdrew the amendment.

[The Brain]

Considering that organized torture was made official US policy this doesn't seem that crazy.

[Martinus]

So, is this the new Republican infant terrible?

The name sounds like something out of a folk tale/radical fairy movement.

[Razgovory]

I have a hard time believing this is real.

[garbon]

I have a hard time believing this is real.

Well it was a proposed addition by Cotton that was killed by other Republicans. I assume that and his Iran letter, are really just moves by this baby to make a name for himself, which Arkansas seems happy to lap up.

[Martinus]

So, is the US Congress like Russian Duma, i.e. coming up with inane proposals so that they are noticed despite their irrelevance? 

[frunk]

So, is the US Congress like Russian Duma, i.e. coming up with inane proposals so that they are noticed despite their irrelevance? 

It's the reverse, they are irrelevant because of their inane proposals.  If they were actually serious about their jobs (rather than throwing bombast around) it would be different.

[Warspite]

The US should demolish the houses of the family of sanctions violators.

[Valmy]

"Iranian citizens do not have constitutional rights under the United States Constitution,"

This statement makes me wonder if Cotton was really the guy to teach foreigners remedial civics.

[Martinus]

I'm often perplexed by such statements from some Americans. It's remarkably fucked up one would even entertain such a notion.

I mean, the US Constitution quite clearly delineates when it is talking about citizens and when it is talking about persons. 

[Valmy]

I'm often perplexed by such statements from some Americans. It's remarkably fucked up one would even entertain such a notion.

This is the first time I have ever heard somebody demanding we punish completely innocent people for simple being related to a criminal.  That is pretty out there.

[CountDeMoney]

"Iranian citizens do not have constitutional rights under the United States Constitution," Cotton said. "I sympathize with their plight if they are harmless, innocent civilians in Iran. I doubt that that is often the case."

[Martinus]

I'm often perplexed by such statements from some Americans. It's remarkably fucked up one would even entertain such a notion.

This is the first time I have ever heard somebody demanding we punish completely innocent people for simple being related to a criminal.  That is pretty out there.

No, what I mean the statements that the US Constitution (when it is talking for example about stuff like the Fourths or the Fifth Amendment) does not apply to non-citizens. It quite clearly does, in plain English.

Hell, even the Second Amendment is more dodgy as it talks about the "right of the people", so you could argue it does not endow rights on individuals - but the Fifth Amendment quite clearly talks about persons.

[Valmy]

No, what I mean the statements that the US Constitution (when it is talking for example about stuff like the Fourths or the Fifth Amendment) does not apply to non-citizens. It quite clearly does, in plain English.

Americans have a bad habit of thinking the Constitution says what they want it to say rather than what it does say.

[Martinus]

No, what I mean the statements that the US Constitution (when it is talking for example about stuff like the Fourths or the Fifth Amendment) does not apply to non-citizens. It quite clearly does, in plain English.

Americans have a bad habit of thinking the Constitution says what they want it to say rather than what it does say.

I could see some redneck saying that at the back of his pick up truck, but don't you find it worrying when a member of the Congress has no clue like that?