What a loon.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/tom-cotton-corruption-of-blood_n_3322251.html
QuoteTom 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.
Considering that organized torture was made official US policy this doesn't seem that crazy.
So, is this the new Republican infant terrible?
The name sounds like something out of a folk tale/radical fairy movement.
I have a hard time believing this is real.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 13, 2015, 01:41:01 AM
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.
So, is the US Congress like Russian Duma, i.e. coming up with inane proposals so that they are noticed despite their irrelevance? :hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on March 13, 2015, 05:11:27 AM
So, is the US Congress like Russian Duma, i.e. coming up with inane proposals so that they are noticed despite their irrelevance? :hmm:
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.
The US should demolish the houses of the family of sanctions violators.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 13, 2015, 01:08:25 AM
Quote"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.
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.
Quote from: Martinus on March 13, 2015, 07:53:13 AM
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.
Quote"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."
:lol:
Quote from: Valmy on March 13, 2015, 07:57:22 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 13, 2015, 07:53:13 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on March 13, 2015, 07:59:50 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on March 13, 2015, 08:01:04 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 13, 2015, 07:59:50 AM
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?
Quote from: Martinus on March 13, 2015, 08:02:32 AM
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?
I might have a few decades ago but I am resigned to them saying things of colossal ignorance now. I used to even think they knew better and were just playing to some nutty demographic as well. But I think there was always a few remarkably stupid individuals in Congress, just now we hear about it every time they say something embarrassing because of the internet. Before it probably never got out.
Quote from: Martinus on March 13, 2015, 08:02:32 AM
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?
Not a qualifier for elected office.
Swedish politicians know dick about stuff.
Quote from: Martinus on March 13, 2015, 07:59:50 AM
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.
The Constitution does not endow rights except, arguably, the right to vote. I limits the power of the federal government (and more recently state governments) to infringe upon pre-existing rights. This is a concept not well understood by foreigners and ignorant US Senators and former Texas governors.
The Shrubbery tried this same "the US Constitution does not apply where we find its application inconvenient" ruse, and got its tiny peepee whacked by the USSC for its pains. Admittedly, Cotton doesn't seem bright enough to learn from the mistakes of others. Still, trying to show himself dumb as a Shrub doesn't seem like the best way to stand out from the crowd; the US already did the Shrubbery.
Quote from: Martinus on March 13, 2015, 07:59:50 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 13, 2015, 07:57:22 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 13, 2015, 07:53:13 AM
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.
Yeah but it still requires a 7th or 8th grade reading level to really understand; that knocks out about a quarter of the US senate.
What a fruity law this attempt is. To punish the family members of someone committing a sanctions violation? I hope that somewhere in the amendment is the legal stipulation that they need to be found guilty of the violation, same as the prime violator, but I don't think that's in there. This is just wacky. Doesn't this guy have any advisers and legal aides to run this stuff past before putting it out there??
Quote from: grumbler on March 13, 2015, 08:43:39 AM
Still, trying to show himself dumb as a Shrub doesn't seem like the best way to stand out from the crowd; the US already did the Shrubbery.
Agreed, I mean this story doesn't seem to have crossed any (or at least most) of our radars when it happened 2 years ago. :D
Quote from: garbon on March 13, 2015, 09:00:35 AM
Agreed, I mean this story doesn't seem to have crossed any (or at least most) of our radars when it happened 2 years ago. :D
Oh FFS Tim you posted an article from 2013?
Quote from: grumbler on March 13, 2015, 08:43:39 AM
This is a concept not well understood by foreigners and ignorant US Senators and former Texas governors.
:lol:
You know, this whole GOP Congress kind of makes me pine for the days of the Iran-Contra/Anita Hill Era of the mid-'80s to the early '90s, when there was nothing but constant bleating from the right over "the Imperial Congress", and how it did nothing but get in the way of the Executive Branch, Ronald Reagan and, more importantly, History.
I can't find the magazine cover of (I think)
The American Spectator, of the Iran-Contra Committee--in Roman togas--looking down upon Oliver North and passing judgement over the Right Hand of Reagan, but it is totally priceless.
Quote from: Valmy on March 13, 2015, 09:02:16 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 13, 2015, 09:00:35 AM
Agreed, I mean this story doesn't seem to have crossed any (or at least most) of our radars when it happened 2 years ago. :D
Oh FFS Tim you posted an article from 2013?
Yeah, I realized my first post didn't really call attention to how old it was. :D
Quote from: garbon on March 13, 2015, 09:21:46 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 13, 2015, 09:02:16 AM
Oh FFS Tim you posted an article from 2013?
Yeah, I realized my first post didn't really call attention to how old it was. :D
Thanks for trying. Dunno when i will learn to ignore Timmay posts (I mean, I saw it was from HuffPo so was tempted to blow it off, but thought that even HuffPo couldn't get the story wrong enough to invalidate a simple point).
So, I guess i can't allow this story to change my opinion that Cotton is a moron.