WASHINGTON — The recently-introduced “Enemy Expatriation Act,” HR 3166, brought about by Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Rep. Charles Dent (R-PA), is the latest in a line of bills that have caused great concern among civil rights and constitutional advocates. 

The bill, introduced on October 12, 2011 but devoid of media attention so far, amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to included “engaging in or purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the United States” to the list of acts for which U.S. nationals would be stripped of their nationality. The term “hostilities” is used to define “any conflict subject to the laws of war.”

According to Press TV, the act may have been drafted in response to President Barack Obama’s assassination of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki without due process or formal charges, and may be designed to remove constitutional protections afforded to those suspected of supporting hostilities. 

Lieberman also has announced that he will not run for re-election this year, adding more intrigue to his decision to introduce HR 3166. 

Rights advocates are again concerned about potentially broad applications of the terminology in HR 3166, especially when combined with the recently-signed National Defense Authorization Act which describes that the government can detain American citizens without trial for “belligerent acts against the government.” 

“We’re very concerned that these bills would undermine the civil liberties of all Americans.  It’s clear how such a law could easily be abused, and clear that it would primarily be used to unfairly target people of color and religious minorities,” said Ryan Bates, director of the Alliance for Immigrants in Michigan, about the bills. 

“Our government needs to focus on smart police work to keep us safe, not more frightening legislation.” 

Lieberman also has a track record with similarly controversial bills such as the Enemy Belligerent Act and a bill granting broad powers to the president in the area of Internet control. 

While rights advocates have said they support the government’s stated quest to keep Americans safe, the continued erosion of civil liberties has been become an area of grave concern.  

They continue to note that the terms that allow for detainment are not strongly defined, which could lead to potential abuses. For example, in Guantanamo Bay, only six people have been convicted out of hundreds who have been detained, tortured and in some cases died in the internment facility. 

American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee-Michigan Advisory Board Chairman Shereef Akeel, a civil rights attorney who has tackled high profile cases, and has represented those tortured in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq, said that the bill was yet another worrisome breach of the Constitution.

“Anytime you’re engaging in such an extraordinary remedy as stripping someone of citizenship, (it’s) clearly unconstitutional and sets a dangerous precedent,” he said.

“Today it could be an Arab thing and tomorrow it could be another ethnicity that is a target of such a drastic remedy, but the Constitution does not give that discretion to anyone, to strip someone of their citizenship.

“When questions are being raised as to what is the right course of action with respect to the rights of an American citizen, we should go back to the Bill of Rights.” 

Imad Hamad, ADC-MI’s Regional Director, said he believed that the bill along with the NDAA are just the beginning of what could be a tremendously challenging year in the fight for civil liberties. 

“This is very alarming, when it rains it pours, it seems,” he said. 

“It seems like this is going to be a challenging year not just for Arab Americans and Muslim Americans but for All Americans.

“Since the tragedy of September 11 it seems like civil liberties have been on unending trial; to me, I’m not surprised, it’s no shock to me anymore.” 

The vague definitions of what constitute belligerent acts and hostilities are what among the concerns regarding HR 3166 and similar legislation. 

“It is a very sensitive and tricky area, what is the definition of ‘hostility’ or affiliation’? Who are these groups?” Hamad said. 

“At the end of the day everything is political and it’s obvious when you introduce a law that is wide open for different interpretations you keep the doors open for abuse and discretion.”