House votes to revoke passports of US citizens with terror links

The House of Representatives has passed a bill that would let the government confiscate passports of Americans with links to terrorist groups.

Militant website via AP/File
A member of the Islamic State group holds the IS flag as he dismantles a cross on the top of a church in Mosul, Iraq, in this photo released on March 7, 2015 by a militant website, which has been verified and is consistent with other AP reporting. The US House of Representatives has voted to pass a bill that would let the government confiscate passports of Americans with links to foreign terrorist groups.

The House of Representatives has passed a bill that would let the US government revoke or deny passports to Americans with connections to “foreign terrorist organizations.”

The measure, which passed by a voice vote Tuesday after a 15-minute debate, aims to prevent “lone wolves” trained in Syria or elsewhere in the Middle East from entering or moving in the United States. The bill’s passage comes in the wake of a deadly shooting in Chattanooga, Tenn., by a gunman who some officials say may have been linked to the Mideast-based terror group Islamic State, also known as ISIS.

“The Benedict Arnold traitors who have turned against America and joined the ranks of the terrorist army ISIS should lose all rights afforded to our citizens,” Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas), the bill’s sponsor, said in a statement last year. “These people are not returning to America to open coffee shops, they are coming back to kill. We must stop them from coming back at all.”

The Islamic State has been known to use Internet propaganda to appeal to young people’s sense of isolation and religious obligation to recruit them into its ranks.

In September, the CIA estimated that about 2,000 Westerners from more than 80 countries had gone to Syria to join the extremist group. That number jumped in February to about 3,400, of which about 180 are Americans, director of national intelligence James Clapper said.

The new bill, titled the Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) Passport Revocation Act, authorizes the US Secretary of State to revoke the passport, but not the nationality, of any American deemed to have “aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise helped” any overseas terrorist group.

US law currently allows passports to be revoked for national security or foreign policy reasons, but Americans whose passports are revoked can appeal through administrative channels. Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has argued – like other conservatives before him – that a more explicit measure is necessary.

Australia and Canada have passed similar measures, although the Australian government has so far limited its laws to apply only to dual-nationality citizens. In February, France confiscated the passports of six suspected jihadists who were believed to have been planning to travel to Syria.

Critics have voiced concerns over the broad powers such laws grant governments. They also point to technologies that allow government agencies to keep track of citizens and suspend their travel privileges without confiscating passports.

“Given that this technology exists, there is no need for the US government to add powers that could end up stripping passports from citizens unnecessarily,” Patrick Weil wrote for Reuters. “To do otherwise would be to ignore serious constitutional problems” – in particular, taking away a US citizen’s only internationally recognized proof of identity.

“Available technology allows the government to deny or forbid the possibility of dangerous persons crossing borders while easily enforcing the basic right – for us all – to bear a form of internationally recognized identification when abroad,” Mr. Weil continued. “There is no excuse for the government not to use it.”

Senate approval is required for the new bill to become law.

This report contains material from the Associated Press.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.