Some of you are reading Adam’s thread as if he’s said stripping citizenship is good, or should (politically / morally) be allowed. His thread doesn’t say that. Its a thread about what *law* says and (surprise!) law (made by states) isn’t that great.
https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1461636971227398146
Disclosure: me and Adam are in the same chambers.
But I haven’t discussed this with him, or read everything he’s written. So I don’t know if I agree with him. But what he says *in this thread* *abt human rights law* is correct.
And IMHO it’s useful for people to have that info
But I haven’t discussed this with him, or read everything he’s written. So I don’t know if I agree with him. But what he says *in this thread* *abt human rights law* is correct.
And IMHO it’s useful for people to have that info
International human rights law instruments do not state an absolute bar on citizenship-stripping. They require it not be arbitrary and they (therefore) require due process.
That’s the information Adam is conveying.
That’s the information Adam is conveying.
Even if we imagine Twitter as a pure advocacy space in which the weaknesses of “our” arguments should only be discussed privately (lol, no, obvs), Adam’s point is an inescapable legal fact.
He’s just the messenger.
He’s just the messenger.
We could try and pretend it’s not true and build a campaign on that basis. But it’d be built on sand. Let’s say (I DO say) that citizenship stripping is morally, socially, wrong.
But let’s also have space for people who tweet as lawyers to… tweet as lawyers. //
But let’s also have space for people who tweet as lawyers to… tweet as lawyers. //
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
