[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
No flaw in my argument at all. It’s a sound one.
Joe, a declaration of war is not some kind of release that disallows enemy combatants access to our civilian judicial system. If so, as I mentioned in my above examples, NVA, Vietcong, North Korean and Chinese enemy soldiers (from the Vietnam and Korean Wars) could have marched into our courts with lawyers for them running willy nilly e’erywhere.
It Doesn’t Work That Way.
Your above post is a fail.
[edit] Besides…enemy combatants do have access, at times, to our court system but it’s our military court system.[/quote]
Ah well, but it is supposed to work that way.
The executive branch gets a lot of leeway when a war is declared, which is exactly why it does not get the power to declare a war.
What the Obama administration did was murder, plain and simple, in broad daylight.
The fact that American politicians shit all over the constitution for at least a hundred years now is neither here nor there.
Interestingly enough you do not get to do whatever the fuck you want just because you have been doing it long enough, at least there is nothing about it in the constitution, the SCOTUS however reaches verdicts that way.
For the younger ones among us, the above was a formal declaration of law, in case you have never seen one. [/quote]
You can dance around it anyway you wish but there is no precedent and their is no constitutional authority to allow enemy combatants access to the civilian judicial system. We can go clear back to the Barbary pirates of Jefferson’s day when the Constitutions’s ink was barely dry if we want.
It Just Doesn’t Work That Way. Never Has.[/quote]
Teaching orion Con Law is like teaching a pig to sing; the results are not pretty, and it only aggravates the pig.
Others, however, may be interested in the following, from Ex parte Quirin.
"Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war. Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, [317 U.S. 1, 38] guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war…
Nor are petitioners any the less belligerents if, as they argue, they have not actually committed or attempted to commit any act of depredation or entered the theatre or zone of active military operations. The argument leaves out of account the nature of the offense which the Government charges and which the Act of Congress, by incorporating the law of war, punishes. It is that each petitioner, in circumstances which gave him the status of an enemy belligerent, passed our military and naval lines and defenses or went behind those lines, in civilian dress and with hostile purpose. The offense was complete when with that purpose they entered-or, having so entered, they remained upon-our territory in time of war without uniform or other appropriate means of identification. For that reason, even when committed by a citizen, the offense is distinct from the crime of treason defined in Article III, 3 of the Constitution, since the absence of uniform essential to one is irrelevant to the other. Cf. Morgan v. Devine, 237 U.S. 632 , 35 S.Ct. 712; Albrecht v. United States, 273 U.S. 1, 11 , 12 S., 47 S.Ct. 250, 253, 254.
But petitioners insist that even if the offenses with which they are charged are offenses against the law of war, their trial is subject to the requirement of the Fifth Amendment that no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, and that such trials by Article III, 2, and the Sixth Amendment must be by jury in a civil court. Before the Amendments, 2 of Article [317 U.S. 1, 39] III, the Judiciary Article, had provided: ‘The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury’, and had directed that ‘such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed’.
Presentment by a grand jury and trial by a jury of the vicinage where the crime was committed were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution familiar parts of the machinery for criminal trials in the civil courts. But they were procedures unknown to military tribunals, which are not courts in the sense of the Judiciary Article… As this Court has often recognized, it was not the purpose or effect of 2 of Article III, read in the light of the common law, to enlarge the then existing right to a jury trial. The object was to preserve unimpaired trial by jury in all those cases in which it had been recognized by the common law and in all cases of a like nature as they might arise in the future, District of Columbia v. Colts, 282 U.S. 63 , 51 S.Ct. 52, but not to bring within the sweep of the guaranty those cases in which it was then well understood that a jury trial could not be demanded as of right.
The Fifth and Sixth Amendments, while guaranteeing the continuance of certain incidents of trial by jury which Article III, 2 had left unmentioned, did not enlarge the right to jury trial as it had been established by that Article…
All these are instances of offenses committed against the United States, for which a penalty is imposed, but they are not deemed to be within Article III, 2 or the provisions of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments relating to ‘crimes’ and ‘criminal prosecutions’. In the light of this long-continued and consistent interpretation we must concluded that 2 of Article III and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments cannot be taken to have extended the right to demand a jury to trials by military commission, or to have required that offenses against the law of war not triable by jury at common law be tried only in the civil courts."
In short, enemy belligerents do not have the rights of citizens. Even if orion says they do.
[/quote]
Irrelevant.
Where is the declaration of war?
Against whom?
No war, no belligerents.
Thank you for playing.
