This Can't Be a Good Thing.

[quote] Nazi saboteurs, including an American citizen, captured on U.S. soil during World War II were tried in secret by military commission and promptly executed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
[/quote]

Does anyone really think this is ok? Legal arguments aside–I’m asking whether or not this ought to be legal, not if it is–should the executive be allowed, under any circumstances, to “try” an American citizen (or anyone else for that matter), in secret, by military commission, and having found them guilty, put to death?

Can someone please inform me how using law enforcement and the judicial system hurt the prosecution of the first WTC bombing plotters?

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
Nazi saboteurs, including an American citizen, captured on U.S. soil during World War II were tried in secret by military commission and promptly executed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Does anyone really think this is ok? Legal arguments aside–I’m asking whether or not this ought to be legal, not if it is–should the executive be allowed, under any circumstances, to “try” an American citizen (or anyone else for that matter), in secret, by military commission, and having found them guilty, put to death?
[/quote]

As one of the 6 billion whose life and liberty depends on the whim of the US executive branch now, I think that this definitely not ok.

Since there allready have been European citizens kidnappd and tortured by the US , we are approaching a point where, in fact we have reached it, where it is no longer possible to transfer even known terrorists to the US.

If the US insists of making that an “either you`re with us or against us”-package, there is really no way we are going to be with you.

[quote]orion wrote:
If the US insists of making that an “either you`re with us or against us”-package, there is really no way we are going to be with you.

[/quote]
The US only has the nads to back this up with countries that have people whose skin tone is darker than ours.

There I said it…

[quote]orion wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
Nazi saboteurs, including an American citizen, captured on U.S. soil during World War II were tried in secret by military commission and promptly executed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Does anyone really think this is ok? Legal arguments aside–I’m asking whether or not this ought to be legal, not if it is–should the executive be allowed, under any circumstances, to “try” an American citizen (or anyone else for that matter), in secret, by military commission, and having found them guilty, put to death?

As one of the 6 billion whose life and liberty depends on the whim of the US executive branch now, I think that this definitely not ok.

Since there allready have been European citizens kidnappd and tortured by the US , we are approaching a point where, in fact we have reached it, where it is no longer possible to transfer even known terrorists to the US.

If the US insists of making that an “either you`re with us or against us”-package, there is really no way we are going to be with you.

[/quote]

That the person who’s post I quoted used FDR’s violation of human rights as some sort of justification (since when do historical realities make right, anyways?) for the present adminstration’s policies, made me wonder how many people actually think FDR was right in his actions. I hope most are smart enough to see the danger in allowing this under [u]any[/i] circumstances…

America is dieing.

Benjamin Franklin is seizing in his grave as we type.

Bush is a danger to this country. Period.

We will look back on this and be disgusted, just as we were with the Japanese concentration camps, and the red commy scare.

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
orion wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
Nazi saboteurs, including an American citizen, captured on U.S. soil during World War II were tried in secret by military commission and promptly executed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Does anyone really think this is ok? Legal arguments aside–I’m asking whether or not this ought to be legal, not if it is–should the executive be allowed, under any circumstances, to “try” an American citizen (or anyone else for that matter), in secret, by military commission, and having found them guilty, put to death?

As one of the 6 billion whose life and liberty depends on the whim of the US executive branch now, I think that this definitely not ok.

Since there allready have been European citizens kidnappd and tortured by the US , we are approaching a point where, in fact we have reached it, where it is no longer possible to transfer even known terrorists to the US.

If the US insists of making that an “either you`re with us or against us”-package, there is really no way we are going to be with you.

That the person who’s post I quoted used FDR’s violation of human rights as some sort of justification (since when do historical realities make right, anyways?) for the present adminstration’s policies, made me wonder how many people actually think FDR was right in his actions. I hope most are smart enough to see the danger in allowing this under [u]any[/i] circumstances…[/quote]

Taking away American Liberties is wrong. Always, always wrong. No matter the circumstances.

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
I’m not a legal expert, I’ve read the act and I think I understand it, but who knows…I could be totally off. However, I keep reading things that seem to contradict your position.

According to Briefing Room | The White House,

convicted detainees would also be entitled to an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, regardless of the length of their sentence. The Supreme Court could review decisions of the D.C. Circuit.”

Convicted detainees. I want to know what recourse detainees have prior to being charged. Because according to everything I’ve read on the subject, those arrested as alien unlawful combatants (the administration being the sole arbiters of who is and isn’t an unlawful combatant), cannot, because of this act, file a writ of habeas corpus.

[/quote]

I’ve yet to find a foriegn combatant, pre-9/11, ever allowed habeas corpus and access to our couts. Generally you’re detaining combatants till the war is over. Or, if the military is satisfied that they will not take up arms again, is released.

If a lawful combatant (uniform, insignia, of an actual nation) commits a crime during a war, he is tried by a military tribunal. Note, that our own soldiers are court martialed.

In this case we’re talking about alien unlawful Combatants (no nation, no-uniform, no insignia, shoots from hospitals, mosques, etc.). This will be the jurisdiction of these military commissions. The 2006 act, in short, deals with the actual Military Commission, and the appeals process for it’s VERDICTS.

The Detainee status review, and appeal process, is set forth in the Detainee Treatment act of 2005. That’s right, this process was put into law a year ago. A Combatat Status Review Tribunal will determine a detainees status. It may rule to charge (not convict, that’s the Military Commission) a detainee as an alien unlawful combatant. The DC Circuit Court is the body designated to hear the appeal of the detainee’s status, after the CSRT has made it’s charge.

Here is the actual wording of the Act, that sets the DC Circuit Court up as the body to review a Detainee’s STATUS, upon appeal.

(2) REVIEW OF DECISIONS OF COMBATANT STATUS REVIEW TRIBUNALS OF PROPRIETY OF DETENTION-

(A) IN GENERAL- Subject to subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of any final decision of a Combatant Status Review Tribunal that an alien is properly detained as an enemy combatant.

(B) LIMITATION ON CLAIMS- The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit under this paragraph shall be limited to claims brought by or on behalf of an alien–

(i) who is, at the time a request for review by such court is filed, detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and

(ii) for whom a Combatant Status Review Tribunal has been conducted, pursuant to applicable procedures specified by the Secretary of Defense.

(C) SCOPE OF REVIEW- The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on any claims with respect to an alien under this paragraph shall be limited to the consideration of–

(i) whether the status determination of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal with regard to such alien was consistent with the standards and procedures specified by the Secretary of Defense for Combatant Status Review Tribunals (including the requirement that the conclusion of the Tribunal be supported by a preponderance of the evidence and allowing a rebuttable presumption in favor of the Government’s evidence); and

(ii) to the extent the Constitution and laws of the United States are applicable, whether the use of such standards and procedures to make the determination is consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.

(D) TERMINATION ON RELEASE FROM CUSTODY- The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit with respect to the claims of an alien under this paragraph shall cease upon the release of such alien from the custody of the Department of Defense.

The following gives a good idea of how it works. Feel free to use the link I’ve provided for the full article.

http://kyl.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=248846

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Jon Kyl today co-sponsored, along with senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Carl Levin (D-MI), an amendment to clarify the review process for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and limit the access to U.S. courts of non-citizen terrorists held there.

?As a society, we have an obligation to provide a meaningful legal process for prisoners in the war against terrorism - even to those who would kill us all in an instant if given half a chance,? Kyl said. ?That commitment is one of the things that makes America worth defending. But it is by no means the same thing as giving foreign terrorists all the rights and privileges of American citizens, particularly when we?re in a state of war.?

The amendment would codify the traditional assumption, overturned by the recent Supreme Court decision in Rasul v. Bush, that the federal habeas corpus statute does not grant aliens detained outside the United States as enemy combatants the unfettered right to petition U.S. federal courts. The amendment would, instead, allow limited judicial review of military courts? decisions at Guantanamo.

A Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) system now allows detainees at Guantanamo to challenge their designation as enemy combatants, and the status of each is assessed annually by an Administrative Review Board (ARB) that includes three disinterested military officers; one is a judge advocate senior ranking officer who serves as president of the tribunal. Each detainee is assigned a military officer as a personal representative who assists in hearing preparation. Detainees have the right to testify before the tribunal, call witnesses, and introduce any other evidence. The ARB makes a recommendation to a Designated Civilian Official (DCO) - currently Acting Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England - who makes the final decision whether to release, transfer, or continue to detain the individual. Those determined not to be enemy combatants are transferred to their country of citizenship or other location consistent with domestic and international obligations and U.S. foreign policy.

This process meets the conditions of the Geneva Convention, despite the fact that members of Al Qaeda do not qualify for Geneva protections for multiple reasons. The amendment, offered to the Department of Defense Authorization bill, strengthens the system by forbidding the tribunals from considering information obtained via undue coercion, and by directing the Secretary of Defense to notify the relevant Congressional committee of procedural modifications within 60 days.

The amendment provides a CSRT appellate procedure, granting exclusive jurisdiction to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review the validity of any decision of the DCO. For an enemy combatant to be able to present an appeal, he must be detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, and a CSRT must first have been conducted.

It is interesting to note that former Gitmo detainees who had been released, having signed a statement to not return to battle, have been recaptured or killed in combat. I believe one General put it at about 5%.

Anyways, that’s why the Military holds combatants, at least till the war is over. They may release some if they’re reasonably satisfied that the detainee will not return to battle.

By the way, do the Geneva conventions require a nation to give access to habeas corpus and the civilian court system? Or, even federal courts? Or, does it allow for nations to use Military tribunals? Anyone? Anyone?

[quote]100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So, let me see if I have this right. Enemy combatants shouldn’t be tried by the military, as they have since George Washington? The should be tried using the same courts and judicial system we do?

Also, do you support releasing SOME enemy combatants while a war is still going? After all, we are still fighting Al Qaeda and it’s associated groups.

They should have the right to not be detained indefinitely…Jail them, Execute them, or release them. Your problem with this is?

and those innocent should obviously be released (lots of them apparently)

[/quote]

Oh, ok, cool. Then you should have absolutely no problem with the Detainee act of of 2005, and the Military Commissions act of 2006. As it defines the exact process for doing the things you said above.

By the way, do you believe lawful enemy combatants should be arbitrarily released?

“Hey, you going to shoot at our soldiers anymore if we release you before the war is over?”

“Me? Oh no, not me. No sir, no way. I’m just going to go back home and become a dentist.”

The military actually does release some lawful combatants, if they determine that the individual can reasonably be trusted to not continue the war effort. Would kind of suck to release the combatant who went back and shot one of your soldiers.

Which is why many prisoners are not released till the war is officially over. How many prisoners did the Allies hold till the end of WW2, for example?

Not indefinate, but it can sure as hell be a long time.

[quote]harris447 wrote:
Can someone please inform me how using law enforcement and the judicial system hurt the prosecution of the first WTC bombing plotters?

[/quote]

  1. Because the act was not viewed, at the time, as an act of war. Nor, did we move into a state of war.

9/11 was absolutely viewed as a declaration, and act, of war upon the US. Anyone doubt that? And, now we are at war.

  1. The scope was very small. Limited detainees. Detainees out the ass in Gitmo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. You don’t release combatants while the war is raging. What kind of sense does that even make? Why even bother taking prisoners? Shoot them on the battlefield, at least you know they can’t kill one of your guys anymore. That’s why we hold them, instead.

Folks, even lawful combatants (a regular soldier of a state), who has committed no war crimes, are often held through the duration of a war. Otherwise, the only other option in ensuring they won’t pick up another gun to kill your fellow soldier with, is to shoot them upon their surrender. This is war. Like it or not, try to be realistic.

Again, someone answer me.

What is to stop the president (any president) from stripping citizenship from someone and imprisoning them forever?

I’m looking for lawyers…hey BB, what stops this? You tell me.

This law gives too much power to one man. It must be struck down.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Again, someone answer me.

What is to stop the president (any president) from stripping citizenship from someone and imprisoning them forever?

I’m looking for lawyers…hey BB, what stops this? You tell me.

This law gives too much power to one man. It must be struck down.[/quote]

Do you plan to renounce your citizenship before a US Consular officer?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

Do you plan to renounce your citizenship before a US Consular officer?
[/quote]

Sounds good to me considering Canada outranked the US in upward mobility, which is the ability of lower class to become wealthy. The U.S. ranked actually 5th behind several disturbing oter countries.

Where do I sign, will Canada take me, and can I bring my son?

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I’ll say this again: No American citizen can be an “alien unlawful enemy combatant.”[/quote]

To be honest, it’s more us aliens that I’m worried about.

Makkun

[quote]Sloth wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Again, someone answer me.

What is to stop the president (any president) from stripping citizenship from someone and imprisoning them forever?

I’m looking for lawyers…hey BB, what stops this? You tell me.

This law gives too much power to one man. It must be struck down.

Do you plan to renounce your citizenship before a US Consular officer?
[/quote]

Well, that is one way you can lose your citizenship. Other ways include

a) being naturalized in a foreign state;

b) taking an oath or making a declaration to a foreign state;

c) serving in the armed forces of a foreign state;

d) accepting employment with a foreign government and

e) committing treason against, or attempting or conspiring to overthrow, the government of the US.

Pay close attention to e). I know none of us red-blooded, patriotic Americans would ever think of committing treason against our beloved homeland, or of conspiring to overthrow the government, right?

But who gets to define treason in the War on Terrorism? The Constitution? Congress? the President?

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Again, someone answer me.

What is to stop the president (any president) from stripping citizenship from someone and imprisoning them forever?

I’m looking for lawyers…hey BB, what stops this? You tell me.

This law gives too much power to one man. It must be struck down.[/quote]

You are totally ass-backwards here, Irish. The question is what do you think GIVES the president the power to magically strip citizenship?

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Oh, ok, cool. Then you should have absolutely no problem with the Detainee act of of 2005, and the Military Commissions act of 2006. As it defines the exact process for doing the things you said above.

By the way, do you believe lawful enemy combatants should be arbitrarily released?

“Hey, you going to shoot at our soldiers anymore if we release you before the war is over?”

“Me? Oh no, not me. No sir, no way. I’m just going to go back home and become a dentist.”

The military actually does release some lawful combatants, if they determine that the individual can reasonably be trusted to not continue the war effort. Would kind of suck to release the combatant who went back and shot one of your soldiers.

Which is why many prisoners are not released till the war is officially over. How many prisoners did the Allies hold till the end of WW2, for example?

Not indefinate, but it can sure as hell be a long time.

[/quote]

The act still allows for indefinite detention. So that’s the opposite of what I(intelligent people) want.

By the way, something that might make an innocent person take up arms after release—being detained for several years without the right to see a court/tribunal/commission.

[quote]100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:

Oh, ok, cool. Then you should have absolutely no problem with the Detainee act of of 2005, and the Military Commissions act of 2006. As it defines the exact process for doing the things you said above.

By the way, do you believe lawful enemy combatants should be arbitrarily released?

“Hey, you going to shoot at our soldiers anymore if we release you before the war is over?”

“Me? Oh no, not me. No sir, no way. I’m just going to go back home and become a dentist.”

The military actually does release some lawful combatants, if they determine that the individual can reasonably be trusted to not continue the war effort. Would kind of suck to release the combatant who went back and shot one of your soldiers.

Which is why many prisoners are not released till the war is officially over. How many prisoners did the Allies hold till the end of WW2, for example?

Not indefinate, but it can sure as hell be a long time.

The act still allows for indefinite detention. So that’s the opposite of what I(intelligent people) want.

By the way, something that might make an innocent person take up arms after release—being detained for several years without the right to see a court/tribunal/commission.[/quote]

Please quote me the section that allows the government to INDEFINATELY hold the detainee without his status being reviewed.

This is perhaps one of the more interesting clauses, one I like to call the “cover your ass clause.”

“As provided by the Constitution and by this section, the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and to promulgate higher standards and administrative regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.”