Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 6/10/2002 7:37:14 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 7:42:20 AM EDT
Me thinks it's a lose, lose situation.
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 7:46:09 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 7:47:16 AM EDT
Yeah, I'll join the ACLU when [b]Jesus Christ[/b] tells me to join the ACLU, and He hates their guts![:D] So this POS is worth losing sleep over? We must just agree to disagree on this one, buddy! My 'fear of government' radar hasn't gone off on this one, and it's a finely tuned mechanism! If this POS actively plotted this crime in Pakistan or elsewhere, I say save the time and effort for a trial and send him back there for trial and imprisonment. Same as we should do for 'Jihad Johnny' Walker. I would much rather see these POSs getting Islamic justice, which they so doggedly served during their adult lives, than good old US due process, which they actively fought against! Eric The(ThisIsWar,Baby!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 7:57:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/10/2002 8:09:50 AM EDT by RikWriter]
Originally Posted By DK-Prof: Remember when I was whining
View Quote
How can we forget? Sorry, no sympathy at all for a TRAITOR who plotted with the enemy DURING WARTIME to kill Americans. He forfeited his rights when he conspired with the enemy.
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 8:04:40 AM EDT
Da boy goin' down... Rightfully so... [^]
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 8:11:23 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 8:16:12 AM EDT
So, [b]DK-Prof[/b], what makes you think 'due process' doesn't apply in [u]any[/u] trial that is conducted by the United States? If it's conducted under military tribunal rules, the procedures are just different, that's all. It's the same judicial procedure as our men and women in the military have available. So this POS, in a time of war, is to be considered as 'better' than our military? Yeah, right! Eric The(Hang'EmHigh!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 8:16:47 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 8:17:51 AM EDT
The facts will eventually come out. But you have to admit, the fact he traveled to Afghanistan and Pakistan to meet with Al-Qaeda types doesn't help his case any. That alone is reason enough to hold him. If you travelled to Italy, Germany, or Japan during WWII, would you expect to be treated differently? This is war.
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 8:19:13 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 8:21:36 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 8:23:07 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 8:38:10 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Paul: It's war damn it.
View Quote
much as i'd like for these guys to turn up at the bottom of a compost heap, only congress has the authority to declare war. i suspect "due process" is about to be thrown out with the bath water.
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 8:51:11 AM EDT
Originally Posted By lurker: much as i'd like for these guys to turn up at the bottom of a compost heap, only congress has the authority to declare war.
View Quote
War HAS been declared...against us, by our enemies. If you think WE have to declare war for there to be a war, you've got another think coming.
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 9:09:17 AM EDT
The United States hasn't formally declared war since World War II. And though declaring war on terrorism may sound as vague as declaring a war on drugs, legally, it can be done. Were the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in effect a declaration of war? Declarations of war are a custom, and not always adhered to. What happened was this: Because war is ugly and violent and chaotic, the international community, over time, developed a set of wartime customs and conventions. This began with ancient civilizations, and has evolved now to the point where there are laws dictating how the wounded must be protected, how to handle prisoners of war, and what weapons are not to be used. And of course, how to declare war. However, some feel that, in the last 50 years, wars and other conflicts have gotten more lawless. And today, it seems as though 'declaring war' is an out-of-date formality. In a May 1999 press briefing regarding NATO’s role in Kosovo, David Scheffer, Ambassador at Large of the U.S. State Department for War Crimes Issues said: 'There is no need at all for a declaration of war for the laws of war to apply. The Geneva Conventions don’t require it nor does customary international law, so that is simply not a necessary trigger for these laws to apply.' So yes, the attacks could be seen, in effect, a declaration of war. So is the United States now at war? Yes. The President declared the U.S. to be at war, and that is legal. Here's how it works. According to Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war. However, Article 2, Section 2 names the president as 'Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy.' As such, presidents have often bypassed Congress to go to war (whether "declared" or not). President Harry Truman was the first to do that, to go to war in Korea. And ever since, presidents have rarely asked permission. In 1973, the U.S. Congress tried to reassert itself by passing the War Powers Resolution. (This after Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon ignored Congress while perpetuating the war in Vietnam.) Also known as the War Powers Act, the law states that, without a declaration of war, the president must inform Congress within 48 hours of beginning hostilities. Again, presidents have generally ignored this law. [b]So yes, if Bush says we're at war, we're at war.[/b] How can the United States be at war if it doesn't know who its enemy is? And what if the perpetrator is in fact a terrorist group, not a nation? As strange as it may seem, the United States actually has a precedent for declaring war against groups – even vague, nebulous groups- rather than nations. Here's the precedent: Two centuries ago, piracy was a constant threat to American ships and harbours. So much so that the Constitution laid out parameters for their punishment. In 1801, under this article, the American Congress authorized President Thomas Jefferson to send the U.S. Navy to fight the Barbary pirates along the coastline of northern Africa. These pirates weren't a nation, didn’t have a capital, national anthem, or embassy - but this made no difference. Eric The(See!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 9:11:28 AM EDT
I'm sure that 10,000 years from now, when the radioctive cloud finally fades, that all of the surviving cockroaches and scorpions will appreciate that we kept their Constitutional rights intact.
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 9:13:20 AM EDT
We need Thomas Jefferson to come back and take care of some of the butt pirates around here. Things are getting out of hand in San Francisco.
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 9:20:06 AM EDT
Whatever Ashcroft is or ain't doin', joinin' the [b]A[/b]merican [b]CLU[/b]eless union ain't the answer.
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 9:24:25 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DK-Prof: Guess what, now if you are "suspected" of "allegedly" planning something bad, [red]being a U.S. citizen won't protect you either.[/red]
View Quote
"protect you" from WHAT?? WTF do you want to protect this guy from? From being arrested? From being treated like a suspected traitor who is plotting domestic attacks with radioactive weapons?? From being "detained" by the Defense Department because he met with, planned with and directly aided the most immediately dangerous international foreign terrorist organization in the world in their plots to attack America with radioactive weapons while travelling abroad?? Would you rather this be turned over to local police department to investigate?? [b]DK-Prof[/b], don't be such a fool.
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 9:32:40 AM EDT
This Jose or Abdullah or whatever gave up his citizenship when he took up arms against this country for another country (or in this case a group/organization). So whine all you want... Geez...the ACLU, tell you what, I'll join them the day after I die.
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 9:39:28 AM EDT
well hopfuylly this us citizens civil rights stay intact. oops, i ment to say hopfully he recivecs a death fitting to a trator and terrorist.
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 9:45:14 AM EDT
DK-Prof, maybe they should just let him go and wait and see if he detonates a dirty bomb the united states. i dint know about you, but im hoping its not my family that dies from radation poisioning. i guess thats probly just me. each to his own i guess.
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 9:46:09 AM EDT
DK-Prof, all of us weren't wrong. I still can't believe some people here side against the Bill of Rights. cgwahl wrote:
This Jose or Abdullah or whatever gave up his citizenship when he took up arms against this country for another country
View Quote
I once heard a Democ[b]rat[/b] say the same thing about gun owners, and he even cited Supreme Court rulings backing-up his opinion. As a gun owner, I find the above scary. How much longer before you hear Democrats try to strip citizenship from suspected members of militias? cgwahl, think about what you're proposing. Paul wrote:
[ I ] will admit that it's a damn sight better than what you civilians have.
View Quote
How so? How do they protect the rights of the accused better than civilian courts?z
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 10:00:20 AM EDT
If Jose left this country, and went to Pakistan, and met with Al Qaeda, and trained with them, and entered into a pact with them to destroy America.... ...I have no problem with stripping him of his citizenship. I have no problem with putting him before a firing squad. I have no problem with lighting him on fire. I have no problem with boiling him in oil. The idea that there's this slippery slope, where if we try this shitbag before a tribunal, that presto! GUN-OWNERS ARE NEXT! ...is foolish.
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 10:03:34 AM EDT
U.S. Constitution: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." DK-Prof, unless your head is firmly in the sand, you'll notice that a lot of members here are eager to destroy our country and Constitution. For defense against the neo-Nazis threatening our country, I'm relying not on the ACLU, but on my weapons.
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 10:09:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/10/2002 10:13:23 AM EDT by mattja]
All this shit boils down to the govt. not wanting the case to go to civilian court, because if that were the case, the defense attorney could petition the judge to order the govt. to disclose the source of their evidence. In EVERY other situation, you want the govt. to be up front, but in this case, during time of war, the last thing you want is for the govt. to have to give up their clandestine procedures, informants, etc., as in doing so, they may not be able to use them again. This is a very strange situation. The feds have no authority to try civilians in military tribunals, regardless of Bush's EO. And Congress can't even make law to do so. This is thoroughly unconstitutional. Yet, we don't want to cripple the feds investigatory efficacy during times of national crisis. This really is "interesting times" and this is a major test of the Constitution. BTW, Congress holds closed sessions all the time for national security reasons. Can't we put together something like a closed civilian court? Something leak proof? But I guess is the defendent is allowed to hear all the evidence, the feds are screwed. I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on television.
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 10:09:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: If Jose left this country, and went to Pakistan, and met with Al Qaeda, and trained with them, and entered into a pact with them to destroy America.... ...I have no problem with stripping him of his citizenship. I have no problem with putting him before a firing squad. I have no problem with lighting him on fire. I have no problem with boiling him in oil.
View Quote
How 'bout peeling him like a grape, then soaking him in brine solution???? [}:D]
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 10:13:53 AM EDT
Post from level3 -
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
View Quote
Yes, that is the amendment, all right, but you will note that the actual procedures and guidelines for such a fair and impartial trial are not further delineanted in this article. Congress has been given authority to decide how this amendment is to be carried out, and it has been that way since the very beginning of this Republic. If Congress has determined that someone, such as this POS, can be tried before a military tribunal, for the type and nature of the criminal act for which he has been charged, there is simply no reason to get worried. This fellow will get the same sort of trial given to the German saboteurs seized during WWII. Which the US Supreme Court blessed. The Republic did not fall, nor did it falter. To see if there is a problem, go back to that period in American History when 'we were doing things right' whatever period that may be for you. Was this type of trial constitutionally permissible then? Well, it still is. Eric The(Constitutional)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 10:14:56 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 10:30:42 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DK-Prof: Oh I forgot. "We're at war" almost as good a justification as "for the children".
View Quote
THANK YOU.
Gosh, I sure hope Ashcroft will be nice and give us back the Bill of Rights after "the war" ends.
View Quote
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Good one DK! "Oh, but he's just be an Arab-American, he ain't worth nufin'. Yeeehawww, go get 'em Bush!" --------- sheeple: "Um, the Patriot Act will be repealed when the (undeclared) war is over, right?" me: "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Will we never learn?" sheeple: "Ashcroft and Bush will bring the war to a quick end." me (laughing even harder): "Every day, Ashcroft and Bush further show their ignorance (not to mention their thirst for oil). This quasi-war is here to stay." ----------- DK, another one just as sad as "but we're at war" is "war was declared, ON US." I've seen that one hundreds of times.
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 10:31:24 AM EDT
These seem to be the constitutional requirements: "The Trial of all Crimes . . . shall be by Jury;" "No person shall be held to answer for a[n] . . . infamous crime, unless on a presentment of a Grand Jury;" "due process;" "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a . . . public trial;" "confronted with the witnesses against him;" "the right of trial by jury shall be preserved." Anyone know if the military tribunals include these rights?
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 10:32:06 AM EDT
Originally Posted By zoom: cgwahl wrote:
This Jose or Abdullah or whatever gave up his citizenship when he took up arms against this country for another country
View Quote
cgwahl, think about what you're proposing.
View Quote
I have thought about what I'm proposing and there is a big difference between militias and what is happening. If this were Vietnam or Korea or World War 2 (heck even Somalia) and I not only sided with the enemy but took up arms with the enemy am I still a US citizen? I believe the answer is no...if anything its treason. Al'Queda is an enemy who declared war against us. Sure, the US has yet to do it, perhaps it is unable to do it, or unwilling to do so. But we are at war...this Jose fellow joined up with Al'Queda or some other organization similar to them, and took up arms (in the case a bomb) with the intent to use it. In my eyes he either has committed treason, is no longer a US citizen or both. It is unfortunate that militias or gun owners in the United States can be looked under the same light. In some ways maybe they should be, but the way I see things, there is a difference. May not be easy to see, but its there...
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 10:32:29 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman:
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: If Jose left this country, and went to Pakistan, and met with Al Qaeda, and trained with them, and entered into a pact with them to destroy America.... ...I have no problem with stripping him of his citizenship. I have no problem with putting him before a firing squad. I have no problem with lighting him on fire. I have no problem with boiling him in oil.
View Quote
How 'bout peeling him like a grape, then soaking him in brine solution????
View Quote
That, too.
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 10:45:32 AM EDT
The Supreme Court case which says this is groovy is Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942).
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 10:49:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/10/2002 10:50:12 AM EDT by The_Macallan]
Originally Posted By DK-Prof: My point with this thread is that Ashcroft is undermining the Bill of Rights by deciding that anyone he deems "suspicious" and labels "terrorist" does not deserve those rights that are laid out, but gets a "diet" version of the Bill of Rights in a military tribunal.
View Quote
[b]Where do the words "military tribunal" occur in the story you quoted?[/b] All I see is this maggot was "detained" and is now questioned by DOD because he tried to enter the country from Pakistan with plans to commit acts of war against this nation. To me, that's taking up arms against this nation and is treason. Sure, it's well known that "conspiracy to commit treason is not treason" BUT this is very different. US Constitution Article III, Section 3. "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, [b][red]or[/red] in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.[/b]" Seems this man probably HAS committed treason and probably DOES have immediately useful information about foreign Al Qaida terrorist operations. So I would EXPECT the DOD to get involved. You jumped the gun on this one assuming the "military tribunal" is already underway and the BOR is TP for this guy. There's also questions raised here of whether he actually gave up his citizenship by committing those acts of treason in Pakistan. Before your panties get too much in a knot, wait to see what this guy is charged with, what venue has proper jurisdiction for this "crime" and whether he or not can even properly be considered a "citizen" anymore. You're SO eager to be right that your paranoid imagination exceeded the LIMITED facts presented in the story.
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 11:27:19 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 11:41:28 AM EDT
He is being held and will be tried under the precident set in the US vs. Haupt, nothing more or less. Though I am suprised that the US would use a US citizen as the FIRST case for tribunals. They must have this guy just covered. A lot more so than Taliban John.
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 12:00:09 PM EDT
Whoops, wrong case. The controlling case would be [i]EX PARTE QUIRIN,[/i] 317 U.S. 1 (1942) [url]http://laws.findlaw.com/us/317/1.html[/url] [i]Haupt[/i] is a related case that does have some bearing on this though [url]http://laws.findlaw.com/us/330/631.html[/url]
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 12:00:14 PM EDT
You know what? All else being equal, I would actually PREFER a military tribunal over a civilian trial. I have seen a few in action (on both sides!) and I agree with the esteemed COL Cooper in his recent quote... "A military board will attempt to find out what happened. A civilian trial is all too often a confrontation between technicians." Too much is made of technicalities and semantics in a civilian trial. Generally, a military tribunal turns out to be a case tried strictly upon its merits, and the Court remains a trier of fact. As far as a "jury" goes, it will be three ranking officers as opposed to twelve stacked citizens. I have not heard of "Jury stacking" taking place with courts-martial. As far as a Grand Jury requirement - who is to say that you cannot have a Grand Jury refer to a tribunal over a trial? Given the incidence of criminals getting off due to points of semantics, interpretations of vaguely-written laws (the letter of the law vice the spirit of the law,) technicalities in points of law, or superceding the merits of the individual case with precedents (Tort Law, IIRC) which may or may not have anything at all to do with the case before the Court, I would vastly prefer a more "military" approach to trials in general. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. As far as the "declaration of war" goes, the points raised about POTUD being CinC is entirely correct. Also, remember that we have been in a declared "State of Emergency" since, oh, 1932 or so and war has been declared upon US. We should not have to wait for an Act of Congress to return the favour, so to speak... FFZ
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 12:12:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: There's also questions raised here of whether he actually gave up his citizenship by committing those acts of treason in Pakistan.
View Quote
THAT'S ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT! YOU NEED TO TELL THAT ONE TO ASHCROFT - HE'LL LOVE IT.
View Quote
I said that questions were "raised here" because I don't know the details of how that works but others here seem to have implied it was written in the Constitution somewhere. I didn't say that I was clear in that notion and it should be done.
Originally Posted By DK-Prof: That could be a great tactic. If a U.S. citizen talks to the wrong people, associates with "known" terrorists, then he was commiting treason, and isn't "really" a U.S. citizen. Wow - I love it.
View Quote
No. He didn't just "talk to the wrong people" he went out of the country to meet with known terrorists then returned with plans to commit acts of war against us. That's a bit more than just "associating" with baddies. It seems to clearly fall under the "acts of treason" stated in the Constitution that I quoted.
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: Before your panties get too much in a knot, wait to see what this guy is charged with, what venue has proper jurisdiction for this "crime" and whether he or not can even properly be considered a "citizen" anymore.
View Quote
I try not to wear panties [red]to work[/red], but thanks for your concern.
View Quote
Hmmmmm.... why the qualifier?? [;)]
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: You're SO eager to be right that your paranoid imagination exceeded the LIMITED facts presented in the story.
View Quote
Dude - I am SO EAGER to be wrong!!!!! Of course I'm being paranoid - it helps to get the point across. Just like I'm being a little too paranoid, I think a lot of people on this board are being a little too blasee about it.
View Quote
Some may be blase about it. I don't think I am. I'm just waiting for more facts about what he's going to be charged with.
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 12:25:09 PM EDT
Bush's own rules for military tribunals provides that
The term "individual subject to this order" shall mean any individual who is [red]not[/red] a United States citizen . . .
View Quote
The title of the order is "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain [red]Non-Citizens[/red] in the War Against Terrorism." This morning the press was reporting that they were going to try this guy using a military tribunal, but I guess they have changed their tune.
A Justice Department official said that under U.S. legal rules, Muhajir can be held indefinitely an as enemy soldier. But there are no plans to impose a military tribunal or otherwise press U.S. criminal charges against Muhajir, said this official, discussing the case only on grounds of anonymity. Lt. Col. Rivers Johnson, a Pentagon spokesman, said Muhajir would not be eligible for trial by a military tribunal set up under Defense Department rules issued in March because those tribunals are for alleged terrorists who are not U.S. citizens. (AP)
View Quote
This actually sounds worse to me. Has the right of habeas corpus been suspended?
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 12:27:44 PM EDT
Macallan, Citizenship status is irrelevant in this case:
This specification so plainly alleges violation of the law of war as to require but brief discussion of petitioners' contentions. As we have seen, entry upon our territory [317 U.S. 1, 37] in time of war by enemy belligerents, including those acting under the direction of the armed forces of the enemy, for the purpose of destroying property used or useful in prosecuting the war, is a hostile and war-like act. It subjects those who participate in it without uniform to the punishment prescribed by the law of war for unlawful belligerents. It is without significance that petitioners were not alleged to have borne conventional weapons or that their proposed hostile acts did not necessarily contemplate collision with the Armed Forces of the United States. Paragraphs 351 and 352 of the Rules of Land Warfare, already referred to, plainly contemplate that the hostile acts and purposes for which unlawful belligerents may be punished are not limited to assaults on the Armed Forces of the United States. Modern warfare is directed at the destruction of enemy war supplies and the implements of their production and transportation quite as much as at the armed forces. Every consideration which makes the unlawful belligerent punishable is equally applicable whether his objective is the one or the other. The law of war cannot rightly treat those agents of enemy armies who enter our territory, armed with explosives intended for the destruction of war industries and supplies, as any the less belligerent enemies than are agent similarly entering for the purpose of destroying fortified places or our Armed Forces. By passing our boundaries for such purposes without uniform or other emblem signifying their belligerent status, or by discarding that means of identification after entry, such enemies become unlawful belligerents subject to trial and punishment. 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. Cf. Gates v. Goodloe, 101 U.S. 612, 615 , 617 S., 618. It is as an enemy belligerent that petitioner Haupt is charged with entering the United States, and unlawful belligerency is the gravamen of the offense of which he is accused.
View Quote
from [i]EX PARTE QUIRIN,[/i] 317 U.S. 1 (1942) [url]laws.findlaw.com/us/317/1.html[/url]
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 12:28:30 PM EDT
"We have acted under the laws of war and under the clear Supreme Court precedent which established that the military may detain a United States citizen who has joined the enemy and has entered our country to carry out hostile acts."
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 12:33:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DK-Prof: My point with this thread is that Ashcroft is undermining the Bill of Rights by deciding that anyone he deems "suspicious" and labels "terrorist" does not deserve those rights that are laid out, but gets a "diet" version of the Bill of Rights in a military tribunal.
View Quote
I guess I really don't understand what Ashcroft is supposed to have done that's wrong. They singled this guy out, not because he "looks like a terrorist", but because of information gained by interrogating captured Al Qaeda, including a high ranking leader, and several other sources, all of whose stories corroborated each others. He wasn't singled out for just any old reason. You don't think airline security got suspicious and just called Ashcroft for instructions, do you?
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 12:51:01 PM EDT
CBS News 'unnaimed Defense Department sources' are wrong. He would not be held in a Navy brig in South Carolina if he was not going to be tried by a military tribunal. The Bush Administrations original intent not to try American citizens was motivated in part by a belief that no American citizens would be found this deeply involved in terror plots. This guy makes number 3.
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 12:55:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/10/2002 1:03:32 PM EDT by imposter]
But check this out:
It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Moreover, we cannot consider this encroachment a slight one. Throughout history, many transgressions by the military have been called "slight" and have been justified as "reasonable" in light of the "uniqueness" of the times. We cannot close our eyes to the fact that, today, the peoples of many nations are ruled by the military. .. Ours is a government of divided authority on the assumption that in division there is not only strength but freedom from tyranny. [red]And, under our Constitution, courts of law alone are given power to try civilians for their offenses against the United States.[/red]
View Quote
Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957). Very interesting case. Four justices joined in the majority opinion, which rejected the trial of citizens in military courts. The concurring opinions state that military justice for civilians is only OK in times of war. I guess those military tribunals, as applied to US citizens, are perhaps not so constitutional after all.
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 12:59:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/10/2002 1:04:15 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
Sorry, Imposter doesn't apply Not a wartime case. The defendant wasn't charged under the UCMJ either. But I suppose it could be used as a attempt to overturn the World War II cases. Doubt that the SCOUTS would hear it so long as the Government does nothing to deviate from the plan followed in [i]QUIRIN[/i]. If they tried to interject some new twist in the proceedings there would be more grounds to revisit.
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 1:01:33 PM EDT
Gah, that sucks because I can see both sides. I guess my only comment in this debate is that the constitution and the bill of rights isn't much comfort to dead people, which is what this person most likely wants to make us. -legrue
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 1:08:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: Not a wartime case.
View Quote
Arguably, this one is not either.
The defendant wasn't charged under the UCMJ either.
View Quote
Article 2(11) UCMJ, actually.
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 1:09:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: Sorry, Imposter doesn't apply Not a wartime case. The defendant wasn't charged under the UCMJ either. But I suppose it could be used as a attempt to overturn the World War II cases. Doubt that the SCOUTS would hear it so long as the Government does nothing to deviate from the plan followed in
View Quote
Thanks for the citation [b]ArmdLbrl[/b]. Seems we may be entering a debate on the meaning of "wartime". Does that necessitate a Congressional declaration of war for [i]EX PARTE QUIRIN[/i] and its references to "law of war" to be relevant?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top