Lead story in my local paper today was about an American Citizen who was denied his rights ( Wanted the Government to show proof he fought against them.  They say the burden of proof is on him. ) because he fought aginst us with the Taliban.  Court ruled that because he was arrested out of country and was fighting against us, that he could be denied these rights.  Yet they stopped short of ruling on terrorism crimes commited in the US.  What do you think?  Right / Wrong?

On one hand, the traitor deserves whatever he gets.  On the other, denying the rights of an American citizen is a slippery slope.  If the court later goes on to rule that terrorism crimes commited in the US allow for revoking of rights then some minor changes to what is ruled as "terrorism" would allow for a lot of domestic arrests of anti-government folks.  If owning an "assault rifle" becomes a terrorism crime, should the rights of all "assault rifle" owners be revoked?

   - Nw -

If this is about Walker:

Who cares about the details, just cut off his head already.

He has no rights, he is a traitor(read enemy) not a citizen.

After being tried and convicted for TREASON, he should be

[torch]

anyone remember this guy:

[img]http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2002/06/10/national/10cnd-terror.4.jpg[/img]

US citizen arrested on us soil. Where is he now?

HOPEFULLY his fingernails are being pulled off one by one till he tells all he knows...

dont give a fuck if his rights are being violated.. hell i hope his ass gets violanted nonstop by Mohamad.


how dare someone attack this country then cry about how they are being treated when they are caught !!!!!!!!!!!! [:(!][:(!][:(!]

sometimes I feel that people do some of this sh*t cause they know even if they are caught .. they will be safe... hell some of these fuckers are safer IF they are caught .

The problem is we shouldn't be arresting these people.  They should all be making furtive movements leading the arresting officers to fear for their lives and therefore shoot him.

If I recall correctly, fighting for a foreign army against the United States is grounds for revoking of citizenship, aka rights. Correct me if I'm wrong.

In other words, if you're fighting against the US, you've made a choice to kill Americans, whether you pull the trigger or not. You've declared your allegiance to a foreign entity and therefore bye-bye rights. You've made the conscious choice, as an adult, to do this. Eat hot lead.

Navy ROTC Guy

fuck em.  shoot them all in the nuts. fucking bunch of traitors.

NO silly dont you know that, that only happens to law abbiding citezins.. < and thier dogs>

real terrorist get the good treatment .. cot.. hotmeals.. restrooms like your used too..


but dont dare drop your wallet... [nono][nono]

Lot's of Nazi talk in this thread.  

What happens when it's you being declared an 'enemy combatant' because you have strong dissenting opinion of the government's positions and you express your willingness to do something about it should they 'cross the line in the sand?'

I hear that rhetoric on here all the time (from me too).  

Don't be so hasty to support abrogation of another citizen's rights.  Treason or sedition should be the charge.  The government should still have to prove their case.  That is the rule of law contemplated by the Constitution and perhaps what make this nation greater than all others.  Our system of justice, flawed admittidely, is the best the world has ever seen and I'm not willing to throw it out on a whim in the name of fighting terrorism.  

Our government so far isn't doing the things it really needs to do to properly fight terrorism but it's willing to erode citizens rights more and more.    

Jarhead, I agree with your take here more than the way the government currently handles it.  

Once these people are brought back to the U.S., and it seems clear under the circumstances that they have not totally and completely abrogated their allegiance to the U.S., they should be allowed Constitutional protections.  To me, the burden to show volutary relinquishment of citizenship rights should be very high.  Once shown, then they can be processed as enemy combatant's and I'd have no problem with denying them anything but basic human rights (food, water, a bullet to the head rather than a slow painful death).  

 


Oops!  You said 'nazi'.  You lose!



OK genius, don't you think that if large lawful populations of the country are being declared "enemy combatants" that it is a little late to worry about your 'rights'?



He relenquished his own citizenship as has been previously pointed out.



And should be prosecuted in a military tribunal under military law.



You can't argue constitutional protections for those who aren't citizens and are fighting against our Armed Forces overseas.



Agreed, to a pretty good extent.  We are not protecting our borders, we are inconsistent in applying the Bush Doctrine, we are pussyfooting around with 'civil rights' crap, and we aren't loosening our firearms restrictions.

I do not see this as an example of eroding citizens rights though.  There is an important distinction between citizens on American soil, and non-citizens elsewhere.

The burden of proof is on the government, like it or not. There has to be proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person acted against the government in a manner that has been stated to relinquish citizenship, before their acts against the government of the USA.

IANAL but this is what I think: if you do something that is prescribed to renouncing your citizenship then you are no longer a citizen if the government can [b][u]prove [/u][/b]that you did such things. I would be leery of any government that came along and stated that if you have ever done x, y or z that you are now considered a traitor to the government and you will be punished for doing that.

Here’s an example: Hillary Clinton gets elected in ’04 and in her inauguration speech states that anyone who has ever owned a firearm is now considered a traitor to the USA and that they will be tried as such. Would this happen? Most likely not; but if it did would you consider yourself to be a traitor? No.

If I'm (physically) defending the Constitution of the United States against it's own Government, then it's too late to worry about this bullshit.

He is the enemy. He was fighting again the US Military overseas, fuckem.

What more proof do they need??? Other than fining him in and amongst the enemy forces???

This is exactly what us "tin-foil hat" types warned about 1 1/2 years ago. We were poo-pooed, with everyone saying "they don't wanna do it to American citizens, only foreign terrorists".
Now all they have to do is call you a terrorist, a definition which seems to change according to convience of the govt.
44% of the respondents to your poll think it's ok. On a board like this that's an outrage. Some of you disgust me with your apparent thinking that the 2nd amendment is the only thing in our Constitution...... All they hafta do is holler terrorist, and you are ready to form a mob. It's sickening to think Americans, with our heritage have sunk so low....

Everyone seems to convienently forget the 'foreign soil' part.  Why is that?  Is that so you won't get poo-pooed anymore?  Everyone also seems to forget that he was engaged, either directly or indirectly, in combat, on foreign soil, against not just US soldiers, but the US as a whole.

No, all they have to do is catch you fighting against the US in the service of a foreign government.  But you conveniently left off that little detail because it spoils your tinfoil-hat rant.

Just don't say "Nazi" Duncan!  

I for one cannot believe some of you are so ready to trust the shitbirds in governemnt to vouch that these people, who are citizens by U.S. law, no longer intend to claim citizenship and are to be declared 'enemy combatants' just becuase some Defense Department bureaucrap says so.  [b]THAT's WHY WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION GENIUS![/b]  

To prevent the government, of its own volition and without judicial or legislative oversight,  from denying us of our rights without due process of law.  

Let's see if I can sum up the thinking here:  All traitors must be shot on sight for treason. No citizen ACCUSED of taking up arms against the U.S. shall have any right to a fair defense with all the rights afforded by the Constitution.  The government has all the right, power, and authority to arbitrarily delcare a citizen an 'enemey combatant' without a vigorous defense in front of an IMPARTIAL court/jury of peers.  The Constitution only applies to those not declared 'enemy combatants.'  The governement can be trusted, in all instances, to FAIRLY and ACCURATELY determine just who, and in what circumstances, is an 'enemy combatant' thus seeking to give up all the rights and priveleges of citizenship.  

Jawol?

You guys are far too trusting.  BTW, I have some nice swamp land for sale, make me an offer.  

What about the Japanese or Germans who were US citizens during WW2? Some probably went home to fight us and then came back to the US when the war was over.

I don't give a shit where an American citizen is arrested, we are ALL entitled to due process of law!! [b]To answer more specifically, there's a photo of Jose Padilla earlier in the thread. He also is a US citizen arrested on American soil, and declared an "enemy combatant" now being held without counsel indefinatly.[/b] Your last sentence is nothing but an allegation unproven by the govt. in a court of law and judged by a jury of his peers, (citizens).......
Wake up and smell the coffee!

Not a problem.  Provided the traitor survives the battle against our soldiers (I wouldn't have a problem with them being a KIA), then all that needs to happen is for the government to prove their case.  Taking into account all the points made, that shouldn't be too difficult in the case of genuine traitor who has taken up arms against the US in the name of a foreign enemy government.  All I'm saying is that, in the case of a citizen, the government should still have to prove the case in a court of law.  

I, for one, think the U.S. doles out citizenship too easily.  Simply being born here while your border jumping mother was sitting in the desert barely across the line should NOT make you a citizen.  We cheapen the import of the status by freely giving it away (just ask how unfair the immigration policy is to any naturalized citizen).  I'd rather see citizenship have much deeper meaning with the comensurate level of protections afforded. THEN, this discussion may just be moot.  

Oh, boo fucking hoo.  Would you like some cheese with that whine?

So what happens when YOU are declared guilty of treason for the heinous act of daring to own a 'scary' gun?

Seems to me, that should be a slam dunk to prove to a jury in a court of law. What is the govt. afraid of??  And please don't give me the "secret" bullshit. That's just a catchword for "We don't want the American people to know"....

Now THERE is a response worthy of a tyrant.
Newsflash for ya Larry. SOME people on this board have taken an oath to "uphold and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC". Some of us have even read the document, and writings by the founding founders. Would you care to show me in ANY of those documents where ANYONE who helped found our nation would have gone along with a citizen being held with out due process of law?
Or are you just gonna flap yer gums......

If we are at the point where owning a gun is grounds for being charged with treason, whether or not you get a trial is going to be beside the point because it will be too late.
That's just a stupid argument anyway.  One could use it to oppose ANYTHING.
"We shouldn't have firemen because someday they could be ordered to start fires and burn books like Ray Bradbury said."
"We shouldn't have hospitals because someday they could force people into hospitals and euthanize them."
"We shouldn't have libraries because someday they could put only socialist books in them and force you to read them."

Your logic, like Duncan's, is sorely lacking.

So you're of the opinion that people like George Washington, who personally put down the Whiskey Rebellion, would flinch at declaring an American who was captured in a FOREIGN country, serving for a FOREIGN ENEMY military fighting against OUR military to be an enemy combatant rather than a US citizen?
I'd take bets.

horseshit!

If they can say an American, IN America, is a "terrorist" or some similiar term and deny that person their rights, then all is lost.  And one of them was in AMERICA, not in Afghanistan.

And quite frankly, I am sure if these guys, Hamdi? and Padilla?, who are being detained were lily white I am sure the support for their detention would be much less around here.

But that wont happen, we gave Johnny walker Lind, whatever his name really is, an ACTUAL trial.  He is lucky he was WHITE!  If he had been BROWN he would be locked up in some hole somewhere and nobody would hear from him.

I will let you in on a tiny little secret.

If you own a gun and if you support people's RIGHT to own their own PERSONAL arms you might as well be BROWN to the government...it is only a matter of time before somebody declares you a terrorist or a traitor. (it is much closer than you think)

But thanks for the strawmen none the less.

He wouldn't have a problem with any declaration, but when it comes to holding indefinatly without due process? You're damn tootin' he'd have a problem with that!!

And for the 3rd time, what about Padilla? Arrested on US soil, born in the USA? Another step down the slippery slope? Like I said 1 1/2 years ago, you are the SAME people who were saying it wouldn't/shouldn't happen to American citizens. Well?? Now it's happening and you guys are clapping your little hands together!
"We don't need no stinking Constitution"! Let's just let the govt. do whatever they need to do to keep us safe!!
For all you know, the guy in the first post was picked up soliciting a hooker in Paris!! There's no "evidence" he was even a combatant!!

So many good points have been brought up.  Great discussion!

I will simplify this for my own sanity.

Is he a citizen, and who has the burden of proof?  This is what it all seems to boil down to.

Is he an American citizen?  

If so, then he should be afforded all the rights any citizen has.  Rights cannot be a selective thing no matter how much we all want to see him cut into little pieces.  All citizens have the same rights (Felons excluded).  There are set procedures for Treason charges.  I believe the burden of proof lies with the government (along with a couple of witnesses).  

If not an American citizen, he is a foreign enemy combatant (or alleged combatant) on foreign soil and subject to the same military legal/ethical guidelines as any other enemy combatant.

As for burden of proof.  The burden of proof should always lie with the prosecution.  

Hang the Bastard... but prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) he did it first!

Don't mean to offend anyone but this is a simple one. If you are a TRAITOR then you are NOT a U.S. citizen. Anyone who fights against the U.S. is the scum of the earth and needs to be shot in the head.
[frag]

But the judges' decision was only with regard to the one who was captured abroad.  Try to keep up.



Nope.  Richard Reid is white and so was the kid from California and I feel the same about them.

I doubt it.  If the man was captured in another country, fighting against his home country, he should be treated as an enemy POW, not a criminal.



For the second time, the decision we are discussing involves ONLY the American captured abroad.

someday ALL gun owners will be considered terrorist and anti US policy, then all of you quick to condemn to death types will reap what you have sown.

[size=3] Read the conditions on the inside front pages of your passport[/size=3]

It's there in black and white - take up arms and you may not even have the opportunity to return to this country. (to be prosecuted)

Duncky,

Do you really think that every Tom,Dick (like you) and Mary should know EVERYTHING THE GOVT KNOWS.

Even YOU can't be that naive.

Well, there you have it...Not even 2 pages of posts and some sad sack is playing the race card!

Are you talking about the guy that wrote the book....Aukai Collins or something like that.  Or did I just miss one(most likely).

As for my opinion, As much as I personally would love to fry the dude myself, if he is a citizen, or was a citizen(which would be given up if he was convicted of treason) he does need a trial(just hopefully not in California/too liberal, he might get off).  Then they could fry him.....but if instead of all that they just plant a tracking beaken on the bastard and twin .50 his whole camp, then well, its war.

AND if that day comes, whether or not we are given a trial for treason or simply left to rot in jail will be the least of our worries, as the outcomes would be the same.  Some people don't read the rest of the thread before posting it seems...

Actually I was referring to John Walker Lindh, but I couldn't think of his name off the top of my head.

This court decision, like all others, applies to all persons held as "Enemy combatants", including Padilla.
Many of you seem to believe these people are traitors. A traitor is still entitled, in our system, to due process of law, the burden of proof being upon the govt.. I wonder if anyone can name for me any other nation in the world that can legally, (and does), hold it's own citizens indefinatly without trial??? Even the old Roman Empire had due process for all.

And all it takes to be a traitor is an allegation by the govt., without jury trial to prove that to you?? You are truly a great American.........
Seems to me, any US citizen who wants to destroy our Constitution is a traitor. Think about it.

Talk about naive. What about govt. by and for the people? Do you think some countries back in the founders day and before had trials based on "secret" evidence?? YES they did! Do you think if the founders thought that was a good idea they would have made provision for that? Yes they would. "Secret" trials and evidence have been around ever since the first tyrannical govt....... Again show me any of the founders who thought it was ok....

Wrong, [b]liberty86[/b], that is not a photo of Jose Padilla!

That is a photo of [b]Abdullah al-Muhajir[/b], who was arrested at O'Hare Airport after having left his Al Qaeda friends in Afghanistan and Pakistan, with the expressed intention to blow up an American city (presumably, Washington, DC) with a 'dirty bomb.'

You don't still refer to Mohammad Ali as Cassius Clay, do you?

Then let this adult choose the name by which he wants to be known. He did.

I think you want to call him 'Jose Padilla' to reinforce the idea that he is somehow 'like one of us....'

[b]Oh yeah, he's just like one of us![/b]

(Timothy McVeigh comes to mind)

Eric The(HonestToGod)Hun[>]:)]

Some points:

Hamdi is not being imprisoned as a a punishment for anything.  He is being detained as an enemy combatant.  During times of war, enemy combatants are detained, not as a punishment, but because releasing them will mean that they will likely return to their side and continue to make war against us.  This may be a subtle distinction for the guy who is being detained, but it does exist.  If and when Hamdi is released, he will exit his detention without any criminal record or felony disabilities (unless the government prosecutes him for treason).

The appeals court found that the government's declaration that Hamdi was found bearing a rifle in a Taliban unit that surrendered was sufficient "fact" to warrant his detention by the government.  The district court wanted to inquire into whether Hamdi actually fired his rifle in combat, etc.  As the appeals court pointed out, this demands a "clarity from battle that does not actually exist".

My only concern with what happened is:  what if the government makes a mistake and captures someone through mistaken identity or bogus or malicious intel? (not uncommon in Afghanistan).  Hamdi does not deny that he served with the Taliban.  But what if he did?  What if he said - I was a neutral and was picked up by mistake?  Or, I owned a rifle only to protect my home from the anarchy in Afghanistan?  

In such cases, I would like to see the accused given some sort of opportunity to demonstrate that the government was detaining the wrong guy (and the burden of proof should be upon the accused).  The Appeals court seems to have foreclosed that option by saying that the government's affidavit is sufficient to warrant his indefinite detention.  This makes me somewhat uncomfortable.

If it makes you feel any better:  Hamdi is being [b]detained[/b].  He is not being tortured, charged with bogus crimes, his property is not being seized, his family and friends are not being harrassed (in fact, his father was allowed to make a petition to the court on his behalf).  This is a time of war; he was caught bearing arms against us [b]in a foreign country[/b]; we captured him and held him, and that is all that we have done to him.  He wouldn't have survived this long in the Northern Alliance prison where we found him.

Regarding the point that gun owners could be declared to be terrorists, if it ever comes to that point, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights will have been lost already, and will be irrelevant.  We will be fighting for our very survival as free citizens.  The judge of our fight will not be a judge in a courtroom, but the judge of history.

It is undisputed in the case that Hamdi was (1) in a foreign country and (2) serving with enemy military forces.  As he does not even dispute those facts, I do not have a problem with them holding him.  If either of those facts were to be disputed or not be present, there needs to be more judicial review.  For example, where both of those are at issue with Padilla, the court should scrutinize his case more closely.

The old Supreme Court precdent is not so forgiving.