Terrorism suspects may be held forever - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Mephisto2 · 01-02-2005, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Terrorism suspects may be detained forever
By Dana Priest in Washington
January 3, 2005

Bush Administration officials are preparing long-range plans for indefinitely imprisoning suspected terrorists whom they do not want to set free or turn over to courts in the US or other countries.

The Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency have asked the White House to decide on a more permanent approach for potentially lifetime detentions, including for hundreds of people now in military and CIA custody whom the Government does not have enough evidence to charge in courts. The outcome of the review, which also involves the State Department, would also affect those expected to be captured in the course of future counter-terrorism operations.

A senior Administration official involved in the discussions said the current detention system has strained US relations with other countries. "Now we can take a breath. We have the ability and need to look at long-term solutions."

One proposal under review is the transfer of large numbers of Afghan, Saudi and Yemeni detainees from the military's prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, into new US-built jails in their home countries. These would be operated by those countries but the State Department, where this idea originated, would ask them to abide by recognised human rights standards and would monitor compliance.

In addition, the Pentagon, which holds 500 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, plans to ask Congress for $US25 million ($32 million) to build a 200-bed prison to hold detainees who are unlikely ever to go through a military tribunal for lack of evidence. The new prison, dubbed Camp 6, would allow inmates more comfort and freedom than they have now, and would be designed for prisoners who the US Government believes have no more intelligence to share. It would be modelled on an American jail and allow socialising among inmates.

"Since the global war on terror is a long-term effort, it makes sense for us to be looking at solutions for long-term problems," said Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman. "We are at a point in time where we have to say, 'How do you deal with them in the long term?"'

The Administration considers its toughest detention problem to involve the prisoners held by the CIA. The CIA has been scurrying since September 11, 2001, to find secure locations abroad where it could detain and interrogate captives without risk of discovery, and without having to give them access to legal proceedings.

Little is known about the CIA's captives, the conditions under which they are kept or the procedures used to decide how long they are held or when they may be freed. That has prompted criticism from human rights groups, and from some in Congress and the Administration, who say the lack of scrutiny or oversight creates an unacceptable risk of abuse.

The CIA is believed to be holding most, if not all, of the senior captured al-Qaeda leaders, including Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Ramzi Binalshibh, Abu Zubaida and the leading South-East Asia figure Hambali.

Places of detention include Afghanistan, ships at sea and Diego Garcia, in the Indian Ocean.

The Washington Post
REF:http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Ter...601243473.html

What do you think about this? It seems to me to be a bit unfair to hold people forever, when it "does not have enough evidence to charge [them] in courts."

I'm also confused as to how they could even ensure this would happen. What would stop a later President from simply over-ruling Bush's decision as too draconian?

Either way, I hope it doesn't eventuate as I believe it wouldn't solve much and could be used by America's enemies as an excellent example of its hypocracy and double-dealing; which of course, it would be.

Mr Mephisto

sprocket · 01-02-2005, 03:30 PM

Seems like more of the continuing trend where every right a person has in this country is being appended with a footnote: "Unless we think your a terrorist". Its a bit troublesome to me. We have created a new class of criminal that exists outside the normal safeguards that are built into justice system. Safeguards that are there to protect inocent people from abuse. Successfully classify someone as a terrorist, and they have no rights left, whether you have proof or not.

Rekna · 01-02-2005, 03:44 PM

They don't have to append that footnote if the patriot act 2 goes forward. They will just say you are no longer a citizen and then you loose all your rights.

Willravel · 01-02-2005, 04:36 PM

This is bullshit. Guess what? American citizens can be arrested and heald under this. Remember when we used to have a Constitution and Bill of Rights? I sure miss those.

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-02-2005, 04:44 PM

It's called checks and balances guys, SCOTUS. Every suspect will be given a hearing to determine there status, where it goes from there...

Also willravel why don't you take that bullshit to paranoia because it is simply not true. This situation with gitmo and "illegal combatants" has precedents dating back more then +150 years. If you read up on the history of it, as well as the context and old cases you would know how it is possible for these guys to be held in such a fashion.

Maybe you guys should invest more in reality and less in Orwellian fiction.

highthief · 01-02-2005, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sprocket

Seems like more of the continuing trend where every right a person has in this country is being appended with a footnote: "Unless we think your a terrorist". Successfully classify someone as a terrorist, and they have no rights left, whether you have proof or not.

It's like the witchcraft trials, really.

"Witch! Wiiiiiitch!!!!!"

Willravel · 01-02-2005, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

It's called checks and balances guys, SCOTUS. Every suspect will be given a hearing to determine there status, where it goes from there...

Also willravel why don't you take that bullshit to paranoia because it is simply not true. This situation with gitmo and "illegal combatants" has precedents dating back more then +150 years. If you read up on the history of it, as well as the context and old cases you would know how it is possible for these guys to be held in such a fashion.

Maybe you guys should invest more in reality and less in Orwellian fiction.

"American citizens can be arrested and heald under this." So this isn't true? Have you seen a copy of the request from the CIA and the Pentagon, yet? Or are you just assuming that I am a crazy paranoid Orwellian? If you say I'm brining "bullshit" to the table, you had better be able to back it up (otherwise, you're attack is baseless). There are several reported members of the al-Qaeda who are officially American citizens. That means that, yes, American citizens can be arrested and heald under this. The "Orwellian" part of this is just how far this rule can and will be applied.

"...hundreds of people now in military and CIA custody whom the Government does not have enough evidence to charge in courts." What does this mean? This means that someone who aparently can't be convicted can be guilty before being given the chance to be proven innocent. There is not enough evidence to prove that they are guilty, so they might actually be innocent. Possibly innocent people being heald indefinatally. That's the bottom line.

EDIT: I will not apologize or be spoken down to because of my posts in Paranoia. There is a reason I post some of my stuff there. Everything in Paranoia is considered just that, paranoia. When people post in Politics, however, we should be shown the same respect as anyone else. When you stop being respectful in TFP, you cheapen it. Please don't cheapen TFP.

The Prophet · 01-02-2005, 05:08 PM

paragraph two from Mophisto's article-

Quote:

The Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency have asked the White House to decide on a more permanent approach for potentially lifetime detentions, including for hundreds of people now in military and CIA custody whom the Government does not have enough evidence to charge in courts. The outcome of the review, which also involves the State Department, would also affect those expected to be captured in the course of future counter-terrorism operations.

Toal bull shit. Not enough evidence to go to court, so we let them rot in prison?

If the American people had a half a nut in their pants, they would bustin' these guys out themselves. Read that last sentence. Your grandkids will thank you for your kind consideration.

How the hell does any society, culture and even nation degrade to the point where it collapses? Just like this. Small steps that seem harmless when enacted, but eventually grow out control. Laws are not often removed from the books, so don't think a repeal will be forth coming. If this goes through we are fucked! We are seeing history take place here, folks. Open your eyes!

Rekna · 01-02-2005, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

It's called checks and balances guys, SCOTUS. Every suspect will be given a hearing to determine there status, where it goes from there...

Quote:

In addition, the Pentagon, which holds 500 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, plans to ask Congress for $US25 million ($32 million) to build a 200-bed prison to hold detainees who are unlikely ever to go through a military tribunal for lack of evidence.

There is no mention of sending them through a hearing here. It does however specifically mention not going through a tribunal because they have no evidence.

Dismiss it as orewellian finction if you must but I don't take my freedoms so lightly. I don't believe anyone should be denied the rights to a fair trial. Love your enemy as yourself. Now ask yourself if you were one of the people being held indefinatlly what would you want?

martinguerre · 01-02-2005, 05:19 PM

no one is above the law, no one is below it.

this is all shades of wrong.

The Prophet · 01-02-2005, 05:22 PM

Even worse - most, if not all, of these guys at Guatanamo were fighting in Irag and Afghanistan. Since when do we have any right taking people from their home land, or even from the lands of another, moving them elsewhere and detaining them at all. Under what circumstances where these guys fighting? Doesn't everyone have the moral right, even the obligation to shape their country into that which they believe to be right and just?

I'm not saying bad guys don't exist, but it is a fucking war for God's sake. If these guys are so dangerous why are they even here? Shouldn't their blood be food for poppies and their bodies nothing but ashes blowing across the Afghan desert?

Rekna · 01-02-2005, 05:31 PM

I wonder how long it is before some of our troops get deemed illegal combatants by other nations and as such are denied the geneva conventions.

ibis · 01-02-2005, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

I wonder how long it is before some of our troops get deemed illegal combatants by other nations and as such are denied the geneva conventions.

Right on.

Stuff like this is the reason I was afraid Bush would be reelected.

Seaver · 01-02-2005, 05:40 PM

Ok guys chill out and put 1984 down.

The CIA is relegated to only externalk affairs. They dont have any authority inside the US.

Rekna · 01-02-2005, 05:49 PM

Do you think that stops them from acting within the US? What is stopping the US government from transfering you from custody in the US to custody outside of the US?

ibis · 01-02-2005, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

The CIA is relegated to only externalk affairs. They dont have any authority inside the US.

Do you seriousally believe this?

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-02-2005, 06:06 PM

I think alot of you guys are definitly(sp) over reacting. Read up on the delegation of powers as laid out by our constitution, everything the Bush Administration is legal.

You know why they are able to hold those American citizens in Gitmo without Habeas Corpus? Because of there combat status, they forfeited their rights, I've posted it here before, here it is again...

Quote:

PER CURIAM.

In these causes motions for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus were presented to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which entered orders denying the motions. Motions for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus were then presented to this Court, and the merits of the applications were fully argued at the Special Term of Court convened on July 29, 1942....

The Court holds:

(1) That the charges preferred against petitioners on which they are being tried by military commission appointed by the order of the President of July 2, 1942, allege an offense or offenses which the President is authorized to order tried before a military commission. (2) That the military commission was lawfully constituted. (3) That petitioners are held in lawful custody, for trial before the military commission, and have not shown cause for being discharged by writ of habeas corpus. The motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus are denied.... T

Mr. Justice MURPHY took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.

Mr. Chief Justice STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.

These cases are brought here by petitioners' several applications for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus in this Court...The question for decision is whether the detention of petitioners by respondent for trial by Military Commission, appointed by Order of the President of July 2, 1942, on charges preferred against them purporting to set out their violations of the law of war and of the Articles of War, is in conformity to the laws and Constitution of the United States.

In view of the public importance of the questions raised by their petitions and of the duty which rests on the courts, in time of war as well as in time of peace, to preserve unimpaired the constitutional safeguards of civil liberty, and because in our opinion the public interest required that we consider and decide those questions without any avoidable delay, we directed that petitioners' applications be set down for full oral argument at a special term of this Court, convened on July 29, 1942. The applications for leave to file the petitions were presented in open court on that day and were heard on the petitions, the answers to them of respondent, a stipulation of facts by counsel, and the record of the testimony given before the Commission....

The following facts appear from the petitions or are stipulated. Except as noted they are undisputed.

All the petitioners were born in Germany; all have lived in the United States. All returned to Germany between 1933 and 1941. All except petitioner Haupt are admittedly citizens of the German Reich, with which the United States is at war. Haupt came to this country with his parents when he was five years old; it is contended that he became a citizen of the United States by virtue of the naturalization of his parents during his minority and that he has not since lost his citizenship. The Government, however, takes the position that on attaining his majority he elected to maintain German allegiance and citizenship or in any case that he has by his conduct renounced or abandoned his United States citizenship. For reasons presently to be stated we do not find it necessary to resolve these contentions. After the declaration of war between the United States and the German Reich, petitioners received training at a sabotage school near Berlin, Germany, where they were instructed in the use of explosives and in methods of secret writing. Thereafter petitioners, with a German citizen, Dasch, proceeded from Germany to a seaport in Occupied France, where petitioners Burger, Heinck and Quirin, together with Dasch, boarded a German submarine which proceeded across the Atlantic to Amagansett Beach on Long Island, New York. The four were there landed from the submarine in the hours of darkness, on or about June 13, 1942, carrying with them a supply of explosives, fuses and incendiary and timing devices. While landing they wore German Marine Infantry uniforms or parts of uniforms. Immediately after landing they buried their uniforms and the other articles mentioned and proceeded in civilian dress to New York City.

The remaining four petitioners at the same French port boarded another German submarine, which carried them across the Atlantic to Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. On or about June 17, 1942, they came ashore during the hours of darkness wearing caps of the German Marine Infantry and carrying with them a supply of explosives, fuses, and incendiary and timing devices. They immediately buried their caps and the other articles mentioned and proceeded in civilian dress to Jacksonville, Florida, and thence to various points in the United States. All were taken into custody in New York or Chicago by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. All had received instructions in Germany from an officer of the German High Command to destroy war industries and war facilities in the United States, for which they or their relatives in Germany were to receive salary payments from the German Government. They also had been paid by the German Government during their course of training at the sabotage school and had received substantial sums in United States currency, which were in their possession when arrested. The currency had been handed to them by an officer of the German High Command, who had instructed them to wear their German uniforms while landing in the United States.

The President, as President and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, by Order of July 2, 1942, appointed a Military Commission and directed it to try petitioners for offenses against the law of war and the Articles of War, and prescribed regulations for the procedure on the trial and for review of the record of the trial and of any judgment or sentence of the Commission. On the same day, by Proclamation, the President declared that 'all persons who are subjects, citizens or residents of any nation at war with the United States or who give obedience to or act under the direction of any such nation, and who during time of war enter or attempt to enter the United States ... through coastal or boundary defenses, and are charged with committing or attempting or preparing to commit sabotage, espionage, hostile or warlike acts, or violations of the law of war, shall be subject to the law of war and to the jurisdiction of military tribunals'.

The Proclamation also stated in terms that all such persons were denied access to the courts.

Pursuant to direction of the Attorney General, the Federal Bureau of Investigation surrendered custody of petitioners to respondent, Provost Marshal of the Military District of Washington, who was directed by the Secretary of War to receive and keep them in custody, and who thereafter held petitioners for trial before the Commission.

On July 3, 1942, the Judge Advocate General's Department of the Army prepared and lodged with the Commission the following charges against petitioners, supported by specifications:

1. Violation of the law of war.

2. Violation of Article 81 of the Articles of War, defining the offense of relieving or attempting to relieve, or corresponding with or giving intelligence to, the enemy.

3. Violation of Article 82, defining the offense of spying.

4. Conspiracy to commit the offenses alleged in charges 1, 2 and 3.

The Commission met on July 8, 1942, and proceeded with the trial, which continued in progress while the causes were pending in this Court. On July 27th, before petitioners' applications to the District Court, all the evidence for the prosecution and the defense had been taken by the Commission and the case had been closed except for arguments of counsel. It is conceded that ever since petitioners' arrest the state and federal courts in Florida, New York, and the District of Columbia, and in the states in which each of the petitioners was arrested or detained, have been open and functioning normally....

Petitioners' main contention is that the President is without any statutory or constitutional authority to order the petitioners to be tried by military tribunal for offenses with which they are charged; that in consequence they are entitled to be tried in the civil courts with the safeguards, including trial by jury, which the Fifth and Sixth Amendments guarantee to all persons charged in such courts with criminal offenses. In any case it is urged that the President's Order, in prescribing the procedure of the Commission and the method for review of its findings and sentence, and the proceedings of the Commission under the Order, conflict with Articles of War adopted by Congress-particularly Articles 38, 43, 46, 50 1/2 and 70-and are illegal and void.
The Government challenges each of these propositions. But regardless of their merits, it also insists that petitioners must be denied access to the courts, both because they are enemy aliens or have entered our territory as enemy belligerents, and because the President's Proclamation undertakes in terms to deny such access to the class of persons defined by the Proclamation, which aptly describes the character and conduct of petitioners. It is urged that if they are enemy aliens or if the Proclamation has force no court may afford the petitioners a hearing. But there is certainly nothing in the Proclamation to preclude access to the courts for determining its applicability to the particular case. And neither the Proclamation nor the fact that they are enemy aliens forecloses consideration by the courts of petitioners' contentions that the Constitution and laws of the United States constitutionally enacted forbid their trial by military commission. As announced in our per curiam opinion we have resolved those questions by our conclusion that the Commission has jurisdiction to try the charge preferred against petitioners. There is therefore no occasion to decide contentions of the parties unrelated to this issue. We pass at once to the consideration of the basis of the Commission's authority.

We are not here concerned with any question of the guilt or innocence of petitioners. Constitutional safeguards for the protection of all who are charged with offenses are not to be disregarded in order to inflict merited punishment on some who are guilty. But the detention and trial of petitioners-ordered by the President in the declared exercise of his powers as Commander in Chief of the Army in time of war and of grave public danger-are not to be set aside by the courts without the clear conviction that they are in conflict with the Constitution or laws of Congress constitutionally enacted.

Congress and the President, like the courts, possess no power not derived from the Constitution. But one of the objects of the Constitution, as declared by its preamble, is to 'provide for the common defence'. As a means to that end the Constitution gives to Congress the power to 'provide for the common Defence', Art. I, 8, cl. 1; 'To raise and support Armies', 'To provide and maintain a Navy', Art. I, 8, cls. 12, 13; and 'To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces', Art. I, 8, cl. 14. Congress is given authority 'To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water', Art. I, 8, cl. 11; and 'To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations', Art. I, 8, cl. 10. And finally the Constitution authorizes Congress 'To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.' Art. I, 8, cl. 18.

The Constitution confers on the President the 'executive Power', Art II, 1, cl. 1, and imposes on him the duty to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed'. Art. II, 3. It makes him the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, Art. II, 2, cl. 1, and empowers him to appoint and commission officers of the United States. Art. II, 3, cl. 1.

The Constitution thus invests the President as Commander in Chief with the power to wage war which Congress has declared, and to carry into effect all laws passed by Congress for the conduct of war and for the government and regulation of the Armed Forces, and all laws defining and punishing offences against the law of nations, including those which pertain to the conduct of war.
By the Articles of War, Congress has provided rules for the government of the Army. It has provided for the trial and punishment, by courts martial, of violations of the Articles by members of the armed forces and by specified classes of persons associated or serving with the Army. But the Articles also recognize the 'military commission' appointed by military command as an appropriate tribunal for the trial and punishment of offenses against the law of war not ordinarily tried by court martial. Articles 38 and 46 authorize the President, with certain limitations, to prescribe the procedure for military commissions. Articles 81 and 82 authorize trial, either by court martial or military commission, of those charged with relieving, harboring or corresponding with the enemy and those charged with spying. And Article 15 declares that 'the provisions of these articles conferring jurisdiction upon courts-martial shall not be construed as depriving military commissions ... or other military tribunals of concurrent jurisdiction in respect of offenders or offenses that by statute or by the law of war may be triable by such military commissions ... or other military tribunals'. Article 2 includes among those persons subject to military law the personnel of our own military establishment. But this, as Article 12 provides, does not exclude from that class 'any other person who by the law of war is subject to trial by military tribunals' and who under Article 12 may be tried by court martial or under Article 15 by military commission....
From the very beginning of its history this Court has recognized and applied the law of war as including that part of the law of nations which prescribes, for the conduct of war, the status, rights and duties of enemy nations as well as of enemy individuals. By the Articles of War, and especially Article 15, Congress has explicitly provided, so far as it may constitutionally do so, that military tribunals shall have jurisdiction to try offenders or offenses against the law of war in appropriate cases. Congress, in addition to making rules for the government of our Armed Forces, has thus exercised its authority to define and punish offenses against the law of nations by sanctioning, within constitutional limitations, the jurisdiction of military commissions to try persons for offenses which, according to the rules and precepts of the law of nations, and more particularly the law of war, are cognizable by such tribunals. And the President, as Commander in Chief, by his Proclamation in time of war his invoked that law. By his Order creating the present Commission he has undertaken to exercise the authority conferred upon him by Congress, and also such authority as the Constitution itself gives the Commander in Chief, to direct the performance of those functions which may constitutionally be performed by the military arm of the nation in time of war.

An important incident to the conduct of war is the adoption of measures by the military command not only to repel and defeat the enemy, but to seize and subject to disciplinary measures those enemies who in their attempt to thwart or impede our military effort have violated the law of war. It is unnecessary for present purposes to determine to what extent the President as Commander in Chief has constitutional power to create military commissions without the support of Congressional legislation. For here Congress has authorized trial of offenses against the law of war before such commissions. We are concerned only with the question whether it is within the constitutional power of the national government to place petitioners upon trial before a military commission for the offenses with which they are charged. We must therefore first inquire whether any of the acts charged is an offense against the law of war cognizable before a military tribunal, and if so whether the Constitution prohibits the trial. We may assume that there are acts regarded in other countries, or by some writers on international law, as offenses against the law of war which would not be triable by military tribunal here, either because they are not recognized by our courts as violations of the law of war or because they are of that class of offenses constitutionally triable only by a jury. It was upon such grounds that the Court denied the right to proceed by military tribunal in Ex parte Milligan, supra. But as we shall show, these petitioners were charged with an offense against the law of war which the Constitution does not require to be tried by jury.

It is no objection that Congress in providing for the trial of such offenses has not itself undertaken to codify that branch of international law or to mark its precise boundaries, or to enumerate or define by statute all the acts which that law condemns....Congress had the choice of crystallizing in permanent form and in minute detail every offense against the law of war, or of adopting the system of common law applied by military tribunals so far as it should be recognized and deemed applicable by the courts. It chose the latter course.

By universal agreement and practice the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.

Such was the practice of our own military authorities before the adoption of the Constitution, and during the Mexican and Civil Wars....

By a long course of practical administrative construction by its military authorities, our Government has recognized that those who during time of war pass surreptitiously from enemy territory into our own, discarding their uniforms upon entry, for the commission of hostile acts involving destruction of life or property, have the status of unlawful combatants punishable as such by military commission. This precept of the law of war has been so recognized in practice both here and abroad, and has so generally been accepted as valid by authorities on international law that we think it must be regarded as a rule or principle of the law of war recognized by this Government by its enactment of the Fifteenth Article of War.

Specification 1 of the First charge is sufficient to charge all the petitioners with the offense of unlawful belligerency, trial of which is within the jurisdiction of the Commission, and the admitted facts affirmatively show that the charge is not merely colorable or without foundation.

Specification 1 states that petitioners 'being enemies of the United States and acting for ... the German Reich, a belligerent enemy nation, secretly and covertly passed, in civilian dress, contrary to the law of war, through the military and naval lines and defenses of the United States ... and went behind such lines, contrary to the law of war, in civilian dress ... for the purpose of committing ... hostile acts, and, in particular, to destroy certain war industries, war utilities and war materials within the United States'.

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 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.... 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, 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. 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.

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.

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 must be by jury in a civil court...In the light of this long-continued and consistent interpretation we must conclude that Section 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....We conclude that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments did not restrict whatever authority was conferred by the Constitution to try offenses against the law of war by military commission, and that petitioners, charged with such an offense not required to be tried by jury at common law, were lawfully placed on trial by the Commission without a jury.

Petitioners, and especially petitioner Haupt, stress the pronouncement of this Court in the Milligan case that the law of war 'can never be applied to citizens in states which have upheld the authority of the government, and where the courts are open and their process unobstructed'. Elsewhere in its opinion, the Court was at pains to point out that Milligan, a citizen twenty years resident in Indiana, who had never been a resident of any of the states in rebellion, was not an enemy belligerent either entitled to the status of a prisoner of war or subject to the penalties imposed upon unlawful belligerents. We construe the Court's statement as to the inapplicability of the law of war to Milligan's case as having particular reference to the facts before it. From them the Court concluded that Milligan, not being a part of or associated with the armed forces of the enemy, was a non-belligerent, not subject to the law of war save as-in circumstances found not there to be present and not involved here-martial law might be constitutionally established.

The Court's opinion is inapplicable to the case presented by the present record. We have no occasion now to define with meticulous care the ultimate boundaries of the jurisdiction of military tribunals to try persons according to the law of war. It is enough that petitioners here, upon the conceded facts, were plainly within those boundaries, and were held in good faith for trial by military commission, charged with being enemies who, with the purpose of destroying war materials and utilities, entered or after entry remained in our territory without uniform-an offense against the law of war. We hold only that those particular acts constitute an offense against the law of war which the Constitution authorizes to be tried by military commission....

Also willravel, I apologize for the way my statement came out, sincerely. But perhaps you could show me documentation of an average American such as myself or you, has been arrested by secret police in the middle of the night never to be heard from again. You guys constantly say how there are all these erosions, show me a case that doesn't involve an illegal combatant.

mike059 · 01-02-2005, 06:18 PM

The supreme court also came up with the Dred Scott Decisions. This idea of the white house is out being tested, like a nation wide focus group, if we don't object now, this may come about. Remember this is the same white house that said some torture is ok...

Rekna · 01-02-2005, 06:20 PM

But what if some of these guys weren't fighting mojo? What if they were just at the wrong place at the wrong time? Did they forfit anything?

The_Dunedan · 01-02-2005, 06:38 PM

Just because SCOTUS says something is Constitutional doesn't make it so. This is the same court that gave us Plessy vs Ferguson and Dredd Scott. The Constitution makes no exception for "Enemy Combatants."

MageB420666 · 01-02-2005, 07:57 PM

Detained because they don't have evidence to prove guilt. What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? It's not "guilty until proven innocent".

As for this being for "illegal combatants" and possible terrorists, I believe that they are just doing it this way to get the public used to this kind of action, so when they start doing it more often it isn't just one sudden step that gets people up in arms.

roachboy · 01-02-2005, 07:57 PM

i do not see much paranoia in the reactions in this thread against this move on the part of the bush squad.

what i do see is an attempt to use tried and true conservative "argument" tactics, which tries to dismiss an uncomfortable interpretation of something done by a republican by labelling it pathological.

what seems to underpin these tactics in this case is the assumption that it makes sense to trust the bush administration.
why in gods name would anyone do that?
the reasons not to do so are legion: start with the arguments floated to justify the war and move in any direction...supporters of the administration might not enjoy the fact that there is every reason not to trust george w bush, but the fact remains that it is a perfectly reasonable position to adopt relative to an administration that has shown real contempt for the public, for the international community, and for existing law.

the paranoia talk does nothing in this context except perhaps to point to a certain level of hysteria amongst supporters of the war on this matter...hysteria that would probably be unnecessary if the arguments behind their positions were strong. so far, they are other than totally convincing.

Seaver · 01-02-2005, 08:16 PM

Quote:

The Constitution makes no exception for "Enemy Combatants."

You're right. Because the Consitution only applies to Citizens, with certain exemptions for those allowed in the US legally.

mike059 · 01-02-2005, 08:27 PM

The constitution mskes no reference to "enemy combatants", However isn't this still America?, Land of the free... example for the world. Strange way to exhibit our freedoms to the world, by restricting those freedoms.

OFKU0 · 01-02-2005, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

You guys constantly say how there are all these erosions, show me a case that doesn't involve an illegal combatant.

This one involves a Canadian citizen. This man was detained in New York, then sent to a Syrian prison for a year because the U.S said he was Al Queda.

Now the Canadian government is withholding info and the Americans have washed their hands as to why they deported a Canadian citizen from U.S soil in the first place.

Rights? Pretty fucking scary when someone is falsely accused of something and tortured for it. And this is only public because his wife had the gumption to keep the pressure on daily to work for his release and subsequent inquiry( although that is a coverup as well)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar

http://maherarar.ca/

Rekna · 01-02-2005, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

You're right. Because the Consitution only applies to Citizens, with certain exemptions for those allowed in the US legally.

ok time for me to rehash this missconception again

Quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

All men, not all citizens

Quote:

Amendment XIV

Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

any person, not any citizen

Quote:

mendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

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 defense.

A speedy trial would require a trial of some sort wouldn't it?

The_Dunedan · 01-02-2005, 09:41 PM

Seaver:
Please point out to me where the Constitution states that Constitutional protections are only to be applied to citizens.

alansmithee · 01-02-2005, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

The Constitution makes no exception for "Enemy Combatants."

Actually it does, because they don't have American citizenship. Also, if you think that the American constitution applys to all, all the "illegal war" rhetoric would be wrong; the American congress voted for it so that should be the last word.

And as for the suspects, honestly I don't really care about what rights they might have deprived. It allows the US government to eliminate people who are dangerous to the citizens. I have no sympathy for them, and I honestly think this is a good first step. This is the first time that America has faced a true threat against its citizens, and we are feeling our way through dealing with it. Of course we take them from their countries, because if and when they would choose to come themselves, it'll be with a bomb strapped to their body.

Rekna · 01-02-2005, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

Actually it does, because they don't have American citizenship.

Please see my post above

The_Dunedan · 01-02-2005, 10:45 PM

Once again:
Please show me where the Constitution states that its' protections are only to be had by Citizens.

alansmithee · 01-02-2005, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Please see my post above

I read your post, the first quote was from the declaration of independance, which isn't a legal document. In the second, the bolded section is obviously refering to American citizenry as the earlier statements show. Honestly, I think it's ridiculous to think that the AMERICAN constitution would apply to non-americans.

Rekna · 01-02-2005, 10:58 PM

no alan it says any person, (notice the semi colon?) it is not refering to citizenship at all. As for the decleration of independence it is there to show the intent of our forefathers to give you a context when reading other legal documents from that period. This topic has been rehashed so many times on this forum.

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-02-2005, 10:59 PM

As passed down by the Supreme Court, the body that interprets the constitution.

Quote:

Congress and the President, like the courts, possess no power not derived from the Constitution. But one of the objects of the Constitution, as declared by its preamble, is to 'provide for the common defence'. As a means to that end the Constitution gives to Congress the power to 'provide for the common Defence', Art. I, 8, cl. 1; 'To raise and support Armies', 'To provide and maintain a Navy', Art. I, 8, cls. 12, 13; and 'To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces', Art. I, 8, cl. 14. Congress is given authority 'To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water', Art. I, 8, cl. 11; and 'To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations', Art. I, 8, cl. 10. And finally the Constitution authorizes Congress 'To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.' Art. I, 8, cl. 18.

The Constitution confers on the President the 'executive Power', Art II, 1, cl. 1, and imposes on him the duty to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed'. Art. II, 3. It makes him the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, Art. II, 2, cl. 1, and empowers him to appoint and commission officers of the United States. Art. II, 3, cl. 1.

The Constitution thus invests the President as Commander in Chief with the power to wage war which Congress has declared, and to carry into effect all laws passed by Congress for the conduct of war and for the government and regulation of the Armed Forces, and all laws defining and punishing offences against the law of nations, including those which pertain to the conduct of war.
By the Articles of War, Congress has provided rules for the government of the Army. It has provided for the trial and punishment, by courts martial, of violations of the Articles by members of the armed forces and by specified classes of persons associated or serving with the Army. But the Articles also recognize the 'military commission' appointed by military command as an appropriate tribunal for the trial and punishment of offenses against the law of war not ordinarily tried by court martial. Articles 38 and 46 authorize the President, with certain limitations, to prescribe the procedure for military commissions. Articles 81 and 82 authorize trial, either by court martial or military commission, of those charged with relieving, harboring or corresponding with the enemy and those charged with spying. And Article 15 declares that 'the provisions of these articles conferring jurisdiction upon courts-martial shall not be construed as depriving military commissions ... or other military tribunals of concurrent jurisdiction in respect of offenders or offenses that by statute or by the law of war may be triable by such military commissions ... or other military tribunals'. Article 2 includes among those persons subject to military law the personnel of our own military establishment. But this, as Article 12 provides, does not exclude from that class 'any other person who by the law of war is subject to trial by military tribunals' and who under Article 12 may be tried by court martial or under Article 15 by military commission....
From the very beginning of its history this Court has recognized and applied the law of war as including that part of the law of nations which prescribes, for the conduct of war, the status, rights and duties of enemy nations as well as of enemy individuals. By the Articles of War, and especially Article 15, Congress has explicitly provided, so far as it may constitutionally do so, that military tribunals shall have jurisdiction to try offenders or offenses against the law of war in appropriate cases. Congress, in addition to making rules for the government of our Armed Forces, has thus exercised its authority to define and punish offenses against the law of nations by sanctioning, within constitutional limitations, the jurisdiction of military commissions to try persons for offenses which, according to the rules and precepts of the law of nations, and more particularly the law of war, are cognizable by such tribunals. And the President, as Commander in Chief, by his Proclamation in time of war his invoked that law. By his Order creating the present Commission he has undertaken to exercise the authority conferred upon him by Congress, and also such authority as the Constitution itself gives the Commander in Chief, to direct the performance of those functions which may constitutionally be performed by the military arm of the nation in time of war.

Rekna · 01-02-2005, 11:04 PM

Mojo please point out where that passage says we can hold people without a trial? Everything in that passage refers to granting trials/tribunals not holding people forever without granting them trials.

Rekna · 01-02-2005, 11:07 PM

Just to expand for you alan

Quote:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

Notice the subject that the law is being applied is the citizens.

[Quote]
nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
[/Qnote]
Now notice this time the subject is "any person"

Quote:

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Finnally we once again have any person.

Rekna · 01-02-2005, 11:08 PM

Now ask yourself a question. Have we become so arogant that we believe that we deserve more rights than everyone else? Isn't this the reason our forefathers created this nation in the first reason? (See the decleration of independence)

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-02-2005, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Just because SCOTUS says something is Constitutional doesn't make it so. This is the same court that gave us Plessy vs Ferguson and Dredd Scott. The Constitution makes no exception for "Enemy Combatants."

Actually it does, that is the powers that were delegated to the SCOTUS. I Think you would be more accurate in saying just because the SCOTUS says something is legal, doesn't make it moral, there is a big difference. Not to sound rude, but this was probably one of the more ridiculous and false statements I have ever read here on the board.

Also the constitution does make exception for enemy combatants through various articles of war and treaties that were passed as law by our great country, as well as powers delegated to the POTUS whether they be in time of peace or war.

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-02-2005, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Now ask yourself a question. Have we become so arogant that we believe that we deserve more rights than everyone else? Isn't this the reason our forefathers created this nation in the first reason? (See the decleration of independence)

I suppose Lincoln was evil like Bush when in trying to preserve the Union he suspended Habeas Corpus and had over 1,000 American citizens detained.

Rekna · 01-02-2005, 11:16 PM

I am not familiar with that specific part of history. Explain more. I guess it depends on what is meant by detained. How long were they held for? Did they get trials or where they held till they died?

Seaver · 01-02-2005, 11:27 PM

Quote:

I am not familiar with that specific part of history. Explain more. I guess it depends on what is meant by detained. How long were they held for? Did they get trials or where they held till they died?

Lincoln enacted nationwide Martial Law. And they were detained until the end of the war.

01-02-2005, 03:30 PM	#2 (permalink)
sprocket Psycho Location: In transit	Seems like more of the continuing trend where every right a person has in this country is being appended with a footnote: "Unless we think your a terrorist". Its a bit troublesome to me. We have created a new class of criminal that exists outside the normal safeguards that are built into justice system. Safeguards that are there to protect inocent people from abuse. Successfully classify someone as a terrorist, and they have no rights left, whether you have proof or not. __________________ Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

01-02-2005, 04:44 PM	#5 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	It's called checks and balances guys, SCOTUS. Every suspect will be given a hearing to determine there status, where it goes from there... Also willravel why don't you take that bullshit to paranoia because it is simply not true. This situation with gitmo and "illegal combatants" has precedents dating back more then +150 years. If you read up on the history of it, as well as the context and old cases you would know how it is possible for these guys to be held in such a fashion. Maybe you guys should invest more in reality and less in Orwellian fiction. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

01-02-2005, 05:19 PM	#10 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	no one is above the law, no one is below it. this is all shades of wrong. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

01-02-2005, 05:22 PM	#11 (permalink)
The Prophet Tilted Location: Space, the final frontier.	Even worse - most, if not all, of these guys at Guatanamo were fighting in Irag and Afghanistan. Since when do we have any right taking people from their home land, or even from the lands of another, moving them elsewhere and detaining them at all. Under what circumstances where these guys fighting? Doesn't everyone have the moral right, even the obligation to shape their country into that which they believe to be right and just? I'm not saying bad guys don't exist, but it is a fucking war for God's sake. If these guys are so dangerous why are they even here? Shouldn't their blood be food for poppies and their bodies nothing but ashes blowing across the Afghan desert? __________________ "The death-knell of the republic had rung as soon as the active power became lodged in the hands of those who sought, not to do justice to all citizens, rich and poor alike, but to stand for one special class and for its interests as opposed to the interests of others. " - Theodore Roosevelt

01-02-2005, 07:57 PM	#21 (permalink)
MageB420666 <Insert wise statement here> Location: Hell if I know	Detained because they don't have evidence to prove guilt. What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? It's not "guilty until proven innocent". As for this being for "illegal combatants" and possible terrorists, I believe that they are just doing it this way to get the public used to this kind of action, so when they start doing it more often it isn't just one sudden step that gets people up in arms. __________________ Apathy: The best outlook this side of I don't give a damn.

01-02-2005, 03:44 PM	#3 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	They don't have to append that footnote if the patriot act 2 goes forward. They will just say you are no longer a citizen and then you loose all your rights.

01-02-2005, 04:36 PM	#4 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	This is bullshit. Guess what? American citizens can be arrested and heald under this. Remember when we used to have a Constitution and Bill of Rights? I sure miss those.

01-02-2005, 05:31 PM	#12 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I wonder how long it is before some of our troops get deemed illegal combatants by other nations and as such are denied the geneva conventions.

01-02-2005, 05:40 PM	#14 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Ok guys chill out and put 1984 down. The CIA is relegated to only externalk affairs. They dont have any authority inside the US.

01-02-2005, 05:49 PM	#15 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Do you think that stops them from acting within the US? What is stopping the US government from transfering you from custody in the US to custody outside of the US?

01-02-2005, 06:18 PM	#18 (permalink)
mike059 Tilted Location: Pensacola, Florida	The supreme court also came up with the Dred Scott Decisions. This idea of the white house is out being tested, like a nation wide focus group, if we don't object now, this may come about. Remember this is the same white house that said some torture is ok...

01-02-2005, 06:20 PM	#19 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	But what if some of these guys weren't fighting mojo? What if they were just at the wrong place at the wrong time? Did they forfit anything?

01-02-2005, 06:38 PM	#20 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Just because SCOTUS says something is Constitutional doesn't make it so. This is the same court that gave us Plessy vs Ferguson and Dredd Scott. The Constitution makes no exception for "Enemy Combatants."

01-02-2005, 07:57 PM	#22 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i do not see much paranoia in the reactions in this thread against this move on the part of the bush squad. what i do see is an attempt to use tried and true conservative "argument" tactics, which tries to dismiss an uncomfortable interpretation of something done by a republican by labelling it pathological. what seems to underpin these tactics in this case is the assumption that it makes sense to trust the bush administration. why in gods name would anyone do that? the reasons not to do so are legion: start with the arguments floated to justify the war and move in any direction...supporters of the administration might not enjoy the fact that there is every reason not to trust george w bush, but the fact remains that it is a perfectly reasonable position to adopt relative to an administration that has shown real contempt for the public, for the international community, and for existing law. the paranoia talk does nothing in this context except perhaps to point to a certain level of hysteria amongst supporters of the war on this matter...hysteria that would probably be unnecessary if the arguments behind their positions were strong. so far, they are other than totally convincing. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 01-02-2005 at 08:00 PM..

01-02-2005, 08:27 PM	#24 (permalink)
mike059 Tilted Location: Pensacola, Florida	The constitution mskes no reference to "enemy combatants", However isn't this still America?, Land of the free... example for the world. Strange way to exhibit our freedoms to the world, by restricting those freedoms.

01-02-2005, 09:41 PM	#27 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Seaver: Please point out to me where the Constitution states that Constitutional protections are only to be applied to citizens.

01-02-2005, 10:45 PM	#30 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Once again: Please show me where the Constitution states that its' protections are only to be had by Citizens.

01-02-2005, 10:58 PM	#32 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	no alan it says any person, (notice the semi colon?) it is not refering to citizenship at all. As for the decleration of independence it is there to show the intent of our forefathers to give you a context when reading other legal documents from that period. This topic has been rehashed so many times on this forum. Last edited by Rekna; 01-02-2005 at 11:02 PM..

01-02-2005, 11:04 PM	#34 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Mojo please point out where that passage says we can hold people without a trial? Everything in that passage refers to granting trials/tribunals not holding people forever without granting them trials.

01-02-2005, 11:08 PM	#36 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Now ask yourself a question. Have we become so arogant that we believe that we deserve more rights than everyone else? Isn't this the reason our forefathers created this nation in the first reason? (See the decleration of independence)

01-02-2005, 11:16 PM	#39 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I am not familiar with that specific part of history. Explain more. I guess it depends on what is meant by detained. How long were they held for? Did they get trials or where they held till they died?