Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: meadsjn

I did watch it.

The case they cited and discussed, which I have read, but which you clearly have not, is from WW2. Four German spies landed on the coast, in South Carolina I think, after being dropped off by a sub. Their task was to commit acts of sabotage and conduct espionage. They got caught. One of them was technically a US citizen, born in the US of German parents who later returned to Germany. He claimed he couldn’t be tried in a military court, but had to be tried in a civilian court, because he was a US citizen.

The US Supreme Court begged to differ. He was an enemy combatant just like the other 3, even though he was a US citizen caught on US soil and he was not engaged in a battle on a battlefield.

That precedent came back to relevance after 9/11, when there were some Arab and other Muslim US citizens who were getting caught as members of al qaeda, who were fighting us abroad, or within the US as part of groups that were planning terror attacks. One was that kid from San Francisco who got caught in Afghanistan by those CIA guys.

There was a controversy about whether those types could be tried by a military tribunal, and/or sent to Gitmo. That controversy would have involved Kavanaugh, as he was part of legal staff in the Bush admin at the time. That is what Kavanaugh and Linda were discussing in the hearing, and the Supreme Court precedent is what they cited. That issue has not reached the SC to be reconsidered, which is probably a good thing, because the left does not want terrorists and other enemies of the nation tried by the military.

I suggest nobody should here should waste their time arguing with a person as ill-informed and as inappropriately self confident as yourself. You know so much that is wrong, it is a wonder you can remember when to spew it out.


292 posted on 09/14/2018 2:54:28 PM PDT by Defiant (I may be deplorable, but I'm not getting in that basket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies ]


To: Defiant

I believe the second SCOTUS case to which you are referring is HAMDI V. RUMSFELD.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-6696.ZO.html


295 posted on 09/14/2018 3:03:50 PM PDT by Disestablishmentarian (Read "American Betrayal" by Diana West)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies ]

To: Defiant

Thank you for the polite reply.

So, there is a Supreme Court precedent that allowed a US citizen to be tried by a military tribunal rather than a civilian court.

Thank you for that confirmation.


299 posted on 09/14/2018 3:14:38 PM PDT by meadsjn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson