Posted on 07/08/2009 2:25:54 PM PDT by pissant
At a Senate hearing Tuesday on the use of military commissions to prosecute terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay, some members of the Armed Services Committee took offense at the Obama administration’s view that the detainees should have the same legal protections under the Constitution as U.S. citizens.
Ranking member Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) questioned Assistant Attorney General David Kris about his remarks on the appropriateness of administering the Miranda warning to terrorist suspects captured abroad. "It is the administration's view that there is a serious risk that courts would hold that admission of involuntary statements of the accused in military commission proceedings is unconstitutional," Kris said in his opening statement.
“Does that infer that these individuals have constitutional rights?” McCain asked Kris.
“Ah, yes,” Kris answered.
“What are those constitutional rights of people who are not citizens of the United States of America, who were captured on a battlefield committing acts of war against the United States?” McCain asked.
“Our analysis, Senator, is that the due process clause applies to military commissions and imposes a constitutional floor on the procedures that the government sets on such commissions …” Kris said.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
“You have the right to ... aw, fu** this ... [bang]”
Kris attracted significant public attention when he released a 23-page legal memorandum, in his personal capacity, sharply criticizing the George W. Bush administration’s legal argument that it had authority to conduct warrantless domestic wiretapping due to the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists passed by Congress on September 18, 2001. [2] [3] [4] Law professor Marty Lederman called Kris’s memo “by a large measure the most thorough and careful — and, for those reasons, the most devastating — critique anyone has offered of the DOJ argument that Congress statutorily authorized the NSA program.” [5] He also makes shorter arguments regarding the Fourth Amendment implications of the warrantless domestic spying and the administration’s “unitary executive theory” of Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Kris wrote the memorandum in January 2006, and released it to journalists on March 8, 2006. Kris had also exchanged a series of emails with Courtney Elwood, an associate counsel to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, debating the legal arguments, which were released by the Electronic Privacy Information Center after obtaining them under the Freedom of Information Act. [6]
Kris had been a high-ranking DOJ lawyer in the Bush administration for several years, and had appeared before Congress to advocate for the administration’s positions regarding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the USA PATRIOT Act. [7] He had furthermore previously appeared before Congress in his personal capacity, after leaving the DOJ, to continue advocating for the government to have enhanced flexibility under FISA and the PATRIOT Act. [8] This background caused his strong criticism of the administration’s legal claims to be considered particularly notable. [
Thank God these idiots were not around and such numbers during WWII.
I didn’t watch the hearing, but from this read it sounds like both McCain and Lieberman raked them over the coals pretty thoroughly...
King Leonidas method, No prisoners No Mercy.
What’s wrong with the idea that prisoners have certain rights. The issue is not whether they have them, what which ones they have.
If we believe that rights are endowed by God and are unalienable, then we have to believe that even people who are not US citizens have them.
If rights are conferred by the US Constitution, then obviously non US citizens can’t have them.
I prefer to think that rights are endowed by God and not given to me by the Constitution.
On the battlefield ?
Unmarked CIA prison ships for interrogation and elimination of these turds. Get whatever actionable intel out of them within 90 days of capture, then give them the deep six. Sharks gotta eat too.
Don’t be dense. Should they get to vote too?
Indeed. However, the Constitution is the governing document for the federal government of the United States, which it binds only to protect the rights of citizens on the United States; not those of other countries, and particularly not those of external parties who would make war against the United States.
They do not wear uniforms, which makes them unlawful enemy combatants. They used to be summarily executed on the battlefield. Not given rights.
No, the right to vote is not one of those unalienable rights of which I speak.
Liberty and life are, and hence cannot be taken without due process.
The key word here is “captured”, obviously on the battlefield you shoot enemy combatants, but when they surrender they are no longer a combatant but a prisoner.
Due process for US citizens versus due process for non citizens is different. Always has been. You are an enemy foreign fighter, you get a military tribunal.
He wasn't surrendering. He was saying "Touchdown Michigan!" so I had to shoot him.
Do they also have 2nd amendment rights so we have to hand their guns back to them as soon as they are in custody?
So your saying they should be supplied with a lawyer at our expense,brought to the US and tried or just have a jury made up of thier jahadi peers?
Well, in all fairness, they need to give the rights they’re taking from us to someone ... /sarc
Probable cause will probably get you killed on the battlefield.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.