Replies

I like fact, thank's for posting the exact text. Mr Barr (whom I like and respect for the most part) is twisting this citizen, we the people yada yada a bit too much IMHO ?

As a career serviceman I was subject to military justice (UCMJ) for 26 years. But according to Mr Barr it's too harsh on our non-citizen enemies but OK for the sons and daughters, fathers and brothers, sisters and mothers in uniform today and veterans past ?

That is indeed offensive to me that such opinion exist's. My opinion and understanding may not be factual but is based on my limited understanding of the issue. I'm here to learn so if anyone has the time to correct anything I've said , please do so....educate me........

Stay Safe !

But according to Mr Barr it's too harsh on our non-citizen enemies but OK for the sons and daughters, fathers and brothers, sisters and mothers in uniform today and veterans past ?

Good point.

From the Supreme Court case of the Germans that were caught in the United States:

UNITED STATES ex rel. QUIRIN v. COX, Brig. Gen., U.S.A., Provost Marshal of the Military District of Washington, and 6 other cases.

We cannot say that Congress in preparing the Fifth and Sixth Amendments intended to extend trial by jury to the cases of alien or citizen offenders against the law of war otherwise triable by military commission, while withholding it from members of our own armed forces charged with infractions of the Articles of War punishable by death. It is equally inadmissible to construe the Amendments- [317 U.S. 1, 45] whose primary purpose was to continue unimpaired presentment by grand jury and trial by petit jury in all those cases in which they had been customary-as either abolishing all trials by military tribunals, save those of the personnel of our own armed forces, or what in effect comes to the same thing, as imposing on all such tribunals the necessity of proceeding against unlawful enemy belligerents only on presentment and trial by jury. 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.

I'm here to learn so if anyone has the time to correct anything I've said , please do so....educate me........

Well, the first part of your education is that you don't need apostrophes for plurals, just possesives and contractions. :-)

The second part is, the military tribunals apparently aren't the same thing as military courts per the UCMJ. They don't follow the same procedures, and, more importantly, don't have the same standard of proof and rules of evidence. So what you already know doesn't necessarily apply.

I'm here to learn so if anyone has the time to correct anything I've said , please do so....educate me........

Basically,you signed away your citizenship rights when you enlisted and took the oath. As a citizen,you have the right to give up your rights for the length of the contract. You no longer have Constitutional rights,only rights GRANTED under the UCMJ. Now that you are no longer in uniform,you are a full-flegded citizen again.