Supreme Court to rule in case of US-born terrorism detainee.

Associated Press | January 9, 2003

[Timesink]

WASHINGTON (AP) Supreme Court to rule in case of U.S.-born terrorism detainee.

[Sloth]

See my caveat in #18.

[m1-lightning]

I agree with you that he should be treated like ALL citizens. My question is how did this guy become a citizen in the first place?

[itsahoot]

Correct. The government cannot suspend constitutional rights just because they feel like it.

Uh, Lincoln did exactly that.

[Sloth]

Again, see my #18.

[Prince Charles]

Which traitor does this concern?

[itsahoot]

Again, see my #18.

Or again they can do what Jackson did. "The supreme Court has made their decision, now let them enforce it." He moved the Indians anyway.

[COEXERJ145]

It doesn't matter what the Constitution says.

What is important is how the E.U. Courts and I.C.C. would rule on the issue. /sarcasm

[Polybius]

If he's a citizen, he ought to get a hearing solely on the issue of whether he's an enemy combatant. If he is, he goes to POW camp for the duration.

It's not as simple as that.

"Enemy combatants" come in two flavors: Legal and Illegal.

Consider the case of Herbert Hans Haupt, American citizen, captured in World War II in civilian dress, on U.S. soil planning to commit acts of war against the U.S.

In Ex parte Quirin, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Haupt was inded an "enemy combatant" and could therefore be tried before a military tribunal.

However, by not wearing a uniform and by not carrying arms openly, Haupt, like our al Qaeda friend, had violated the Rules of War and was not merely an "enemy combatant". He was an "illegal combatant".

Three days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, a U.S. military tribunasl found Haupt guilty of being an "illegal combatant". Five days after that, Herbert Hans Haupt, American citizen, enemy combatant and, most importanlty, illegal combatant was executed.

[ellery]

He was born here.

[colorado tanker]

I agree with your distinction between legal and illegal enemy combatants.

My only point is that if he denies he is an enemy combatant at all, and he is a U.S. citizen, he ought to get a hearing to determine if he is or not. If he found to be an enemy combatant, then he can be dealt with under the process you outline.

[Teacher317]

What is done to him now is done to us 25 years from now.

[laweeks]

The present supreme court is a travesty. Unborn people are still not protected . . . European laws and customs are being cited as precedents . . . attacks on Christianity are being upheld or not even ruled on . . . blah, blah, blah. I don't expect anything but continued outrageous decisions from that motley bunch. There're only three honest people left on that court: Rehnquist (most of the time), Scalia, and Clarence Thomas. That makes it 3 against 6.

[Action-America]

It's about time.

Dubya and Ashcroft have delayed this too long, as it is.

I have no problem holding him incommunicado (with the exception of a lawyer) if at least TWO (2) branches of government agree that he poses too great a danger to be allowed all of his Constitutional protections. However, even if he is determined by SCOTUS, to be a terrorists and that trial can be delayed, he should still have access to an attorney (even if the attorney is required to be a retired JAG officer, with an active TS clearance).

But, if SCOTUS rules in favor of him, then three people should go on trial. The accused terrorist should then be tried on the charges levied against him by the administration and Dubya and Ashcroft should be tried for blatantly and intentionally violating a US citizen's Constitutional rights.

On the other hand, if SCOTUS rules against the suspect, then only two trials would be necessary - those of Dubya and Ashcroft. After all, just because SCOTUS finally ruled against the suspect, does not mean that the citizens Constitutional rights were not violated up to that point. In fact, it only means that they should have asked for the court's blessing of their actions sooner.

That's why we have separation of powers in the US - so no one branch of government can unilaterally deny a US citizen his rights, as has Dubya and Ashcroft. If he is really all that Dubya and Ashcroft say he is, then there should be no problem in getting the court to approve continuing to hold him incommunicado. But, the operative word is "continuing". For unilaterally denying him his rights and holding him incommunicado for over a year, with no explicit court or Congressional approval, prior to this time, Dubya and Ashcroft should still be held legally accountable.

 

[af_vet_1981]

And yet I bet you would be outraged if another country treated American POWs that way.

Terrorism is not a "nice" game. It is apparently a bit over your head.

[af_vet_1981]

Good thing the Founding Fathers were wiser men than you and gave us the Bill of Rights and specific constitutional provisions regarding proof of treason

It's a good thing they knew how to fight instead of talk or they would have been hanging on good British rope.

[af_vet_1981]

How do you know he's guilty?

How do I know you are clueless ?

[af_vet_1981]

For unilaterally denying him his rights and holding him incommunicado for over a year, with no explicit court or Congressional approval, prior to this time, Dubya and Ashcroft should still be held legally accountable.

They should get a medal. You should go work for the Saudis.

[drjimmy]

Terrorism is not a "nice" game. It is apparently a bit over your head.
I think it's a shame you would consider it just the way the "game" is played if American POWs are tortured.

[msdrby]

ping

[af_vet_1981]

I think it's a shame you would consider it just the way the "game" is played if American POWs are tortured.

I think it's a shame you don't have a clear understanding of the War on Terror, but you work with what you have.

1. Terrorists do not follow any convention. Nothing we do will make them stop torturing American civilians, POWs, or traitors except to kill or otherwise incapacitate them.
2. The only thing that affords American POWs any protection is the projection of American military power. When it is restrained by JAGs, liberals, pacifists, cowards, etc. POWs suffer at the hands of America's enemies.
3. The only rational thing to do with terrorists, American citizen or otherwise, is to drug them, interrogate, analyze and exploit the INTEL, and adjudicate them after they are of no further use in the war.