Article the seventh [Amendment V]
No person[does not say "citizen"] 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 offence 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.
Article the eighth [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 defence.
Thanks for the reply. I understand this part very well. Even the UCMJ has clauses like this to some extent. What I do not understand is how the US Attorney could not prove its case even with the very limited standards it had to meet, and how we are detaining especially a US Citizen without due process unless Habeas Corpus has been suspended? Even in a time of war. To further add injury to insult, this guy is NOT being charged.
Again I am not opposed to detaining people who are National Security risks. Heck I can even close my eyes to foreigners, but not a US Citizen. My main concern is really not this case, but we are setting a standard for anyone to be detained if a US Attornry or the AG doesn't get they're way.