$5.00
$15.00
$20.00
$30.00
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
A President Donald Trump might push for Americans accused of terrorism to be tried in military tribunal at the U.S. Navy base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, the Republican nominee told the Miami Herald on Thursday.

“I would say they could be tried there, that would be fine,” Trump said in a brief interview ahead of his speech to home builders in Miami Beach.

Under current federal law, it’s illegal to try U.S. citizens at military commissions. Changing the law would require an act of Congress.

In the wide-ranging interview focused on key South Florida issues, Trump continued to question climate change caused by humans. He said he plans to soon sit down with Cuban Americans in Miami to hash out a Cuba policy. And for the first time, he said Congress should set aside money to combat the Zika virus.

Asked about Guantánamo in the past, Trump has said he would like to “load it up with bad dudes.” He wouldn’t specify to the Herald whether as president he would again allow terrorism suspects captured abroad to be transferred to the detention center.

“I want to make sure that if we have radical Islamic terrorists, we have a very safe place to keep them,” he said. President Barack Obama, he added, is “allowing people to get out that are terrible people.”

“Would you try to get the military commissions — the trial court there — to try U.S. citizens?” a reporter asked.

“Well, I know that they want to try them in our regular court systems, and I don’t like that at all. I don’t like that at all,” he said. “I would say they could be tried there, that would be fine.”

The Obama administration for a while considered trying five alleged conspirators in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in a federal court in New York City, rather than in Guantanamo where they are being held. But the plan was met with such fierce political resistance that the White House chose to prosecute them by military tribunal. No trial date has yet been set for charges filed four years ago.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election...

Not just contrary to Federal law, I don't believe that would be Constitutional.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oldies but Goodies ... Avalon Hill and
msg tools
mbmbmb
I like the linkage between climate change and Cuba policy. Maybe the Trump Plan is to do nothing about warming so he can watch Cuba and its communist government sink into the ocean.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Based upon my poor understanding of history, science, and ethics...
United States
North Pole
Alaska
flag msg tools
I suppose it's word play that I don't care to look up, but it's illegal to try US citizens in military courts? That wiki leaks soldier who wants a sex change wishes that were true, as do thousands of others.

Military commission? Is that a different thing?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
I suppose it's word play that I don't care to look up, but it's illegal to try US citizens in military courts?

did you even read the entire OP?

Quote:
Under current federal law, it’s illegal to try U.S. citizens at military commissions.


We also have that pesky Constitution that is relevant here...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Fitt
Thailand
Chang Mai
flag msg tools
Having been exposed to being tried in the King's Admiralty courts when accused of smuggling [= tax evasion], the Founding Fathers didn't like the idea of the military courts that [would have to follow orders] being used to try civilians.

Where is it in the Constitution though?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
mbmbmbmbmb
Steve1501 wrote:
Where is it in the Constitution though?

Amendments 5&6
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
mbmbmbmbmb
Also see Ex parte Milligan where the SCOTUS held that "trying citizens in military courts is unconstitutional when civilian courts are still operating. Trial by military tribunal is constitutional only when there is no power left but the military, and the military may validly try criminals only as long as is absolutely necessary."
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Fitt
Thailand
Chang Mai
flag msg tools
Koldfoot wrote:
I suppose it's word play that I don't care to look up, but it's illegal to try US citizens in military courts? That wiki leaks soldier who wants a sex change wishes that were true, as do thousands of others.

Military commission? Is that a different thing?

The author assumed that everyone would understand that "US Citizens" is referring to US civilians. And of course, military courts can try military personnel because that is what they are for.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Based upon my poor understanding of history, science, and ethics...
United States
North Pole
Alaska
flag msg tools
jmilum wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
I suppose it's word play that I don't care to look up, but it's illegal to try US citizens in military courts?

did you even read the entire OP?

Quote:
Under current federal law, it’s illegal to try U.S. citizens at military commissions.


We also have that pesky Constitution that is relevant here...


I did read the whole thing, thank you for the fake concern and non-understanding answer.

US citizens are tried in military courts everyday, since the days of the founding of the country.

I assume the author is making some play on words that is technically correct, but meant to imply something else.

You know.... something like citing the death by firearms rate but making the readers think it's the murder rate.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
So am I to take it then that trying US civilians in military courts outside the legal protection of the Constitution is a good thing?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Based upon my poor understanding of history, science, and ethics...
United States
North Pole
Alaska
flag msg tools
slatersteven wrote:
So am I to take it then that trying US civilians in military courts outside the legal protection of the Constitution is a good thing?



Why wouldn't they have constitutional protections?

The case being made is that citizens can't constitutionally be tried in military court, which is clearly false. Thus my question. Is the author slater-stupid, or merely a milum-like acting stupid play on words?

I assume the second, but I don't see the trick. Do you?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
So am I to take it then that trying US civilians in military courts outside the legal protection of the Constitution is a good thing?



Why wouldn't they have constitutional protections?

The case being made is that citizens can't constitutionally be tried in military court, which is clearly false. Thus my question. Is the author slater-stupid, or merely a milum-like acting stupid play on words?

I assume the second, but I don't see the trick. Do you?
Is not the whole point of Gitmo is that is it outside the USA, and thus not governed by the constitution?

I also thought that the whole point of military courts is they do not obey the same legal procedures and balances as a civil court becasue when a citizen joins the US army he abrogates certain rights?

The two combines reads like an attempt to get around certain constitutional hurdles. Of course they can be tried in full accordance with their rights as US citizens, but that can be done in a civil court in the USA, so why do they need to use military ones in Gitmo unless they want to make use of the particular (and peculiar) constitutional grey are it procedures?

As you have avoided my question I shall ask (you directly) again.

Are you happy with US citizens being put in a position where their constitutional rights can be ignored on a whim?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
So am I to take it then that trying US civilians in military courts outside the legal protection of the Constitution is a good thing?



Why wouldn't they have constitutional protections?

The case being made is that citizens can't constitutionally be tried in military court, which is clearly false. Thus my question. Is the author slater-stupid, or merely a milum-like acting stupid play on words?

I assume the second, but I don't see the trick. Do you?


Actually according to ex parte milligan which was a


"...U.S. Supreme Court case that ruled the application of military tribunals to citizens when civilian courts are still operating is unconstitutional."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Milligan

Is it your turn to be extra stupid in defense of The Donald today

Sorry to repeat what was said earlier, but you seem to have missed it the first time
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
US citizens are tried in military courts everyday, since the days of the founding of the country.

The article and this thread is talking about civilians, not people in the military who have voluntarily given up rights and put themselves under the jurisdiction of the military.

When have civilians been tried in military courts daily?
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
I suppose it's word play that I don't care to look up, but it's illegal to try US citizens in military courts? That wiki leaks soldier who wants a sex change wishes that were true, as do thousands of others.

Military commission? Is that a different thing?



Koldfoot wrote:
jmilum wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
I suppose it's word play that I don't care to look up, but it's illegal to try US citizens in military courts?

did you even read the entire OP?

Quote:
Under current federal law, it’s illegal to try U.S. citizens at military commissions.


We also have that pesky Constitution that is relevant here...


I did read the whole thing, thank you for the fake concern and non-understanding answer.

US citizens are tried in military courts everyday, since the days of the founding of the country.

I assume the author is making some play on words that is technically correct, but meant to imply something else.

You know.... something like citing the death by firearms rate but making the readers think it's the murder rate.



Are you really that literal in your reading? The article is clearly talking about Trump trying US citizens in military courts without reference to them being soldiers. The article is correct that US citizens (not soldiers who may ALSO be citizens) may not be properly tried in such courts. Such a practice would be a vast departure from the norm and subject to constitutional challenge.

Koldfoot wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
So am I to take it then that trying US civilians in military courts outside the legal protection of the Constitution is a good thing?


Why wouldn't they have constitutional protections?

The case being made is that citizens can't constitutionally be tried in military court, which is clearly false. Thus my question. Is the author slater-stupid, or merely a milum-like acting stupid play on words?

I assume the second, but I don't see the trick. Do you?


There is no trick. Your reading merely appears obtuse.

US military courts and commissions are properly convened for serving soldiers and, more recently, enemy combatants. They are not constitutionally authorized to hear criminal proceedings against non military US citizens. This is clearly what the article is about and what Trump is talking about circumventing.

Why wouldn't they have constitutional protections? Well, the US Code of Military Justice (USCMJ) sets the rules and procedures for hearings in a military court and it is not constrained by the constitutional mandates that hold in State and Federal Courts. The rules of evidence, substantive and procedural due process are all quite truncated by comparison. If you accused a US citizen (non military) of an act of or in furtherance of terrorism, it would be a denial of due process to send them to a military court.

slatersteven wrote:

Is not the whole point of Gitmo is that is it outside the USA, and thus not governed by the constitution?

I also thought that the whole point of military courts is they do not obey the same legal procedures and balances as a civil court becasue when a citizen joins the US army he abrogates certain rights?

The two combines reads like an attempt to get around certain constitutional hurdles. Of course they can be tried in full accordance with their rights as US citizens, but that can be done in a civil court in the USA, so why do they need to use military ones in Gitmo unless they want to make use of the particular (and peculiar) constitutional grey are it procedures?

As you have avoided my question I shall ask (you directly) again.

Are you happy with US citizens being put in a position where their constitutional rights can be ignored on a whim?


The WHOLE point of Gitmo? Gitmo provides security (it's a military base not in the continental US) and isolation (no worries about other prisoners or snooping by nonmilitary personnel) and limited jurisdiction (no interference from civilian law enforcement agencies).

The controversy (apart from application of extraordinary measure and harsh conditions) centers around access to due process which is murky. Much depends on whether the detainee is a lawful combatant and prisoner of war or an unlawful combatant. New law was passed in 2006 following a determination by the US Supreme Court that detainees could not be denied right of habeas corpus. The Court again found that detainees were impermissibly being denied habeas corpus rights in 2008. The most recent amendment in 2009 to the Military Commissions Act expanded detainee rights but they still do not comport with full due process.

Unfortunately, the modern reality of suicidal religious zealots operating on behalf of unrecognized pseudo states or simply non states presents a model not well contemplated by either our civil laws nor our military codes under agreed international law.

Should American citizens (not member of the US military) be bound over for trials before a military commission? No way in hell. But a guy like Trump is all about happy endings without regard to how it happens.
7 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Binkowski
United States
Rochester
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
Quote:
A President Donald Trump might push for Americans accused of terrorism to be tried in military tribunal at the U.S. Navy base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, the Republican nominee told the Miami Herald on Thursday.

“I would say they could be tried there, that would be fine,” Trump said in a brief interview ahead of his speech to home builders in Miami Beach.

Under current federal law, it’s illegal to try U.S. citizens at military commissions. Changing the law would require an act of Congress.

In the wide-ranging interview focused on key South Florida issues, Trump continued to question climate change caused by humans. He said he plans to soon sit down with Cuban Americans in Miami to hash out a Cuba policy. And for the first time, he said Congress should set aside money to combat the Zika virus.

Asked about Guantánamo in the past, Trump has said he would like to “load it up with bad dudes.” He wouldn’t specify to the Herald whether as president he would again allow terrorism suspects captured abroad to be transferred to the detention center.

“I want to make sure that if we have radical Islamic terrorists, we have a very safe place to keep them,” he said. President Barack Obama, he added, is “allowing people to get out that are terrible people.”

“Would you try to get the military commissions — the trial court there — to try U.S. citizens?” a reporter asked.

“Well, I know that they want to try them in our regular court systems, and I don’t like that at all. I don’t like that at all,” he said. “I would say they could be tried there, that would be fine.”

The Obama administration for a while considered trying five alleged conspirators in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in a federal court in New York City, rather than in Guantanamo where they are being held. But the plan was met with such fierce political resistance that the White House chose to prosecute them by military tribunal. No trial date has yet been set for charges filed four years ago.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election...

Not just contrary to Federal law, I don't believe that would be Constitutional.


I believe... that we should give every terrorist who is a US citizen a fair trial.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
mbmbmbmbmb
Sarxis wrote:
I believe... that we should give every terrorist who is a US citizen a fair trial.

Cool, in that we agree. Although I would phrase it more like we should give every US citizen a fair trial to determine whether or not they are a terrorist.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
mbmbmbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
Sarxis wrote:
I believe... that we should give every terrorist who is a US citizen a fair trial.

Cool, in that we agree. Although I would phrase it more like we should give every US citizen a fair trial to determine whether or not they are a terrorist.

and I'd replace US citizen with person who is within US custody or jurisdiction.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
jmilum wrote:
Sarxis wrote:
I believe... that we should give every terrorist who is a US citizen a fair trial.

Cool, in that we agree. Although I would phrase it more like we should give every US citizen a fair trial to determine whether or not they are a terrorist.

and I'd replace US citizen with person who is within US custody or jurisdiction.

Quite right!

I'm not sure that's a constitutional requirement, but it damn well should be.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
mbmbmbmbmb
jmilum wrote:

Quite right!

I'm not sure that's a constitutional requirement, but it damn well should be.

Of course it is. The idea the Constitution only applies to US citizens is one of the most vile and despicable attacks on the Constitution ever.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
jmilum wrote:

Quite right!

I'm not sure that's a constitutional requirement, but it damn well should be.

Of course it is. The idea the Constitution only applies to US citizens is one of the most vile and despicable attacks on the Constitution ever.

I wish that was the view of the US Givernment, but that's not how things have been interpreted in the past by the SCOTUS (Harisiades v. Shaughnessy) or more recently by Congress (Alien Terrorist Removal Court, Patriot Act, etc.) Perhaps the SCOTUS will take up the issue soon and change the way things work.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.