| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Get Terror Trials Out of Civilian Court | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 29 2010, 03:53 PM (1,412 Views) | |
| Larry | Feb 1 2010, 10:00 AM Post #101 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Yes, a citizen is a citizen. But a citizen that engages in war against the country becomes an enemy combatant, and is subject to the rules of war. He loses his rights as a citizen because he is an enemy of the state. And THAT Quirt, is Constitutional. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Feb 1 2010, 10:00 AM Post #102 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Where in the Constitution does it say that, pray tell? Does it SAY that a citizen can waive the right to due process? Haven't conservatives been telling us for DECADES that, if it's not in the Constitution, it's not in the Constitution? How would some of you feel if someone told you that, by failing to keep your city crime rate under a certain level, you'd implicitly waived your Second Amendment rights? |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Feb 1 2010, 10:02 AM Post #103 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
The funny part Quirt, is no one had any question about this, from the signing of the Consitution forward, until modern liberals decided to redefine the Constitution. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Feb 1 2010, 10:02 AM Post #104 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Please, feel free to show me where it says that in the Constitution. Here's a hint ... it doesn't. Your only possible response is, it's common sense. Except that common sense doesn't trump the Constitution. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Feb 1 2010, 10:06 AM Post #105 |
|
Finally
|
Simple question, then: If someone talks in the police lockup without the benefit of an attorney present. Let's say he has explicitly refused the presence of an attorney. Can his statements be used if they're self-incriminatory? |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Feb 1 2010, 10:09 AM Post #106 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
I think we head down a treacherous path when we decide we can summarily dismiss the citizenship or the rights of a citizen under the Constitution for any reason. I can see quite a potential for abuse there. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Feb 1 2010, 10:09 AM Post #107 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Citizens can be prosecuted and executed under the Military Code -- fully Constitutional -- and are not necessarily afforded the same level of due process as for civilian criminal trials. That happened under Lincoln and FDR. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Luke's Dad | Feb 1 2010, 10:12 AM Post #108 |
![]()
Emperor Pengin
|
Might have gotten lost at the bottom of last page. The United States has traditionally taken the position that an American citizen is subject to losing his/her citizenship if he/she commits acts showing loyalty to another country, including serving in armed forces potentially unfriendly to the United States, |
| The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it. | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Feb 1 2010, 10:16 AM Post #109 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Ex parte Quirin. 317 U.S. 1 (1942), is a Supreme Court of the United States case that upheld the jurisdiction of a United States military tribunal over the trial of several Operation Pastorius German saboteurs in the United States. Quirin has been cited as a precedent for the trial by military commission of any unlawful combatant against the United States. By universal agreement and practice, the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals. Since the 1942 Quirin case, the US signed and ratified the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which are, therefore, considered to be a part of US municipal law, in accordance with the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution of the United States. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Feb 1 2010, 10:23 AM Post #110 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
That would be the same Supreme Court that upheld the Japanese internment camps, right? Suffice it to say that wasn't a terribly glorious era in our nation's history. We fought a terrible, ugly war, and we won, but we did a lot of things at the time that very few people are proud of now. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Feb 1 2010, 10:26 AM Post #111 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
I don't think Lincoln's the best example to use when talking about what powers reside within the Constitution.
|
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Feb 1 2010, 10:28 AM Post #112 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
As for that last sentence, you do realize that the Constitution trumps any law, and any treaty, right? For a treaty to take precedence over the Constitution, there'd have to be a Constitutional amendment. Oh, and by the way, since you pulled that last sentence from Wikipedia (or from someone who copied Wikipedia), you left out the final part. In addition the US Supreme Court invalidated this premise, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, by ruling that Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions applies to detainees in the War on Terror, and that the Military Tribunals used to try these suspects were in violation of US and international law. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Feb 1 2010, 10:45 AM Post #113 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
It really does not matter -- the Constitution is very specific about these matters: No person 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. Show me where criminal due process is required for cases arising in the circumstances emboldened. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Jeff | Feb 1 2010, 05:15 PM Post #114 |
|
Senior Carp
|
The reason it is so easy to object to the policy is that it makes no sense. |
![]() |
|
| RosemaryTwo | Feb 2 2010, 06:51 AM Post #115 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
When this story first broke my husband looked at me and said, "They are going to suggest moving it to the Western District of PA, since Shanksville is here." I heard on the radio this morning that this is, in fact, the case. That is the district in which my husband practices law. We have good friends in the federal prosecutors' office so this should get interesting. It's a small and tight legal community here. Still, I don't see it happening. The G20 was enough international excitement for this area. |
| "Perhaps the thing to do is just to let stupid run its course." Aqua | |
![]() |
|
![]() ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community. Learn More · Register Now |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |










4:59 PM Jul 10