Senate Moves To Allow Military To Intern Americans Without Trial

[HeyBub]

You can cite me.

[gpsman]

Seems like a lot of wasted effort when one can merely consider the OP's history of off-topic posts.

If you're not smart or ambitious enough to find relevant newsgroups for your topic, you're obviously pretty stupid and lazy, and/or a troll.

"Political" topics are the favorite of trolls because the fish come a'runnin', can't resist putting the troll in it's place.

It's not the trolls who fill newsgroups with shit, it's all the fish with diarrhea of the keyboard. -----

- gpsman

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

not until you provide reputable facts

I stand by that: by definition any American Citizen who served in an enemy military and held in an American POW camp would be guilty of Treason. Since there were no indictments or trials for Treason during the war, it stands to reason that no American citizens were captured and/or held in these POW camps

[HeyBub]

Also during that interval, their appeal was heard by the Supreme Court!

[HeyBub]

Treason is a criminal offense. These foreign soldiers were not criminals. You'll note that not any were tried for murder or attempted murder for shooting at our troops on the battlefield.

The laws of war are different from the criminal laws; the two systems have different offenses, different rules of evidence and procedure, different standards of proof, and different appellate procedures. Under the usual and customary laws of war, the accused is not entitled to a lawyer, an indictment by a grand jury, a jury trial, compulsory process for obtaining witnesses, or the right to remain silent. All these we guarantee to CRIMINAL defendants, but not necessarily to others (unlawful enemy combatants, juveniles, the mentally ill, contagious disease carriers, civil contemptors, and others).

In other words, not everybody who does a nasty thing is subject to criminal law.

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

Treason is treason. Anyone who commits actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." It is inescapable that an "American Citizen" in the German Heer, Luftwaffe or Kriegsmarine would qualify. The articles in the constitution make no distinction for military personal versus civillians, so your point is irrelevant. No law of war covers Treason. None.

Anyone accused of Treason would be accorded all of the benefits of the CRIMINAL courts.

No one in the US was charged with Treason, therefore no American Citizens were in American POW camps...unless you think the entire military and civilian justice system had no interest in Traitors.

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

although strangely enough they were not American Citizens

[HeyBub]

I don't think any of them had red hair, either. Neither U.S. citizenship nor hair color would have had any bearing on their status.

[HeyBub]

Right. No POW was accused of treason in the U.S. It was not because they didn't commit acts that could be defined as treason, it was because of the President's Article II powers. Several American citizens were convicted of treason during the War. They were:

• Herbert Haupt

• Martin Monti, Air Corps pilot, captured while serving in the SS

• Robert Best

• Mildred Gillars

• Tomoya Kawakita

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

cite please

irrelevant: he was never charged with treason, he was convicted of being an enemy agent by a military tribunal

irrelevant: originally charged with desertion he was later (1948) charged with treason and found guilty

irrelevant: an American broadcaster of Nazi propaganda during World War II. He was convicted of treason in 1948 and sentenced to life imprisonment.

irrelevant: convicted of treason by the United States in 1949 following her capture in post-war Berlin.

irrelevant: arrested after the war

you're going to have to try harder...hint you could start by providing that list of the "thousands" of American Citizens that were in the US POW camps

[HeyBub]

Cite what?

The Constitution? Article II "The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States..."

This means that his powers over the military are absolute and cannot be gainsaid by the Congress or the courts. He may order the military to do anything he desires (see the "Prize Cases") and the only recourse, according to one appellate opinion, is to "replace the chief executive at the next regularly-scheduled election."

I misspoke. I should have said "convicted of treason for acts committed during the war.

You are correct. My mistake.

All of your "irrelevant"s have been corrected by my revision. I'm sorry I upset you.

Well, there's the de jure and the de facto. The de facto situation is that of the 400,000 German POWs held in the U.S., the law of averages tells us that SOME must have held U.S. citizenship due to having been born here or having at least one parent that was a U.S. citizen.

The de jure rule is that if a citizen takes up arms against the United States, he is automatically expatriated. So, in a legal sense, any American citizen captured on the battlefield is automatically determined to have renounced his American citizenship.

In the latter definition, then, you are correct in that there could not have been American citizens held in U.S. POW camps. If they were captured on the battlefield, they were not, by law, American citizens.

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

but treason is a criminal offense, you were very clear on that point, so the President has no say in the matter

Your revision doesn't change the fact that no American Citizen was charged or tried for acts of treason during the war

the law of averages is in fact not de jure or de facto

Once again you are wrong. If a citizen takes up arms against the United States they would be charged with Treason. There are no laws in the United States that allow for the automatic expatriation and in fact no citizen could be expatriated as that would imply that they were not a citizen

However, the Supreme Court in the case of Tomoya Kawakita, one of your previous points, said otherwise

[HeyBub]

Well, no say in the "treason" business, but the president could designate the individual an "unlawful enemy combatant" and send him to Guantanamo or the brig in Charleston where the U.S. Attorney would be barred from access.

How many times do I have to say I misspoke? At least five were convicted, after the war, of treason for acts COMMITTED during wartime.

It's not a law - it's a constitutional finding.

Kawakita was not captured on the battlefield, nor did he take up arms against the U.S.. Hence did not lose his American citizenship.

[krw]

AIUI, the VP in charge of the place was recently arrested for not being able to prove he was (working?) in the country legally. Who says you can't close the border?

[krw]

It's too bad DumbGuy won't keep all of his bits out of the country.

[The Daring Dufas]

It was all because of that new "racist" immigration bill passed into law by the Alabama Legislature that copies federal law. Humm, I wonder why no one is howling that the long existing federal law is "racist"? Perhaps because the feds don't/won't enforce it? ^_^

TDD

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

I seriously doubt that the powers of the president include deciding whom to name as unlawful enemy combatants and in any event in the time frame we are talking about, no such term existed

which has nothing to do with your claim of thousands of American Citizens in US POW camps

no one has ever been expatriated if they are American Born citizens. no one has ever been found guilty by constitutional finding...it takes a legal charge, legal trial and a legal verdict

Kawakita aided and abetted the Japanese. He himself thought he had renounced his American Citizenship. He was charged with treason for torturing American POWs.

In any event, one need not be captured on the battlefield for treason to charged

[trader4]

On Dec 2, 12:55=A0am, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:

You can have all the doubts you want. History and the courts say you are wrong.

"The President has determined that al Qaida members are unlawful combatants because (among other reasons) they are members of a non- state actor terrorist group that does not receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. He additionally determined that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants because they do not satisfy the criteria for POW status set out in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. Although the President=92s determination on this issue is final, courts have concurred with his determination. Authority to Detain The President has unquestioned authority to detain enemy combatants, including those who are U.S. citizens, during wartime. See, e.g., Quirin, 317 U.S. at 31, 37 (1942); Colepaugh v. Looney, 235 F. 2d 429,

432 (10th Cir. 1956); In re Territo, 156 F. 2d 142, 145 (9th Cir. 1946). The Fourth Circuit recently reaffirmed this proposition. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 296 F.3d 278, 281, 283 (4th Cir. 2002). The authority to detain enemy combatants flows primarily from Article II of the Constitution. In the current conflict, the President=92s authority is bolstered by Congress=92s Joint Resolution of September 18, 2001, which authorized =93the President . . . to use all necessary and appropriate force=94 against al Qaida and against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines=94 committed or aided in the September 11 attacks.=94 Pub. L. No. 107-40, =A7 2(a), 115 Stat. 224 (2001) (emphasis added). This congressional action clearly triggers (if any trigger were necessary) the President=92s traditional authority to detain enemy combatants as Commander in Chief. Presidents (and their delegates) have detained enemy combatants in every major conflict in the Nation=92s history, including recent conflicts such as the Gulf, Vietnam, and Korean wars. During World War II, the United States detained hundreds of thousands of POWs in the United States (some of whom were U.S. citizens) without trial or counsel. Then as now, the purposes of detaining enemy combatants during wartime are, among other things, to gather intelligence and to ensure that detainees do not return to assist the enemy. Who Decides The determination of enemy combatant status has traditionally resided with the military commander who is authorized to engage the enemy with deadly force. In this regard, the task ultimately falls within the President=92s constitutional responsibility as Commander in Chief to identify which forces and persons to engage or capture and detain during an armed conflict. Of course, there is no requirement that the President make such determinations personally, and in the vast majority of cases he does not do so. Rather, consistent with longstanding historical practice and applicable rules of engagement, the task is normally a function of the military command structure.

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

I stand corrected...although this does not change the fact that there were no American Citizens in US POW camps