• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump - Try US Citizens (accused terrorists) in Gitmo?

Trump Try US Citizen in Gitmo

  • Agree

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Disagree

    Votes: 17 77.3%

  • Against the Constitution Yes

    Votes: 8 36.4%

  • Against the Constitution No

    Votes: 6 27.3%

  • They are Terrorists- Agree

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    22
MaggieD said:
I don't think trial by military tribunal is constitutional.
Click to expand...

It's not unconstitutional, and Military Tribunals are quite appropriate for Militant Islamic extremists captured on a foreign the battlefield.

However, this doesn't hold true for US citizens with their constitutional rights. Their cases need to be adjudicated by a jury of peers in a courtroom.
 
JANFU said:
Trump says he'd try U.S. citizens in Gitmo military tribunals

Trump says he'd try U.S. citizens in Gitmo military tribunals | TheHill

Trump - Try US Citizens in Gitmo?
I agree

I disagree

Against the Constitution Yes

Against the Constitution No

They are Terrorists- Agree
What other Star chambers would Trump have?
Click to expand...

Something to think about: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the 9/11 mastermind is alive and well, living in the tropical paradise of Cuba. If he'd been tried for mass murder in a US civilian court, he would have been executed by now.

Timothy McVeigh was executed 6 years after the Oklahoma City bombing. Its been going on 16 years since 9/11 and 13 years since Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was send to the Caribbean islands.
Caribbean-3.jpg
 
FluffyNinja said:
Alritey then. I'm always willing and ready to learn something new, and to admit when I am wrong, so please enlighten me.
Click to expand...

Apologies I know it had been done in the past, but it appears the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional. My whole deal was with The War on Terror and the Patriot Act, which whether we agree with them or not, blur these lines significantly. I wouldn't be surprised if something like this does happen again like it did back in the Civil War.
 
ajn678 said:
Apologies I know it had been done in the past, but it appears the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional. My whole deal was with The War on Terror and the Patriot Act, which whether we agree with them or not, blur these lines significantly. I wouldn't be surprised if something like this does happen again like it did back in the Civil War.
Click to expand...

No worries. No apologies required.
 
eohrnberger said:
It's not unconstitutional, and Military Tribunals are quite appropriate for Militant Islamic extremists captured on a foreign the battlefield.

However, this doesn't hold true for US citizens with their constitutional rights. Their cases need to be adjudicated by a jury of peers in a courtroom.
Click to expand...

Agreed, US citizens captured abroad, returned to US soil are entitled to their Constitutional rights in the same way anyone who is charged with a criminal offence, from murder to treason.
 
Last edited:
Something tells me that at this point Trump is just saying whatever he thinks will get him the most media attention. In other words, the most extremist and insane things he can possibly come up with. Seventy-year-old, elderly and out-of-touch elites don't get much attention and likely lead very lonely and depressing lives.
 
FluffyNinja said:
If they are still US citizens, they're entitled to all the rights and protections afforded to any other citizen. It is currently in violation of Federal Law to try a US citizen in a military court.

The Geneva Convention was a treaty. Treaties do not supersede the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

Actually, if I understand the rulings in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (which relies on Hamdi), basically, the US Constitution through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees US Citizens the right to the writ of habeas corpus to petition the federal courts to review the basis of, and question/fight against, an executive detention (unless habeas corpus has been suspended by Congress), also to have the court determine their status as a civilian (wherein civilian law would and courts would prevail), a lawful combatant (where the UCMJ and the Geneva and Hague Conventions would prevail), or an unlawful combatant (where the UCMJ would prevail but without the protections of the Geneva or Hague Conventions), it further guarantees the right to council, and ensures the right to access to the federal courts. However, they do not specify which courts a detainee, US Citizen or not, must have their case heard by and within. Military tribunals are a Federal Court. The US Code defines what an Unlawful Combatant is, and a terrorist meets that definition, and allows for them to be tried in a military court.

I think that it matters more where the person was caught, and whether they enter the federal court system via civilian authorities or military authorities as to which court system they may end up having access to for habeas corpus and beyond.

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/individual_rights/hamdi_v_rumsfeld.authcheckdam.pdf
 
eohrnberger said:
It's not unconstitutional, and Military Tribunals are quite appropriate for Militant Islamic extremists captured on a foreign the battlefield.

However, this doesn't hold true for US citizens with their constitutional rights. Their cases need to be adjudicated by a jury of peers in a courtroom.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's that simple. I tend to agree with you, but, there appears to be rulings where the Constitution's Due Process clause has been held to apply to combatants captured on battlefields where they have taken up arms against the US Military, but are also US Citizens, but even after reading the cases and numerous legal opinions regarding those two cases, I'm still confused about whether the 6th Amendment Right to Trial By Jury applies since the 6th Amendment states, "..., by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, ..." and how do you do that if it was in Afghanistan where he was captured? There's no problem, IMHO, with seating a Federal Grand Jury to get the indictment as required by the 5th Amendment, but ...

Like I said, I tend to agree with you, because to me, it's pretty cut and dried, but textually it seems like it could be argued the other way as well.
 
JANFU said:
Agreed, US citizens captured abroad, returned to Us soil are entitled to their Constitutional rights in the same way anyone who is charged with a criminal offence, from murder to treason.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. Now, this isn't applicable to foreign illegal combatants captured on a foreign battlefield while attacking US military personnel.

Should a foreign illegal combatants step one foot on US soil, I believe that they'd then become under the jurisdiction of the US legal system. It seems to me that the US legal system is ill-equipped to deal with these cases.

Military tribunals and detention at Gitmo is. It's not a perfect solution, but it's a real world solution, and just as messy, but still more applicable than some theoretical and unproven solution.
 
JANFU said:
Captured alive, returned to the US then they go thru the court system. No way around that.
US Citizend fighting against their country are an enemy, how they die, drone, bombing, US Soldiers in a firefight, they die.
Click to expand...

That's the way I read the Constitution, but it appears from my research that it may not be that way, as long as the person is granted due process through a federal court, which a military court is as a federal court.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I don't think it's that simple. I tend to agree with you, but, there appears to be rulings where the Constitution's Due Process clause has been held to apply to combatants captured on battlefields where they have taken up arms against the US Military, but are also US Citizens, but even after reading the cases and numerous legal opinions regarding those two cases, I'm still confused about whether the 6th Amendment Right to Trial By Jury applies since the 6th Amendment states, "..., by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, ..." and how do you do that if it was in Afghanistan where he was captured? There's no problem, IMHO, with seating a Federal Grand Jury to get the indictment as required by the 5th Amendment, but ...

Like I said, I tend to agree with you, because to me, it's pretty cut and dried, but textually it seems like it could be argued the other way as well.
Click to expand...

Hmm. Boundary conditions are usually the most difficult.

If you ask me, should a US citizen depart the US, join the Militant Islamic extremists, I have no problem revoking their US citizenship. By joining the Militant Islamic extremists they've cast their fortunes with that lot, and should be treated no different.

When such a former US citizen ship be captured on a foreign battlefield, taken up arms against the US military, they'd fall into the same status as a foreign illegal combatants.
 
FluffyNinja said:
If they are still US citizens, they're entitled to all the rights and protections afforded to any other citizen. It is currently in violation of Federal Law to try a US citizen in a military court.

The Geneva Convention was a treaty. Treaties do not supersede the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

True, however, the order of precedence includes treaties - 1) Constitution, 2) Federal Law and Treaties (equally). Both federal law and the Geneva Conventions define both Lawful Combatant and Unlawful Combatant, and how they would be tried in our courts, with the federal law being in accordance with Due Process requirements of the 14th Amendment.
 
eohrnberger said:
Hmm. Boundary conditions are usually the most difficult.

If you ask me, should a US citizen depart the US, join the Militant Islamic extremists, I have no problem revoking their US citizenship. By joining the Militant Islamic extremists they've cast their fortunes with that lot, and should be treated no different.

When such a former US citizen ship be captured on a foreign battlefield, taken up arms against the US military, they'd fall into the same status as a foreign illegal combatants.
Click to expand...

I don't think we can act as though a person is not a US Citizen anymore, without Due Process, even if they are acting in the role of an Unlawful Combatant, unless they have publically renounced their citizenship which many of them have done and YouTube has the video of them doing just that. I wouldn't have a problem with Congress passing a law that allowed for a federal court to revoke US Citizenship upon a finding that the person had acted in a treasonous manner. Hell, 18 USC allows for the death penalty for acts of treason, why not revocation of citizenship for similar acts?

18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

But, to get a conviction for the above, there has to be full Due Process given to the accused.
 
Subtitle D: Detainee Matters - (Sec. 1031) Affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force includes the authority for U.S. Armed Forces to detain covered persons pending disposition under the law of war. Defines a "covered person" as a person who: (1) planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for such attacks; or (2) was part of or substantially supported al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. Requires the Secretary to regularly brief Congress on the application of such authority.


https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate-bill/1867



Posted: November 29, 2011
Matthew Rothschild
U.S. citizens beware: A bill being debated on the Senate floor this week is likely to pass, and if it becomes law, you could be sent to Guantanamo Bay.

The bill is the National Defense Authorization Act, S. 1867. Section 1031 of the bill gives the President and the Armed Forces enormous power to detain people they believe were involved in the attacks of Sept. 11 or supported Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or “associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”
 
Beaudreaux said:
Actually, if I understand the rulings in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (which relies on Hamdi), basically, the US Constitution through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees US Citizens the right to the writ of habeas corpus to petition the federal courts to review the basis of, and question/fight against, an executive detention (unless habeas corpus has been suspended by Congress), also to have the court determine their status as a civilian (wherein civilian law would and courts would prevail), a lawful combatant (where the UCMJ and the Geneva and Hague Conventions would prevail), or an unlawful combatant (where the UCMJ would prevail but without the protections of the Geneva or Hague Conventions), it further guarantees the right to council, and ensures the right to access to the federal courts. However, they do not specify which courts a detainee, US Citizen or not, must have their case heard by and within. Military tribunals are a Federal Court. The US Code defines what an Unlawful Combatant is, and a terrorist meets that definition, and allows for them to be tried in a military court.

I think that it matters more where the person was caught, and whether they enter the federal court system via civilian authorities or military authorities as to which court system they may end up having access to for habeas corpus and beyond.

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/individual_rights/hamdi_v_rumsfeld.authcheckdam.pdf
Click to expand...

Maybe so. But can you recount, in modern US history, a case where a US citizen-civilian was tried by military tribunal? I cannot. The major problem, as I interpret it, is that Military tribunals do not have juries. This tends to cause complications with a citizen's 6th amendment rights.
 
Beaudreaux said:
True, however, the order of precedence includes treaties - 1) Constitution, 2) Federal Law and Treaties (equally). Both federal law and the Geneva Conventions define both Lawful Combatant and Unlawful Combatant, and how they would be tried in our courts, with the federal law being in accordance with Due Process requirements of the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...
True, but I feel strongly that an American citizen's 6th Amendment rights will trump the rest of the legal considerations in the order of precedence every time.
 
FluffyNinja said:
Maybe so. But can you recount, in modern US history, a case where a US citizen-civilian was tried by military tribunal? I cannot. The major problem, as I interpret it, is that Military tribunals do not have juries. This tends to cause complications with a citizen's 6th amendment rights.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I can't resolve the conflict with the 6th either.
 
FluffyNinja said:
True, but I feel strongly that an American citizen's 6th Amendment rights will trump the rest of the legal considerations in the order of precedence every time.
Click to expand...

I agree that it should. Even if they are first charged with treason, they would still be afforded the protection of the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause which would require observing their 5th and 6th Amendment Rights. Well, at least that's how I see it. And, you zeroed in the what I see as the only real impediment of a military tribunal - no jury.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I agree that it should. Even if they are first charged with treason, they would still be afforded the protection of the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause which would require observing their 5th and 6th Amendment Rights. Well, at least that's how I see it. And, you zeroed in the what I see as the only real impediment of a military tribunal - no jury.
Click to expand...
You're right. And I concur.....these rights need to be closely guarded.

This day and age, when legal defense organizations jump at any opportunity to capture a bit of spotlight to defend real or alleged constitutional rights violations.....getting around the 5th, 6th, and 14th would be nigh impossible.
 
I honestly think Trump just gets in front of a microphone and blurts out whatever comes into his mind at that moment.

That would be okay except how his mind works is cause for concern. And he seems to not care AT ALL what others think...just what he thinks. His ego clearly is epic in size.

I do not disagree with everything he says...but when I do (massive tariffs, ban Muslims, etc.), I often REALLY do.
 
eohrnberger said:
It's not unconstitutional, and Military Tribunals are quite appropriate for Militant Islamic extremists captured on a foreign the battlefield.

However, this doesn't hold true for US citizens with their constitutional rights. Their cases need to be adjudicated by a jury of peers in a courtroom.
Click to expand...

This thread is ABOUT American citizens...non military. If one is in the MILITARY, I'd say trial by military tribunal would be just fine.
 
beefheart said:
I did my vote wrong...its against the constitution..and I say no..but I...whatever.

Trump is a clown and his followers are oafs.
Click to expand...

Aha! So the real you has been exposed, youre a Trumpette in disguise! Neener neener neener! :2razz:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom