• 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
Beaudreaux said:
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?
Click to expand...

Agreed. Some sort of due process is required prior to revoking someone's US Citizen.

It should be little more than presenting the evidence to a judge, with or without the person present, in a public hearing, and the judge declaring the US Citizenship revoked. Opposition to the decision by legal council should be allowed, but not required, and the hearing should end with a decision one way or another.

The due process needs to be sufficient so that if someone is incorrectly petitioned for citizenship revocation, that a defense can be mounted, and that action prevented, should the judgement rendered be of that standing.

Beaudreaux said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
People....I'm telling you this as a liberal, Donald Trump is not saying anything that is NOT already allowed in US law, that has not already been tested in US courts. Let me again show where most recently it was codified:

Gimmesometruth said:
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.”
Click to expand...



Now, further, let me show where Lindsey Graham discussed this on the Senate floor:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?302754-1/senate-session&start=26384


As Graham states, Padilla was a US citizen, was supporting terrorist actions, was doing so in US territory, was detained at GITMO.....and this was all upheld by the 4th Circuit Court.


It was found to be entirely Constitutional.


On September 9, 2005, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit ruled that President Bush had the authority to detain Padilla without charges.[23] An opinion written by judge J. Michael Luttig cited the joint resolution by Congress authorizing military action following the September 11, 2001, attacks, as well as the June 2004 ruling concerning Yaser Hamdi.
 
eohrnberger said:
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.
Click to expand...

I would agree on that. One case was a US Citizen captured by US troops in Iraq, not sure, the news reported he was being interrogated by US- Kurdish forces and would be turned over to them.
And we know how well their Justice system works.
 
If they are taking to the battlefield for a foreign power - then yes to both questions. Otherwise no to both questions.
 
American said:
What the hell does this even mean. "Against the Constitution yes"
Click to expand...
Trying US Citizens in a Military tribunal? I would guess it would be against the Constitution???
 
Beaudreaux said:
Depends. If they are here in the US, then they go through the civilian court system. If they are taken on a battlefield where they have taken up arms against our military then they could, not necessarily would, be subject to detainment at Gitmo and trial by military tribunal.

Hell, Obama just has them assassinated by sending a drone over to fire a missile to kill them and their offspring. No need to worry about a trial, or Gitmo, or the Constitution at all that way. At least Trump seems like he'll at least not assassinate them.

Truth be told? I don't think Trump had a clue what the question actually was, or what his answer actually means.
Click to expand...

Kind of in keeping with the rest of his answers to questions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom