The law of war. In the Battle of the Bulge, the Germans used English-speaking saboteurs in U.S. uniform. Some of these were captured, and when they couldn't sell their story to the nearest captain or whoever could be hunted up, they were stood up against a wall and shot. The Army even filmed some of these executions to document them.
In 1942, two U-boats were used to land eight Nazi saboteurs on Long Island and in Florida. They were captured, tried by a military tribunal, convicted of several war crimes, and six were sentenced to death. President Roosevelt didn't want to let them file writs of habeas corpus, but the Supreme Court reviewed their petition anyway in Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942). It rejected all their arguments, the electric chair was brought to New York City, and one day, only about two months after they had landed here, all six were executed.
One of these men, Herbert Haupt, was arguably a U.S. citizen, and the Court assumed he was. And yet it held his citizenship did not shield a person, once he had engaged in war crimes. The Court said that:
Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war. Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and, with its aid, guidance and direction, enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war.
The Court also noted that:
Nor are petitioners any the less belligerents if, as they argue, they have not actually committed or attempted to commit any act of depredation or entered the theatre or zone of active military operations . . . [E]ach petitioner, in circumstances which gave him the status of an enemy belligerent, passed our military and naval lines and defenses or went behind those lines, in civilian dress and with hostile purpose. The offense was complete when, with that purpose, they entered -- or, having so entered, they remained upon -- our territory in time of war without uniform or other appropriate means of identification.
For that reason, even when committed by a citizen, the offense is distinct from the crime of treason defined in Article III, § 3 of the Constitution, since the absence of uniform essential to one is irrelevant to the other. (emphasis added)
Quirin is still good law. In fact it has been very important in several cases since 9/11. It certainly authorizes the execution of a U.S. citizen who has entered this country or gone behind U.S. lines out of uniform with the intent to commit a war crime. As a citizen, Haupt ordinarily would have had a Fifth Amdnement right to be indicted by a grand jury and a Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. The Court held he had no right to either.
But that was in 1942, long before two generations of Americans had been marinated in the slop of political correctness and multiculturalism in public schools. Unlike now, few Americans then even dreamed that they should be ashamed of their country, or that because of some long list of supposed historical sins it was barely worth defending. Nor had they expressed these views by electing a President who shared their resentment for the U.S., or who thought it needed to be humbled before the world.
When FDR told his Attorney General to draw up rules for military tribunals, the job was done in
six days. But now, a commission of the brightest experts spent
two years drafting and revising rules for military tribunals after 9/11, and still, all their best efforts were frustrated by people who sympathize with Muslim jihadists. Then, saboteurs landed in June, and by August they had been defended by some of the best lawyers in the country, even though their guilt was obvious, had their petition heard by the Supreme Court, and been executed as war criminals. But now,
thirteen years after the fact, this country has not even tried the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, even though he gloats over the murders of almost 3,000 people and fully admits his leading role in them.
Forty years of indoctrination about America's wicked history has sapped our resolve. Too many people here lack the courage of their convictions. I doubt any more would be done to a jihadist bastard caught in Iraq or Syria than has been done to the ones caught after 9/11. I'm sure Mr. B. Hussein Obama would insist that the suspect have his Miranda rights read to him, and that his meals be strictly halal. Maybe he'd even push to give him a full dress trial in federal court, as he did with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, despite the fact he had no legal right whatever to it.
