Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If I were caught on foreign soil fighting American and Allied troops.
It doesn't require you to be on foreign soil. If the President designates you or any American citizen, in the United States, an "enemy combatant" he can have you placed in a military prison and restrict your access to an attorney. So far the courts have upheld the right of the President to do this.
Those are military prisons, that's how they work. They can hold them as long as military operations are ongoing. It has ALWAYS been like that.
Da! Those special camps are only for extra-dangerous enemies of the State, Comrade. Surely you don't want to extend the privilege of a trial to those who only seek to destroy us.
Padilla was arrested as he was returning to the USA from foreign soil.
You don't mention that he was originally held as a "material witness".
You also omitted:
According to the text of the ensuing decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Padilla's detention as an "enemy combatant" (pursuant to the President's order) was based on the following reasons:
Padilla was "closely associated with al Qaeda," a designation for loosely knit insurgent groups sharing common ideals and tactics, "with which the United States is at war";
He had engaged in "war-like acts, including conduct in preparation for acts of international terrorism";
He had intelligence that could assist the United States in warding off future terrorist attacks; and
He was a continuing threat to American security.
I guess all you need to do now is quote the bit of the US Constitution that provides an exemption for any of points 1 through 4.
I guess all you need to do now is quote the bit of the US Constitution that provides an exemption for any of points 1 through 4.
Already done.
Quote:
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 offense 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.
That's a very interesting interpretation, as it's so far only been used to allow for court-martials in the armed forces. "when in actual service", see? But if you can cite legal precedence for that being used on civilian detainees, I'll be very interested to read it
Last edited by Dane_in_LA; 02-15-2011 at 07:02 PM..
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 offense 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.
Source: Fifth Amendment, US Constitution
Was Jose Padilla a member of the land or naval forces or in the Militia?
That's a very interesting interpretation, as it's so far only been used to allow for court-martials in the armed forces. "when in actual service", see? But if you can cite legal precedence for that being used on civilian detainees, I'll be very interested to read it
It is not surprising that you completely ignored the "or public danger" part of the exception. Jose Padilla was declared by three federal judges to be a "public danger" and by the President to be a "grave public danger."
Quote:
In fact "the Supreme Court [has] stated in no uncertain terms that detentions 'ordered by the President in the declared exercise of his powers as Commander in Chief of the Army in time of war and of grave public danger' should not 'be set aside by the courts without the clear conviction that they are in conflict with the Constitution or laws of Congress constitutionally enacted.'"
It is not surprising that you completely ignored the "or public danger" part of the exception. Jose Padilla was declared by three federal judges to be a "public danger" and by the President to be a "grave public danger."
In time of war or public danger (i.e., while being attacked, etc.). It still only applies to military members.
It's nice to see you support making the president a dictator.
If you consider them prisoners of war then there is even MORE reason for humaine treatment. We are still a signatory on the Geneva Accords and gitmo or abograve does not qualify as obeying the rules.
If I was a parent of somone in one of our wars I would be terribly afraid of the bad guys taking my child prisoner because there would be payback.
Remember that during the second world war, the Germans had many of their own imprisoned on American soil. They did not treat American pow's gently, but they did take care for the most part. The worse excesses in places like Stalag ixb (Bad Orb) occured at the very end when they were almost defeated. But they did so because they believed that if they treated American pow's as they did some of their captives, they believed their own would recieve the same. If they would or not have is a good question, given events which occured at the end of the war, when American troops found the survivors of the Nazi machine and reacted, but becuse there might be yours being held by the enemy even you have to take care. Remember, even the German civilians did all they could to run as far from the Russians as they could for good reason.
Your attitude sounds like the attitude of the Japanese. That about sums up their point of view.
If you don't consider them pow's we still have NOTHING which says its okay to hold someone without trial for 9 years and under conditions generally defined as torture.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
