An open question...

Dixie said:
So you are saying, this was intended by our Founding Fathers to apply to the "redskin savages" populating the woods to the west? If they didn't intend to deny them life, liberty, or property without due process, why did they almost immediately start doing just that? And if they really intended not to deny "any person" liberty, how did we manage to have slavery for another 85 years?

Yeah, words mean stuff, but actions speak louder than words. We can clearly understand their intent of "any person" is not what you currently assume it to be, history just doesn't bear that out.

A military tribunal is a kind of military court designed to try members of enemy forces during wartime, operating outside the scope of conventional criminal and civil proceedings. The judges are military officers and fulfill the role of jurors. Military tribunals are distinct from courts-martial.

A military tribunal is an inquisitorial system based on charges brought by a military authority, prosecuted by a military authority, judged by military officers, and sentenced by military officers against a member of an adversarial force.

This has been used since George Washington was president, to deal with enemies of the state on US soil. I don't know why it is all of a sudden a controversial thing. There is a fundamental reason or two, for why we can't do US civil court hearings in these type of cases. First and foremost, the Constitutional requirement to give the defendant a "fair trial by a jury of his piers." ...Where are you going to find 12 jurors who are non-citizens, enemies of the US, members of alQaeda, and sympathetic to Islamic Jihad? Dearborne, Michigan?
Click to expand...

Those who wrote the 14th are not those who abused the Native Americans. Sure the law has not always been applied, but it has always been the law. Just because it was not applied or used correctly is no excuse to not use it today!

Do you still contend that the 14th does not apply to "ANY PERSON"?

BTW the 14th was not written by the founders.
 
Jarod said:
Those who wrote the 14th are not those who abused the Native Americans. Sure the law has not always been applied, but it has always been the law. Just because it was not applied or used correctly is no excuse to not use it today!

Do you still contend that the 14th does not apply to "ANY PERSON"?

BTW the 14th was not written by the founders.
Click to expand...

Uhm, yes they were the very same people who took the land from the Native Americans and put them on reservations, without due process, and in violation of the very rights you are claiming they gave them! President U.S. Grant signed 4 executive orders in as many years, essentially stealing millions of acres of land and declaring the residents "wards of the state."

I found this on the citizenship clause...

There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment. During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as excluding American Indians who maintain their tribal ties, and “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” He was supported by other senators, including Edgar Cowan, Reverdy Johnson, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull.[4] Howard additionally stated the word jurisdiction meant "the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now"[4] and that the United States possessed a “full and complete jurisdiction” over the person described in the amendment.[5][9][4] Other senators, including Senator John Conness,[10] supported the amendment, believing citizenship should include all children born in the United States.

This tells me, even the author of the Amendment says "any person" has some caveats. You are now arguing from a point contradictory to the person who wrote the Amendment. How stupid is that?
 
Dixie said:
Uhm, yes they were the very same people who took the land from the Native Americans and put them on reservations, without due process, and in violation of the very rights you are claiming they gave them! President U.S. Grant signed 4 executive orders in as many years, essentially stealing millions of acres of land and declaring the residents "wards of the state."

I found this on the citizenship clause...

There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment. During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as excluding American Indians who maintain their tribal ties, and “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” He was supported by other senators, including Edgar Cowan, Reverdy Johnson, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull.[4] Howard additionally stated the word jurisdiction meant "the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now"[4] and that the United States possessed a “full and complete jurisdiction” over the person described in the amendment.[5][9][4] Other senators, including Senator John Conness,[10] supported the amendment, believing citizenship should include all children born in the United States.

This tells me, even the author of the Amendment says "any person" has some caveats. You are now arguing from a point contradictory to the person who wrote the Amendment. How stupid is that?
Click to expand...

Your argument is correct for the portions that refer to citizens, even women were not allowed to vote. You are incorrect about the "any person" portion.
 
Jarod said:
I am saying you cant suspend civil rights based on accusations.
Click to expand...
You are denying a simple fact that in the case of Flaming Drawers an act of terrorism was committed. That is an undeniable truth.

At this point Flamer is presumed innocent of the act, but since an act of terrorism is an act of war he will be tried by a military court. Also, in this court he has a right to an attorney and a fair trial.
 
Southern Man said:
You are denying a simple fact that in the case of Flaming Drawers an act of terrorism was committed. That is an undeniable truth.

At this point Flamer is presumed innocent of the act, but since an act of terrorism is an act of war he will be tried by a military court. Also, in this court he has a right to an attorney and a fair trial.
Click to expand...

You do not understand, the act must first be proven via due process in order to be used by the Government under the Constitution.
 
Jarod said:
You do not understand, the act must first be proven via due process in order to be used by the Government under the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Actually it is you who does not understand. No sane person is denying that the act took place and that it was an act of war. By presumption of innocence the court will decide if the accused performed the act.
 
But the problem is that the government is taking a right away from him before anything is proven.
 
So the Constitution applies to "any person" on US soil, regardless of citizen status? Okay, so the part of the Constitution which allows free speech and forbids taxation without representation, applies to foreigners who own corporations in the US, and they can Constitutionally contribute to political campaigns.... glad you're on record now as supporting that! Thanks!
 
So can we try every single terrorist for treason in a time of war? I'd be down with that. The burden of proof for treason is far less than for actual evidence of terrorism (I think you need like 3 witnesses, and some credible evidence)!!
 
Southern Man said:
Wrong. The government has decided beforehand what the court venue will be in terrorism cases.
Click to expand...

FALSE, the government does not have the right to do that, and there are plenty of terrorism cases where the Government has Criminal jury trials in civilian court.
 
Jarod said:
FALSE, the government does not have the right to do that, and there are plenty of terrorism cases where the Government has Criminal jury trials in civilian court.
Click to expand...
So? The government has the option to do either. You act like sending a case to military court is somehow unfair. Why is that?
 
Southern Man said:
So? The government has the option to do either. You act like sending a case to military court is somehow unfair. Why is that?
Click to expand...

Because you are taking away someone's right to a trial by jury.

Now, if a person knowingly and affirmativly gave that right away by joining the military, that is one thing, however a person never affirmativly waived that right... well, limits on government action apply.

Its all about limited government.
 
Jarod said:
Because you are taking away someone's right to a trial by jury.

Now, if a person knowingly and affirmativly gave that right away by joining the military, that is one thing, however a person never affirmativly waived that right... well, limits on government action apply.

Its all about limited government.
Click to expand...

It has zero to do with limited government. :palm:

The military court has a designated panel that serves as the jury:

For special and general courts-martial, the convening order will also designate the members of the court-martial panel (the military equivalent of the jury). Although the ultimate membership of the panel is determined, as in the civilian system, through voir dire, the CA initially details the panel members to the court-martial. As required by Congress in Article 25, UCMJ, the CA must choose members who are best qualified to serve based on their age, education, training, experience, length of service, and judicial temperament. However, it is the accused’s choice whether he or she will be tried by a panel of officers, a combined panel of officers and enlisted members, or by the military judge sitting alone.
Click to expand...
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/l/aacmartial1.htm
 
Southern Man said:
He has a right to be tried by a military court.
Click to expand...
And if he appeals it goes directly to the circuit courts of appeals. Now the military tribunals do allow hearsay and a few other more lax rules, but the reality is it is a trial with rights and everything, including assigned lawyers.

The people saying Bush didn't do these ignore that he tried to use them, but was stopped at every turn by the same Congress that passed the Tribunal law. Challenges to the constitutionality were worked out, and near the end of his term Bush was able to try a few people using this method, but previous to that this was NOT AN OPTION for Bush.

If people think that Bush wouldn't have used these in such cases I think they are insane.

In short.

The Tribunals do not deny people their rights, saying so means you believe that Democrats would deliberately pass a law for Bush to sign that rejects rights to this group of people. The tribunals simply allow for no Miranda, some stronger questioning techniques (not waterboarding or torture) and hearsay evidence (due to the very real concern that eye witnesses are very hard to subpoena). Each and every person tried in this way has had an attorney assigned to them, their rights are protected including the right to appeal.
 
BTW - In instances like underwear man the conclusion of the court will be the same regardless of how they are tried. The dude was wearing the evidence, was caught red-handed before myriad witnesses. This particular case doesn't really need the tribunal, other than for the stronger questioning in order to find out more information (if possible) there really is no benefit to the case itself, just to intelligence on terrorists. And even the stronger questioning techniques do not simply allow people to do what they want to the guy...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top