Trump: 'Fine' with trying US citizens in military courts

S

Seahawk

12
Trump: 'Fine' with trying US citizens in military courts

The Republican presidential nominee told the Miami Herald that he doesn't "at all" like the idea of trying terrorist suspects in the civilian court system, even though US citizens are constitutionally entitled to due process. He added that he would be "fine" with trying US citizens in military tribunals at Guantánamo Bay, the US naval base that is also home to a military prison housing captured terror suspects.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/donald-trump-military-courts-election-2016/index.html

This is getting absurd. I have a theory though.
 
US citizens that are in the military ARE tried in military courts all the time.....do you have a problem with that....

Why would it be wrong to try US citizens aiding and abetting those we at war with in military courts....

do you think military courts are unconstitutional.....illegal.....or corrupt in some way.....
 
NOVA said:
US citizens that are in the military ARE tried in military courts all the time.....do you have a problem with that....

Why would it be wrong to try US citizens aiding and abetting those we at war with in military courts....

do you think military courts are unconstitutional.....illegal.....or corrupt in some way.....
Click to expand...

By joining the military, you agree to be under the UCMJ. Those who not join or enlist or whatever, agree to no such jurisdiction. Would you agree?
 
They'd have to be engaging as an enemy combatant. I mean if we can drone them, we could try them in a military court.
But why do that?
 
anatta said:
They'd have to be engaging as an enemy combatant. I mean if we can drone them, we could try them in a military court.
But why do that?
Click to expand...
We are talking about US citizens accused of terrorism, not citizens who are enemies of the state. There is a huge legal difference.

Sent from my LG-D631 using Tapatalk
 
NOVA said:
US citizens that are in the military ARE tried in military courts all the time.....do you have a problem with that....

Why would it be wrong to try US citizens aiding and abetting those we at war with in military courts....

do you think military courts are unconstitutional.....illegal.....or corrupt in some way.....
Click to expand...


Most of your questions show a disturbing ignorance of the constitution.

Article 3 Section 2...
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed;

Sixth amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article 1 section 8...
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

...

It seems to me that there may be some gray area (constitutionally) if the crime is committed outside of the US but US law clearly prohibits it.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Most of your questions show a disturbing ignorance of the constitution.

Article 3 Section 2...
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed;

Sixth amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article 1 section 8...
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

...

It seems to me that there may be some gray area (constitutionally) if the crime is committed outside of the US but US law clearly prohibits it.
Click to expand...

And yet the Lincoln assassination conspirators were all tried by a military tribunal.
 
Military tribunals in the United States are military courts 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.

Sent from my Nokia-2100 using Tapatalk
 
The Irish Republican Army died in hunger strikes in efforts to be tried in military tribunals, instead of as criminals in criminal courts.

They saw it as an elevation of their status and cause.

I don't understand why Americans would want to diminish the severity of the actions of terrorists striking on American soil.

Treat them as enemy combatants. How did we treat Confederate agents not in uniform? Why should ISIS agents be treated any better?
 
Taft2016 said:
The Irish Republican Army died in hunger strikes in efforts to be tried in military tribunals, instead of as criminals in criminal courts.

They saw it as an elevation of their status and cause.

I don't understand why Americans would want to diminish the severity of the actions of terrorists striking on American soil.

Treat them as enemy combatants. How did we treat Confederate agents not in uniform? Why should ISIS agents be treated any better?
Click to expand...


You don't like how we do things round here you can get the fuck OUT!!!
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
And yet that happened during a time when the courts had no power to intervene due to the suspension of habeas corpus.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and in a time of war the Constitution gives the courts no authority to restrict the Commander-in-Chief's actions in defense of the nation.

This contemporary mindset is the creation of activist courts cultivated by liberalism and their cousin libertarianism
 
Seahawk said:
We are talking about US citizens accused of terrorism, not citizens who are enemies of the state. There is a huge legal difference.

Sent from my LG-D631 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
they can be enemies of the state, plotting to do damage (wage war) to the US.
But I don't see any reason to do this.
 
Taft2016 said:
Exactly, and in a time of war the Constitution gives the courts no authority to restrict the Commander-in-Chief's actions in defense of the nation.

This contemporary mindset is the creation of activist courts cultivated by liberalism and their cousin libertarianism
Click to expand...

What? You are wrong. A writ of habeas corpus allows the courts to intervene and always has. Ex parte Milligan established the precedent that it cannot be suspended to convict citizens before military tribunals where the civil courts were open and operational.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
What? You are wrong. A writ of habeas corpus allows the courts to intervene and always has. Ex parte Milligan established the precedent that it cannot be suspended to convict citizens before military tribunals where the civil courts were open and operational.
Click to expand...

And what part of the Constitution gives the court the authority to interfere with the President's war powers?
 
Taft2016 said:
And what part of the Constitution gives the court the authority to interfere with the President's war powers?
Click to expand...

The courts have the power to issue a writ of habeas corpus. While it is unsettled, it does not appear that the President may unilaterally deny a writ of habeas corpus unless congress has suspended habeas corpus. It is not a part of his listed powers or war powers.

Ex Parte Milligan sets the precedent that congress cannot suspend it for citizens so long as civil courts are open and operational.
 
trumpf is ignorant..

Maybe he will ask why can't we just suspend habeas corpus 3 times like he asked about using nukes..

He knows nothing of the constitution so how can he respect it??
 
Seahawk said:
By joining the military, you agree to be under the UCMJ. Those who not join or enlist or whatever, agree to no such jurisdiction. Would you agree?
Click to expand...

I do agree.....civilians are not under jurisdiction of the military laws and/or regulations........

Seahawk said:
We are talking about US citizens accused of terrorism, not citizens who are enemies of the state. There is a huge legal difference.

Sent from my LG-D631 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

US citizens guilty of terrorism that aids an enemy of the US ARE enemies of the state.....

Terrorism with no political goal, is normally a civilian crime....unless is it terrorism associated with and for the purpose of furthering the goals of a enemy the US is at war with.....then it becomes
more than a civilian crime....then it becomes sabotage which I'd guess is a military matter.....still, a US citizens Constitutional rights must be respected......

interesting debate.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top