|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
Bozeman 
Guardian
Group: Members
Posts: 762
Joined: Jun. 2000
|
 |
Posted on: Jun. 17 2002,21:35 |
|
   |
Thanks, editor, you not only stated my point for me (which helps because I'm a horrible typist) you also posted teh pic I linked to, which I don't know how to do yet.
Ic0n0: Welcome back, and good point.
--------------
It's the pop-o-matic bubble, motherfucker!
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
editor
forum whore
Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: Jan. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 17 2002,21:50 |
|
 |
d00d; go to reply;hit Image, hit delete, CnP the URL and hit enter.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
kuru
Detonate.net's 9mm wielding geek-hit-Goddess
Group: Members
Posts: 2566
Joined: Aug. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 18 2002,14:41 |
|
|
Declared state of war or not, serving in a 'foreign military' engaged in acts of war against the US (something Padilla has not denied, AFAIK) is considered under US code a renouncement of citizenship.
Once his acts renounce his citizenship, he's no longer entitled to the protections under the Constitution that are reserved for citizens.
--------------
kuru
'dancing is the vertical expression of horizontal desire.'
-robert frost
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
Beldurin
Mayor of Detnet
Group: Members
Posts: 1242
Joined: Aug. 2001
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 20 2002,01:51 |
|
|
| Quote (kuru @ 18 June 2002,08:41) | Declared state of war or not, serving in a 'foreign military' engaged in acts of war against the US (something Padilla has not denied, AFAIK) is considered under US code a renouncement of citizenship.
Once his acts renounce his citizenship, he's no longer entitled to the protections under the Constitution that are reserved for citizens. |
In a similar vein, such acts may be found to violate the "Clear and Probable Danger" test, thus giving the government not only the right, but the responsibility to act immediately.
--------------
If someone's ungrateful and you tell him he's ungrateful, okay, you've called him a name.
You haven't solved anything.
-- zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
Pravus Angelus
Codito Ergo Sum
Group: Members
Posts: 81
Joined: May 2002
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 27 2002,05:14 |
|
|
Two Points
one - even if you assume ex parte quirin is a justification for what's goin on (which it's not, see below) there are some major problems here that I think violate the intent of the constitution pretty dramatically. The accusing party (the military) is also the trying party and does so under the rules that they devise! Not quite the separation of powers and checks & balances we normally like to see when accusing innocent people who remain innocent until proven guilty. Furthermore the accusing and trying parties (as well as those who make the rules) all answer to the president. He has the power to order people to accuse someone, order some other people to find them guilty, and then order the person executed. The constitution was written with a strong distrust of government, and this is power vested in one person that requires a great deal of trust. Personally I'm not going to trust every president will use this power appropriately, should it not be overturned. Furthermore, why on Earth would you ever need a military tribunal for anyone except when you had to try a huge number of people and the process would be administratively impossible otherwise. Military tribunals essentially make it far easier to find someone guilty, and far easier to exact a more devastating punishment (essnetially limiting their rights to a significant degree). If this is okay, then why don't we change the judicial system?
two - on ex parte quirin. This doesn't justify trying US citizens in a military tribunal at all. Not even close. The Supreme Court ruled it was acceptable based on international law at the time. Since then (1949 to be exact) the definition of "time of war" has been changed and is recognized to only exist between nation states. By international law we are not in a time of war, and therefore couldn't try anybody as an "enemy combatent". Furthermore, the ruling clearly stated that it applied only to enemy aliens, which means you can't send a US citizen to a military tribunal even in a time of war.
My humble 2c.
--------------
"Lately, the only thing keeping me from being a serial killer is my distaste for manual labor"
--Dilbert
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
Bozeman
Guardian
Group: Members
Posts: 762
Joined: Jun. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 27 2002,06:04 |
|
|
Someone needs to give Pravus Angelus an "A" for all the homework he's doing.
Where do you find all this stuff?
--------------
It's the pop-o-matic bubble, motherfucker!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
veistran
We don't listen to people that don't like us.
Group: Members
Posts: 967
Joined: May 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 27 2002,08:28 |
|
|
I'd guess findlaw
--------------
V|-
"Headed down the hard way
Concrete battleground
Urban monkey warfare
Sabotage underground camouflage"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 18
|
Pravus Angelus
Codito Ergo Sum
Group: Members
Posts: 81
Joined: May 2002
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 27 2002,18:46 |
|
|
some snippets from ex parte quirin
| Quote | | The Constitution thus invests the President as Commander in Chief with the power to wage war which Congress has declared, and to carry into effect all laws passed by Congress for the conduct of war and for the government and regulation of the Armed Forces, and all laws defining and punishing offences against the law of nations, including those which pertain to the conduct of war. |
note, president has powers regarding war that congress has declared
| Quote | | An important incident to the conduct of war is the adoption of measures by the military command not only to repel and defeat the enemy, but to seize and subject to disciplinary measures those enemies who in their attempt to thwart or impede our military effort have violated the law [317 U.S. 1, 29] of war. |
| Quote | | Modern warfare is directed at the destruction of enemy war supplies and the implements of their production and transportation quite as much as at the armed forces. Every consideration which makes the unlawful belligerent punishable is equally applicable whether his objective is the one or the other. The law of war cannot rightly treat those agents of enemy armies who enter our territory, armed with explosives intended for the destruction of war industries and supplies, as any the less belligerent enemies than are agent similarly entering for the purpose of destroying fortified places or our Armed Forces |
| Quote | | All these are instances of offenses committed against the United States, for which a penalty is imposed, but they are not deemed to be within Article III, 2 or the provisions of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments relating to 'crimes' and 'criminal prosecutions'. In the light of this long-continued and consistent interpretation we must concluded that 2 of Article III and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments cannot be taken to have extended the right to demand a jury to trials by military commission, or to have required that offenses against the law of war not triable by jury at common law be tried only in the civil courts |
note: the important part here is that to be tried by a military tribunal you must be targeting the armed forces or some part of the war industry. These are not 'crimes' per se, but instead are offsense against a nation in a state of war and this is the justification for removing the case from typical courts. However, padilla was targetting civilians, which would make his actions crimes and not offsenses against the armed forces of the united states, and therefore his case falls under the jurisdiction of the courts and not military tribunals.
| Quote | | Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, [317 U.S. 1, 38] 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 |
notes: this is the part of ex parte quirin where people say 'look he's an enemy combatent', but note the very specific wording..military arm of the enemy government, which the al queda (nor any other terrorist group) is not legally classified as. As such, he has not renounced his citizenship.
and yes, findlaw is your friend
--------------
"Lately, the only thing keeping me from being a serial killer is my distaste for manual labor"
--Dilbert
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 19
|
veistran
We don't listen to people that don't like us.
Group: Members
Posts: 967
Joined: May 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 28 2002,00:05 |
|
|
findlaw and stratfor
--------------
V|-
"Headed down the hard way
Concrete battleground
Urban monkey warfare
Sabotage underground camouflage"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
