Trump "fine" with trying U.S. citizens in military tribunals (1 Viewer)

[Einzige]

Donald Trump: 'Fine' with trying US citizens in military courts - CNNPolitics.com

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.

Yet those of us who oppose the continued overreach of government are supposed to support this tin-pot tyrant?

 

[joG]

Donald Trump: 'Fine' with trying US citizens in military courts - CNNPolitics.com

Yet those of us who oppose the continued overreach of government are supposed to support this tin-pot tyrant?

Though, of course, we do try US citizens in military courts, if they are also soldiers.

 

[Einzige]

Though, of course, we do try US citizens in military courts, if they are also soldiers.

Yeah, but he's talking about civilians here.

 

[TheGoverness]

Donald Trump: 'Fine' with trying US citizens in military courts - CNNPolitics.com



Yet those of us who oppose the continued overreach of government are supposed to support this tin-pot tyrant?

Well, this is just reason #103,467 why I won't ever vote for Trumpster.

 

[Crovax]

Yeah, but he's talking about civilians here.

"Civillians" engaging in combat

 

[Einzige]

"Civillians" engaging in combat

Don't give a damn. Gunfire between rival gangs, or between gang members and the police, is also combat, and I'd expect them to be tried in a civilian courtroom just the same.

There will be no further trading of essential liberty for security as long as I can help it.

 

[Tigerace117]

Don't give a damn. Gunfire between rival gangs, or between gang members and the police, is also combat, and I'd expect them to be tried in a civilian courtroom just the same.

There will be no further trading of essential liberty for security as long as I can help it.

So say a American is captured fighting with ISIS in Iraq or Syria. You'd want them shipped all the way back to the US for a civilian trial?

Despite the fact that the actions of said individual aren't just non civillian in nature, they are also a threat to other other citizens?

 

[Captain Adverse]

As a member of the legal profession I do not agree that non-combatant U.S. citizens may be tried by military courts.

The distinction occurs with the term "combatant" as opposed to non-combatant.

An unlawful enemy combatant is some one authorities believe is connected with a terrorist group, whether through funding or direct orders or association, among other connectors. A lawful enemy combatant is someone who is commanded by a person, person responsible for subordinates, carries arms openly, and conducts their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war, among other criteria, according to The Third Geneva Convention.

10 facts about enemy combatants - POLITICO

Basically, you don't actually have to be a member of a friendly or enemy armed forces to be subject to a military tribunal. However, you must be identified as an actual combatant.

So, in one sense Trump is correct.

However, simply because one acts like a terrorist does not automatically qualify one as a combatant. Unless one can be classified as an enemy combatant one cannot be tried (at least under OUR Constitutional protections) in a military court.

 

[PoS]

So say a American is captured fighting with ISIS in Iraq or Syria. You'd want them shipped all the way back to the US for a civilian trial?

Despite the fact that the actions of said individual aren't just non civillian in nature, they are also a threat to other other citizens?

The main difference (in fact the only difference) between military and civilian personnel is the UCMJ. The reason why military personnel are tried in military courts and tribunals is because they are under UCMJ. When you finally graduate from school and join the real world you (hopefully) will learn that.

 

[Tigerace117]

The main difference (in fact the only difference) between military and civilian personnel is the UCMJ. The reason why military personnel are tried in military courts and tribunals is because they are under UCMJ. When you finally graduate from school and join the real world you (hopefully) will learn that.

You never told me whether you think Nuremberg was a sham btw.....

Captured POWs have been tried in military courts if they committed war crimes before. Why should be American save ISIS fighters?

 

[PoS]

You never told me whether you think Nuremberg was a sham btw.....

Look at my likes in that thread and you get your answer, no need to waste my time schooling kids when others do it for me.

Captured POWs have been tried in military courts if they committed war crimes before. Why should be American save ISIS fighters?

Name an American civilian that was tried in a military tribunal please.

 

[Paperview]

opcorn:

 

[ARealConservative]

he has said some truly awful things, but this isn't one of them.

if you are involved in terrorism, you are an enemy combatant.

 

[upsideguy]

Look at my likes in that thread and you get your answer, no need to waste my time schooling kids when others do it for me.



Name an American civilian that was tried in a military tribunal please.

Before or after the great American junta?

 

[Paperview]

he has said some truly awful things, but this isn't one of them.

if you are involved in terrorism, you are an enemy combatant.

And just why can't we try US Citizens in the US Court system?

 

[ARealConservative]

And just why can't we try US Citizens in the US Court system?

we can, but it isn't horrific to suggest an alternative for enemy combatants.

 

[Paperview]

we can, but it isn't horrific to suggest an alternative for enemy combatants.

Only if you're cool with doing away with due process, you know, one of our basic American fundamentals, it isn't horrific.

 

[ARealConservative]

Only if you're cool with doing away with due process, you know, one of our basic American fundamentals, it isn't horrific.

we have provisions already. military aren't getting such trials.

 

[Einzige]

he has said some truly awful things, but this isn't one of them.

if you are involved in terrorism, you are an enemy combatant.

And if you are only suspected of terrorism, you are not.

Change your Lean.

 

[Enlighten Me]

Once again Donald really needs a copy of the United States Constitution. The "Twelve Articles" "Changing the 1st Amendment so HE can sue the media" Now "trying to try civilians in a military court."

How about a Constitutional Amendment that requires every person running for Congress or the Presidency to pass a TEST about the contents of the Constitution as amended AND release their tax returns and financial disclosures. They have to swear to uphold the Constitution. That requires they KNOW about its contents.

 

[ARealConservative]

And if you are only suspected of terrorism, you are not.

Change your Lean.

I will, as soon as you remove that idiot lean you have and be honest about your socialism

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - learn the law

 

[ARealConservative]

Once again Donald really needs a copy of the United States Constitution. The "Twelve Articles" "Changing the 1st Amendment so HE can sue the media" Now "trying to try civilians in a military court."

How about a Constitutional Amendment that requires every person running for Congress or the Presidency to pass a TEST about the contents of the Constitution as amended AND release their tax returns and financial disclosures. They have to swear to uphold the Constitution. That requires they KNOW about its contents.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - you need to brush up on your understanding, you come off more ignorant then Trump which is something!

 

[Einzige]

I will, as soon as you remove that idiot lean you have and be honest about your socialism

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - learn the law

Oh look, another dumb**** neoconservative ignorant about the history of libertarianism.

The first anarchist journal to use the term “libertarian” was La Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social. Somewhat ironically, given recent developments in America, it was published in New York between 1858 and 1861 by French communist-anarchist Joseph Déjacque. The next recorded use of the term was in Europe, when “libertarian communism”was used at a French regional anarchist Congress at Le Havre (16–22 November, 1880). January the following year saw a French manifesto issued on “Libertarian or Anarchist Communism.” Finally, 1895 saw leading anarchists Sébastien Faure and Louise Michel publish La Libertaire in France. [Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, pp. 75–6, p. 145 and p. 162]

Absolutely I am a socialist, as is every actual libertarian (and not the right-wing liberals who have stolen the term from us). And I've acknowledged this many times before.

Indeed!

I can understand #NeverTrumpers' disillusionment with their leadership, though. My profile says I'm a left-libertarian, and I do mean capital-'L'-eft-libertarian -- I favor what's basically a moderate form of anarcho-syndicalism.

So I'm not entirely comfortable with voting for Gary Johnson, who represents a purer strain of neoliberalism than either of the major party candidates. But, well, events sometimes make strange bedfellows. I hope there will be space in the Libertarian Party for a genuine anarcho-leftist wing someday. They certainly have enough not-even-remotely-libertarian conservatives already.

But socialism has absolutely nothing to do with preferring freedom over a military police State.

 

[ARealConservative]

Oh look, another dumb**** neoconservative ignorant about the history of libertarianism.



Absolutely I am a socialist, as is every actual libertarian (and not the right-wing liberals who have stolen the term from us). But socialism has absolutely nothing to do with preferring freedom over a military police State.

necon? bawahaha. I've railed against necons years before you joined

In America, Libertarians are opposite of your ****ty views. learn case law and stop acting like a moron

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - PWNED

 

[Einzige]

necon? bawahaha. I've railed against necons years before you joined

In America, Libertarians are opposite of your ****ty views.

In America, worthless right-wing liberals stole the term "libertarian" from their political betters. Give it back, you neocon shill.