• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
(CNN)Donald Trump said in an interview Thursday that he would support trying US citizens suspected of terrorism in military tribunals -- a controversial proposal that would likely be challenged as unconstitutional.

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.
Yes, not only would Trump's idea be unconstitutional, but it borders on Fascism. And no, I am not invoking Godwin here. If you are an American, you get Constitutional rights, not accusations of being a terrorist on only the word of a government official. You get a trial, not a military tribunal. Even if you are a complete douche bag like Trump, you still get the Constitution.

Article is here.
 
Yes, not only would Trump's idea be unconstitutional, but it borders on Fascism. And no, I am not invoking Godwin here. If you are an American, you get Constitutional rights, not accusations of being a terrorist on only the word of a government official. You get a trial, not a military tribunal. Even if you are a complete douche bag like Trump, you still get the Constitution.

Article is here.

SCOTUS has ruled this is not unconstitutional. so long as you have due process to contest enemy combatant status.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld
 
SCOTUS has ruled this is not unconstitutional. so long as you have due process to contest enemy combatant status.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld

It is important to note that that is a very complex ruling, that no majority decision was reached, and that any case would likely go back before SCOTUS to review constitutional status. While you are correct that, as long as due process is used to determine enemy combatant status, currently trying them before a tribunal is considered constitutional, that is very much subject to change in the future.
 
It is important to note that that is a very complex ruling, that no majority decision was reached, and that any case would likely go back before SCOTUS to review constitutional status. While you are correct that, as long as due process is used to determine enemy combatant status, currently trying them before a tribunal is considered constitutional, that is very much subject to change in the future.

it is more important to note that the OP definitely stated something that is not so definitive.
 
Yes, not only would Trump's idea be unconstitutional, but it borders on Fascism. And no, I am not invoking Godwin here. If you are an American, you get Constitutional rights, not accusations of being a terrorist on only the word of a government official. You get a trial, not a military tribunal. Even if you are a complete douche bag like Trump, you still get the Constitution.

People that are opposed to trying US citizens suspected of terrorism in US courts only do so because they know that the evidence to convict them is incredibly weak or completely non-existant. Military tribunals can be done in secret away from the eyes of the public which adds an unnecessary potential for abuse. Over 95% of all Guantanomo detainees have been released without charge, because there was no evidence to hold them there in the first place.

Simply being accused of terrorism does not negate your rights as an American. If the evidence actually exists and is strong enough for a conviction, you should have no reason not to try them in broad daylight on American soil instead of in closed tribunals hidden away on a secret island prison.
 
Last edited:
People that are opposed to trying US citizens suspected of terrorism in US courts only do so because they know that the evidence to convict them is incredibly weak or completely non-existant. Military tribunals can be done in secret away from the eyes of the public. Over 95% of all Guantanomo detainees have been released without charge. Simply being accused of terrorism does not negate your rights as an American.

Exactly, and military tribunals run counter to the 6th 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"
 
Exactly, and military tribunals run counter to the 6th 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"

Well put, emphasis on public trial. Only those who value their perceived safety over basic human rights and justice want trials to be conducted in secret. Trump is a disgusting human being without an ounce of respect for civil rights.
 
Exactly, and military tribunals run counter to the 6th 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"

Right. And a violation of the 6th is also a violation of the 5th and 14th's equal protection and due process clauses. So depending on the charges and where jurisdiction lies, multiple violations of the Federal Constitution are foreseeable. And a conviction in trial would lead to an appeal, with the most damning defense being that of a structural violation.

Briefly and very generally, a structural violation occurs when a defendant's Constitutional rights are violated from the beginning of the proceeding until the end of it. The remedy for a structural violation is a complete dismissal of all charges. What that means is that a person who indeed committed the acts accused of could walk free. That's something that needs to be avoided, and is easily avoidable simply by trying the accused in a civilian court.
 
Right. And a violation of the 6th is also a violation of the 5th and 14th's equal protection and due process clauses. So depending on the charges and where jurisdiction lies, multiple violations of the Federal Constitution are foreseeable. And a conviction in trial would lead to an appeal, with the most damning defense being that of a structural violation.

Briefly and very generally, a structural violation occurs when a defendant's Constitutional rights are violated from the beginning of the proceeding until the end of it. The remedy for a structural violation is a complete dismissal of all charges. What that means is that a person who indeed committed the acts accused of could walk free. That's something that needs to be avoided, and is easily avoidable simply by trying the accused in a civilian court.

Eh, it's more that whatever the structural error is, that error infects the fundamental trial process. (Hence, one need not demonstrate prejudice from the error as one does with non-structural constitutional error, at least if it is preserved).

So for example, if the courtroom is closed without requisite findings being made following the proper procedure, there is structural error that infects the entire trial, even if that error only happened during jury selection alone (aka, not "from the beginning of the proceeding until the end of it.)
 
Yes, not only would Trump's idea be unconstitutional, but it borders on Fascism. And no, I am not invoking Godwin here. If you are an American, you get Constitutional rights, not accusations of being a terrorist on only the word of a government official. You get a trial, not a military tribunal. Even if you are a complete douche bag like Trump, you still get the Constitution.

Article is here.

The Military Commissions Act was passed when Bush was in office. The NDAA amendment nullifying Habeas Corpus was passed during Obama's time. Drumph is just going along with his predecessor. Hitlery supports both policies.
 
Exactly, and military tribunals run counter to the 6th 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"
If the crime occurs in the US I agree they should be tried in a US criminal court, no doubt about that.

I'm curious about the process of an American is apprehended by US forces in a forring country while engaged in terrorist activities.
 
If the crime occurs in the US I agree they should be tried in a US criminal court, no doubt about that.

I'm curious about the process of an American is apprehended by US forces in a forring country while engaged in terrorist activities.

Study the case of John Walker Lindh to satisfy your curiosity.
 
Ahhh yes nothing like striping someones civil rights because you accuse them of being a "terrorist". **** Trump.
 
Eh, it's more that whatever the structural error is, that error infects the fundamental trial process. (Hence, one need not demonstrate prejudice from the error as one does with non-structural constitutional error, at least if it is preserved).

So for example, if the courtroom is closed without requisite findings being made following the proper procedure, there is structural error that infects the entire trial, even if that error only happened during jury selection alone (aka, not "from the beginning of the proceeding until the end of it.)

I did say "generally and briefly" but for the sake of argument...

Structural errors are structural defects in the constitution of the trial mechanism affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds. United States v. Soto, 519 F.3d 917 (2008). Such structural errors involve basic constitutional protections, without which a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence. They require reversal without regard to the strength of the evidence or other circumstances. It is only for certain structural errors undermining fairness of criminal proceeding as a whole that even preserved error requires reversal without regard to mistake's effect on proceeding. Etcetera.

There's also a harmless error analysis that goes hand in hand with a structural defect analysis, but a key part of the structural error analysis is that its presence undermines the whole of the proceeding, which, most simply stated, is that the process is undermined from the outset, which in turn denies a fair trial. For example, jury impossibility where the right of peremptory challenges are denied can bring about a structural error analysis. So can what's known as speculative impossibility (which generally has to do with a biased judge or a defendant being denied right to choice of counsel when he can facilitate such a choice). It's also possible that some jury composition claims would fit in this category--especially Batson claims, where the problem is with the process of selection, not necessarily with the jury ultimately seated, and the injury is at least in part to the excluded jurors rather than to the defendant.

So what you'll see most often is that something has occurred from the outset of a trial that renders the proceeding unreliable. There are also doctrines of "seriousness" and "obviousness" which may come into play when analyzing structural defects, but this post is long and boring enough already.

Suffice it to say that Trump is in no way acquainted with any of the concepts we're discussing. :)
 
I did say "generally and briefly" but for the sake of argument...

Structural errors are structural defects in the constitution of the trial mechanism affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds. United States v. Soto, 519 F.3d 917 (2008). Such structural errors involve basic constitutional protections, without which a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence. They require reversal without regard to the strength of the evidence or other circumstances. It is only for certain structural errors undermining fairness of criminal proceeding as a whole that even preserved error requires reversal without regard to mistake's effect on proceeding. Etcetera.

There's also a harmless error analysis that goes hand in hand with a structural defect analysis, but a key part of the structural error analysis is that its presence undermines the whole of the proceeding, which, most simply stated, is that the process is undermined from the outset, which in turn denies a fair trial. For example, jury impossibility where the right of peremptory challenges are denied can bring about a structural error analysis. So can what's known as speculative impossibility (which generally has to do with a biased judge or a defendant being denied right to choice of counsel when he can facilitate such a choice). It's also possible that some jury composition claims would fit in this category--especially Batson claims, where the problem is with the process of selection, not necessarily with the jury ultimately seated, and the injury is at least in part to the excluded jurors rather than to the defendant.

So what you'll see most often is that something has occurred from the outset of a trial that renders the proceeding unreliable. There are also doctrines of "seriousness" and "obviousness" which may come into play when analyzing structural defects, but this post is long and boring enough already.

Oh, I know all that and agree. I intended clarification for those who might construe your post to mean that the definition of structural error turns on the duration of the error (or violation), rather than the notion that regardless of duration, these are errors that affect the entire fundamental structure of a given trial. (Consequently, as you note, prejudice is impossible to prove; how does one show how an actually conflicted attorney affected the result? How does one show that courtroom closure during jury selection affected a result? Etc).

[personal anecdotes about what cases I've worked on omitted]



Of course, the impossibility of proving prejudice only goes so far. To stop people from filing lots of state motions for new trial, 2254s or 2255s, quite a lot of courts have nonetheless required a showing of prejudice when a claim of structural error has been procedurally waived (for others: not raised at the first opportune moment, or even on later moments like your direct appeal). For example, the Mass. SJC's second decision in Commonwealth v. Alebord. Contrast it with the 2007 1st Circuit decision in Owens.







Suffice it to say that Trump is in no way acquainted with any of the concepts we're discussing. :)

Quite so.
 
Back
Top Bottom