• 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 - Try US Citizens (accused terrorists) in Gitmo?

Trump Try US Citizen in Gitmo

  • Agree

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • They are Terrorists- Agree

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    22

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
38,497
Reaction score
13,726
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trump says he'd try U.S. citizens in Gitmo military tribunals

Trump says he'd try U.S. citizens in Gitmo military tribunals | TheHill
Donald Trump said that he would try Americans accused of terrorism in military tribunals in Guantanamo Bay, a big shift from current policy.

During an interview with the Miami Herald on Thursday, Trump was asked if he would push to get U.S. citizens accused of terrorism tried by military commissions at the U.S. military base in Cuba, a change that would require action from Congress.

“Well, I know that they want to try them in our regular court systems, and I don’t like that at all. I don’t like that at all,” he said. “I would say they could be tried there, that would be fine.”

Trump has spoken out against President Obama’s efforts to close Guantanamo, saying he’d rather “load it up with bad dudes.” But he wouldn’t say whether he would reopen the prison to new detainees captured abroad.

“I want to make sure that if we have radical Islamic terrorists, we have a very safe place to keep them,” he said, adding that Obama is “allowing people to get out that are terrible people.”
Tags:
Donald Trump
Trump - Try US Citizens in Gitmo?
I agree

I disagree

Against the Constitution Yes

Against the Constitution No

They are Terrorists- Agree
What other Star chambers would Trump have?
 

ajn678

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
8,002
Reaction score
3,421
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Close Gitmo so this isn't a possibility.
 

ajn678

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
8,002
Reaction score
3,421
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Closing it is not happening. So your opinion if open is?

Depends what trying them at Gitmo entails. If it means keeping them there for years without a trial, no. Citizens have different rights than foreign people that we capture do.
 

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
38,497
Reaction score
13,726
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Depends what trying them at Gitmo entails. If it means keeping them there for years without a trial, no. Citizens have different rights than foreign people that we capture do.

So short term and trials, under a Military Tribunal, you are fine with?
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trump says he'd try U.S. citizens in Gitmo military tribunals

Trump says he'd try U.S. citizens in Gitmo military tribunals | TheHill

Trump - Try US Citizens in Gitmo?
I agree

I disagree

Against the Constitution Yes

Against the Constitution No

They are Terrorists- Agree
What other Star chambers would Trump have?

Depends. If they are here in the US, then they go through the civilian court system. If they are taken on a battlefield where they have taken up arms against our military then they could, not necessarily would, be subject to detainment at Gitmo and trial by military tribunal.

Hell, Obama just has them assassinated by sending a drone over to fire a missile to kill them and their offspring. No need to worry about a trial, or Gitmo, or the Constitution at all that way. At least Trump seems like he'll at least not assassinate them.

Truth be told? I don't think Trump had a clue what the question actually was, or what his answer actually means.
 

FluffyNinja

All Warm and Fuzzy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2006
Messages
4,831
Reaction score
1,625
Location
Miss-uh-Sippie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Give Trump, or any POTUS for that matter, the power to supersede the Constitution and suspend individual rights at will? I think not.
 

ajn678

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
8,002
Reaction score
3,421
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So short term and trials, under a Military Tribunal, you are fine with?

Depends what they were found doing. Terrorism is the exact definition of treason. I see no problem with people accused of treason being given trials under military tribunal. If someone can be directly linked to a terrorist act like the Boston bombers, etc.
 

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
38,497
Reaction score
13,726
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Depends. If they are here in the US, then they go through the civilian court system. If they are taken on a battlefield where they have taken up arms against our military then they could, not necessarily would, be subject to detainment at Gitmo and trial by military tribunal.

Hell, Obama just has them assassinated by sending a drone over to fire a missile to kill them and their offspring. No need to worry about a trial, or Gitmo, or the Constitution at all that way. At least Trump seems like he'll at least not assassinate them.

Truth be told? I don't think Trump had a clue what the question actually was, or what his answer actually means.

Captured alive, returned to the US then they go thru the court system. No way around that.
US Citizend fighting against their country are an enemy, how they die, drone, bombing, US Soldiers in a firefight, they die.
 

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
38,497
Reaction score
13,726
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Depends what they were found doing. Terrorism is the exact definition of treason. I see no problem with people accused of treason being given trials under military tribunal. If someone can be directly linked to a terrorist act like the Boston bombers, etc.

What about your constitution? Is this not in violation of that?
 

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,662
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Depends what trying them at Gitmo entails. If it means keeping them there for years without a trial, no. Citizens have different rights than foreign people that we capture do.

The Constitution applies to everyone, not just citizens. The difference I think you may be looking for is where were they taken into custody and what were they doing when captured. If they are taken into custody overseas on a battlefield where they have actually taken up arms against to United States, then they can be treated as an Enemy Combatant under the Geneva Conventions, or if they are not part of a uniformed military force, they can be treated as a Illegal/Unlawful Combatants that are not afforded Enemy Combatant status.
 

SocialD

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
Messages
2,467
Reaction score
716
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
What about your constitution? Is this not in violation of that?

So for citizens involved in terrorism fighting against the usa that would be treason I guess is what we are talking about here.
An actual citizen has a right to due process of law per the 5th amendment. Being that a military tribunal is different than a criminal court this would violate it I would say because they are not being treated the same as other citizens.
Now , if a person was a naturalized citizen I could see their citizenship being revoked... but I would say that they would need to prove they did it first.
 

FluffyNinja

All Warm and Fuzzy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2006
Messages
4,831
Reaction score
1,625
Location
Miss-uh-Sippie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The Constitution applies to everyone, not just citizens. The difference I think you may be looking for is where were they taken into custody and what were they doing when captured. If they are taken into custody overseas on a battlefield where they have actually taken up arms against to United States, then they can be treated as an Enemy Combatant under the Geneva Conventions, or if they are not part of a uniformed military force, they can be treated as a Illegal/Unlawful Combatants that are not afforded Enemy Combatant status.

If they are still US citizens, they're entitled to all the rights and protections afforded to any other citizen. It is currently in violation of Federal Law to try a US citizen in a military court.

The Geneva Convention was a treaty. Treaties do not supersede the US Constitution.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Captured alive, returned to the US then they go thru the court system. No way around that.
US Citizend fighting against their country are an enemy, how they die, drone, bombing, US Soldiers in a firefight, they die.

I'm not going to try to opine any further than I have already, because I'm not sure - to be blatantly honest about this.

Here's a legal opinion on this exact subject from the American Bar Association that I just found that I'm about to read: “Unlawful Combatants” in the United States: Drawing the Fine Line Between Law and War | ABA Human Rights Magazine, Vol. 30, No. 1, Winter 2003 The last sentence in the conclusion is thought provoking to me: Perhaps our courts should recall the admonition in Milligan, written in the aftermath of the Civil War: “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances.”

I'm also looking for more legal opinions on the subject to compare their findings of fact.
 

ajn678

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
8,002
Reaction score
3,421
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Constitution applies to everyone, not just citizens. The difference I think you may be looking for is where were they taken into custody and what were they doing when captured. If they are taken into custody overseas on a battlefield where they have actually taken up arms against to United States, then they can be treated as an Enemy Combatant under the Geneva Conventions, or if they are not part of a uniformed military force, they can be treated as a Illegal/Unlawful Combatants that are not afforded Enemy Combatant status.

Due to the War on Terror and the Patriot Act, these lines are very blurry at this point. However, I personally see no problem with someone that commits a terrorist attack in the United States that has political motivations to be tried as a traitor.
 

FluffyNinja

All Warm and Fuzzy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2006
Messages
4,831
Reaction score
1,625
Location
Miss-uh-Sippie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Due to the War on Terror and the Patriot Act, these lines are very blurry at this point. However, I personally see no problem with someone that commits a terrorist attack in the United States that has political motivations to be tried as a traitor.
I think most Americans don't have an issue with putting a citizen on trial for treason, but dismissing the COTUS in the process is not good.
 

ajn678

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
8,002
Reaction score
3,421
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I asked you

Depends who you ask. There's opinion on both sides that can be argued. I don't think anyone has so far though.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Due to the War on Terror and the Patriot Act, these lines are very blurry at this point. However, I personally see no problem with someone that commits a terrorist attack in the United States that has political motivations to be tried as a traitor.

Here's some light reading: 18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Also, there's the US Constitution, Article III, Section 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.


So, given that a US citizen, acting as a terrorist, or adhering to enemies of the US such as terrorist groups who have declared themselves enemies of the US, and giving those enemies aid and comfort would probably meet the definition of treason, I feel confident that such a person could legally be accused, charged, indicted, tried, convicted, and then sentenced for being a traitor.
 

ajn678

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
8,002
Reaction score
3,421
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Oh really? You know something that the Supreme Court and the entire legal community of the US doesn't?

No, just more than you apparently.
 
Top Bottom