leejo

As a practical matter, this has always been true, but it would require the Executive to ignore the courts and risk impeachment. Lincoln did precisely what you describe during the civil war, which you may note occurred long before this recently legislation passed.

Also as a practical matter, as a US Citizen I enjoy the full protection of the US Constitution when incarcerated on by US "forces" or on US soil. If you think that GWB could simply snatch me up and make me disappear, well you're wrong.

xTYBALTx

The Constitution's protections do not differentiate between citizens and non-citizens.

__________________
Current good song: Justice - Stress

AMosely

This statement merits repetition. So does this one:

leejo

Well it kind of does. For example, an alien can be deported without "due process".

The constitution does NOT apply to people in China. Or France. Or Dubai. Just because a US soldier touches someone they don't immediately gain access to the full protection of the US Constitution. Look at the Nuremberg trials: many of the defendants were detained by US forces, yet nobody suggested then that Truman was a war criminal for failing to ensure that their convictions were appealed to the SCOTUS.

xTYBALTx

The Nuremberg trials were not conducted by the US government. If they had, the defendants would not have been convicted. (See: ex post facto) In any event, those people were POW's and not "enemy combatants." So I don't see your point there.

__________________
Current good song: Justice - Stress

xTYBALTx

It does not apply to people in China, true. But it does apply to Chinese people in America. It arguably applies to those in American custody but outside of our borders. In fact, that's a major part of the whole controversy.

We can deport people without due process, but we can not imprison them for any lenghtly period of time without due process.

__________________
Current good song: Justice - Stress

Steeler

So Hassan, how do you intend to prove your citizenship if you are locked in a cell and denied your basic right of Habeus Corpus?

__________________

leejo

Sez you and AMosely and Steeler and some others. That's the debate. You are assuming that your assertion is a foregone conclusion. I refute it.

leejo

Well, again, as a practical matter, my family - immediate and extended - is simply crawling with lawyers and my father-in-law is CEO of a large Oil company, so personally there would be rather powerful interests working in my favor. YOU may disappear without much comment or concern, I don't know.

But none of this changes just because a Democrat holds office. In your world, the only protection any of us has is the good will of the Executive. I don't think it really works that way.

Strag

I don't stick my head in the Sandbox very often, but I wanted to make this clarification about the Constitution. The Preamble states:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.*



Its first three words – “We The People” – affirm that the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens.*


* Source

leejo

http://blogspectrum.blogspot.com/200...ion-apply.html

Has some interesting discussion on this sidetrack. For example:

For example, during WWII there were approximately 400,000 German, Italian, and Japanese POWs on US soil, detained indefinitely without charge or trial, access to an attorney or recourse to judicial review.

AMosely

I don't either. I think it works in reverse. The only threat to our protections is the negative will (or rather, shortsightedness) of the Executive.

The executive should not be signing laws like this - designed to specifically excuse their failed or legally shaky policies, and introducing far more problems than they claim to solve.

Those sure were the good old days, weren't they? I like to think all of humanity learned a great deal from that conflict. I'd bet that the vast majority of those captured were men and boys that had no interest in fighting the war, and had wives and kids back home.

leejo

Well of course if the law actually were what you claim that would be true. However, I don't see the law that way and just because you make the claim doesn't mean you're right.

xTYBALTx

Had we left all of those POW's in gulags for eternity, I suspect that yes, our domestic Constitutional rights would have been transferred to them eventually. As our current President feels the need to classify his own prisoners as "enemy combatants" and therefore affords them fewer rights than those German POW's ever had, he is going through the process earlier.

I'd be perfectly happy if we treated these people as POW's. But we don't. We give them fewer rights. Either treat them as criminals or treat them as POW's.

And have Congress issue a formal declaration of war while we're at it.

__________________
Current good song: Justice - Stress

leejo

I don't have a problem with treating them as neither. There ought to be a price to be paid for taking off one's uniform, and I don't want to encourage nations to continue to wage war on us in this manner. My guess is that over time they will be treated very much like POWs, as opposed to being shot in the head immediately. But it's a process, and appropriate, I think, to begin with the position that provides the maximum security, since it's sure to erode, not strengthen.

I will be shocked it Congress ever makes another formal declaration of war. But yes, that would be very helpful.