So, what does American Citizenship get me?

[fskimospy]

I've seen this myth too often lately to let it slide again.

It's not as simple as that. The SCOTUS has ruled in a number of cases on rights afforded to illegal immigrants. This guy (underwear momber) wouldn't get them all, a substantial nexus to USA is required for some rights that US citizens have (not to mention non-citizens, whether legal or not, do not have some rights such as that to vote).

In the underwear bomber's case I do not believe there is any legal impediment to trying him as an ememy combatant in a military tribunal, it was just a decision by the Obama admin to go this route. Likewise with KSM et al.

Fern

You know Fern you're seeing an awful lot of 'myths' lately that aren't myths. If you are in the jurisdiction of the US, the Constitution applies to you, period. Specifically as we are referring to criminal provisions SCOTUS has held in Wong Wing v. US that noncitizens are entitled to the same criminal protections as citizens are.

While there are times in which other constitutional actions and such might intersect with these rights and come to a different outcome there is absolutely no truth to the idea that noncitizens are not protected in this way.

For an article detailing the difference here you go: http://www.slate.com/id/1008367/

There isn't a legal impediment (currently... which is also bullshit) to Obama putting him into a military trial, but then again there is also no ruling currently preventing Obama from putting a US citizen through a military trial as Bush was planning to do with Jose Padilla. Bush later elected not to, but it was his choice.

 

[fskimospy]

Also, the idea that someone might plead not guilty is not a reason against a trial. That's the whole point.

 

[Fern]

You know Fern you're seeing an awful lot of 'myths' lately that aren't myths. If you are in the jurisdiction of the US, the Constitution applies to you, period.
-snip-

Nah, and I've shown you at least one SCOTUS case on this previously. It was when Rehnquest was Chief Justice, back in about 1989 and was concerned with a Mexican national charged with drug offenses.

Even most sites favorable to the argument that illegals get Constitutional rights recognize that a sufficient nexus is required wrt certain Constitutional rights.

It's just not as simple as the poster I responded to contends.

Fern

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I've seen this myth too often lately to let it slide again.

It's not as simple as that. The SCOTUS has ruled in a number of cases on rights afforded to illegal immigrants. This guy (underwear momber) wouldn't get them all, a substantial nexus to USA is required for some rights that US citizens have (not to mention non-citizens, whether legal or not, do not have some rights such as that to vote).

In the underwear bomber's case I do not believe there is any legal impediment to trying him as an ememy combatant in a military tribunal, it was just a decision by the Obama admin to go this route. Likewise with KSM et al.

Fern

How in the fuck would you try someone as an "enemy combatant" when the term is made up and doesn't really exist? It was a change from illegal combatant to bypass Geneva Conventions and there are no laws to process an "enemy combatant". An ILLEGAL combatant (which each and every one of them are) is to be tried by the legal system of the nation that captured them. That is civilian courts, not military tribunals.

The legal impediment would be a complete disregard for international law and the Geneva Conventions.

 

[Patranus]

The legal impediment would be a complete disregard for international law and the Geneva Conventions.

The Geneva Convention resulted in an agreement between nations not political groups. Since Al Qeada isn't a nation, how do you figure an agreement between nations is applicable to its captured members?

 

[fskimospy]

Nah, and I've shown you at least one SCOTUS case on this previously. It was when Rehnquest was Chief Justice, back in about 1989 and was concerned with a Mexican national charged with drug offenses.

Even most sites favorable to the argument that illegals get Constitutional rights recognize that a sufficient nexus is required wrt certain Constitutional rights.

It's just not as simple as the poster I responded to contends.

Fern

Yeap, and remember how that one didn't turn out so well? That was dealing with the FBI undertaking a search of a non US citizen in Mexico, a place the US does not exercise jurisdiction over. I fail to see how that applies.

 

[Gamingphreek]

For all of those seem to think that every person in the world gets full rights under the US Constitution, what do you say about the Trials at Nuremberg after World War II. Should we have just shipped them to each respective nation to be tried in civilian court??

How in the fuck would you try someone as an "enemy combatant" when the term is made up and doesn't really exist? It was a change from illegal combatant to bypass Geneva Conventions and there are no laws to process an "enemy combatant". An ILLEGAL combatant (which each and every one of them are) is to be tried by the legal system of the nation that captured them. That is civilian courts, not military tribunals.

You are quibbling over semantics! If a person attacks. From Wikipedia:

Article 5 specifies that prisoners of war (as defined in article 4) are protected from the time of their capture until their final repatriation. It also specifies that when there is any doubt whether a combatant belongs to the categories in article 4, they should be treated as such until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Just in case you want to say that they are not POW's:

4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

They fit in more than one of those categories!

They should not be tried as an American citizen in civilian court!!

-Kevin

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

The Geneva Convention resulted in an agreement between nations not political groups. Since Al Qeada isn't a nation, how do you figure an agreement between nations is applicable to its captured members?

Every nation that SIGNED it is responsible to enact it, it doesn't take two nations and illegal combatants deals with foreigners who are captured but are not soldiers.

It's not a binding document BETWEEN nations, it's a binding document FOR nations.

Clear enough for you?

 

[Fern]

Yeap, and remember how that one didn't turn out so well? That was dealing with the FBI undertaking a search of a non US citizen in Mexico, a place the US does not exercise jurisdiction over. I fail to see how that applies.

You're bypassing the point, perhaps intentionally.

The point of that case is note that the term "person" (or whatever) in the Constitiution does not automatically extend to all people. For certain rights the SCOTUS interprets it to mean people with substanial nexus to the USA, which clearly the underwear bomber (or KSM for that matter) do not have.

Hence the myth around here that person = person * PERIOD* is wrong; as is the assertion that all you have to do as an illegal alien is cross the border and you are magically granted all rights just like a US citizen. Nexus requires more than crossing the border. The courts haven't laid out precisely how much nexus you need, but just crossing the border clearly doesn't cut it.

Fern

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

For all of those seem to think that every person in the world gets full rights under the US Constitution, what do you say about the Trials at Nuremberg after World War II. Should we have just shipped them to each respective nation to be tried in civilian court??



You are quibbling over semantics! If a person attacks. From Wikipedia:


Just in case you want to say that they are not POW's:


They fit in more than one of those categories!

They should not be tried as an American citizen in civilian court!!

-Kevin

*sigh*

From the 1958 ICRC commentary:

"If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents. They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action"

Is that fucking clear enough for your dumb arse or do you need me to pick the quote apart for you too?

 

[fskimospy]

You're bypassing the point, perhaps intentionally.

The point of that case is note that the term "person" (or whatever) in the Constitiution does not automatically extend to all people. For certain rights the SCOTUS interprets it to mean people with substanial nexus to the USA, which clearly the underwear bomber (or KSM for that matter) do not have.

Hence the myth around here that person = person * PERIOD* is wrong; as is the assertion that all you have to do as an illegal alien is cross the border and you are magically granted all rights just like a US citizen. Nexus requires more than crossing the border. The courts haven't laid out precisely how much nexus you need, but just crossing the border clearly doesn't cut it.

Fern

That's not bypassing the point in the slightest. The Constitution covers US persons and areas in which the US has jurisdiction. The reason legal aliens to the US are covered by the Constitution for the most part is that they are currently residing inside the US. The man in your case was neither. The man in this case and in all of these cases in Guantanamo, etc where we are holding someone they are within US jurisdiction, rendering this case meaningless.

 

[sandorski]

An Education.

You could always give up your Citizenship to find out.

 

[Gamingphreek]

*sigh*

From the 1958 ICRC commentary:

"If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents. They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action"

Is that fucking clear enough for your dumb arse or do you need me to pick the quote apart for you too?

Wow, I didn't insult you once, but since I don't agree with your argument, you insult me. You are one classy individual...

Maybe you can point out where in the Geneva Convention that is. The ICRC Commentary is not enough - it supports the Geneva Convention.

Here is Geneva Convention III
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e63bb/6fef854a3517b75ac125641e004a9e68

No where in there does it support that statement.

Furthermore:

The treatment of prisoners who do not fall into the categories described in Article 4 has led to the current controversy regarding the interpretation of "unlawful combatants" by the George W. Bush administration. The assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists is contradicted by the findings by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment. The judgement quoted the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law,"

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention

As is said in that quote, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law". They are not protected civilians, thus they are POW's. As such they should be subject to military tribunals.

How about we keep the discussion civil. Insulting one another does nothing to help the topic and only gets people more angry (and thinking less clearly).

-Kevin

 

[PieIsAwesome]

The right to stay in the country that you are a citizen of.

 

[Carmen813]

Perhaps I don't fully understand all the aspects, but something is really messed up.

1. Enemy combatants (ie: Those in Guantanamo Bay) are, for some reason, being given full constitutional rights and tried in civilian court. I honestly cannot understand why this is allowed. What does American Citizenship give me in this case? It seems that regardless of whether or not I am a citizen I get 100% of the exact same rights as someone who is a Foreign National.

2. I recently read that, because the person involved in the attempted plane bombing on Christmas was not read his miranda rights, a lot of evidence was not permitted in civilian court. Again, if he isn't an American Citizen, why does he get every single right that I get?

3. Studies showed that 1 every 5 that were tried in civilian court that were enemy combatants returned to terrorism. Right now we are quibbling over the inexact science of intelligence not connection the dots when 20% of those we put on trial in civilian court, go back and do the exact same thing all over again.

Through all this it just seems to me that, if I were a foreign national, I could do whatever I want and still get 100% of the rights that I get as an American Citizen...

Don't misunderstand me, I believe that the enemy combatants should have some rights (In accordance with the Geneva Convention as well as fair trial (etc...)), but I cannot understand the logic in bringing them to the same Courts a US Citizen is tried in (With the same rights).

Perhaps I missed or misunderstood something, but, again, I honestly cannot comprehend the logic behind these decisions.

-Kevin

Edit: Update:
http://www1.voanews.com/english/new...-Airliner-Attack-Heads-to-Court-80985312.html

THIS is EXACTLY why you don't try him in civilian court, but in a military tribunal. Now we have to waste time and money (Both of which could be doing much better things) because this moron is now pleading NOT GUILTY!!

Why don't you read the Constitution and find out?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Perhaps I don't fully understand all the aspects, but something is really messed up.

1. Enemy combatants (ie: Those in Guantanamo Bay) are, for some reason, being given full constitutional rights and tried in civilian court. I honestly cannot understand why this is allowed. What does American Citizenship give me in this case? It seems that regardless of whether or not I am a citizen I get 100% of the exact same rights as someone who is a Foreign National.

2. I recently read that, because the person involved in the attempted plane bombing on Christmas was not read his miranda rights, a lot of evidence was not permitted in civilian court. Again, if he isn't an American Citizen, why does he get every single right that I get?

3. Studies showed that 1 every 5 that were tried in civilian court that were enemy combatants returned to terrorism. Right now we are quibbling over the inexact science of intelligence not connection the dots when 20% of those we put on trial in civilian court, go back and do the exact same thing all over again.

Through all this it just seems to me that, if I were a foreign national, I could do whatever I want and still get 100% of the rights that I get as an American Citizen...

Don't misunderstand me, I believe that the enemy combatants should have some rights (In accordance with the Geneva Convention as well as fair trial (etc...)), but I cannot understand the logic in bringing them to the same Courts a US Citizen is tried in (With the same rights).

Perhaps I missed or misunderstood something, but, again, I honestly cannot comprehend the logic behind these decisions.

-Kevin

Edit: Update:
http://www1.voanews.com/english/new...-Airliner-Attack-Heads-to-Court-80985312.html

THIS is EXACTLY why you don't try him in civilian court, but in a military tribunal. Now we have to waste time and money (Both of which could be doing much better things) because this moron is now pleading NOT GUILTY!!

What does it get you? Another day older and deeper on debt

 

[colonel]

If the Neocons of today were running our country we should be like Stalin running the WWII during the Stanlingrad siege, No retreat o you will be shot for treason or talking for peace is treason.

 

[PJABBER]

What does it get you? Another day older and deeper on debt

Exactly. (Though, you might want to change the "on" to "in." Whatever.)

 

[PJABBER]

If the Neocons of today were running our country we should be like Stalin running the WWII during the Stanlingrad siege, No retreat o you will be shot for treason or talking for peace is treason.

I really don't remember any such sieges here in DC.

Remember, when the neocons were running the country, they, too, gave peace a chance. Just not as long as Obama plans to.

 

[Carmen813]

I really don't remember any such sieges here in DC.

Remember, when the neocons were running the country, they, too, gave peace a chance. Just not as long as Obama plans to.

Jesus Christ, now I've got coffee all over my monitor.

 

[StinkyPinky]

I don't see what the problem is. The man has a right to a trial. No matter how damning the evidence he has a right to defend himself against his peers. That is a right of everyone accused of a crime in this country, regardless of what citizenship or paperwork they have. in fact, isn't that one of the founding principles of this nation?

To suggest otherwise seems fascist to me.

 

[nobodyknows]

If you are in the jurisdiction of the US, the Constitution applies to you, period. Specifically as we are referring to criminal provisions SCOTUS has held in Wong Wing v. US that noncitizens are entitled to the same criminal protections as citizens are.

Can we try him, for treason? No because he isn't a US citizen ergo he shouldn't get all the rights a US citizen gets either.

 

[sandorski]

Can we try him, for treason? No because he isn't a US citizen ergo he shouldn't get all the rights a US citizen gets either.

He doesn't. He still gets some Rights though.

 

[Jhhnn]

Lame fascist raving never ceases to amaze. The 6th amendment to the US Constitution, ratified 12/15/1791-

"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."

"The accused" is not specific wrt citizenship, intentionally so, given that the term "citizen" is used elsewhere in the document...

Whatever happened to "strict interpretation of the constitution" that the Rightwing has raved about for decades?

Inconvenient?

 

[Hacp]

Lame fascist raving never ceases to amaze. The 6th amendment to the US Constitution, ratified 12/15/1791-

"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."

"The accused" is not specific wrt citizenship, intentionally so, given that the term "citizen" is used elsewhere in the document...

Whatever happened to "strict interpretation of the constitution" that the Rightwing has raved about for decades?

Inconvenient?

Key word is criminal. This guy is a Jihad foot soldier and we're on war with terror. He belongs in Guantanamo.