Donald Trump ‘Fine’ With Prosecuting U.S. Citizens at Guantánamo

a reply to: M5xaz

American citizens under no circumstances should be taken to Guantanamo to be denied of due process.

Do you disagree with that?

a reply to: Grimpachi

You give up your rights as a US citizen when you become a bonafide terrorist. All nations abide by that that are Geneva signatories. You do have a right for a MILITARY TRIBUNAL though(you have to be overseas and out of your country though). But IF you are caught in America yes you can be tried In the US.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: M5xaz

American citizens under no circumstances should be taken to Guantanamo to be denied of due process.

Do you disagree with that?

To begin with, American soldiers AT ALL TIMES are subject to military rules and law, including being charged at Guantanamo or on any other US base.

If American soldiers are subject to it, so should anyone committing sedition and treason.

Save your "tears" for the victims, the DEAD, killed by those already released from Guantanamo by Obama.

a reply to: yuppa

US citizens have the right to a fair trial (due process) if they are in the US or abroad and caught by the US. If they are abroad and caught by foreign forces and charged for terrorism they would be subject to those foreign policies.


US citizens charged with terrorism outside of the US isn't really the issue in this thread though. It is more about the denial of due process to US citizens accused of terrorist activities.

a reply to: M5xaz

Wrong.. US soldiers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice AKA UCMJ.

US citizens have constitutional rights and those pressing to deny US citizens of their rights may one day find themselves denied of those rights in the future due to eroding of others rights.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: M5xaz

Wrong.. US soldiers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice AKA UCMJ.

US citizens have constitutional rights and those pressing to deny US citizens of their rights may one day find themselves denied of those rights in the future due to eroding of others rights.

Did you even read what I wrote ? Reading comprehension ? I specifically referred to the military judicial system, separate from the civilian one .

Do you support the Nuremberg trials, yes or no ?
( my guess is no)

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: yuppa

US citizens have the right to a fair trial (due process) if they are in the US or abroad and caught by the US. If they are abroad and caught by foreign forces and charged for terrorism they would be subject to those foreign policies.


US citizens charged with terrorism outside of the US isn't really the issue in this thread though. It is more about the denial of due process to US citizens accused of terrorist activities.

Military Tribunals
On November 13, 2001, President George W. Bush issued a new military order in the war against terrorism. The order called for the secretary of defense to detain non-citizens accused of international terrorism. The order specifically applies to members of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda. But it also includes all those who have engaged in, aided, or conspired to commit international terrorist acts against the United States or its citizens. Those who knowingly harbor such individuals are also subject to the order. Under the order, the secretary is charged with establishing military tribunals (also called military commissions) to conduct trials of non-citizens accused of terrorism either in the United States or in other parts of the world.

A military tribunal, or commission, is different from a regular civilian criminal court. In a tribunal, military officers act as both judge and jury. After a hearing, guilt is determined by a vote of the commissioners. Unlike a criminal jury, the decision does not have to be unanimous.

The order required the U.S. Secretary of defense to establish procedures for the commissions that would assure an accused a "full and fair trial."

On March 21, 2002, the Department of Defense issued its proposed procedures for the commissions. Under the rules, a commission will consist of three to seven members appointed by the secretary of defense or by a committee established by the secretary. All commission members will be officers in the U.S. armed forces. A presiding officer will be chosen for each commission and must be a military lawyer. The presiding officer will have the authority to admit or exclude evidence. The officer may also conduct the trial in closed session if this is necessary to protect classified information or to assure the safety of defendants, witnesses, or commission members.

Under the procedures, a defendant would receive many, but not all, of the due process protections guaranteed to a defendant in a U.S. civilian criminal court. The tribunal procedures guarantee the following due process protections:

An accused will be provided with defense counsel and can also have a lawyer of his or her own choosing, either a military or civilian attorney.
The accursed will be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
An accused may refuse to testify during trial. The accused will have the right to obtain witnesses and documents necessary for the defense.
A person accused may not be tried twice before a military commission for the same offense
An accused will be allowed to negotiate and enter into a plea agreement.
Under the procedures, however, a person can be convicted in a commission trial by a two-thirds majority of the commissioners: Unanimous verdicts are not required. Evidence, including previous trial testimony and written statements, will be admissible if it tends to prove or disprove the case at hand. The exclusionary rule, which keeps illegally seized evidence out of a civilian criminal trial, does not apply. The procedures do not provide for appeals from a guilty verdict to civilian judges. They do, however, call for "reviews" of a verdict by a three-member panel selected by the secretary of defense. No verdict will be final until approved by the president or the secretary of defense .

Critics of President Bush's order worry that defendants in military tribunals may not receive a fair trial. They think that using tribunals to try non-U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism might undermine American credibility overseas. President Bush and his administration defend their use. "We are an open society," stated the president, "but we are at war. We must not let foreign terrorists use the forums of liberty to destroy freedom itself."

So they Are getting DUE PROCESS,but not CIVIL DUE PROCESS.

a reply to: M5xaz


The Nuremberg trials were conducted by the Britsh and US for trying those accused of war crimes and had been precedence set at the end of World War I in the Leipzig War Crimes Trials.

November 1943, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States published their "Declaration on German Atrocities in Occupied Europe", which gave a "full warning" that, when the Nazis were defeated, the Allies would "pursue them to the uttermost ends of the earth ... in order that justice may be done. ... The above declaration is without prejudice to the case of the major war criminals whose offences have no particular geographical location and who will be punished by a joint decision of the Government of the Allies." This Allied intention to dispense justice was reiterated at the Yalta Conference and at Berlin in 1945.

I see you are trying to equivocate the Nuremberg trials with Gauntomino is simply a joke because there is no precedence and furthermore this is about US citizens being denied due process. Do you not understand that because it has explained here repeatedly. Reading comprehension , get some please.

a reply to: yuppa

The Military Commissions Act, which governs the tribunals system, does not permit using it for American citizens.

www.law.cornell.edu...

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: yuppa

The Military Commissions Act, which governs the tribunals system, does not permit using it for American citizens.

www.law.cornell.edu...

AHH I see I missed a few words. Didnt notice the NON. ok so you are correct does that make it right to grant them special prilidges just because they are US citizens comitting treason?

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: M5xaz


The Nuremberg trials were conducted by the Britsh and US for trying those accused of war crimes and had been precedence set at the end of World War I in the Leipzig War Crimes Trials.

November 1943, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States published their "Declaration on German Atrocities in Occupied Europe", which gave a "full warning" that, when the Nazis were defeated, the Allies would "pursue them to the uttermost ends of the earth ... in order that justice may be done. ... The above declaration is without prejudice to the case of the major war criminals whose offences have no particular geographical location and who will be punished by a joint decision of the Government of the Allies." This Allied intention to dispense justice was reiterated at the Yalta Conference and at Berlin in 1945.

I see you are trying to equivocate the Nuremberg trials with Gauntomino is simply a joke because there is no precedence and furthermore this is about US citizens being denied due process. Do you not understand that because it has explained here repeatedly. Reading comprehension , get some please.

Totally wrong again.
Typical low information democrat voter.

Nuremberg trials WERE a precedent for Guantanamo trials, like it or not. By definition, Military trials ARE due process- unless you also wish to invalidate the UCMJ because it is not "civilian".

Again, where is your empathy for the VICTIMS of the Guantanamo detainees....says a lot about you...google "empathy"...

originally posted by: M5xaz
Again, where is your empathy for the VICTIMS of the Guantanamo detainees....says a lot about you...google "empathy"...

In the vast majority of the Guantanamo detainees we don't know they had victims, we were literally just kidnapping random people off the street to fill the prison.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: M5xaz
Again, where is your empathy for the VICTIMS of the Guantanamo detainees....says a lot about you...google "empathy"...

In the vast majority of the Guantanamo detainees we don't know they had victims, we were literally just kidnapping random people off the street to fill the prison.

No, the US military was not.
Provide substance / link to that simpleton statement

If you listen closely you can actually here the Trump supporters flip-flop on this as they realise they need to support Trump.

Sheep have to tow the line right, no room for individual thought.

originally posted by: avp251
At least the people Trump puts in there will actually belong there. .

What makes you so sure?

originally posted by: M5xaz
No, the US military was not.
Provide substance / link to that simpleton statement

We could start with the case of Lakhdar Boumediene.

If someone decides to leave the country to join a group like ISIS?I'd content that person has renounced his citizenship and the rights that go with it.

originally posted by: TDawg61
If someone decides to leave the country to join a group like ISIS?I'd content that person has renounced his citizenship and the rights that go with it.

The courts disagree.

a reply to: M5xaz

Again, where is your empathy for the VICTIMS of the Guantanamo detainees

how many exactly?
actual facts and figures please, not trump storytelling.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: TDawg61
If someone decides to leave the country to join a group like ISIS?I'd content that person has renounced his citizenship and the rights that go with it.

The courts disagree.

A caveat here. IF you are caught ABROAD the US constitution does not protect you if you betray it.