Did I just lose my right to jury trial?

Great Debates
1

Erm…well, according to the news, and a layman’s read of the
Military Commissions Act of 2006, it would appear that the
executive branch could decide I am a bad guy, “detain” me, and
have me tried (and possibly executed), without benefit of a jury trial.

Without any judicial review at all.

In the USA.

I’m not a lefty radical or anything…I’m just a little confused. Did
that really just happen? If so, this is one of the most earth-shaking
events in our country’s history. I mean, is that right? Can that possibly be the case?

-Crat

2

NOt a General Question, but a Great Debate. Moved.

samclem

3

I don’t know much about this sort of stuff. I assume you could be detained and “questioned” for up to a couple of weeks, if someone believes you might be guilty of something really dangerous. k

As for execution… well, even Hussein is getting a thorough and fair trial, so… I hope you and I would get the same. But I don’t know - I don’t keep up with this shit.

4

The right of jury trial in now a special privilege; granted by the executive branch to some citizens of the US. Others are given whatever process is considered in the best interest of National Security. This has become necessary because terrorists threaten us all because they hate freedom. In order to protect freedom, we must give it up.

However, don’t worry; our government is controlled by wise men, with only your best interests at heart. They would never abuse the power they have been given.

Tris

5

I direct you to the Library of Congress, from that link type in “S.3930” in the search engine, hit search, and you will be directed to all the relevant text for the Military Commissions Act passed this year.

I suggest reading the full text of it.

A short summary from said website:

6

[QUOTE=Cratylus-3]
Erm…well, according to the news, and a layman’s read of the
Military Commissions Act of 2006, it would appear that the
executive branch could decide I am a bad guy, “detain” me, and
have me tried (and possibly executed), without benefit of a jury trial.
[/quote]

Are you an alien? If you have United States citizenship that would, from the relevant text of the act, preclude you from being tried by military commission.

The act also makes mention that your status as an unlawful combatant must be established, although such status was already up for annual review prior to the passage of this act through earlier legislative acts.

So, if you’re an alien who is captured by the U.S. government, are found to be an unlawful combatant, are then found to be guilty of a crime warranting the death penalty, are then unanimously sentenced to death (by 12 of them)–then yes, you could be sentenced to death by not a jury of your peers but instead twelve commissioned officers in the U.S. Armed Forces.

No, the text clearly states that decisions of a military commission can be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States.

7

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
Are you an alien? If you have United States citizenship that would, from the relevant text of the act, preclude you from being tried by military commission.

The act also makes mention that your status as an unlawful combatant must be established, although such status was already up for annual review prior to the passage of this act through earlier legislative acts.

So, if you’re an alien who is captured by the U.S. government, are found to be an unlawful combatant, are then found to be guilty of a crime warranting the death penalty, are then unanimously sentenced to death (by 12 of them)–then yes, you could be sentenced to death by not a jury of your peers but instead twelve commissioned officers in the U.S. Armed Forces.

No, the text clearly states that decisions of a military commission can be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States.
[/QUOTE]

Please see:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:3:./temp/~c109GAKwqy:e8772:

You can see that there is an effort to make it seem like only aliens are
affected. Someone reading only to Sec. 948d(a) would come away with
that impression. But if you read down to Sec. 948d(c) you see they drop
the alien bit in this clause for jurisdiction.

It may be unconstitutional, but that is what the text represents. Sec. 948d(c) reads

(c) Determination of Unlawful Enemy Combatant Status Dispositive- A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.

And the definition of Unlawful Enemy Combatant is:

               `(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or

              `(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.

-Crat

8

[QUOTE=Triskadecamus]
The right of jury trial in now a special privilege; granted by the executive branch to some citizens of the US. Others are given whatever process is considered in the best interest of National Security. This has become necessary because terrorists threaten us all because they hate freedom. In order to protect freedom, we must give it up.

However, don’t worry; our government is controlled by wise men, with only your best interests at heart. They would never abuse the power they have been given.

Tris
[/QUOTE]

“In order to protect the village, it became necessary to destroy the village.”

9

http://dir.salon.com/story/comics/boll/2002/01/10/boll/index.html

10

[QUOTE=Cratylus-3]
But if you read down to Sec. 948d(c) you see they drop
the alien bit in this clause for jurisdiction.
[/QUOTE]
Section 948d(c) clarifies how one determines the “unlawful enemy combatant” part of “alien unlawful enemy combatant”. It does not redefine the scope.

Note section 948c, in its entirety

That’s it. Period. The whole kit and caboodle. People subject to military commissions are:

  1. alien unlawful enemy combatants

One more time. The section of the bill defining who is and who isn’t subject to being tried by military commission includes exactly one line, and exactly one type of individual, the alien unlawful enemy combatant. Sections of the bill to further define AUEC’s by piece part does not suddenly make citizens subject to these trials.

11

[QUOTE=Cratylus-3]
It may be unconstitutional, but that is what the text represents. Sec. 948d(c) reads

(c) Determination of Unlawful Enemy Combatant Status Dispositive- A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.

And the definition of Unlawful Enemy Combatant is:

               `(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or

              `(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.

[/QUOTE]
IANAL, but that seems perfectly correct to me. The definition of unlawful enemy combatant can be one given to both alien and domestic citizens, which makes sense. However, the right to a jury trial, as Martin Hyde has shown, is only withdrawn in the case of alien unlawful combatants. Domestic unlawful combatants do not fall under the stricter definition.

It’s like me saying I won’t wear red hats, and then defining hats as being something you wear on your head that can be of many colours. Will I wear blue hats? Certainly. Even though they’re in the definition, they’re not in the stricter definition for wearing.

12

[QUOTE=Cratylus-3]
Did that really just happen? If so, this is one of the most earth-shaking events in our country’s history. I mean, is that right? Can that possibly be the case?
[/quote]

A-yup. Our best hope now is that the Supreme Court shoots this down ASAP, though I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting.

In the meantime, I suggest you take some precautions, like making a sizable donation to your local chapter of the RNC. Failure to do so may have you labeled as an “enemy combatant”. And don’t donate money to any other political party, else you may be seen as giving material support to an “enemy organization”…

13

[QUOTE=Cratylus-3]
Erm…well, according to the news, and a layman’s read of the
Military Commissions Act of 2006, it would appear that the
executive branch could decide I am a bad guy, “detain” me, and
have me tried (and possibly executed), without benefit of a jury trial.
[/QUOTE]

Maybe I watched too many spy movies & tv shows as a kid, but it’s always been my assumption that that’s the way the world has always been, and the way of the U.S. since the founding fathers.

Granted, there are laws saying it shouldn’t happen that way and that people will get Very Punished after the fact if they’re found out, but if I’m the one who got dumped into a landfill in Nebraska, I don’t much care about that part.

14

[QUOTE=Ethilrist]
Maybe I watched too many spy movies & tv shows as a kid, but it’s always been my assumption that that’s the way the world has always been, and the way of the U.S. since the founding fathers.

Granted, there are laws saying it shouldn’t happen that way and that people will get Very Punished after the fact if they’re found out, but if I’m the one who got dumped into a landfill in Nebraska, I don’t much care about that part.
[/QUOTE]
Well, yeah, but the point is that if it does get found out, the people involved will get Very Punished. If what Cratylus-3 is saying was correct (though it isn’t) those people involved are fine even if it does get found out.

It may be no skin off your nose as the victim, but hey, why make any murder illegal in that case?

15

'Scuse me, but you’re an alien unlawful combatant terrorist and we’ve got a room waiting for you."

Excuse me, but I’m an American citizen, I’ve broken no laws, I’m no terrorist, and I can prove it in a court of law if necessary"

Prove it to whom, you silly unlawful combatant alien terrorist? Now c’mon, we’re going waterboarding!"

16

[QUOTE=Ethilrist]
Maybe I watched too many spy movies & tv shows as a kid, but it’s always been my assumption that that’s the way the world has always been, and the way of the U.S. since the founding fathers.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, in most most cases we just kill the unlawful alien combatants by dropping a bomb on them before they get a chance to go to a trial of any sort. The ones fortunate enough to miss that process get a military trail.

17

[QUOTE=AHunter3]
'Scuse me, but you’re an alien unlawful combatant terrorist and we’ve got a room waiting for you."

Excuse me, but I’m an American citizen, I’ve broken no laws, I’m no terrorist, and I can prove it in a court of law if necessary"

Prove it to whom, you silly unlawful combatant alien terrorist? Now c’mon, we’re going waterboarding!"
[/QUOTE]

Let’s not let facts get in the way of hyperbole like this!

18

[QUOTE=rjung]
In the meantime, I suggest you take some precautions, like making a sizable donation to your local chapter of the RNC. Failure to do so may have you labeled as an “enemy combatant”. And don’t donate money to any other political party, else you may be seen as giving material support to an “enemy organization”…
[/QUOTE]
Cite?

19

[QUOTE=Si Amigo]
Yeah, in most most cases we just kill the unlawful alien combatants by dropping a bomb on them before they get a chance to go to a trial of any sort. The ones fortunate enough to miss that process get a military trail.
[/QUOTE]
Apart from the US Intel’s estimated 70%-90 innocent people [pdf] in Gitmo.

As far as I can tell, from reading the SDMB and materials related to the subject over the past 5 years, the tribunal that is meant by the GC to establish the “unlawful combatant” status of a prisoner is non-existent in current US military practice.

However, given the treatment of John Walker Lindh, you can enjoy the benefit of the US legal system if you’re a US citizen.

20

[QUOTE=Defective Detective]
I don’t know much about this sort of stuff. I assume you could be detained and “questioned” for up to a couple of weeks, if someone believes you might be guilty of something really dangerous. k

As for execution… well, even Hussein is getting a thorough and fair trial, so… I hope you and I would get the same. But I don’t know - I don’t keep up with this shit.
[/QUOTE]

Is this sarcasm? :confused: