Not just citizenship, but also location. The Constitution applies to the US, not to the entire world. Somebody in Pakistan is not covered by it.
Are preposterous questions based on strawmen the only tools in your debate arsenal? I’ve already told you, they should receive due process. That should have been an answer to your question.
US territory. And their crimes did not occur in the US. The US certainly has the option of trying them in the US, but is not required to.
They can also be tried by military tribunal. Which, if run by someone other than Bush and his horrible ilk, can deliver a fair trial and meet all the requirements of due process.
Gitmo is NOT “US territory”. :rolleyes: That’s why it’s been so useful to Bush, remember?
Re military tribunals, as you’ve been asked before but evaded answering, under what authority?
Then whose territory is it? Cuba’s?!
Oh I see… you’re on my side. 
Honestly, I don’t see the appeal in military tribunals. What good are they? What makes them different from a civilian trial? Would you want to be tried by one?
You said they should receive due process, but not all the rights granted to suspected criminals in the US. Which rights would you deny them and why?
Miranda, jury trial, exclusionary rule for violations of the 4th amendment, allowing hearsay (which can lead to the confrontation clause), public trials, strict and too short definitions of “speedy trial” to name a few.
Yes.
Since the prosecution is also the judge and jury, and is making up the rules too, a military tribunal can be more, erm, “efficient”. But it’s still a sham.
Hamlet, you were also asked why.
The rules of evidence are different, and much more realistic for war crimes prosecution. Hearsay for example is a big one. Other, more procedural rules (exclusionary rule, etc.) will keep out valuable information. (just so you know, I do think information gathered by torture should not be admissible). Second, as the OP raised, the protection of national security secrets, including informants, plans, and future operations. While criminal trials in the US are focused on prosecution of past crimes, stopping terrorism takes a much more forward looking approach. Burning C.I’s, showing our intelligence methodology, and our classified information to terrorists is generally not a good way to fight terrorism. While it is reasonable in the US to force the police to decide between stopping future crimes or gaining convictions, it’s not in the national security sphere. Third, the protection of the people involved, including jurors, judges, witnesses, and everyone else involved.
So Castro is the one in charge of all those US marines and US prisoners?
So “Inquisition” is inflamed rhetoric, then? Seems apt to me. Maybe you’d like to explain how this “trial” you propose is any different. There is no due process there. Might as well just take them out back have them shot.
If you seriously believe this is acceptable, I think I’m done here.
Then you’re done. If you think that the Nuremberg trials, the War Crimes tribunals about the former Yugoslavia, In Re Quirin, Yamashita, POW trials, and all of the other thousands of trials done like that are all “Inquisitions”, you’re probably not really cut out for an honest debate here. Best of Luck out there.
There’s a definition of “territory.” It doesn’t include leased property the freehold to which is explicitly controlled by another sovereign. That’s not ideology. That’s just law and legal definitions. Lobby to change them if you will. And while doing so, consider whether you will be authorizing the Saudi government to rent an apartment next to you and commence amputations of thieves therein.
Bolding mine.
So Castro is the one in charge of all those US Marines and prisoners, then?
No one said that.
The U.S. is doing things on Cuban territory that, for all I know, violate Cuban law and the terms of the lease.
I am not a Cuban law expert, but for all I know, Castro has the legal right to stop it. In a real world, he has no political or military ability to enforce said right.
Do not argue with me (or with ElvisLives who for God’s sake has probably never been in a thread where the two of us are saying the same thing): the U.S. is engaged in a tactical strategem turning around the legal definition of “territory of the United States,” as that has been defined over the years. It’s legalistic, it may or may not hold water even as a Jesuitical legal tactic, and (on the substance) I’m not loving it. Please just stop banging your head against the wall trying to persuade anyone that Guantanamo is legally going to be defined as “U.S. territory.” Under current law it simply is not, until some legislative body, agency, or court of competent authority changes the current definition of that word.
So all of those trials were performed behind closed doors with ridiculously loosened standards of evidence, no guaranteed rights for the suspects and of course no way for anybody to verify that whatever gonzo standards applied were upheld? Yes, I suppose they were very similar to the Inquisition, then.
I’m not really arguing the legal definition of ‘territory’. I’m arguing that Guantanamo Bay is de facto US territory regardless of what you want to call it: We control the land, the prison, and every human being on that patch of land. It is not morally acceptable that, because it doesn’t meet some obscure legal definition of territory, we’re allowed to toss out everything the US stands for in pursuit of some perverted idea of justice and national security.
Again, I’m arguing morals, not law. I’m arguing what should be, not what is.
Okay, I’ll acknowledge that if you’ll acknowledge that there’s a legal reason they’re resorting to this roundabout game, and it’s the one Elvis and I mentioned.
Same with rendition. Not sure why torturing (or whatever it adds up to) in Poland is okay if torturing in America isn’t. But again, at some legal level, they’ve made it fly.
“Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue” comes to mind. That they resort to such rigmarole does suggest to me that they know their underlying activity is sketchy at best.
What is it with you and these questions where all you do is build strawmen and misrepresent my position? Is it chronic problem for you?
I recognize that there will be some prosecutions that involve items of national security and so should not be public. You, apparently disagree. But rather than, say debating it, you simply pretend it’s the Inquisition.
I do not find using reliable hearsay (as Nuremberg, the Hague tribunals, and a majority of war crimes have) cases to be “ridiculous”. Nor do I think the admission of items seized in a foreign country that may have violated the fourth amendment had it occurred in the US. You apparently do. But rather than engage in actual debate about it, you simply pretend it’s the Inquistion.
I point out that not ALL rights given to criminals in our justice system is necessary for due process. You apparently disagree. But rather than ask what rights I do think are, you just misrepresent it is “no guaranteed rights”.
And you misrepresent the idea that there will be no “verify” of these gonzo standards, when I clearly stated earlier that I support habeas corpus and judicial review of the proceedings.
You refuse to engage in honest debate, you misrepresent my positions, and rely only on building and knocking down strawmen. Had I known that before, I wouldn’t’ have wasted my time answering your questions. If you decide to change it up a bit and actually honestly debate the issue, let me know. Until then, I’m done.
Sure, fair enough. I agree with you about that. Like I said, I’m not here to argue law, because I know very little about it. I appreciate every bit of ignorance fighting you can muster on that subject. I actually didn’t know Gitmo wasn’t technically US territory. I thought it had been ours since the Spanish-American war.
I just think that wrong is wrong no matter what legal terms you try to couch it in. It is wrong for the US to deny basic rights and fair trials to people we suspect are criminals no matter which patch of land we happen to have taken them to and no matter which crime they are accused of.
Wiki tells me:
What is it with you and all this bluster and handwaving? If you had a clear, thought-out position to start with, then it wouldn’t be necessary for so many people to probe you to find out what the hell is behind all your table-pounding.
You are ignoring all the other vastly significant differences between whatever the military tribunals (which you yourself lament haven’t even been defined and yet defend in great yet undefined detail) would have turned out to be under Cheney’s lawlessness, and what the conduct of morally and legally acceptable procedures under the Geneva Conventions (which, as we’ve seen elsewhere, you’ve never even bothered to read) would be.
And you complain about others not being willing to discuss the problem “honestly”. Snort.
Then, in the cause of what you purport to be “honest debate” on your part, you might try explaining what those are - you haven’t done so, despite having found time for all this bluster. Can you see how that failure can appear to be lack of an argument? Try it now, then - what rights *do *you think these people have, and under what authority?
You claim to support them, sure, but the question was about how they would be guaranteed. You offer nothing in reply.
You haven’t “answered” any questions at all.
You ain’t got shit but can’t make yourself admit it. Don’t kid yourself that it isn’t obvious. When come back, bring argument.