…insist on violating the Laws of War?
Before citing the 1949 Geneva POW Convention, critics should be aware what they actually say. Article 84 states: “A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court.” And Article 97 says: “Prisoners of war shall not in any case be transferred to penitentiary establishments (prisons, penitentiaries, convict prisons, etc.).” [Emphasis added in both cases.]
It is only because terrorists like Khalid Sheik Mohammed & Co. don’t qualify for full Geneva protection that we have the legal option of trying them in domestic courts.
I think that Eric Holder should be charged with war crimes.
[Update a while later]
Yes, I occasionally do troll my own site — one of the privileges of being the host. As you can see, it didn’t take long to reel the first one in.
Meanwhile, here is a useful discussion on the question concerning with whom we are at war, which could clarify who we do, and do not, Mirandize.
While we’re charging people with war crimes, we should charge (at least) John Yoo. You can’t waterboard POWs.
Also, article 84 only applies to offenses committed while a POW. KSM is being tried for offenses prior to capture, and in the case of the first World Trade Center bombing, prior to a state of war existing.
text of the Convention.
While we’re charging people with war crimes, we should charge (at least) John Yoo.
That didn’t take long. You snapped at that bait like a starving shark.
Rand – you can’t just pick and choose which laws you’re going to obey, which is exactly what that article does.
Better have someone look into that irony detector, Chris.
Chris: According to the Geneva Conventions, one who violates the conventions can be lined up against the wall and shot. We did that to Germans who dressed in US uniforms during the initial phases of the Battle of the Bulge.
I have a better idea of who we do and do not Mirandize. If they are in American territory, they get Mirandized. Besides reflecting the actual fact that people in the US are accorded the constitutional rights they get advised of during Miranda, it recognizes that law enforcement, who will be doing the arresting, does Miranda warnings as a matter of course.
Not only that, it recognizes that we will have to try those cases in civilian courts anyway. The only way to avoid taking a terrorist case to civilian courts would be to either declare martial law or accord all of Al Qaida POW status as legitimate combatants. (The Nazi infiltrators case in WWII hinged on the fact that, had the infiltrators met the standards for legal combatants, they would have been declared POWs and held.)
I have a better idea of who we do and do not Mirandize.
Just because you think it’s a better idea doesn’t make it a better idea.
Leiberman says laws on the books should allow us to revoke the citizenship of terrorists. I like it.
Lieberman is correct. If terrorism is an act of war then it is also an act of treason if committed by a citizen. Citizenship can be revoked for treason.
I have a better idea
Here is the problem with the whole “progressive” project. “Progressives” are so busy trying to impose those unproven “better ideas” that they have no time to listen to or consider alternatives.
They always think they know better, so much so that they are eager to impose their “better ideas” on everyone else, and get all upset should anyone have the audacity to dare question their “better ideas”.
No, treason does not revoke citizenship. See the constitution here.
So, Hillary Rodham Clinton gets to revoke your citizenship? Because that’s exactly what Lieberman proposes – revoking the citizenship of anybody affiliated with an organization deemed terrorist by the State Department.
I note that the Founding Fathers, who knew a thing or two about revolutions and treason, were very careful to define what it was and how to punish it.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason… loss of citizenship seems appropriate.
Ken Anthony – punishment occurs after a trial, not before.
You know, I’ve been hearing on this site for months how health care reform was the greatest threat to freedom ever, and how its passage was the act of a power-hungry tyrant.
Then, this dropout from the Wily E. Coyote School of Bombmaking comes along. His firecrackers fizzle, and 52 hours later he’s sitting in FBI custody allegedly singing like he’s a contestant on American Idol.
In response to that, we want to give the Executive unilateral authority to revoke the citizenship of any American based on an accusation of who they are associating with. How is that not an act of tyranny? How is that not a threat to freedom? What’s next – do we pull the Hutaree’s citizenship?
In response to that, we want to give the Executive unilateral authority to revoke the citizenship of any American based on an accusation of who they are associating with.
Who is this “we” you speak of?
Rand – “we” referst to the commentors on this post.
That’s a very strange use of the first-person plural. Are you unfamiliar with its meaning?
Rand – do you want me to explain colloquialisms to you?
I note that you’re studiously ducking the bigger issue – how is granting the Executive unilateral authority to revoke citizenship not a threat to freedom?
Since I haven’t advocated granting such authority, I can’t imagine what mental defect would cause you to think that I must defend it. Is this another straw man?
Just trying to see if you agree or disagree with Andy Clark and ken anthony. Apparently you disagree.
I was also curious to see Clark and Anthony’s responses.
We did that to Germans who dressed in US uniforms during the initial phases of the Battle of the Bulge.
We’re getting off-topic, but were any of them actually shot? According to Wikipedia Skorzeny, the German unit’s commander, was acquitted by a military court after the war because it had not been proved that he had ordered any of his soldiers to actually fight in American uniforms. He had even warned them that according to German legal experts merely wearing the uniforms was probably not a war crime, while fighting in them was. Allied forces used the tactic as well.
That’s a very strange use of the first-person plural.
It must be a use of the pluralis hospitalis – ‘How are we feeling today Mr Simberg? The doctor will be here shortly.’
Sometimes I think Mr. Gerrib plays dumb on purpose.
Messrs Anthony & Clark, please correct me if I’m wrong, but I want to walk through the logic of your two posts.
First, Mr. Anthony quotes Lieberman as saying existing law allows us to revoke the citizenship of terrorists. Gerrib says this is not so. (it would be nice if someone could provide a reference to the Senator actually said)
Second, Mr. Clark agrees with Anthony, saying that an act of terrorism = an act of war = an act of treason, whereupon citizenship may be revoked. Looks pretty clear so far.
Come to think of it, unless Joe Lieberman suggested something really dumb, Mr. Clark seems to have grasped the fundamental issue. And, yes, Mr. Gerrib, we can read the Constitution just as well as you, and one of the definitions of treason is “levying war” against the United States. And, as Mr. Clark pointed out, Congress “shall have the power to declare the punishment,” which sounds like revoking citizenship is on the table. In fact, wasn’t that the idea behind The Man Without A Country?
Mr. Gerrib then posits claims about “unilateral” authority of the executive branch to revoke anyone’s citizenship they wish, which no one here has said. One presumes that Mr. Clark meant after a trial, Congress has the right to declare punishment. Is that what you meant, Mr. Clark? I will agree with Mr. Gerrib as to then necessity of a trial.
So Clark, at least, posted a comment which falls well within current law, but Gerrib comes up with absurd straw men based on things neither said nor claimed by recent commenters.
Considering that Mr. Gerrib’s claims are wildly at variance with what was actually said, I don’t know how Rand could agree or disagree.
It is pretty funny that Gerrib doesn’t even get the joke buried within Rand’s original post; I suppose his irony meter pegged out a long time ago.
Rand, do you agree with Andy McCarthy that US citizens (whether native-born or naturalized) not connected to a known terrorist group, but sympathetic with one, who bomb an American city did not commit an act of war against the US?
Say some American locals decide the US is behind the recent Greek meltdown, and pull Oklahoma City Bombing II in a large city. That’s not a terrorist act, or equivalent to an act of war?
Casey, you’ve clarified it well.
we want to give the Executive unilateral authority to revoke the citizenship of any American based on an accusation of who they are associating with.
No. Chris, what did I actually say?
I was listening to Leiberman live on Fox, but here’s a related article.
Lieberman said on TV I think it’s time for us to look at whether we want to amend that law to apply it to American citizens who choose to become affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations, whether they should not also be deprived automatically of their citizenship, and therefore be deprived of rights that come with that citizenship when they are apprehended and charged with a terrorist act.
Nowhere in that statement, or any other part of the interview, is there a statement about trial or any other due process. In fact, it’s clearly an attempt to do an end-run around an accused’s Constitutional rights.
Now, maybe he’s changed his mind since that interview. I don’t know. But at the time he announced it, the plan was a clear attempt to revoke citizenship on an accusation.
Thank you, Chris, for the first solid link to the above claims, although I wonder why you didn’t provide it in your first response? Not being snarky, but am genuinely curious.
Ok. There are two conflicting statements in the linked article. One relates to the headline, in that Lieberman said we ‘strip “American citizens who choose to become affiliated with foreign terrorists” of their citizenship.’
Oddly enough, in the same video, he previously said “Some of us have started to talk about it here, which is that there is an existing law — which hasn’t been much used — that says if an American citizen is shown to be fighting in a military force that is an enemy of the United States, then that person loses their citizenship and they no longer have the rights of citizenship,” (emphasis added)
In a single interview Senator Lieberman has apparently presented two entirely different approaches. I doubt that very many Americans would argue that someone who has been “shown to be (i.e. convicted in court) fighting in [an] enemy force” could be arguably stripped of their citizenship. On the other hand, can the state legitimately proscribe the citizenship of someone who has “chosen to be affiliated with” terrorists. Note that we allow American Nazi groups to demonstrate in the United States.
Certainly an elemental reading of the Constitution implies a trial with the phrase “No Person shall be convicted of Treason…”
I suppose the question here is: was Senator Joe confused, or opportunistic?
Ken, if what Chris linked to is correct, merely “affiliating” with an organization is quite different from “fighting in a military force that is an enemy of the United States.”
…On the gripping hand, I still think Rand gets credit for trolling, even though Senator Joe may have provided some idiot support for the opposition…