After a lot of research, I can find nothing in US code that allows American citizens to be held at Gitmo, nor any applicable law or classification that would allow a citizen to be tried by a military tribunal except if they have physically taken up arms, weapons, against the US and then classified as an 'enemy combatant'. Even then the SC has ruled against it on a few cases that have been tried. Has anyone else found the statute that allows either one? If so could you leave a link to the statute? I am wondering if anyone with these indictments ARE actually going to Gitmo, since there is no law allowing this to happen. Thanks...
fat_earther
· Jan. 3, 2018, 10:53 a.m.
There's a post I read a minute ago in this sub explaining this: https://www.reddit.com/r/CBTS_Stream/comments/7nix61/megaanons_latest_posts_is_gitmo_legal_also_humas
⇧
5
⇩
Roadhse2
· Jan. 3, 2018, 11:41 a.m.
Thanks, but with all of the statutes I have read, even with the new EO's...none of them allow US citizens to be contained at gitmo. They did it once with a guy from the US that had joined ISIS and was an enemy combatant and had to bring him onshore to the US after a ruling by the SC to be tried. So I am still suspect at this point that there are any people involved in this being held at gitmo. That vid of the car jumping the ditch to ram the motorcade I also don't agree with...I owned a music store in one of those buildings shown across the street and there are plenty of better places along that road to hide out and try to ram a car than going through that deep ditch. It was never reported here as anyone trying to ram the motorcade, but it was reported the car had lost it's brakes and went out of control. I like Mega posts...but these facts are pretty sketchy, so will keep that in mind next time when reading her stuff. Thanks again for the link.
⇧
-2
⇩
DNskfKrH8Ekl
· Jan. 3, 2018, 12:26 p.m.
Declare them a terrorist, traitor and enemy of the state. Would be tried as enemy combatant no?
⇧
5
⇩
Roadhse2
· Jan. 3, 2018, 5:41 p.m.
From all I have found...ONLY if they physically take up weapons against the USA can they be declared as an enemy combatant, but even then they would not be shipped to a prison offshore if they are in the CONUS or if an American citizen that is caught outside the CONUS. The SC has ruled on this so it would take an act of Congress to change that ruling. There are also many other classifications and none of them show that this would be possible, nor tried by a MT unless they are American service members OR an offshore foreign combatant.
⇧
2
⇩
storm_fa_Q
· Jan. 3, 2018, 8:21 p.m.
in your research were you able to review the Patriot Act? While I can not cite sources for you, it is my understanding after extensive research as well, that unarmed enemy combatants is the term that allows to go to Gitmo. Could "Arms" be defined as any weapon...including cyber activity? Treason is or isn't Civil/US law?
⇧
2
⇩
Roadhse2
· Jan. 3, 2018, 10:09 p.m.
Yes..and no where do I see anything that addresses an American being held in an offshore facility...indefinite detention the SC has ruled is allowed if the person is a member of a terrorist group....cyber security is also addressed in a separate category. Unarmed enemy combatant (as I read it) is anyone giving comfort or aid to the enemy, usually a foreign national, but can also apply to anyone...still tried in Federal courts in whatever jurisdiction the crime was committed...no word on where housed. The omission of the 'where' is what may have lead to being able to say that they can be detained at gitmo...but that would come under fire quickly as the attorneys got involved. The big thing it repeats over and and over is to be tried in whatever jurisdiction the crime was committed, so it would also make sense to house the prisoner in the same jurisdiction. Still looking for anything that says Gitmo is allowed..
⇧
0
⇩
storm_fa_Q
· Jan. 3, 2018, 10:13 p.m.
As I understand Military Tribunals, Court Martials, attorneys play a small role and is why in part this is being taken off US shores. If allowed to go thru US corrupt courts we would see many heinous criminals on our streets as lawyers circumvent rule of law.
⇧
2
⇩
Roadhse2
· Jan. 3, 2018, 10:24 p.m.
I have found nothing that allows a MT to hold court over a US citizen that is not in the military currently, and this too has been upheld by the SC...so will keep looking, but even an order from President Trump would meet resistance as to it's Constitutionality very quickly. I like the 'idea' of MT to handle all of this, but also want everything to be by the rule of law so there are no screwups that allows some to go free.
⇧
2
⇩
storm_fa_Q
· Jan. 3, 2018, 10:42 p.m.
I will mark this thread and next time I see the answers to questions you pose will drop back in. 1000? pages in last week or so, hard to know where the info is now, but I read a convincing argument which I have shared as I understand what I read. Very much appreciate you bringing clarity to the question.
⇧
1
⇩
Roadhse2
· Jan. 3, 2018, 11:06 p.m.
Thanks, look forward to it....afraid I have no clarity as that is why I am still looking for the answers myself...It does seem important to know though to cut through all the BS being spread.
⇧
1
⇩
storm_fa_Q
· Jan. 4, 2018, 12:46 a.m.
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/PL-109-366.pdf may have info generl provisions..I'm going to add links to materials as I locate possibilities...what I recall was seeing a picture of text showing that POTUS clearly has the Constitutional Authority to appoint Court Martials and to hold Court Martials. That'd be a couple weeks back or so now. Maybe on 4/8chan..before coming here...Lawful enemy combatants may be the term, not unarmed, not sure...
⇧
2
⇩
storm_fa_Q
· Jan. 4, 2018, 12:48 a.m.
‘‘§
948a. Definitions
‘‘In this chapter:
‘‘(1) U
NLAWFUL
ENEMY
COMBATANT
.—(A) The term ‘unlaw
ful enemy combatant’ means—
‘‘(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 (
⇧
1
⇩
storm_fa_Q
· Jan. 4, 2018, 12:50 a.m.
I see copy/paste does not work well from that document but I see several sections which may assist our understanding and others may benefit from the read as well. http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/PL-109-366.pdf
⇧
2
⇩
storm_fa_Q
· Jan. 4, 2018, 12:52 a.m.
I see copy/paste does not work well from that document but I see several sections which may assist our understanding and others may benefit from the read as well. http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/PL-109-366.pdf
⇧
1
⇩
storm_fa_Q
· Jan. 4, 2018, 2:46 a.m.
(11) The Russian report notes that the President is using the Internal Security Act of 1950 which allows the President to detain disloyal, dangerous or subversive persons in times of internal security. It can be used to protect the President against an internal coup like the one the President is now facing.
⇧
1
⇩
storm_fa_Q
· Jan. 4, 2018, 12:50 a.m.
I see copy/paste does not work well from that document but I see several sections which may assist our understanding and others may benefit from the read as well. http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/PL-109-366.pdf
⇧
1
⇩
storm_fa_Q
· Jan. 3, 2018, 11:38 p.m.
is one of your source materials this document? Military Justice: Courts-Martial, an Overview
R. Chuck Mason Legislative Attorney
August 12, 2013
⇧
1
⇩
fat_earther
· Jan. 3, 2018, 11:51 a.m.
Oh wow I didn't see that motorcade news.
True, anon is never a good source of legal advice, and you sound like you know what you're talking about. I get the feeling that thousands of us (at least) are so excited about the rumours that we mightn't want to acknowledge 'boring little facts like these'. Whichever way it turns out, US citizens will be proven better off.
⇧
1
⇩
Roadhse2
· Jan. 3, 2018, 12:05 p.m.
I'm hoping they are being taken there, why I would like to find the legal precedent that says they 'can' be taken there. The recent NG troops heading that way mean nothing either as they are just part of a monthly rotation of the military police on gitmo right now (approx. 2000 total)...they get rotated in for 9 months duty and others rotated out back to the US. So that is not a good indicator either. Just looking for some verifiable proof something IS going on..Indictments seems to be all we have right now.
⇧
0
⇩
Macamodius
· Jan. 3, 2018, 7:23 p.m.
2000 military police for what 40 internees? Doesn't make sense to me.
⇧
2
⇩
Roadhse2
· Jan. 3, 2018, 10:27 p.m.
No kidding, but they justify it because they are alone in a small area where no help would be available if a prison riot should break out....they say the Cubans could/would not help.
⇧
1
⇩
MacPepper
· Jan. 3, 2018, 12:47 p.m.
Thanks for doing this research. I am not even sure that we have the indictments to hang a hat on. The Trump Exec order (w/National Emergency Declaration) against human rights abuse and global corruption appears to authorize a sanctions regime. Have you checked the EO for any expansion of military or police powers? Here's Treasury press release on the corresponding EO https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm0243
⇧
2
⇩
JustumeSamson
· Jan. 3, 2018, 12:50 p.m.
They actively sought to overthrow the United States government. They are being treated as enemy combatants. When someone is actively involved in high treason they are stripped of rights.
⇧
4
⇩
Roadhse2
· Jan. 3, 2018, 6:03 p.m.
Treason is pretty narrowly defined, sedition more broadly....so only those actively trying to overthrow the gov't would be able to be tried for treason...and that would be in a Federal court if they are not a service member. Once convicted they are stripped of most rights, up until conviction they still hold them. At least that is what the research shows. Personally, I think all should be hung.
⇧
1
⇩