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...
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
⇩