Boston bombing suspect charged, will not be treated as enemy combatant

[LordBrownTrout]

do you have a cite for that?

See Section 1029 of the 2013 NDAA.

EC. 1029. RIGHTS UNAFFECTED.

Nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus or to deny any Constitutional rights in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution to any person inside the United States who would be entitled to the availability of such writ or to such rights in the absence of such laws.

doesn't seem to support your claim

He's been thoroughly beaten and offers up hysterics at this point.

 

[g5000]

do you have a cite for that?

See Section 1029 of the 2013 NDAA.

EC. 1029. RIGHTS UNAFFECTED.

Nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus or to deny any Constitutional rights in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution to any person inside the United States who would be entitled to the availability of such writ or to such rights in the absence of such laws.

doesn't seem to support your claim

You have a serious reading comprehension problem. It plainly states a US citizen's constitutional rights are protected. The bomber cannot be shipped off as an enemy combatant to a military tribunal.

 

[Yurt]

See Section 1029 of the 2013 NDAA.

EC. 1029. RIGHTS UNAFFECTED.

Nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus or to deny any Constitutional rights in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution to any person inside the United States who would be entitled to the availability of such writ or to such rights in the absence of such laws.

doesn't seem to support your claim

You have a serious reading comprehension problem. It plainly states a US citizen's constitutional rights are protected. The bomber cannot be shipped off as an enemy combatant to a military tribunal.

who would be entitled to the availability of such writ or to such rights in the absence of such laws.

read it again

 

[Ravi]

Let's review the facts.

1. Every terrorist captured in the US after 9/11 has been tried, or pled guilty, and convicted in US courts.

2. No US citizen captured in the US can have their constitutional rights to habeas corpus or right to trial violated, per Obama's NDAA.

3. The US citizen blown up by a drone was not in the US. He was in a military theater, not US civil jurisdiction.

The end.

Yep.

 

[g5000]

EC. 1029. RIGHTS UNAFFECTED.

Nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus or to deny any Constitutional rights in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution to any person inside the United States who would be entitled to the availability of such writ or to such rights in the absence of such laws.

doesn't seem to support your claim

You have a serious reading comprehension problem. It plainly states a US citizen's constitutional rights are protected. The bomber cannot be shipped off as an enemy combatant to a military tribunal.

who would be entitled to the availability of such writ or to such rights in the absence of such laws.

read it again

I will use simple words for you.

Before there ever was an AUMF or NDAA, rights were protected by the US Constitution. That is what is meant by "in the absence of such laws".

This section is saying those rights are still protected in the presence of the NDAA and the AUMF the same as they would be if those laws did not exist.

Whatever rights anyone in the US had before the AUMF and NDAA, they still have them.

Outside the US, it is a different ball game. Inside the US, if you were not entitled to some protections before the AUMF and NDAA existed, you still aren't.

A US citizen has, had, and always will have their Constitutional rights protected, NDAA/AUMF or no NDAA/AUMF.

That is what the provision is saying.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

He should develop a sudden medical complication............One thats hard to dectect......A permanent one.......

 

[Ravi]

I'm a little puzzled. Why would you righties want it to be so that a citizen, not in the military, could be tried in a military tribunal when the crime they committed was within the US?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Let's review the facts.

1. Every terrorist captured in the US after 9/11 has been tried, or pled guilty, and convicted in US courts.

2. No US citizen captured in the US can have their constitutional rights to habeas corpus or right to trial violated, per Obama's NDAA.

3. The US citizen blown up by a drone was not in the US. He was in a military theater, not US civil jurisdiction.

The end.

No, not the end. Name the collusion of that us citizen, the sixteen year old that this admin has been so mum about. If he were colluding with the enemy, I would have no problem whatsoever with droning his ass. My concern is in the specifics.

 

[g5000]

Let's review the facts. Again.

1. Every terrorist captured in the US after 9/11 has been tried, or pled guilty, and was convicted in US courts.

2. No US citizen captured in the US can have their constitutional rights to habeas corpus or right to trial violated, per Obama's NDAA.

3. The US citizen blown up by a drone was not in the US. He was in a military theater, not US civil jurisdiction.

The end.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

EC. 1029. RIGHTS UNAFFECTED.

Nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus or to deny any Constitutional rights in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution to any person inside the United States who would be entitled to the availability of such writ or to such rights in the absence of such laws.

doesn't seem to support your claim

You have a serious reading comprehension problem. It plainly states a US citizen's constitutional rights are protected. The bomber cannot be shipped off as an enemy combatant to a military tribunal.

who would be entitled to the availability of such writ or to such rights in the absence of such laws.

read it again

The classification of al-Qaeda members as "enemy combatants" comes from the AUMF.

 

[Stephanie]

poor bitter little terrorist loving yurt has to stoop to lies on a messageboard. Take your butthurt elsewhere.

your idiot rantings taking over every thread posted about this is becoming quite a STUPID show..You don't seem to mind and neither do the mods on here

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How is one us citizen treated as a enemy combatant while another receives legal constitutional privileges?

Location, location, location.

That's not legal. They're both US citizens. So, we pick and choose whatever type of justice based on location?

According to whom? Case citation?

The Constitution requires due process, it neither requires due process to be judicial nor prohibits administrative due process – just due process, which is afforded all citizens regardless of location.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Apples and organges, idiot. One was in Yemen. They don't have Boston police in Yemen. It is a military theater in a foreign country, not a police precinct.

Got it now?

Jesus H. Christ, there is a metric ton of dense heads around here.

No moron, you can't comprehend. I wasn't arguing for or against either type of justice. Flew right over your head.

You plainly stated your ignorance. You did not understand why one person in a military operating theater was treated differently than someone in the US.

Again, if you or I, as us citizens, were traveling through some war torn country in the ME and the admin, doesn't matter who, thought that you or I may be over there for ulterior motives.....you would have no problem with them making that assessment?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Location, location, location.

That's not legal. They're both US citizens. So, we pick and choose whatever type of justice based on location?

According to whom? Case citation?

The Constitution requires due process, it neither requires due process to be judicial nor prohibits administrative due process – just due process, which is afforded all citizens regardless of location.

Citations? Based on location and not the law? Perhaps you could cite where it's ok to drone a us citizen in yemen but not france? I know of none.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No, he would not have.

Can you name any terrorists captured on US soil post 9/11 who have not been tried in a US court?

Good point, but there is no legal justification for your theory that location is the determining factor.

If I had plenipotentiary powers, I would put every detainee in Gitmo on trial in a US court. I would treat them like any other criminals, and I would build a prison in one of the more remote areas of Montana to put them in after their convictions.

Agreed.

The problem is, however, after more than ten years of illegal detention, lost or incomplete evidence, and witnesses either no longer available or no longer with us, the quality of any convictions would be highly suspect.

 

[Katzndogz]

Terrorists know the benefits they get from citizenship. That is why they commit their terrorist acts after they have been naturalized. The Boston bomber was only a citized for seven months. It's enough.

They are like the guy who murders his wife on their honeymoon expecting a fat inheritance.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Good.

No.

Sad.

Tragic.

Bad.

But quite expected.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

there obviously is not enough evidence to try him as an E/C

I don't know if that's obvious. Or even true.

But I do know that it would make no difference.

 

[Yurt]

I'm a little puzzled. Why would you righties want it to be so that a citizen, not in the military, could be tried in a military tribunal when the crime they committed was within the US?

yes, not surprising you are puzzled.

if it was an act of war, especially in collusion with AQ types, then why shouldn't they be tried in military court?

 

[Yurt]

You have a serious reading comprehension problem. It plainly states a US citizen's constitutional rights are protected. The bomber cannot be shipped off as an enemy combatant to a military tribunal.

who would be entitled to the availability of such writ or to such rights in the absence of such laws.

read it again

I will use simple words for you.

Before there ever was an AUMF or NDAA, rights were protected by the US Constitution. That is what is meant by "in the absence of such laws".

This section is saying those rights are still protected in the presence of the NDAA and the AUMF the same as they would be if those laws did not exist.

Whatever rights anyone in the US had before the AUMF and NDAA, they still have them.

Outside the US, it is a different ball game. Inside the US, if you were not entitled to some protections before the AUMF and NDAA existed, you still aren't.

A US citizen has, had, and always will have their Constitutional rights protected, NDAA/AUMF or no NDAA/AUMF.

That is what the provision is saying.

no it does not. it does not say american citizens cannot be tried in military tribunals. you are the one with the reading comprehension issue.