It's also worth noting that you quote very selectively, removing the context of the quote
you chose:
Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government,
and with its aid, [317 U.S. 1, 38] guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents
within the
meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war.
(emphasis mine). By not associating himself with a government, al-Muhajir is outside the scope of the Hague Convention,
and thus falls under a different charge within military jurisdiction (as the Hague convention makes no statements either
way about non-state actors). The decision does not say (or even appear to say, unless one quotes as selectively as you
chose to) that this is the only crime which falls under military jurisdiction, or the only way to be a combatant against
the United States.
Indeed, a few paragraphs later, the Quirin decision makes this much more explicit, in language directly applicable to al-Muhajir:
It is enough that petitioners here, upon the
conceded facts, were plainly within those boundaries, and were held in good faith for trial by military commission, charged with
being enemies who, with the purpose of destroying war materials and utilities, entered or after entry remained in our territory
without uniform-an offense against the law of war. We hold only that those particular acts constitute an offense against the law of
war which the Constitution authorizes to be tried by military commission.
It doesn't get any clearer than that, now does it?
Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government,
and with its aid, [317 U.S. 1, 38] guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents
within the
meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war.
(emphasis mine). By not associating himself with a government, al-Muhajir is outside the scope of the Hague Convention,
and thus falls under a different charge within military jurisdiction (as the Hague convention makes no statements either
way about non-state actors). The decision does not say (or even appear to say, unless one quotes as selectively as you
chose to) that this is the only crime which falls under military jurisdiction, or the only way to be a combatant against
the United States.
Indeed, a few paragraphs later, the Quirin decision makes this much more explicit, in language directly applicable to al-Muhajir:
It is enough that petitioners here, upon the
conceded facts, were plainly within those boundaries, and were held in good faith for trial by military commission, charged with
being enemies who, with the purpose of destroying war materials and utilities, entered or after entry remained in our territory
without uniform-an offense against the law of war. We hold only that those particular acts constitute an offense against the law of
war which the Constitution authorizes to be tried by military commission.
It doesn't get any clearer than that, now does it?
Please read the thread you've come so lately to before posting. Waging war against
the United States is a crime in military, not civilian jurisdiction. This has been
true since the earliest days of this republic, and has been repeatedly upheld by the
US Supreme Court, most notably in the case Ex Parte Quirin,
which grew from a case very similar to Mr. al-Muhajir's.
This fact has been widely pointed out in this thread.
One more time: if you're going to ask the same question eight times in the same thread, do
us all the courtesy at looking at one of the other places you asked it and it was already
answered. Here, for example,
or here.
If you're going to ask the same question eight times in the same thread, do us all the courtesy at looking at one of the other places you asked it and it
was already answered.
Here, for example,
or here.
Leaving aside your misrepresentation of the post you're responding to (no one is questioning the link between
the Taliban and al Qaeda, or at least no one but you), let's look at what you're saying
Are you really arguing that the government should have no choice but to seek the harshest possible charges
every time someone is arrested? That they should not have the discretion to judge someone not worth trying for
the harder-to-prove charge?
This is the same logic which gives us mandatory-minimum-sentencing laws, and I have to say, I just don't buy it.
Also, for the record, an `Afghani' is a unit of currency used in Afghanistan. A native of Afghanistan is an `Afghan'.
If you're going to ask the same question eight times in the same thread, do
us all the courtesy at looking at one of the other places you asked it and it was already
answered. Here, for example,
or here.
Hmm, yes -- if you're going to ask the same question eight times in the same thread, do
us all the courtesy at looking at one of the other places you asked it and it was already
answered. Here, for example,
or here.
Do you think that if you ask the same question in four places, that changes
the fact that its already been answered in this thread several times? It has
never been the case that wars can only occur with established governments -- look
at the war on the Barbary Pirates, waged by presidents Jefferson and Madison (who
presumably knew a thing or two about what the Constitution says).
Your assumption, presumably, is that war can only be against a foreign state. This
has simply never been the case -- indeed, in the earliest days of this republic,
presidents Jefferson and Madison waged war against the Barbary Pirates of North Africa,
a shadowy network of pirate groups affiliated with no specific state, though receiving
aid and sponsorship from several of the region's governments.
Clearly I misparsed that sentence, yes. This remains tangential to Mr. al-Muhajir's case,
however, as he remains a US citizen -- he's just a US citizen who is charged with a crime
(waging war against the US in violation of the laws of war) which falls under military
jurisdiction.
So which is it? You don't trust the government's discretion, so you think
they should be forced to apply the harshest standard, whether they
feel it is warranted or not?
That's the same logic used to justify mandatory minimum sentencing laws, and
I have to say, I just don't buy it.
Actually no -- by that argument, had we captured any of the Japanese
pilots who attacked Pearl Harbor, we could not have held them
as prisoners of war either, as war was not declared until the day
after the attack.
Nothing in Ex Parte Quirin requires a state of war to exist, because we
will not always have the luxury of voting whether to declare war before
another nation chooses to attack us by surprise (as al-Muhajir tried to do).
if an American
voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship enters
or serves in foreign
armed forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or serves in the armed forces of any
foreign country as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer.
(emphasis mine). That's an `or'. Plain and simple. In other words, serving in a foreign armed
force which is engaged in hostilities is grounds for loss of nationality.
So currently, although Lindh is still a citizen, he has taken actions which render
his citizenship forfeit. Likewise, al-Muhajir is still a citizen, though he is a citizen
who is being held as un unlawful combatant, though only because the government has not yet chosen to present a court
with his actions.
At any rate, as you separately point out:
First of all, whether or not you are considered a citizen has nothing to do with whether or
not you are an unlawful combatant.
This, at least, is absolutely true. This is why the discussion of al-Muhajir's citizenship is strictly tangential
to the question of his detention.
With due respect, did you actually read any of the above
thread? The Supreme Court's ruling in Ex Parte
Quirin already addresses the issues you raise, and that was
sixty years ago. al-Muhjajir will be tried before a military
tribunal after these questions of jurisdiction have been resolved.
That's how it works for crimes which fall under military jurisdiction,
such as waging war against the US in a manner which contravenes the
laws of war, such as fighting in civilian clothing. This has been the
law of the land since the earliest days of the republic, as discussed
in Quirin.
For another rundown on what does and does not result in loss of citizenship
under current law, see this article.
Of course, these are tangential questions. al-Muhajir and Hamdi are still considered
US citizens, they are merely US citizens who have committed crimes which fall under
military jurisdiction, as laid out in Ex Parte Quirin (see above)>
Lindh is considered a citizen because the government chose not to exercise
its right to hold him as an unlawful combatant, just as the government routinely
chooses which crimes to prosecute, and what charges to bring.
For a summary of Supreme Court cases concerning the renunciation of citizenship,
see this page at the State
Department, which cites a number of cases. The cases themselves should be easy
enough to look up on FindLaw.
Interesting. So you believe that because many hispanics are
upset that Miguel Estrada is getting unequal treatment from all other
judicial nominees because he is hispanic, therefore they must
also want al-Muhajir to be treated differently from all other
captured al Qaeda members because he is hispanic?
That's a rather narrow and racist position for you to take, is it
not?
I guess I'm not buying it, but then I suppose it's not less rational
a claim than the rest of your post...
Bzzzt. Thank you for playing, but you're the one whose got it wrong. By declaring allegiance
to a hostile power, in words or actions (such as figting for a foreign military), you give
up your citizenship.
To quote the paragraph which has been printed, in one form or other, inside every US Passport ever
issued:
Loss of Citizenship. Under certain circumstances, you may lose your
U.S. citizenship by performing any of the following acts: (1) being naturalized
in a foreign state; (2) taking an oath or making a declaration to a foreign state;
(3) serving in the armed forces of a foreign state; (4) accepting employment with
a foreign government; or (5) formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S.
consular officer overseas. For detailed information, consult the nearest American
Embassy or Consulate, or contact the Office of Citizens Consular Services, Department
of State, Washington DC 20520-4818, or call (202) 647-3444.
In other words, your citizenship only lasts until you choose to renounce it, and taking
up arms against the US (or even joining a foreign army, except in certain cases) counts
as choosing to renounce it, and the courts have upheld this fact again and again.
But the government already has a great deal of discretion in
deciding what to prosecute -- the executive already decides
whether to prosecute an offense, and what charges to bring.
Sure, that must be it. It can't have anything to do with the fact that both
al-Muhajir and Hamdi have ties to al Qaeda, while there is not similar
evidence for Lindh.
Which is it? You seem pretty bloodthirsty in arguing that the government shouldn't
have discretion here in deciding who to treat as a POW, which is rather odd when
you consider that a few posts above, you were arguing that the government shouldn't
be able to treat anyone as a POW...
Please read the post you are responding to, before posting.
I have just posted links to a very similar case (enemy agents,
one of them a US citizen, arrested in the US and held as POWs),
which the US Supreme Court upheld in the 1943 case
Ex Parte Quirin.
The court's ruling in that case addresses all of the points you raise.
Please go read the Supreme Courts ruling on the matter, which I linked above,
before declaring (incorrectly!) what you think it says. The Supreme Court
was very specific on the matter, and stated pretty much the opposite of what
your are claiming.
And yes, some of those detained as French saboteurs were, in fact US citizens.
That's the whole point. It is certainly true that the German infiltrators
were tried in a military court (not an open court, however). The same will
happen to al-Muhajir, once the courts settle the matter of jurisdiction.
So again, taking a practice which has existed since the earliest days of the
republic, and has been repeatedly been upheld by the Supreme Court, and claiming
that it is something new only shows that you don't know the history of the
matter.
Slashdot Mirror
It's also worth noting that you quote very selectively, removing the context of the quote you chose:
(emphasis mine). By not associating himself with a government, al-Muhajir is outside the scope of the Hague Convention, and thus falls under a different charge within military jurisdiction (as the Hague convention makes no statements either way about non-state actors). The decision does not say (or even appear to say, unless one quotes as selectively as you chose to) that this is the only crime which falls under military jurisdiction, or the only way to be a combatant against the United States.Indeed, a few paragraphs later, the Quirin decision makes this much more explicit, in language directly applicable to al-Muhajir:
It doesn't get any clearer than that, now does it?Go reread what you posted -- specifically:
(emphasis mine). By not associating himself with a government, al-Muhajir is outside the scope of the Hague Convention, and thus falls under a different charge within military jurisdiction (as the Hague convention makes no statements either way about non-state actors). The decision does not say (or even appear to say, unless one quotes as selectively as you chose to) that this is the only crime which falls under military jurisdiction, or the only way to be a combatant against the United States.Indeed, a few paragraphs later, the Quirin decision makes this much more explicit, in language directly applicable to al-Muhajir:
It doesn't get any clearer than that, now does it?Please read the thread you've come so lately to before posting. Waging war against the United States is a crime in military, not civilian jurisdiction. This has been true since the earliest days of this republic, and has been repeatedly upheld by the US Supreme Court, most notably in the case Ex Parte Quirin, which grew from a case very similar to Mr. al-Muhajir's.
This fact has been widely pointed out in this thread.
One more time: if you're going to ask the same question eight times in the same thread, do us all the courtesy at looking at one of the other places you asked it and it was already answered. Here, for example, or here.
One more time:
If you're going to ask the same question eight times in the same thread, do us all the courtesy at looking at one of the other places you asked it and it was already answered. Here, for example, or here.
Leaving aside your misrepresentation of the post you're responding to (no one is questioning the link between the Taliban and al Qaeda, or at least no one but you), let's look at what you're saying
Are you really arguing that the government should have no choice but to seek the harshest possible charges every time someone is arrested? That they should not have the discretion to judge someone not worth trying for the harder-to-prove charge?
This is the same logic which gives us mandatory-minimum-sentencing laws, and I have to say, I just don't buy it.
Also, for the record, an `Afghani' is a unit of currency used in Afghanistan. A native of Afghanistan is an `Afghan'.
You do repeat yourself, don't you?
If you're going to ask the same question eight times in the same thread, do us all the courtesy at looking at one of the other places you asked it and it was already answered. Here, for example, or here.
Hmm, yes -- if you're going to ask the same question eight times in the same thread, do us all the courtesy at looking at one of the other places you asked it and it was already answered. Here, for example, or here.
Do you think that if you ask the same question in four places, that changes the fact that its already been answered in this thread several times? It has never been the case that wars can only occur with established governments -- look at the war on the Barbary Pirates, waged by presidents Jefferson and Madison (who presumably knew a thing or two about what the Constitution says).
Your assumption, presumably, is that war can only be against a foreign state. This has simply never been the case -- indeed, in the earliest days of this republic, presidents Jefferson and Madison waged war against the Barbary Pirates of North Africa, a shadowy network of pirate groups affiliated with no specific state, though receiving aid and sponsorship from several of the region's governments.
Sounds kinda familiar, doesn't it?
Clearly I misparsed that sentence, yes. This remains tangential to Mr. al-Muhajir's case, however, as he remains a US citizen -- he's just a US citizen who is charged with a crime (waging war against the US in violation of the laws of war) which falls under military jurisdiction.
Interesting definition. So Pearl Harbor was not an act of war because we were not at war with Japan when they attacked?
I guess I don't buy it.
So which is it? You don't trust the government's discretion, so you think they should be forced to apply the harshest standard, whether they feel it is warranted or not?
That's the same logic used to justify mandatory minimum sentencing laws, and I have to say, I just don't buy it.
Actually no -- by that argument, had we captured any of the Japanese pilots who attacked Pearl Harbor, we could not have held them as prisoners of war either, as war was not declared until the day after the attack.
Nothing in Ex Parte Quirin requires a state of war to exist, because we will not always have the luxury of voting whether to declare war before another nation chooses to attack us by surprise (as al-Muhajir tried to do).
Let's look at the quote you picked, shall we?
(emphasis mine). That's an `or'. Plain and simple. In other words, serving in a foreign armed force which is engaged in hostilities is grounds for loss of nationality.So currently, although Lindh is still a citizen, he has taken actions which render his citizenship forfeit. Likewise, al-Muhajir is still a citizen, though he is a citizen who is being held as un unlawful combatant, though only because the government has not yet chosen to present a court with his actions.
At any rate, as you separately point out:
This, at least, is absolutely true. This is why the discussion of al-Muhajir's citizenship is strictly tangential to the question of his detention.With due respect, did you actually read any of the above thread? The Supreme Court's ruling in Ex Parte Quirin already addresses the issues you raise, and that was sixty years ago. al-Muhjajir will be tried before a military tribunal after these questions of jurisdiction have been resolved.
That's how it works for crimes which fall under military jurisdiction, such as waging war against the US in a manner which contravenes the laws of war, such as fighting in civilian clothing. This has been the law of the land since the earliest days of the republic, as discussed in Quirin.
For another rundown on what does and does not result in loss of citizenship under current law, see this article.
Of course, these are tangential questions. al-Muhajir and Hamdi are still considered US citizens, they are merely US citizens who have committed crimes which fall under military jurisdiction, as laid out in Ex Parte Quirin (see above)>
Lindh is considered a citizen because the government chose not to exercise its right to hold him as an unlawful combatant, just as the government routinely chooses which crimes to prosecute, and what charges to bring.
For a summary of Supreme Court cases concerning the renunciation of citizenship, see this page at the State Department, which cites a number of cases. The cases themselves should be easy enough to look up on FindLaw.
Of course, this statement really tells the readers of this thread everything they need to know about your position. Thanks for making it clear.
Interesting. So you believe that because many hispanics are upset that Miguel Estrada is getting unequal treatment from all other judicial nominees because he is hispanic, therefore they must also want al-Muhajir to be treated differently from all other captured al Qaeda members because he is hispanic?
That's a rather narrow and racist position for you to take, is it not?
I guess I'm not buying it, but then I suppose it's not less rational a claim than the rest of your post...
Bzzzt. Thank you for playing, but you're the one whose got it wrong. By declaring allegiance to a hostile power, in words or actions (such as figting for a foreign military), you give up your citizenship.
To quote the paragraph which has been printed, in one form or other, inside every US Passport ever issued:
In other words, your citizenship only lasts until you choose to renounce it, and taking up arms against the US (or even joining a foreign army, except in certain cases) counts as choosing to renounce it, and the courts have upheld this fact again and again.
But the government already has a great deal of discretion in deciding what to prosecute -- the executive already decides whether to prosecute an offense, and what charges to bring.
This is no different.
Sure, that must be it. It can't have anything to do with the fact that both al-Muhajir and Hamdi have ties to al Qaeda, while there is not similar evidence for Lindh.
Which is it? You seem pretty bloodthirsty in arguing that the government shouldn't have discretion here in deciding who to treat as a POW, which is rather odd when you consider that a few posts above, you were arguing that the government shouldn't be able to treat anyone as a POW...
Please read the post you are responding to, before posting.
I have just posted links to a very similar case (enemy agents, one of them a US citizen, arrested in the US and held as POWs), which the US Supreme Court upheld in the 1943 case Ex Parte Quirin.
The court's ruling in that case addresses all of the points you raise.
Please go read the Supreme Courts ruling on the matter, which I linked above, before declaring (incorrectly!) what you think it says. The Supreme Court was very specific on the matter, and stated pretty much the opposite of what your are claiming.
And yes, some of those detained as French saboteurs were, in fact US citizens. That's the whole point. It is certainly true that the German infiltrators were tried in a military court (not an open court, however). The same will happen to al-Muhajir, once the courts settle the matter of jurisdiction.
So again, taking a practice which has existed since the earliest days of the republic, and has been repeatedly been upheld by the Supreme Court, and claiming that it is something new only shows that you don't know the history of the matter.