Enemy combatants

[Emsworth]

In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), three separate views were expressed on this issue:

1. According to Justice Thomas, the executive has the authority to unilaterally detain enemy combatants without trial.
2. According to Justice O'Connor (and a majority of the court), the executive does not have the unilateral authority to detain enemy combatants without trial, but may do so if authorized by Congress. 
3. According to Justices Scalia and Stevens, neither the executive nor Congress has the authority to detain enemy combatants without trial.

I vote for option 3.

[??????????]

Yes of course. Non citizens have no constitutional rights.

[Emsworth]

Yes of course. Non citizens have no constitutional rights.

There is nothing in the Constitution that sustains that assertion. The Bill of Rights refers to "people" and "persons."

In any event, a few citizens have been classified as "enemy combatants" (Yasser Hamdi and Jose Padilla), though I suppose that your statement above excludes them.

[A18]

If captured in the United States, they're entitled to a trial. If caught on a foreign battle field, they may be detained ndefinitely.

[Ebowed]

No.

[MODU]

If captured in the United States, they're entitled to a trial. If caught on a foreign battle field, they may be detained ndefinitely.

Agreed.

[John Dibble]

If captured in the United States, they're entitled to a trial. If caught on a foreign battle field, they may be detained ndefinitely.

Agreed.

[David S]

If captured in the United States, they're entitled to a trial. If caught on a foreign battle field, they may be detained ndefinitely.

Agreed.

Me too. That's why the Jose Padilla case has been of interest to me. Padilla is an American citizen and he was captured in the U.S. That precedent leaves open the possibility that any American could be taken prisoner, thrown in jail and held indefinitely without charges.

[dazzleman]

If captured in the United States, they're entitled to a trial. If caught on a foreign battle field, they may be detained ndefinitely.

I'd agree, but the trial can be a military tribunal, and need not necessarily be a civilian court.

[Jake]

I agree with Philip, though I believe only American citizens are covered by the Constitution's civil rights guarantees. Also, I'd allow law enforcement to detain those with a record indefinitely.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hell no. If they're guilty, we can try and convict them.

[Gabu]

Whether or not the American government can do this, I have to ask why they would want to do this.  It seems to me that if they can prove that someone is guilty of something, they can show so and get the person convicted, and if they can't, that the person shouldn't be there in the first place.

I can't help but picture situations where people get captured who have nothing to do with anything and are just left to rot nonetheless, and I don't exactly like that idea.

I like the idea even less that only American citizens are protected by the Constitution.  Are we honestly saying that if I went to America, they could do whatever they wanted to me if they felt like it?  If so, I may reconsider my leaving the possibility open of moving to the United States at some point.

[Emsworth]

I'd agree, but the trial can be a military tribunal, and need not necessarily be a civilian court.

I would disagree. As long as the civilian courts are open and their process unobstructed, no military tribunal may be used to try those captured on American soil.

Those captured on foreign battlefield may, naturally, be held indefinitely by the President, without any trial at all. But those captured on American soil are entitled to a speedy and public trial with a jury and all other protections normally afforded to criminal defendants.

[David S]

Whether or not the American government can do this, I have to ask why they would want to do this.  It seems to me that if they can prove that someone is guilty of something, they can show so and get the person convicted, and if they can't, that the person shouldn't be there in the first place.

I can't help but picture situations where people get captured who have nothing to do with anything and are just left to rot nonetheless, and I don't exactly like that idea.

Excellent point Gabu.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I share your concern that innocent non-citizens could be abused too. But my first concern is that U.S. citizens get the protections guaranteed by the constitution. If we can't even protect our own citizens from a dictatorial government then we certainly can't protect non-citizens.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Yes of course. Non citizens have no constitutional rights.

^^^^^

[Emsworth]

The view that the Constitution protects only citizens is not valid. The Constitution makes it quite clear that certain rights belong only to citizens, but that other rights belong to all persons.

This is most evident in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" (emphasis added). Thus, while "privileges or immunities" are guaranteed only to citizens, due process and equal protection are guaranteed to all persons.

Whenever the Constitution restricts a right to citizens alone, it specifically states so. For example, the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments refer to the "right of citizens of the United States to vote." On the other hand, other amendments contain no such limitation. The Third Amendment, for example, refers to the "owner," the Fourth to "people," the Fifth to any "person," and the Sixth to the "accused." In all of these cases, citizens and non-citizens alike are constitutionally protected.

[Democratic Hawk]

Yes, with Congressional support. This president is not to be trusted with a free hand

I'm a populist when it comes to the "enemy". None of this airy-fairy namby-pamby kid-gloves as far as I'm concerned

Dave

[dazzleman]

I'm a populist when it comes to the "enemy". None of this airy-fairy namby-pamby kid-gloves as far as I'm concerned

Dave

Dude, I agree 100%.

[MasterJedi]

Option #2 and if not that Option #1

[Everett]

I'm not sure why anyone would want to detain an enemy combatant indefinitely without trial, but I voted for Option #2. The government should not be completely disallowed from doing this, but it shouldn't have the power to do so without any restraint.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yes of course. Non citizens have no constitutional rights.

^^^^^

You fools, we were talking about US citizens.

[J. J.]

The view that the Constitution protects only citizens is not valid. The Constitution makes it quite clear that certain rights belong only to citizens, but that other rights belong to all persons.

Well let me emphasize a few words in the 14th Amendment

This is most evident in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" (emphasis added).

Now, we're not talking about NY or PA making such a law.  The USA is not a state.

[Emsworth]

Now, we're not talking about NY or PA making such a law.  The USA is not a state.

Certainly. I was merely using the Fourteenth Amendment as an illustrative example of when the Constitution distinguishes between the rights of citizens and the rights of persons.