U.S. Is Allowed to Hold Citizen as Combatant

New York Times ^ | 1/08/03 | NEIL A. LEWIS

[RandallFlagg]

Great! Can we FINALLY go after these verminous lawyers at the ACLU?

[San Jacinto]

The case, which set up a stark clash between the nation's security interests and its citizens' civil liberties,

You mean if I join a foreign army, fight against the U.S.,and get captured, then I can't get out on bail??? What's this country coming to?

[ConservativeMan55]

Its a contradiction to lose your citizenship by taking up arms with the enemy, but retaining your rights.
I applaud this decision!

[Paleo Conservative]

Even more outrageous is the fact that we hand out US citizenship to any child born in the US to parents who are only temporarily in this country. I think that children born to non-citizens who are not in this country on immigration visas should be considered as citizens of the parents' country, not the US.

[Congressman Billybob]

The New York Times gets its panties in a wad over this decision, but nowhere mentioned the Quiren case from World War II.

That case concerned eight Germans who got into the United States from submarines in two groups of four. They had money, weapons, and plans to bomb various American facilities. All were captured and tried before a military tribunal. All objected to that trial. One, named Bruno Haupt, objected that he could not be tried that way, because he was an American citizen, born in Chicago.

The Court rejected all the arguments including Haupt (and one other who claimed but did not establish that he was also an American citizen). The reporters and editors at the Times cannot be so ignorant as to not know about the Quiren decision. Heck, I wrote that case up in a UPI article published almost a year ago, on 28 January, 2002, concerning the Gitmo prisoners (who are also referenced in this article).

The Times cannot plead mere ignorance. This has to be deliberate lying by not mentioning a critical case from 59 years ago, that leads to the same conclusion that this Court of Appeals decision. Just one more example of bias against President Bush by the Times.

The title of my article was "Analysis: The truth on 'Gitmo' prisoners," if anyone cares to look it up.

Congressman Billybob

Click for latest column on UPI, "Three Anti-Endorsements" (Not yet on UPI wire, or FR.)

As the politician formerly known as Al Gore has said, Buy my book, "to Restore Trust in America"

[GVnana]

if deference is not exercised with respect to military judgments in the field, it is difficult to see where deference would ever obtain."

Indeed. Wage acts of war and reap the fruits of war!

But Elisa Massimino, a director of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, said: "The court seems to be saying that it has no role whatsoever in overseeing the administration's conduct of the war on terrorism.

Too bad, Elisa. You just lost-out on some really big paychecks. And no. You can't play with the big boys.

[Libertina]

Believe me, when I was overseas, everyone in Asia (and I imagine other areas as well) knew that you only had to "drop one baby" in the US and then bring the family on over at your leisure - because you now had an AMERICAN "citizen" child. It made me very angry. But of course, if we are chumps we can't blame the rest of the world for "playing."

[PoisedWoman]

Hamdi's lawyers and the entire ACLU belong in the brig for the duration--of their lives.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Good. These lousy frickin' traitors deserve no mercy when they side with the enemy. The ACLU cries about how these vermin are treated. We should treat these traitors just like they were treated during the Revolutionary War. The ACLU would be screaming like hogs being butchered.

[MJY1288]

First off, If you take up arms against your country, It's TREASON A crime punishable by death. These former citizens should thank their lucky stars I'm not the one who decides their fate. "Old Sparky" would be the only justice they would see

[JohnBovenmyer]

Even more outrageous is the fact that we hand out US citizenship...

It may seem outrageous in some cases, but you'll have to amend the constitution to change it. That loophole resides there. Granting the difficulty of amendments those desiring to change the status quo need to focus their efforts on keeping such potential citizens out of the US while in utero.

[Paleo Conservative]

It may seem outrageous in some cases, but you'll have to amend the constitution to change it.

No, it is the misreading of the 14th amendment that has caused this problem.

[Dialup Llama]

>It may seem outrageous in some cases, but you'll have to amend the constitution to change it. That loophole resides there.

At that time, being born here probably meant you were going to stay for a while. Today it means you got on a plane. I read that Koreans organize special trips to the US so that women can have their babies here.

[Texasforever]

No, it is the misreading of the 14th amendment that has caused this problem.

That is why the 14th has been labeled the Judicial sandbox. It can't be "mis-read" except when the issue involves a conservative issue. The 14th amendment is the single largest contributor to the big Federal government we have today. The 16th amendment pales in comparison.

[fella]

Gold digging trial lawyers have bee handed another green weeny to eat. Ya just gotta love that.

[Right_in_Virginia]

There are a couple of things that make me feel a bit queasy about this decision.

First, when do we know this war is over and it's time to revoke the extraordinary powers given to the Executive branch?

And second, I don't want to see these powers in the hands of a President Hillary! Clinton or anyone who thinks and acts as she does.

[Vic3O3]

ping!

[alpowolf]

And second, I don't want to see these powers in the hands of a President Hillary! Clinton or anyone who thinks and acts as she does.

I have brought this point up more times than I can count. The Bush-bots always ignore it. Perhaps they don't want to think about the future. Perhaps they harbor a secret hope (as some Clintonistas did) that the Constitutional term limits can somehow be circumvented or eliminated and their man can be El Presidente for Life.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Methinks our best hope is for Bush to declare this war is won before he leaves office on January 20, 2009 ~ and these extraordinary war powers come to an end.

I'm queasy enough with this blanket power in the hands of the current administration~~ (which I trust)...

But my heart, mind and soul really can't handle the thought of these powers in some other president's hands....ESPECIALLY a Clinton or a socialist-leaning democrat.