Secret Trials Endanger US Security

Where in the U.S. Constitution does it state what the government may or may not do to it's noncitizens?

Article III, Section 2, Clause 3:

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

AmendmentV

No person shall...... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

Do you, or don't you make a distinction between prisoners of war and criminals with prima facie evidence?

Of course, but if the evidence indicates that the crime was committed in Afghanistan or other territory in which U.S. doesn't have jurisdiction I would think they should be treated differently than prisoners against whom the evidence indicates the crime was committed within U.S. jurisdiction, but I'm not sure the Constitution or international law (Ugh!) allows us to go into another country and seize a prisoner without the permission of the host government for prosecution in our own courts... although I think our courts have held that we can.

For example, the criminal court would have only to prove that Mr. Achmed Al Rashid received communications from known terrorists.

I think it should take more than that. I have received communications from the DNC and the RNC. Only if it can be shown that I responded in a cooperative manner can I be legitimately be said to support even someof their activities. Only if I responded cooperatively to a communication which suggested specific action should I be held in any way responsible for that action.

Once that is established, Mr. Rashid becomes a prisoner of war.

No, once it is established that he conspired in a criminal action, he is charged with a crime under civil law. If his crime is only[!?} a war crime committed in a war zone, he remains a prisoner of war and is subject to prosecution by military authorities. In the past, prosecution for war crimes outside the territory of U.S. jurisdiction has been by international military tribunal, not U.S.-only. If his only crime is fighting alongside proven terrorists in Afghanistan he may well have merely joined the enemy of his enemy in protecting his homeland from invasion.

Not that Browne had any future in elective politics to begin with - but frankly I think he's completely nuts on this and it's really dragging down the libertarian movement.

Article III, Section 2, Clause 3:
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
AmendmentV

No person shall...... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

The Preamble:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America". -- End Preamble.

OBL has no constitutional rights here in the U.S. -- he is not a person of this country. In fact he wages war against this country.

So you think you are a person under the constitution, WRONG! Everyone in the US is a citizen under civil (military) law, since the Civil War. The constitution is a Common Law document, which you are not entitled too, it is only used as a reference. Neither is Bin Laden.

Just because you -- Big Banana -- say it, it must be true.

I agree that the communication has to be substantial and has to contain an element of operational control, to designate someone as a combatant.

However, I don't agree that the civil jurisdiction should have anything to do with military tribunals. War is by nature transnational, so I would treat prisoners of war and war criminals the same regardless of the location of their offence.

I also don't agree that there is anything special in international military tribunals. The tribunal should represent the military that is engaged in the hostilities. Presently, that includes the US and the British, and at a great stretch, the Pakistanis.

I don't agree that the civil jurisdiction should have anything to do with military tribunals.

I wasn't suggesting that it should; I was suggesting something you apparently like even less: if a crime was committed within our jurisdiction, the charge and trial should be by civil authorities, and due process should be in full force, because that's how we best determine guilt or innocence. Our convenience isn't sufficient justification to make it easier to convict the innocent, and that's my primary concern.

If we are at war then either the entire war is unjust, or presumption of innocence doesn't apply to captured combatants, hence civil courts cannot try them.

The only difference between a Civil trail, and a military tribunal, is jurisdiction. They are both ship's in the eyes of the law, with different passengers. All common Law courts of the US dissapeared in the Civil War.