I did a search, but nobody had posted this. I learned some details about the "Nazi Invasion of America".

Ashland, Missouri

Well that was entirely different. FDR was a democRAT, so whatever he did was o.k. GWB is a Republican, so whatever he does is wrong.

Federal prosecutors think the only thing wrong with the Crucifixion is the government didn't do it twice when the opportunity arose.

If American patriotism doesn't mean something besides this brainless "Our side! Our side! Rah! Rah! Rah!" crap I've been seeing on FR and elsewhere, we might as well all be Germans and it might as well be 1938.

What is it about the word "war" that you don't understand?

Need a mega bump here

Given the state of war between Germany and the USA at the time, the Germans could have simply been shot sans trial. The tribunal was a nicety in their case.

As for the citizen, that is more troublesome. A treason charge before a normal Federal court would seem to be in order there. Bush has restricted his EO to non-citizen belligerents, for excellent reason.

re:
"...If American patriotism doesn't mean something besides
this brainless "Our side! Our side! Rah! Rah! Rah!" crap I've
been seeing on FR and elsewhere, we might as well all be
Germans and it might as well be 1938....."

Well put, my friend.

The difference between FDR's 8 Germans and what exists
today is never mentioned. And 99% of the public will never
know the difference.

To save time and in the interest of education, the reasons are
well put here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/582039/posts?page=58#58
With thanks and credit to: "Iwo_Jima".

...crap I've been seeing on FR and elsewhere, we might as well all be Germans and it might as well be 1938

....well if FDR didn't do the Military Tribunal system, then we might all be German anyways....probably be a lot like 1938 Germany too.

I am all for due process...and this Tribunal trial looks good to me....and look, It doesn't hurt the US Constitution one little bit!

I have turned this Military tribunal idea over and over and I don't see one single thing wrong with it! Its the perfect solution.

Ashland, Missouri

''Bush hasn't come up with a persuasive case why we can't trust our judicial system,'' said the ACLU's Strossen.

Bush doesnt need to come up with a "case". As he spelled out very clearly, the tribunals will cover unlawfull combatants.The definition of which is clearly stated in Geneva Conventions.The bad guys really should have done more homework before 911. The lawyers and Congressmen in this country should take a little more time evaluating what they want to bash bush with.

The link you provide states:...You state that "Three of the eight defendants in Quirin were Americans of German descent." This is wrong. All of the saboteurs were born in Germany.....

The article I posted states: It was June 30, 1942, and Roosevelt was writing a memo to Biddle about two of the eight saboteurs who were American citizens working for the Nazis. They had been in custody for three days.

It is up to you to set this record straight since you claim to be the authority on this subject.
And while your at it why don't you clear up the following issue since the link you provided never addressed it as you claimed it would...The difference between FDR's 8 Germans and what exists today is never mentioned. And 99% of the public will never know the difference.[[I guess us stupid ass public will never understand the enlightened thoughts of folk like you]]

I like the following statement from the article posted above...it also sounds a lot like FDR in his reasoning to utilize Military Tribunals: Bush defended the policy last week, saying: ''Non-US citizens who plan and/or commit mass murder are more than criminal suspects. They are unlawful combatants who seek to destroy our country [[Hell Yes! They declaired War on us]]

Ashland, Missouri

Your reference splits hairs. The Bill of Rights is, at bottom, no more than general statements that do not, of themselves determine anything. So little did they restrict a determined Congress, that within a few years after they were ratifed, they were ignored by the Congress that passed the Alien and Sedition Acts. So little do they restrict the Courts that Gene Debs could be sent to jail for doing less than what Jane Fonda did and got away with it. In time of war, "law" goes out the window, because paper cannot long resist fire. If I sound a bit like the German scoff about the "scrap of paper" that protected Belgium's neutrality, I must say that there was truth in what they said. Britain went to war to save its own a... not that of Belgium.

ACLU'S STROSSEN--"Bush hasn't come up with a persuasive reason why we can't trust our judiciary system." How about the OJ Simpson case. Or any case where evidence found in a search that was not mentioned in the warrant, although proving guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt, is thrown out--in other words the usual technical chess game.

During the Civil War Lincoln suspended the writ of habeus corpus and around 13,000 American citizens were arrested for various reasons-suspected as spies,perpetrators of espionage, etc.and held without being charged.I just read a letter written by Confederate spy Rose O'Neal Greenow to Secretary of State Seward. She had her home in Wash.DC searched and occupied by marshalls without warrant. She was held prisoner in her own home and then incarcerated for almost a year without ever being charged.In 1862 she was released and banished from the Union. She was drowned in 1864 while trying to escape a federal gunboat in a small craft off Cape Fear,NC. Her small boat,put off from the blockade runner she was returning from Europe on, capsized. She was on her way home from a fund-raising for the Confederacy in Europe.

Lincoln did this because he thought it a necessity to find those trying to destroy the Union.These were American citizens.FDR's 8 were attempting to destroy American citizens and American property.Six were citizens of a foreign power and two were traitors.

When the ACLU approves, that nearly always makes the cause suspect for me;when they disapprove,that nearly always means the cause is just. They have gotten it right maybe 6 times since their beginning. Saying these foreign terrorists must be tried in our judiciary with full perks of citizens when they came here to do us irreparable harm boggles my mind.

Vaudine

Where he said

the Supreme Court ... found that anyone waging war against this country in violation of the law of war can be tried in a military tribunal whether they are a citizen or not.

BUT... since there is only a Use Of Force Resolution and not a "declared war," how can the "law of war" figure in here? Isn't this related to why we couldn't fry someone like Hanoi Jane who, if there had been an active declaration of war, would have been a cut and dry traitor?

Fonda was not tried because of the political support she enjoyed.

All three of you have missed a critical point.

The people in captivity have not committed any act against
the United States. No charges have been filed to that effect.

That was the issue in the link I pointed to.

Furthermore, the suggestion that there is flawed commentary
at the provided link, regarding the citizenship of the 8 Germans
is totally wrong.

You said:
".....The link you provide states:...You state that "Three of the 
eight defendants in Quirin were Americans of German descent." 
This is wrong. All of the saboteurs were born in Germany.....

The article I posted states: It was June 30, 1942, and Roosevelt
was writing a memo to Biddle about two of the eight saboteurs
who were American citizens working for the Nazis. They had
been in custody for three days.

..It is up to you to set this record straight since you claim to be
the authority on this subject. And while your at it why don't you
clear up the following issue since the link you provided never
addressed it as you claimed it would...The difference between
FDR's 8 Germans and what exists today is never mentioned.
And 99% of the public will never know the difference.
[I guess us stupid ass public will never understand the enlightened
thoughts of folk like you]......"

I suppose the "stupid ass public" could gain the knowledge
by taking the time to read?

Here, allow me to help:

U.S. Supreme Court EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) 317 U.S. 1 87 L.Ed. 7 Ex parte QUIRIN. Ex parte HAUPT. Ex parte KERLING. Ex parte BURGER. Ex parte HEINCK. Ex parte THIEL. Ex parte NEUBAUER. UNITED STATES ex rel. QUIRIN v. COX, Brig. Gen., U.S.A., Provost Marshal of the Military District of Washington, and 6 other cases. Nos. -- Original and Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7-July Special Term, 1942 Argued July 29, 30, 1942. Decided July 31, 1942. Extended opinion filed Oct. 29, 1942. *****  Excerpt from original document ***** The following facts appear from the petitions or are stipulated. Except as noted they are undisputed. All the petitioners were born in Germany; all have lived in the United States. All returned to Germany between 1933 and 1941. All except petitioner Haupt are admittedly citizens of the German Reich, with which the United States is at war. Haupt came to this country with his parents when he was five years old; it is contended that he became a citizen of the United States by virtue of the naturalization of his parents during his minority and that he has not since lost his citizenship. The Government, however, takes the position that on attaining his majority he elected to maintain German allegiance and citizenship or in any case that he has by his conduct renounced or abandoned his United States citizenship.

I trust that excerpt will suffice?

And I also hope that you might learn not to trust all the propaganda
that is dished out to you daily, regardless of the political party that
is doing the dishing.

There were Constitutional issues that would effect us all, in Bush's
original declaration, as it was explained by his staff. They have
since morphed it to appear that rather than a "tribunal", it would
be more akin to a sequestered jury and court.

I like GW, but he is not without fault. And Constitutional issues
are all our concerns; It takes a constant vigil.

Thanks

 

The declaration of war isn't as critical to the legality of
events, as the proof that there were events.

Hanoi Jane didn't actually attack the USA, and it was 
her right as a citizen, to denounce whatever actions she
felt needed denouncing. Hardly a "traitorous act". In
my opinion, billie the scumbag made more traitorous
appearing acts than a dozen Hanoi Janes. They re-elected
him and gave his wife a crown. [sickening]

There's an awful lot of insisting [on FR], that some overwhelming
need is hanging for Congress to declare this a war.

We lost 4k people and enormous fortunes in real estate;
wrecked havoc on our airline and travel industry; knocked the
wind out of our major city and our stock market and
cast an enormous amount of fear into the hearts of all men,
woman and child.

Congress needs to declare this a war, otherwise it's a picnic?

It's war. We have appropriated funding, and continuous funding
at that. And we do not have one enemy, we have dozens, in dozens
of nations, including our own.

But in spite of that, and irregardless of a "congressional declaration
of war" or not, our Constitution must remain intact. When we
begin tearing it apart to satisfy our fear, we will have lost the battle.

 

While I appreciate any clarification if I am in error-your post didnt address any errors in my post."Unlawfull combatant" is an individual who wages war out of military uniform.Whether the individual is spying, committing acts of sabotage or just wondering around in enemy territory out of uniform, the penalty is the same.Any individual who does such is deemed an unlawfull combatant.Hence the added danger CIA or special forces personnell risk in activities outside this country.These individuals need NOT be tried as ordinary domestic criminals, in any civilised country.

They are ducking udner the cover of the forms of law, which is, I suppose, a necessary disguise. Our ancester worship, and the nedd to mainyain the income of lawyers and judges, requires this. Lawyers need to believe they are indespensible. That's why they stook something as simple as the UCMJ and "commonlawed" it into its present complexity/obscurity.

Sorry, but you cannot KNOW that these people have not committed acts against the US because we do not have a list of names nor knowledge of the facts. If GWB had gone or does go to the extent that Lincoln went,I would object.However, we have hundreds of thousands, among the millions of aliens here that COULD have knowledge of this terrorist act of war.I believe it an act of war and the perpetrators have declared it a (holy)war. I,personally, am for rounding all the illegals up and sending them home, but that would not be PC.

There is room aplenty for Constitutional scholars to argue over this,so I guess you will have your opinion and I'll have mine.

Incidentally, this non-argument about war--it is war only when Congress declares war--is a bottle of bilge. They should have declared war in Vietnam because it WAS war with so many billions spent and lives sacrificed. For my money, Jane Fonda SHOULD have been tried for treason for aiding and abetting our enemy or at least tried ex poste facto for the loss of lives she caused.

In this case, we WOULD have a declaration of war if we had enough bodies in Congress that could figure out a declaration of war NOT against a country but against a group of enemies.Most of them are too stodgy or too frightened of the media and pub.opinion to wax creative.

vaudine

About HJ, there's a story that when she was in 'Nam she deliberately betrayed the attempt of a group of American POWs to signal their survival to the outside world, leading to their being severely beaten and some killed. To me that would seem to justify making her rot in jail the rest of her life, at the very least. If it were true.

Nam Vet? Any comment on this story?