Posted on Jan 6, 2018
ACLU Will Represent an American Citizen in U.S. Military Detention Abroad
2.76K
44
53
7
7
0
Sadly, this American traitor deserves neither your attention nor services. He is in fact an unlawful combatant in the Global War on Terror, and therefore, by International and US law, is not entitled to extra legal privileges. He is not entitled to habeas corpus and should never have been read any rights nor offered to speak with an attorney. He could have been lawfully shot dead on the battlefield. There is a reason for war time law, and that is to preserve and protect innocent people and non-military facilities. Unlawful combatants by their existence do not recognize war time law, and therefore have not EARNED the protections therein. Rights cannot exist without responsibilities, and it is the responsibility of the combatant to fight within the rules and laws established and recognized by the civilized world. Remember the six of eight German saboteurs who landed dry-foot on US soil in 1942, were denied habeas corpus, were tried by military commission, and then executed by electric chair less than eight weeks after their capture. None of them had hurt a fly nor damaged any property, but were found to be in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Law of Land Warfare. They were deemed to be spies with the intent and means to kill and to destroy property. What's different now? The correct location for this unlawful combatant is the US military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he may be lawfully held, without charge or trial, just as if he were a lawful combatant POW, as per Geneva and the Law of War, "Until the end of hostilities." Sincerely, Montgomery J. Granger, Major, US Army, Retired. Author, "Saving Grace at Guantanamo Bay: A Memoir of a Citizen Warrior."
ACLU Will Represent an American Citizen in U.S. Military Detention Abroad
Posted from aclu.org
Law
War on Terror
Guantanamo Bay
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 10
3
3
0
If we are going to consider the GWOT as a war, then the battlefield would be the entire globe, including the US. Does anyone think our government should be able to simply declare a US citizen an unlawful combatant in the GWOT and be able to pick him up and detain him indefinitely without charges and without access to a lawyer? That’s exactly what dictators do, rounding up “enemies of the state” and making them disappear.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
So much for your oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same.
It is interesting to read how many "patriotic Americans" want to throw out the Constitution and rule of law...
It is interesting to read how many "patriotic Americans" want to throw out the Constitution and rule of law...
(3)
(0)
(0)
(0)
MAJ Montgomery Granger
LTC Eugene Chu - I agree, but in this case it does. SC have already ruled that US citizens are not exempt from enemy combatant status, i.e., President Obama's drone killing of US citizens abroad. Based on those cases, this individual has no standing in US criminal court. He is an enemy combatant, there is a war and an AUMF authorizing the capture of enemy combatants. His status as a citizen of the United States is secondary to his status as an enemy combatant. He should therefore be tried by military commission if accused of war crimes. If not, he can rot at Gitmo "until the end of hostilities" as per Geneva and the Law of War.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Montgomery Granger
Capt Gregory Prickett - In your opinion, which I respect. But if you refuse to believe we are at war, that the AUMF exists, and that US citizens classified as enemy combatants come under Geneva and the Law of War, then we will continue to disagree, respectfully. If these things are not true, then President Obama needs to be brought to court to face charges of murder for droning to death several US citizens abroad. You cannot have it both ways. Either we're at war or we are not at war. If we are at war and a potential war crime is committed by an enemy combatant, lawful or not, the proper body for that adjudication is military commission, and you know it.
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
MAJ Montgomery Granger - I refuse to believe we are at war, because we are not.
Like I pointed out on a different post on this thread, Congress and the Courts understand the distinction between an AUMF and war. The first two armed conflicts that the U.S. were involved in were by AUMFs, and we were not at war. We did it in 1798 and 1802, before we entered into the War of 1812 by a Congressional declaration of war.
Second, I have no problem with the military commission, never have. But this individual has not been before a military commission. He's entitled to due process and a lawyer. Constitutional rights of citizens do not evaporate during military operations, not even during time of war. Besides, I thought that you wanted to do away with their rights.
Finally, you need to understand the differences between an AUMF and a declaration of war. We use stop-loss because we are not at war, if we were at war, NG and reserves would be retained for the duration plus 6 months, whether on active duty or not. If we were at war, reemployment rights wouldn't be subject to the 5 year limitation. If we were at war, officers would not have to wait for Senate confirmation to be promoted. These are just a few of the differences between a war and an AUMF.
Like I pointed out on a different post on this thread, Congress and the Courts understand the distinction between an AUMF and war. The first two armed conflicts that the U.S. were involved in were by AUMFs, and we were not at war. We did it in 1798 and 1802, before we entered into the War of 1812 by a Congressional declaration of war.
Second, I have no problem with the military commission, never have. But this individual has not been before a military commission. He's entitled to due process and a lawyer. Constitutional rights of citizens do not evaporate during military operations, not even during time of war. Besides, I thought that you wanted to do away with their rights.
Finally, you need to understand the differences between an AUMF and a declaration of war. We use stop-loss because we are not at war, if we were at war, NG and reserves would be retained for the duration plus 6 months, whether on active duty or not. If we were at war, reemployment rights wouldn't be subject to the 5 year limitation. If we were at war, officers would not have to wait for Senate confirmation to be promoted. These are just a few of the differences between a war and an AUMF.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
Once again, you have completely misstated the law. Supreme Court decisions are very clear that habeas does apply, that as a United States citizen, he does have constitutional rights, and he is entitled to legal representation and due process.
Next, he surrendered, so your statement of "lawfully shot dead" is inaccurate too. We don't shoot people who are surrendering, that's murder under the UCMJ. And he didn't surrender to our forces, but to our allies, who then turned him over to us, as a U.S. citizen.
A question is raised, however, by your position that ignores the law to encourage action against U.S. citizens accused of crime or misconduct--why don't you remember your oath? What do you have against the Constitution of the United States?
Next, he surrendered, so your statement of "lawfully shot dead" is inaccurate too. We don't shoot people who are surrendering, that's murder under the UCMJ. And he didn't surrender to our forces, but to our allies, who then turned him over to us, as a U.S. citizen.
A question is raised, however, by your position that ignores the law to encourage action against U.S. citizens accused of crime or misconduct--why don't you remember your oath? What do you have against the Constitution of the United States?
(3)
(0)
MAJ Montgomery Granger
Why is it you always ignore the six of eight German saboteurs caught dry-foot on US soil in 1942, who were denied habeas, tried under military commission and then executed by electric chair less than eight weeks after their capture? They hadn't hurt a fly nor blown anything up, but simply had the means and intent to do so and had broken Geneva and the Law of War. Once declared an enemy combatant (or, NOT a lawful combatant), a detainee can be held "until the end of hostilities" without charge or trial, just like a lawful combatant POW. Why are you Islamist apologists all so quick to turn a traitor or enemy into a poor deprived citizen?
(0)
(0)
LTC Eugene Chu
You are comparing apples and oranges...
The saboteurs case involved German citizens and US officially declared war against the Nazis. This suspect is an American citizen and we never formally declared war against Iraq during Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom or now. While an investigation and trial are necessary, the World War 2 case does not apply.
The saboteurs case involved German citizens and US officially declared war against the Nazis. This suspect is an American citizen and we never formally declared war against Iraq during Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom or now. While an investigation and trial are necessary, the World War 2 case does not apply.
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
MAJ Montgomery Granger - First, like I have told you before, the Germans were tried under different laws, including different international laws. The Geneva Conventions that we are now under were created in 1949, seven years after the trial of the Germans you speak of, who were governed by the two Geneva treaties of 1929. Now there are four treaties.
Likewise, other laws are also different. The military was governed by the 1920 Articles of War, not the 1951 Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Germans were captured during a time of war declared by Congress. We are not now at war, and a resolution authorizing the use of military force (AUMF) is not a war. While the distinction is difficult to grasp in a combat zone, these issues are also covered in a courtroom, by lawyers. It is a distinction that is recognized by Congress and the Courts, see Jennifer Elsea & Matthew C. Weed, Declarations of war and authorizations for the use of military force: historical background and legal implications (Congressional Research Service Report RL31133, 2014), https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31133.pdf (last visited Jan 6, 2018).
It is a distinction that was recognized at the beginning years of this nation, with the first AUMF passing in 1798. There have been 10 AUMFs over the years, and 11 declarations of war. A good court review of the distinctions between a declared war and an AUMF is discussed in Gray v. United States, 21 Ct.Cl. 340, 373 (1886). MAJ Granger, this is not something new or novel. There has always been a legal distinction between war and an AUMF.
Finally, a United States citizen has a constitutional right to challenge a designation as an enemy combatant in a court of law (including a duly constituted military tribunal), with the assistance of legal counsel. You do not get to hold a U.S. citizen incommunicado, period.
Likewise, other laws are also different. The military was governed by the 1920 Articles of War, not the 1951 Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Germans were captured during a time of war declared by Congress. We are not now at war, and a resolution authorizing the use of military force (AUMF) is not a war. While the distinction is difficult to grasp in a combat zone, these issues are also covered in a courtroom, by lawyers. It is a distinction that is recognized by Congress and the Courts, see Jennifer Elsea & Matthew C. Weed, Declarations of war and authorizations for the use of military force: historical background and legal implications (Congressional Research Service Report RL31133, 2014), https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31133.pdf (last visited Jan 6, 2018).
It is a distinction that was recognized at the beginning years of this nation, with the first AUMF passing in 1798. There have been 10 AUMFs over the years, and 11 declarations of war. A good court review of the distinctions between a declared war and an AUMF is discussed in Gray v. United States, 21 Ct.Cl. 340, 373 (1886). MAJ Granger, this is not something new or novel. There has always been a legal distinction between war and an AUMF.
Finally, a United States citizen has a constitutional right to challenge a designation as an enemy combatant in a court of law (including a duly constituted military tribunal), with the assistance of legal counsel. You do not get to hold a U.S. citizen incommunicado, period.
kD¿sgmvÞà(PxGú3BÙXúÚmøÃoÞÁã5Rz,.Ý!!ðÝEäàÎÛâôYÕÞsÖ·DòJø»ÂíÒ4ìW%ü.(]a)XÂoÌßqë%ÖTt-AóÌNqVÎÆÃ_Ò&$XØH9ñªdVjðùCöÍbQ
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google