Posted on Jan 6, 2018
ACLU Will Represent an American Citizen in U.S. Military Detention Abroad
3.22K
44
33
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: 9
2
2
0
While I'm not read up on the whole situation, it would appear that the ACLU is stating the individual is not a war time combatant. If that stipulation is upheld, then it would seem that the individual could be held responsiblele and prosecuted for any harm (e.g., casualties, physical destruction, etc.) caused by his actions since he would not be covered as a soldier in combat.
(2)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
Congress authorized: " the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
(0)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
The "War of Terror" went away in 2009. It has been Overseas Contingency Operations for almost 9 years.
What is a "federally authorized" "state license plate"? Did the federal government really authorize your license plate or did it come from your state DMV?
I have a official federal certificate that says I'm a cold war veteran and I could buy medals for the cold war. Does that legally make the so called "Cold War" a "war" too? How did Congress authorize that "war"?
Nope. No "war". Not for over half a century. Combat operations and use of force, yes, but not a war. It does not meet the legal definition. But I suppose you confuse students and housewifes without a jobs as being unemployed too.
What is a "federally authorized" "state license plate"? Did the federal government really authorize your license plate or did it come from your state DMV?
I have a official federal certificate that says I'm a cold war veteran and I could buy medals for the cold war. Does that legally make the so called "Cold War" a "war" too? How did Congress authorize that "war"?
Nope. No "war". Not for over half a century. Combat operations and use of force, yes, but not a war. It does not meet the legal definition. But I suppose you confuse students and housewifes without a jobs as being unemployed too.
(0)
(0)
COL David Turk
CPO DC. - that's a lot of verbiage over the term "War", which is not the point of the discussion. Sounds like you have some issues with conflicts being called wars. Not of interest to me. People fight and die in either one, so I quite frankly don't care what you call it. I doubt many serving in combat zones care what you call it.
(0)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
COL David Turk - This thread is discussing legal issues. When used in an legal context like this discussion, we must use a word's legal definition and not a layman's common use understanding of what a word means. There is an enormous difference between 'legalese' and English. The U.S. Gov has a very specific definition of the word "war" and what it means to be at "war", just as there are rather specific legal definitions when one person kills another.
Homicide is defined as causing the death of another human being, regardless of the circumstances or intent; justified or unjustified. Homicide is *not* a crime and it is *not* in itself a basis for civil or criminal liability without evidence of intent or carelessness. Many homicides are not crimes. The homicide could be self-defense, capital punishment, murder, manslaughter, euthanasia, abortion, etc.
MAJ Ganger (and others) have essentially witnessed a homicide and are wrongfully claiming it to be murder when legally it qualifies as something else entirely. Their war argument holds less legal credibility than community activists continuing to scream murder after the police, DA, and courts have all determined a homicide to be a lawful use of force.
Just because lots of people call something a war, does not mean the U.S. is legally at war. Or is the "war on poverty", "cold war", "war on drugs", "war on illiteracy", "war on polio", "war on malaria", and "war of terror" all wars in your book too? I believe people fought and died in each of those 'wars' except the war on illiteracy.
Legally speaking, no U.S. conflict since 1941 has met the U.S. Gov definition of "war".
But here's a fun conundrum for you to unravel: Did our last "war" legally end when hostilities ceased in 1945 upon Japan's surrender or when the 1951 peace treaty with Japan took effect in 1952?
Homicide is defined as causing the death of another human being, regardless of the circumstances or intent; justified or unjustified. Homicide is *not* a crime and it is *not* in itself a basis for civil or criminal liability without evidence of intent or carelessness. Many homicides are not crimes. The homicide could be self-defense, capital punishment, murder, manslaughter, euthanasia, abortion, etc.
MAJ Ganger (and others) have essentially witnessed a homicide and are wrongfully claiming it to be murder when legally it qualifies as something else entirely. Their war argument holds less legal credibility than community activists continuing to scream murder after the police, DA, and courts have all determined a homicide to be a lawful use of force.
Just because lots of people call something a war, does not mean the U.S. is legally at war. Or is the "war on poverty", "cold war", "war on drugs", "war on illiteracy", "war on polio", "war on malaria", and "war of terror" all wars in your book too? I believe people fought and died in each of those 'wars' except the war on illiteracy.
Legally speaking, no U.S. conflict since 1941 has met the U.S. Gov definition of "war".
But here's a fun conundrum for you to unravel: Did our last "war" legally end when hostilities ceased in 1945 upon Japan's surrender or when the 1951 peace treaty with Japan took effect in 1952?
(1)
(0)
1
1
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Required the detainee to renounce his US citizenship and turn him over to Saudi Arabia, problem solved.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google