A person suspected of terrorism or of aiding terrorists would be handled by the military, not civilian jurisdiction. The person would be denied any Miranda rights:
(3) INAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN STATEMENT AND RIGHTS- A individual who is suspected of being an unprivileged enemy belligerent shall not, during interrogation under this subsection, be provided the statement required by Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436 (1966)) or otherwise be informed of any rights that the individual may or may not have to counsel or to remain silent consistent with Miranda v. Arizona.
The person can then be detained without trial, indefinitely:
An individual, including a citizen of the United States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent under section 3( c)(2) in a manner which satisfies Article 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War may be detained without criminal charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners in which the individual has engaged, or which the individual has purposely and materially supported, consistent with the law of war and any authorization for the use of military force provided by Congress pertaining to such hostilities.
This includes citizens of the United States. You would not have to be shown to be guilty for these laws to apply. You would just have to be suspected and accused...
Except if you were detained you would still have (as ruled in Hamdan by the Supreme Court) to appeal that you were NOT participating in war against the United States. If you prove your innocence there then you would not be able to be detained.ReplyDelete
Sounds an awful lot like the McCarthyism. Yikes.ReplyDelete
This is also why I don't know why we aren't having military commissions.ReplyDelete
I don't like the idea of treating foreign combatants that have declared war on the United States treated like common criminals. They are not committing crimes on US soil, they are not citizens, and they are engaged in war against us.
I like even less the idea of indefinitely holding anyone without trial. Because the "termination of hostilities" in this case is a pretty open ended idea. When will we have "won" the war on terror? The whole reason military commissions were invented was for just this type of situation. Give them a military trial, a verdict, and a sentence. If they are found to be innocent release them and cut them a check for their time.
"may be detained without criminal charges and without trial for the [u]duration of hostilities against the United States[/u] "ReplyDelete
Doesn't this mean that any suspects could be detained as long as someone out there in the world dislikes the US?
"They are not committing crimes on US soil, they are not citizens, and they are engaged in war against us." So I guess, A. Fischer, that you agree that the 9/11 terrorists should be tried as criminals because their crimes occurred on US soil?ReplyDelete
Awfull glad I don't live there!ReplyDelete
Ah, the "Land of the Free" :(ReplyDelete
Too bad about that Constitution. Bush and his evil cabal just ripped it up and threw it away.ReplyDelete
And it's a shame, cause it was a beautiful thing.
These terrorism laws are just so handy though. Like how the UK seized the assets of the Icelandic banks declaring that if the Icelandic banks failed it would be considered an act of terror against the UK economy.ReplyDelete
Yeah, Corpus Juris. We're all guilty now.
The freedomest country in the whole world!(TM)ReplyDelete
If terrorism, which is a crime, is going to be considered acts of war then I suppose we need to stop talking about "terrorists" and start talking about soldiers.....ReplyDelete
Unbelievable. Shades of Brazil. Mr. Tuttle!ReplyDelete
The bill has no chance. It won't pass the Senate, and if it did, it wouldn't pass the House, and if it did, Obama would veto it. Oh, and did I mention that both McCain and Lieberman are likely to lose in their next elections (this year for McCain and 2012 for Lieberman).ReplyDelete