Posted on Jan 6, 2018
ACLU Will Represent an American Citizen in U.S. Military Detention Abroad
3.05K
44
34
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 7 y ago
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 9
2
2
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
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...
(2)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
MAJ Montgomery Granger - Party affiliation tends to have a lot of bearing on "the law". Just look at how things have shifted with marijuana businesses since a different political party took power. Or how about the crack down on domestic groups under Janet Reno during the Clinton administration. Lots of fine outstanding work during those years .<sarcasm> How about the treatment of immigrants/refugees or even transgenders since the White House occupants changed? Last time I checked the Republicans just got rid of a crap load of consumer protections and eliminated net neutrality so internet service providers can now play favoritism with what they allow you to browse/stream.
There are lots of "loyal Americans" who believe the planet is flat but that does not make their beliefs correct or assertions accurate. Your beliefs and assertions stated here are just a erroneous.
There are lots of "loyal Americans" who believe the planet is flat but that does not make their beliefs correct or assertions accurate. Your beliefs and assertions stated here are just a erroneous.
(1)
(0)
LTC Eugene Chu
MAJ Montgomery Granger - Convicted felons lose their rights after trial under the American criminal law system since they are citizens charged under state or federal law. Military tribunal applied during World War 2 for the German saboteurs because they were foreigners and US officially declared war. It is inappropriate for this instance.
If you committed slander / libel against me, I would not be able press criminal charges against you. It would be an injurious situation to my reputation and civil law (i.e. suing you in court) would apply. You forget that military law of war does not apply in every situation.
If you committed slander / libel against me, I would not be able press criminal charges against you. It would be an injurious situation to my reputation and civil law (i.e. suing you in court) would apply. You forget that military law of war does not apply in every situation.
(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)
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)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google