US Citizen Held for Military Tribunal

Question: If a foreign warship is approaching the USA uninvited, and military intelligence has reason to suspect that ship intends to launch a nuclear missile at Washington DC, does the USA have a right to stop it? Or should they simply sit back and wait for the nuke to hit, wait until some civilian court of law finds them guilty of trespass?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am sure there are laws for suspicious ships, as there are laws for suspicious citizens.

It is not that you have to let them go free. You can arrest the citizen, you can halt the ship and search it. A judge will sign a search warrant within minutes.

It's what happenst AFTER that. The citizen should get a fair trial, no matter what. For the ship crew, there are two options: they carry a nuke: they get a trial. The threat is stopped. They don't carry a nuke: FBI apologises and let it get to shore.

Joeman,

You just said laws do not necessarily apply to the government. Totalitarianism... I can't believe you agree with that.

The presumption of innoscence. Unless laws do not apply anymore of course.

I am of course not American, but we too have something like a National Security Agency. I can assure you that it is not difficult getting blacklisted by them. Just go to two left wing manifestations: they'll have your picture and know who you are. They'll keep track of your activities.

No it doesn't. We should show that we are better than them and apply our value system. This will also not let them go unpunished. We will just be more human about it.

Remember Machiaveli?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And if the ship/person is sailing/flying directly into Washington? What if there is no time for getting a warrant? What if your only choice is to wait, or to take the initiative? If you wait, they may strike while you are trying to get a warrant for that legal process you mentioned. If you don't wait, you set a precedent for trampling peoples' right. Which is better?

Your version of fetching a warrant and all takes time and assumes a case with the most freedom to take the more desirable course of action. Assume not enough time for happy procedures.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do I hear cynism there?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I am sure there are laws for when direct action is needed, without a warrant. It's what you do AFTERWARDS that counts.

 

I would go alnong with the above if I knew for certain that he was guilty. A claim by the government is not enough for me.

I just plain do not trust politicians, police, justice department personnel, district attorneys, et cetera to be honest. They often have motives not related to a search for truth and justice.

In my city they put a man (Neil Ferber) on death row after a trial that was outrageous. The prosecutors used perjured testimony and supressed evidence they know would result in a not guilty verdict. Neil won a law suit for several million dollars after spending a few years on death row. He was not a model citizen, but had never commited a violent crime.

The above is not the only case like this. The FBI has knowing let innocent men be convicted. To enhance their image, they put a German informant in Jail for espionage in the forties. This poor guy had lived in the US from infancy and was taken back to Germany by his parents when he was a teenager. When the Nazis sent him to the US with a group of spies and saboteurs, he told the FBI everything because he sympathized with the USA, not Germany. Hoover and the FBI wanted credit for uncovering the plot and put him in jail with the others.

The above are only a few instances of gross miscarriages of justice. I do not want any bureaucrat, judge, prosecuter, politician, et cetera to be allowed to put somebody in jail without trial or due process.

The government should be viewed as a necessary evil to be constantly watched and held in check. While I would not trade our current system for any other (although Switzerland looks good), I consider our government as potentially more dangerous than almost anybody else. They have the legal right to use guns and lock people up. If they do somthing outrageous, you can be in trouble for shooting back. If the mafia comes after you, you can plead self defense if you survive after wasting a few of them.

 

Joeman,
As an 18 year-old Italian girl, my mother-in-law watched the Nazi's drag her fiance around the town square tied to the back of a truck, until he was obviously dead. He was a Partisan. They thought of him as a terrorist.

They refused to let laws handcuff their war effort. Just like any war, people were sacrificed. He was sacrificed for the greater good. It was his fault for putting himself in that position. They didn't fight the Partisan's fair and square. They let the ends justify the means. They searched and destroyed.

Michael

 

I think that Joeman would be ok with that, Orthoganal.

Sweet zombie Jesus on a pogo stick, do you honestly not see that there is a difference between putting a man into a navy brig after a month of interrogation because he may have possibly met with al-Queda leadership and shooting down an enemy plane on its way to the government headquarters? I sure as hell do.



Ladies and gentlemen, Freedom has a cost. Freedom is scary. Yes, freedom means that people can kill one another, and then we have to prove that they are guilty. Our rights mean that occasionally people will abuse them, take advantage of them and cause great harm to us. But that is no excuse to abandon freedom. That is no excuse to embrace totalitarian government because people may harm us, and they might be guilty of bringing in the flavor of the month terrorist threat.

So, I suppose it would be acceptable for all of us to wear identification badges, with GPS beacons on them? After all, if we're not doing anything wrong, what should be the problem? Plus people who have no badges would simply be refused all services, and it would be quite impossible for terrorist networks to exist. It's almost brilliant. Let's all go down to the local FBI building and leave off a sample of DNA and our fingerprints. After all, if we're not rapists or murderers, what is the problem? In fact, really, wouldn't it just be so much easier if the government assigned us duties and jobs, then payed us what the work was worth? Or just gave us enough food and lodging to survive? In fact, why not just kill everyone we think might be a rapist, murderer or thief? I mean, if there's any motive or even the most rediculous shred of circumstancial evidence that I was involved in a theft, I am probably guilty. And if I don't want to talk about where I was or what I was doing, well then I'm just proving my guilt by my silence. It all makes perfect sense. It was my own fault for putting myself in a position like that. Bad me. No one to blame but myself for any of it. In fact, lets just dispense with a trial, and execute people right off? That would streamline justice immensely...