So Union troops had no right to shoot at — without attmepting to arrest or Mirandizing — Quantrill’s Raiders and other Southern guerillas because they weren’t wearing uniforms? Or at John Brown, for that matter? Or at the Whiskey rebels?

Ex Parte Quirin, 317 US 1 (1942) holds that even US citizens who are unlawful combatants may be tried by military tribunal:

“ …the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.”

How does Shazad not fall into this category?

It might be that you and I both can refer to such complicated examples from history that were solved in such ways, or even more complicated ways (Bently comes to mind)

If this was the old america i remember… it both had application and their points didnt violate double jeopoardy… then he could be tried in both… not to mention have civil damages trial.

that is, i think many are missing the point of how to apply law in its full freedom

you dont do either or… when was that it?

if he broke laws pertaining to military, guess what? he can be prosecuted for those laws.

if he ALSO broke laws pertaining to civilian conduct, guess what? he can be prosecuted for those laws.

and even if they couldn’t build a case or chose not to prosecute criminally or military… someone could still take him to civil court for damages from his actions.

what the heck is this either or bs?
he serves in Sing Sing up the river
then he serves in Leavenworth
any money he makes goes to victims as always

if any of the countries he passed through want to get him for moving 80k around, they can have em when we are done.

personally i dont see the problem..
i dont see it as either or.

you want to bridge a gap and say nyah nyah you dont have laws for this.

i will say, yes we do… you get to be prosecuted by both!!! for whatever offenses in EACH you committed.

i think thats what kept them from doing this that much in the old days. you get double jeopardy as far as specific offenses.

he is a civilian and military man…

Saturday night live solved this ages ago..

New Shimmer!!!!
http://www.hulu.com/watch/61320/saturday-night-live-shimmer-floor-wax

he acts like both, he is both, he gets both legal problems…

Thanks for your kind comments. In addition, you wrote:

“But Geoffrey Britain brought a point which I’d like to hear your reply: Isn’t there some application of applying a “guilty before innocent” standard? This war is and isn’t like our civil war, so I don’t think one can use that as an analogy.

What I’m concerned about is the provision of too much power may find its way into wrong hands. (I’m thinking Obama and his proposed citizens army here)”

My point is that our entirely rational and necessary presumption of innocence for domestic criminal defendants is just that: A presumption borns of a constitutional right we accord to domestic criminal defendants who happen to be citizens. We routinely accord constitutional protections to non-citizens who commit crimes as well. I am not for a second advocating that this important right be ignored or weakened.

However, what some, including Geoffrey Britain appear to miss, is that our President has the authority, which is fully Constitutional and supported by the supposed gold standard of socialist moralists–the Geneva Conventions–to declare even American citizens unlawful combatants and to therefore divert them from civilian criminal justice into the military system where our intelligence secrets may be properly protected. Even the military system is required to meet constitutional standards, but its use avoids every downside of criminal trials for terrorists.

American citizens who turn on America and give aid and support to unlawful combatants should and must be declared unlawful combatants by our president (who does have that completely legal authority). It matters not that they are apprehended within the borders of the continental United States or on a foreign battlefield, their offenses are the same and the need to hold them to the different but fair standards of military justice is great and should be seen as a necessity rather than an occasionally adopted option. The presumption of innocence is also a part of the military justice system. This is particularly true of foreign nationals who game the system to gain citizenship as part of a cover in their furtherance of Jihad.

Obama already has this power–every American president has had it–and while I agree that virtually any power held by Obama is in the wrong hands, it is a power with which he can do little mischief to the innocent. The problem is that he is highly unlikely to use that power to the detriment of terrorists, and failing to use that power against terrorists constitutes direct aid to terrorists. Remember that the Constitution cannot be read to be a suicide pact. Politicians who wish to read it that way and act on such misguided convictions are quite dangerous.

Why the sarcastic tone?

Yes, I’ve ‘heard’ of the Civil War and elements certainly apply. The Union, in the main, killed, wounded, or imprisoned uniformed combatants without trial.

While they also inadvertently killed southern civilians and imprisoned those caught actively assisting the south’s armies, when a military objective was not involved, they didn’t intentionally kill, wound, or imprison southern civilians. Not even Sherman, in his march to the sea across Georgia, did that.

Lincoln’s refusal to target the south’s civilians, demonstrates that he didn’t view them as traitors, who had automatically lost their US citizenship.

The episode you cite fails both tests, and is therefore irrelevant.

CBC urges approval of $1.5B jobs bill to stem summer violence

ie.. give us money or we will tear your cities apart…

Black lawmakers are urging the Senate to pass a summer jobs bill even if it adds to the deficit.

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) said youth violence had already begun but would likely escalate over the summer after school lets out and the young are turned out onto the streets with no job to keep them out of trouble.

of course its all tea partiers, and immigrants..

wait…

when they cant give enough benefits to the projects and there isnt any money to give them

lock down is coming…