I have long been a critic of military tribunals as constitutionally dubious and practically ineffectual institutions. The tribunals at Guantanamo Bay have resulted in few actual trials and undermined the standing of the United States as a nation committed to the rule of law. The principle rationale cited by former officials in defense of Gitmo has been that it would not be used to try citizens. Now in a deeply disturbing interview, GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump has stated that he might try citizens at Gitmo — maintaining a shadow court system for stripping citizens of basic rights of due process just a few miles off the United States shore.
As an attorney who has long practiced in the national security field (including terrorism cases), the tribunal system has never made a great deal of sense to me. Federal courts have long tried terrorists and the government has a high success rate in such cases. The creation of a faux court system only gives our enemies a rallying cry and fuels those who to call us hypocrites.
Those concerns are magnified by Trump’s dismissal of any distinction between citizens and non-citizens in the use of such tribunals. In an interview with the Miami Herald on Thursday, Trump was asked if he would use the tribunals against U.S. citizens. Trump responded: “Well, I know that they want to try them in our regular court systems, and I don’t like that at all. I don’t like that at all. I would say they could be tried there, that would be fine.”
That may be fine in Trump’s view but it would also be unconstitutional. Presidents are not allowed to create alternative court systems for denying citizens of core rights at their discretion. Such a Caesar-like role runs against the very grain of the American constitutional system. The statement by Trump reflects a disconcerting lack of faith in our court system and a fundamental misunderstanding of the limits placed upon presidents in our constitutional system.
What do you think?
@Hope H
I heard the words. I also heard Hillary say that she was for tax increases on the middle class. I heard Obama say there were 57 states.
BUT, like I said, I am not sure he specifically meant U S Citizens, or if he meant terrorists who were already there.
Now, if you want my take on it, if he truly meant U S citizens, I think the propriety would depend on the circumstances. I think the whole “treat terrorists as criminal defendants” thing is stupid. We did not arrest Germans and Nazis and Japs in WWII. We killed them, and if we captured them, we imprisoned them. No trial.
We have been able to get away with treating terrorists in this country as criminal defendants because the number of attacks and attackers has been pretty low. Plus, a lot of them end up dead in their attack. But notice how we don’t send Federal Marshals and the po po to Raqqa, or Mosul, or Syria. Nooo, we send planes and drones in, with bombs and missiles, and military troops.
Should the attacks here ramp up, then we would probably have to face reality. As things currently stand, I am much more afraid of some black dude named Dequarius who wants to hijack my car and rape me, than I am of some Arab terrorist named Abdul who wants to blow me up in a suicide attack. But that could change. But either way, I always pack heat!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
The assassins of Lincoln were tried by court-martial. There is precedent. Since we are at war, it would be the perfect place.
If the left-wing media would just stop putting words in Trump’s mouth, then everything would be okeedoekee……I still feel that the Donald is pulling off the biggest con game ever. This is NOT a run for President, its Trump’s brand to start his own TV network…………
At what point will the MSM and Dems come to the realization that Trump says outrageous stuff on purpose? Hate causes myopia and blindness.
But, we need to clean out Congress as well.
Squeek and Autumn
Did you not watch the video? The reporter asked if Trump thought AMERICAN citizens could be tried by military courts at Gitmo.
It was specific – American citizens tried at Gitmo.
Just can’t believe your lyin’ eyes and ears, eh?
Pathetic.
A Trump Presidency would give Congress the kick in the ass it needs. They will fight him on almost everything since many in his party and all Dems hate him. So, there’s that.
Faux court system? How about a faux constitutional republic? Someone mentioned above about putting the constitution in our rear view mirror. Some of it is and what’s left is under our wheels of “justice”. Sorry to disappoint you Mr. Franklin but the answer is NO, we cannot keep it.
Trump will not return the rule of law.
At this point the president of the USGinc. has both claimed the “right’ to kill and already has killed American citizens on his own say so without any due process whatsoever. Then there is the NDAA which has already stripped out the right of due process from citizens in the US. It would be true of any president whether Trump or Clinton or a third party candidate, that they could build upon the illegal precedents of the last president to follow in Obama’s pathway.
That is why I am really tired of citizens accepting the abrogation of the rule of law from the @$%-hole who is “their” party’s president. STOP-FULL STOP. No one should cheer, send money to, or support any person who will abrogate the rule of law. Clinton is that woman. Trump is that man. Currently, Obama is that man.
Either citizens actually mean we want the rule of law for every person as guaranteed by the Constitution or we do not.
We have come to a point where there truly is no due process. People voted for Obama even when they knew he had killed a 16 year old boy without due process. This is heinous. We should not accept heinous behavior by our current “leadership” or by any candidate.
Trump is stating that he will go on with what has already happened under Obama. That it has happened is terrifying. We need to put the break on presidential power right now.
It’s self-serving banter. Quiet trials after a few turns on the hook at Gitmo serve those who don’t give a rat’s arse about civil rights.
It’s a bit like a candidate for the presidency who has assets of over $10,000,000.00 stating that s/he would do away with the federal estate tax. People hear reduced taxes and think that’s a great idea, although only those with over $10M in assets get hit by the tax and only for their wealth over that threshold amount. The only candidate for the presidency this term who has played that card and said s/he’d abolish the federal estate tax is . . ., well, . . . Donald Trump. Self-serving banter.
So, does this make him, his track record, and his penchant for smearing due process, worse than Clinton and hers? I don’t think so.
Autumn–yep, we’ll hope there is a big wave of support for 3rd parties. It is a hard road for them, but somehow we have to demand it.
He’s clearly talking about trying American citizens in military tribunals, which I would consider unconstitutional.
Trying enemy combatants- legal or otherwise- in military tribunals isn’t unconstitutional. It’s been the practice of this Republic since before the Constitution was adopted.
If an American citizen is captured on the field of battle fighting against America, he should be tried in Federal courts for treason and whatever other war crimes he may have committed. An enemy combatant who isn’t an American, however, may not have committed any crime at all, and, if he has, can certainly be tried by military tribunals. Further, his status as a lawful combatant can- indeed, must, under international law- be determined by a military tribunal. The Convention on Prisoners of War requires that a captured enemy combatant be treated as a prisoner of war until his status is determined by a “competent tribunal.”
What do you think?
I think there might be a reason you did not offer a precise quotation, in context.
There’s no pleasing the Eurotrash (or Americans aping Eurotrash, or Third World denizens trafficking in thrift-shop Marxism). Our ‘standing’ in the world is of concern only to the doltish and the superficial.
@slohrss29
This is why I am voting for Jill Stein though I am not happy with her VP pick – so we have more parties next time around. I live in SC which will go for Trump so I can vote for her. HRC must be defeated IMO. There are increasing calls for Stein and Johnson to be allowed in the debates. That martian freak from Utah will not be all state ballots thanksfully.
Nick, can you put that on a mail-in ballot?
What would be cool would be to utilize this anti-trump hysteria and use it as a rational to make the system more accessible to third-parties. It would take a massive beat-down of the duopoly though, but the possibility may be coming.
If voters were given a choice of “None of the Above” that “candidate” would be polling 20-25% and eligible to be on the debate stage.
Dave 137
Spot on, love Jeffries. The TV moment of the century would be an encounter between Trump and Jeffries. They’re both comedians. Only one knows it, or perhaps Trump is having us on as well. That would better explain him running for President than him being serious.
Regarding Turley’s post, Trump doesn’t know what he’s talking about, care about what he’s talking about, or have any idea what the consequences are other than it brings him attention from haters. Trump is being discounted as we speak. The only thing left is to listen to see if he can eclipse his idiocy. As this continues his followers will become more isolated, then embarrassed, then invisible.
When Squeeky Fromm is caught in an obvious error she/he will always riposte with numerous silly excuses in sheer endless postings rather than simply admitting that she/he was wrong and leave it at that. She/he will also raise issues (drugs here) which have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand but serve only to bolster her/his false righteousness. Typical for many journalists today.
Prof. Turley is not fooled. His words are “it would be unconstitutional”. Basta.
Of course it is entirely possible that candidate Trump was once again talking through both sides of his mouth: no, not in the USA; yes, in Guantanamo. Like he once said that women who have abortions should be punished, but (at a later interview) perhaps not.
One either takes Trump serious for what he says or one dismisses him as an utter but dangerous fool. Squeeky seems to be unable to make that choice. I can. It is the second
I agree with Squeek on Trump’s comments. Wait and see.
for labman57: