In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


In other words, not everybody who does a nasty thing is subject to
criminal law.

Treason is treason. Anyone who commits actions to help a foreign government
overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." It
is inescapable that an "American Citizen" in the German Heer, Luftwaffe or
Kriegsmarine would qualify. The articles in the constitution make no
distinction for military personal versus civillians, so your point is
irrelevant. No law of war covers Treason. None.

Anyone accused of Treason would be accorded all of the benefits of the
CRIMINAL courts.

No one in the US was charged with Treason, therefore no American Citizens
were in American POW camps...unless you think the entire military and
civilian justice system had no interest in Traitors.

Right. No POW was accused of treason in the U.S. It was not because they
didn't commit acts that could be defined as treason, it was because of the
President's Article II powers.

cite please


Several American citizens were convicted of treason during the War. They
we * Herbert Haupt

irrelevant: he was never charged with treason, he was convicted of being an
enemy agent by a military tribunal

* Martin Monti, Air Corps pilot, captured while serving in the SS

irrelevant: originally charged with desertion he was later (1948) charged with
treason and found guilty

* Robert Best

irrelevant: an American broadcaster of Nazi propaganda during World War II. He
was convicted of treason in 1948 and sentenced to life imprisonment.


* Mildred Gillars

irrelevant: convicted of treason by the United States in 1949 following her
capture in post-war Berlin.

* Tomoya Kawakita

irrelevant: arrested after the war





you're going to have to try harder...hint you could start by providing that list
of the "thousands" of American Citizens that were in the US POW camps

--

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit.

--

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit.

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

Right. No POW was accused of treason in the U.S. It was not because
they didn't commit acts that could be defined as treason, it was
because of the President's Article II powers.

cite please

Cite what?

The Constitution?
Article II
"The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into
the actual Service of the United States..."

This means that his powers over the military are absolute and cannot be
gainsaid by the Congress or the courts. He may order the military to do
anything he desires (see the "Prize Cases") and the only recourse, according
to one appellate opinion, is to "replace the chief executive at the next
regularly-scheduled election."



Several American citizens were convicted of treason during the War.

I misspoke. I should have said "convicted of treason for acts committed
during the war.

They we * Herbert Haupt

irrelevant: he was never charged with treason, he was convicted of
being an enemy agent by a military tribunal


You are correct. My mistake.


* Martin Monti, Air Corps pilot, captured while serving in the SS

irrelevant: originally charged with desertion he was later (1948)
charged with treason and found guilty

* Robert Best

irrelevant: an American broadcaster of Nazi propaganda during World
War II. He was convicted of treason in 1948 and sentenced to life
imprisonment.


* Mildred Gillars

irrelevant: convicted of treason by the United States in 1949
following her capture in post-war Berlin.

* Tomoya Kawakita

irrelevant: arrested after the war


All of your "irrelevant"s have been corrected by my revision. I'm sorry I
upset you.




you're going to have to try harder...hint you could start by
providing that list of the "thousands" of American Citizens that were
in the US POW camps

Well, there's the de jure and the de facto. The de facto situation is that
of the 400,000 German POWs held in the U.S., the law of averages tells us
that SOME must have held U.S. citizenship due to having been born here or
having at least one parent that was a U.S. citizen.

The de jure rule is that if a citizen takes up arms against the United
States, he is automatically expatriated. So, in a legal sense, any American
citizen captured on the battlefield is automatically determined to have
renounced his American citizenship.

In the latter definition, then, you are correct in that there could not have
been American citizens held in U.S. POW camps. If they were captured on the
battlefield, they were not, by law, American citizens.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

Right. No POW was accused of treason in the U.S. It was not because
they didn't commit acts that could be defined as treason, it was
because of the President's Article II powers.

cite please

Cite what?

The Constitution?
Article II
"The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into
the actual Service of the United States..."

This means that his powers over the military are absolute and cannot be
gainsaid by the Congress or the courts. He may order the military to do
anything he desires (see the "Prize Cases") and the only recourse, according
to one appellate opinion, is to "replace the chief executive at the next
regularly-scheduled election."

but treason is a criminal offense, you were very clear on that point, so the
President has no say in the matter






Several American citizens were convicted of treason during the War.

I misspoke. I should have said "convicted of treason for acts committed
during the war.




* Tomoya Kawakita

irrelevant: arrested after the war


All of your "irrelevant"s have been corrected by my revision. I'm sorry I
upset you.


Your revision doesn't change the fact that no American Citizen was charged or
tried for acts of treason during the war





you're going to have to try harder...hint you could start by
providing that list of the "thousands" of American Citizens that were
in the US POW camps

Well, there's the de jure and the de facto. The de facto situation is that
of the 400,000 German POWs held in the U.S., the law of averages tells us
that SOME must have held U.S. citizenship due to having been born here or
having at least one parent that was a U.S. citizen.

the law of averages is in fact not de jure or de facto



The de jure rule is that if a citizen takes up arms against the United
States, he is automatically expatriated. So, in a legal sense, any American
citizen captured on the battlefield is automatically determined to have
renounced his American citizenship.

Once again you are wrong. If a citizen takes up arms against the United States
they would be charged with Treason. There are no laws in the United States that
allow for the automatic expatriation and in fact no citizen could be expatriated
as that would imply that they were not a citizen



In the latter definition, then, you are correct in that there could not have
been American citizens held in U.S. POW camps. If they were captured on the
battlefield, they were not, by law, American citizens.


However, the Supreme Court in the case of Tomoya Kawakita, one of your previous
points, said otherwise

--

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit.

--

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit.

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

Right. No POW was accused of treason in the U.S. It was not because
they didn't commit acts that could be defined as treason, it was
because of the President's Article II powers.

cite please

Cite what?

The Constitution?
Article II
"The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy
of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when
called into the actual Service of the United States..."

This means that his powers over the military are absolute and cannot
be gainsaid by the Congress or the courts. He may order the military
to do anything he desires (see the "Prize Cases") and the only
recourse, according to one appellate opinion, is to "replace the
chief executive at the next regularly-scheduled election."

but treason is a criminal offense, you were very clear on that point,
so the President has no say in the matter


Well, no say in the "treason" business, but the president could designate
the individual an "unlawful enemy combatant" and send him to Guantanamo or
the brig in Charleston where the U.S. Attorney would be barred from access.







Several American citizens were convicted of treason during the War.

I misspoke. I should have said "convicted of treason for acts
committed during the war.




* Tomoya Kawakita

irrelevant: arrested after the war


All of your "irrelevant"s have been corrected by my revision. I'm
sorry I upset you.


Your revision doesn't change the fact that no American Citizen was
charged or tried for acts of treason during the war


How many times do I have to say I misspoke? At least five were convicted,
after the war, of treason for acts COMMITTED during wartime.





you're going to have to try harder...hint you could start by
providing that list of the "thousands" of American Citizens that
were in the US POW camps

Well, there's the de jure and the de facto. The de facto situation
is that of the 400,000 German POWs held in the U.S., the law of
averages tells us that SOME must have held U.S. citizenship due to
having been born here or having at least one parent that was a U.S.
citizen.

the law of averages is in fact not de jure or de facto



The de jure rule is that if a citizen takes up arms against the
United States, he is automatically expatriated. So, in a legal
sense, any American citizen captured on the battlefield is
automatically determined to have renounced his American citizenship.

Once again you are wrong. If a citizen takes up arms against the
United States they would be charged with Treason. There are no laws
in the United States that allow for the automatic expatriation and in
fact no citizen could be expatriated as that would imply that they
were not a citizen

It's not a law - it's a constitutional finding.




In the latter definition, then, you are correct in that there could
not have been American citizens held in U.S. POW camps. If they were
captured on the battlefield, they were not, by law, American
citizens.


However, the Supreme Court in the case of Tomoya Kawakita, one of
your previous points, said otherwise


Kawakita was not captured on the battlefield, nor did he take up arms
against the U.S.. Hence did not lose his American citizenship.

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 23:12:32 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 11/28/2011 6:38 PM, Home Guy wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

During WW2 we had thousands of American citizens held in POW
camps throughout the country without access to American courts

not true. There were "concentration camps" filled with thousands
of American Citizens, but the did have access to American Courts

There were absolutely zero POW camps that held American Citizens
in the USA during WW2

You must live in a fantasy world. Over 400,000 German soldiers were
held in American POW camps

400k germans held in POW camps in Europe - not on US soil.

You either believe that none held U.S. citizenship or that

There are Geneva conventions about combatants wearing uniforms and their
rights therein - I would suppose that if you are captured in combat
wearing the uniform of the enemy then you are treated as the enemy
regardless what your legal citizenship is.

No POW ever had access to American civilian courts.

No POW probably ever set foot on US soil (while being a POW that is).

We had German POW's here in Alabamastan during WWII, funny thing, we now
have a Mercedes Benz factory. ^_^

AIUI, the VP in charge of the place was recently arrested for not being able
to prove he was (working?) in the country legally. Who says you can't close
the border?

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:32:20 -0800, Oren wrote:


On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 10:53:43 -0500, Home Guy wrote:

Remember what I said about "you couldn't pay me enough to live in the
states" ?

Remember what I said about you moving here. Nobody would waist money
like that.

Aside, I don't recall anyone _asking_ you to move here!

It's too bad DumbGuy won't keep all of his bits out of the country.

On 12/1/2011 6:34 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 23:12:32 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 11/28/2011 6:38 PM, Home Guy wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

During WW2 we had thousands of American citizens held in POW
camps throughout the country without access to American courts

not true. There were "concentration camps" filled with thousands
of American Citizens, but the did have access to American Courts

There were absolutely zero POW camps that held American Citizens
in the USA during WW2

You must live in a fantasy world. Over 400,000 German soldiers were
held in American POW camps

400k germans held in POW camps in Europe - not on US soil.

You either believe that none held U.S. citizenship or that

There are Geneva conventions about combatants wearing uniforms and their
rights therein - I would suppose that if you are captured in combat
wearing the uniform of the enemy then you are treated as the enemy
regardless what your legal citizenship is.

No POW ever had access to American civilian courts.

No POW probably ever set foot on US soil (while being a POW that is).

We had German POW's here in Alabamastan during WWII, funny thing, we now
have a Mercedes Benz factory. ^_^

AIUI, the VP in charge of the place was recently arrested for not being able
to prove he was (working?) in the country legally. Who says you can't close
the border?


It was all because of that new "racist" immigration bill passed into law
by the Alabama Legislature that copies federal law. Humm, I wonder
why no one is howling that the long existing federal law is "racist"?
Perhaps because the feds don't/won't enforce it? ^_^

TDD

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


but treason is a criminal offense, you were very clear on that point,
so the President has no say in the matter


Well, no say in the "treason" business, but the president could designate
the individual an "unlawful enemy combatant" and send him to Guantanamo or
the brig in Charleston where the U.S. Attorney would be barred from access.

I seriously doubt that the powers of the president include deciding whom to name
as unlawful enemy combatants and in any event in the time frame we are talking
about, no such term existed


All of your "irrelevant"s have been corrected by my revision. I'm
sorry I upset you.


Your revision doesn't change the fact that no American Citizen was
charged or tried for acts of treason during the war


How many times do I have to say I misspoke? At least five were convicted,
after the war, of treason for acts COMMITTED during wartime.

which has nothing to do with your claim of thousands of American Citizens in US
POW camps


the law of averages is in fact not de jure or de facto



The de jure rule is that if a citizen takes up arms against the
United States, he is automatically expatriated. So, in a legal
sense, any American citizen captured on the battlefield is
automatically determined to have renounced his American citizenship.

Once again you are wrong. If a citizen takes up arms against the
United States they would be charged with Treason. There are no laws
in the United States that allow for the automatic expatriation and in
fact no citizen could be expatriated as that would imply that they
were not a citizen

It's not a law - it's a constitutional finding.

no one has ever been expatriated if they are American Born citizens. no one has
ever been found guilty by constitutional finding...it takes a legal charge,
legal trial and a legal verdict







In the latter definition, then, you are correct in that there could
not have been American citizens held in U.S. POW camps. If they were
captured on the battlefield, they were not, by law, American
citizens.


However, the Supreme Court in the case of Tomoya Kawakita, one of
your previous points, said otherwise


Kawakita was not captured on the battlefield, nor did he take up arms
against the U.S.. Hence did not lose his American citizenship.

Kawakita aided and abetted the Japanese. He himself thought he had renounced his
American Citizenship. He was charged with treason for torturing American POWs.

In any event, one need not be captured on the battlefield for treason to charged

--

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit.

--

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit.

On Dec 2, 12:55*am, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" atlas-
wrote:
In article ,

*"HeyBub" wrote:
but treason is a criminal offense, you were very clear on that point,
so the President has no say in the matter

Well, no say in the "treason" business, but the president could designate
the individual an "unlawful enemy combatant" and send him to Guantanamo or
the brig in Charleston where the U.S. Attorney would be barred from access.

I seriously doubt that the powers of the president include deciding whom to name
as unlawful enemy combatants and in any event in the time frame we are talking
about, no such term existed

You can have all the doubts you want. History and the courts say you
are wrong.

http://www.cfr.org/international-law...mbatants/p5312

"The President has determined that al Qaida members are unlawful
combatants because (among other reasons) they are members of a non-
state actor terrorist group that does not receive the protections of
the Third Geneva Convention. He additionally determined that the
Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants because they do not satisfy
the criteria for POW status set out in Article 4 of the Third Geneva
Convention. Although the President’s determination on this issue is
final, courts have concurred with his determination.
Authority to Detain
The President has unquestioned authority to detain enemy combatants,
including those who are U.S. citizens, during wartime. See, e.g.,
Quirin, 317 U.S. at 31, 37 (1942); Colepaugh v. Looney, 235 F. 2d 429,
432 (10th Cir. 1956); In re Territo, 156 F. 2d 142, 145 (9th Cir.
1946). The Fourth Circuit recently reaffirmed this proposition. See
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 296 F.3d 278, 281, 283 (4th Cir. 2002). The
authority to detain enemy combatants flows primarily from Article II
of the Constitution. In the current conflict, the President’s
authority is bolstered by Congress’s Joint Resolution of September 18,
2001, which authorized “the President . . . to use all necessary and
appropriate force” against al Qaida and against those nations,
organizations, or persons he determines” committed or aided in the
September 11 attacks.” Pub. L. No. 107-40, § 2(a), 115 Stat. 224
(2001) (emphasis added). This congressional action clearly triggers
(if any trigger were necessary) the President’s traditional authority
to detain enemy combatants as Commander in Chief.
Presidents (and their delegates) have detained enemy combatants in
every major conflict in the Nation’s history, including recent
conflicts such as the Gulf, Vietnam, and Korean wars. During World War
II, the United States detained hundreds of thousands of POWs in the
United States (some of whom were U.S. citizens) without trial or
counsel. Then as now, the purposes of detaining enemy combatants
during wartime are, among other things, to gather intelligence and to
ensure that detainees do not return to assist the enemy.
Who Decides
The determination of enemy combatant status has traditionally resided
with the military commander who is authorized to engage the enemy with
deadly force. In this regard, the task ultimately falls within the
President’s constitutional responsibility as Commander in Chief to
identify which forces and persons to engage or capture and detain
during an armed conflict. Of course, there is no requirement that the
President make such determinations personally, and in the vast
majority of cases he does not do so. Rather, consistent with
longstanding historical practice and applicable rules of engagement,
the task is normally a function of the military command structure.

In article ,
" wrote:

On Dec 2, 12:55*am, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" atlas-
wrote:
In article ,

*"HeyBub" wrote:
but treason is a criminal offense, you were very clear on that point,
so the President has no say in the matter

Well, no say in the "treason" business, but the president could designate
the individual an "unlawful enemy combatant" and send him to Guantanamo
or the brig in Charleston where the U.S. Attorney would be barred from
access.

I seriously doubt that the powers of the president include deciding whom to
name as unlawful enemy combatants and in any event in the time frame we are
talking about, no such term existed

You can have all the doubts you want. History and the courts say you are
wrong.

http://www.cfr.org/international-law...mbatants/p5312

I stand corrected...although this does not change the fact that there were no
American Citizens in US POW camps