> Isn't that the exact opposite of disappearing?

Asking for a civilian to be tried for treason by a military tribunal for saying... the same things that a government official has said, but in a way that makes the government look bad, is the same thing as abandoning the rule of law.

We've only ever done such things during the Civil War, and even then Lincoln only suspended Habeas Corpus in limited places as needed. And Lincoln violated the Constitution in that case, as suspension of Habeas Corpus is, by its location in Article I of the U.S. Constitution, clearly only something Congress can do (though Article I, section 9(2), does not actually say so), and Chief Justice Taney correctly concluded as much in Ex Parte Merryman. (That said, I think Lincoln by and large did the right thing.)

Yes, we've had wartime restrictions on speech that sucked and were not constitutional and should not have been used at all, both in WWI and WWII. But we didn't treat such speech as Treason, nor did we have military tribunals for those speakers, nor did we suspend Habeas Corpus at any time other than during the Civil War. And those were declared wars. Trial of civilians by military tribunals is really only something you'd expect in a civil war, and only when the constitutional order has fallen apart.

> Asking for a civilian to be tried for treason by a military tribunal for saying... the same things that a government official has said, but in a way that makes the government look bad, is the same thing as abandoning the rule of law.z

But that's not disappearing. Assuming the tribunal found him guilty and gave him X punishment everybody would know (Obviously assuming the tribunal found him not guilty then he wouldn't be punished anyways).

Disappearing would be when your neighbor that always lets his goats chew all of your grass tells the cia that you're a terrorist so they come (and nobody else knows where you went) and get in the middle of the night so you won't keep chasing his goats away.

> But that's not disappearing.

I didn't say it was. I said it's getting us closer to that world.

> Disappearing would be when ...

Disappearing is when a civilian gets taken (doesn't matter the time of the day, whether anyone notices or not), and the person in question does not get an arraignment in any open court nor any followup open court proceedings (e.g., trial), and where family gets no access to the person, with no way to determine their whereabouts and health or even if they remain living, typically for a prolonged period of time.

(Sometimes the family of a disappeared has connections and can get them released quickly, but most often the family does not, the authorities lie or refuse to say anything about the case, and the person languishes for years before being released unless they die or are killed during the time that they are held in this way.)

In other words: disappearing == unconstitutional denial of Habeas Corpus, often paired with torture and/or murder. A breakdown of the rule of law and constitutional order.

The English invented Habeas Corpus (to my knowledge anyways), and I suspect that they must have had some experience with disappearances during one of their 17th century civil wars.

When Habeas Corpus is suspended pursuant to the Constitution, and a civilian is arrested, and the family is allowed to see them during the time that the person is held, then that is not a disappearance, though the constitutionality of the suspension of Habeas Corpus may be suspect. When constitutional order is restored, the expectation would be that the person would be released or arraigned. Considering that in the U.S. Congress has never suspended Habeas Corpus, and that Lincoln did suspend it, but only in limited areas and during limited times during the Civil War, we should consider that the circumstances that legitimately call for suspending Habeas Corpus must be extreme. Certainly the current situation in Ukraine does not remotely call for the suspension of Habeas Corpus in the U.S., nor for anything like military tribunal trials for public persons who make their opinions heard. It is my fear that calls for the latter are a bad omen presaging the denial of Habeas Corpus.

Why is a military tribunal so bad? And if they’re bad, why are they used for military personnel? I can’t recall anything in the constitution suggesting that military personnel are exempted from having constitutional rights.

The Constitution specifically provides for Article III courts for civilians. Using military courts for civilians would be a gross violation of the Constitution.

Military tribunals are used for military personnel because that is part of the deal, and our military services are professional (not conscripted). Yes, the UCMJ would apply to conscripts, should we return to conscription, but conscripts would still not be civilians, and most civilians would not be conscripts.

Yes, the Homan Sq. facility kinda counts. As for ICE, well, it's somewhat different for people who aren't U.S. persons and aren't legally tourists or temporary residents, though, of course, that should not be license to disappear them, just to deport them (which is not at all the same thing).