u.s. military tribunals in WWII

[nokhor]

this was news to me. the u.s. captured some german sabateurs during WWII on american soil, tried them with military tribunals and electrocuted most of them within months.

http://uboat.net/ops/agents1942.htm

[Watchman]

Yeah, well, isn't the basic approach of law to enemy spies in wartime roughly summed up as "SUX 2 B U" about everywhere ?

[Papewaio]

On American Soil...

[Grey_Fox]

Yup, read about it in 'Armageddon' by Max Hastings. They were sent on a very vague mission to do a bit of sabotage. Nothing illegal about it, the Geneva Convention says that enemy spies caught in a time of war are to be executed.

In the US military there are seven crimes for which an officer can execute a man without the need of a trial as well.

[Hurin_Rules]

Indeed. Trials, charges, defenders... all things the detainees at Guantanamo have been denied.

[Watchman]

Isn't progress nice ?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

How barbaric! Executing spies!?

No wonder the US is losing friends among the world community. I hope they lose the war!










~:rolleyes:

[Red Harvest]

Indeed. Trials, charges, defenders... all things the detainees at Guantanamo have been denied.
I agree, they should be tried ASAP. They should be treated in the traditional manner, quick military tribunal and execution of those found guilty of being non-uniformed irregulars. I don't like the idea of warehousing them, creates an ongoing thorny problem. And any who were caught in error would have a chance of being released as they should be. No, they don't deserve a civilian court trial as they were captured in war zones.

If you want to keep some around because they have information or rolled on others, you can work out stays of execution, etc.

[Xiahou]

I agree, they should be tried ASAP. They should be treated in the traditional manner, quick military tribunal and execution of those found guilty of being non-uniformed irregulars. I don't like the idea of warehousing them, creates an ongoing thorny problem. And any who were caught in error would have a chance of being released as they should be. No, they don't deserve a civilian court trial as they were captured in war zones.

If you want to keep some around because they have information or rolled on others, you can work out stays of execution, etc.Indeed, the precident is there to do just that- try and execute them all. However, I dont think that would make Gitmo critics any happier. :shrug:

[Tribesman]

No, they don't deserve a civilian court trial as they were captured in war zones.~D ~D ~D
yeah right . so if someone is arrested in Gambia because they didn't have any evidence to arrest him in Britain he is captured in a war zone eh .

[Red Harvest]

No, they don't deserve a civilian court trial as they were captured in war zones.~D ~D ~D
yeah right . so if someone is arrested in Gambia because they didn't have any evidence to arrest him in Britain he is captured in a war zone eh .
Don't know what Gambia has to do with this. If they were captured as part of military operations in war zone, they are fair game. Sucks to be them.

[Adrian II]

No, they don't deserve a civilian court trial as they were captured in war zones.That is just war propaganda.

There are dozens of detainees who were not arrested in war zones. In one of the first cases to reach an American court, this was clearly established. Idir has been deported directly from prison in Bosnia after he had been found not guilty of a terrorist plot. Heaven knows how many more innocents are being tortured in Guantanamo.


Washington Post
February 1, 2005

Judge Rules Detainee Tribunals Illegal

by Carol D. Leonnig

A federal judge ruled yesterday that the Bush administration must allow prisoners at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to contest their detention in U.S. courts, concluding that special military reviews established by the Pentagon as an alternative are illegal.

U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens Green said that the approximately 550 men held as "enemy combatants" are entitled to the advice of lawyers and to confront the evidence against them in those proceedings.

[..]

Green quoted extensively from the tribunal proceeding against Mustafa Ait Idir, 34, an Algerian living in Bosnia who was accused of plotting with others to blow up a U.S. embassy there. Idir noted that a Bosnian court found no evidence against him and repeatedly but unsuccessfully asked tribunal officials to present their evidence that he was an al Qaeda fighter. He argued he could not prove a negative, and that he would hit a person who claimed he was a terrorist in the face, which prompted the tribunal members to laugh.

The exchange "might have been truly humorous had the consequences of the detainee's 'enemy combatant' status not been so terribly serious and had the detainee's criticism of the process not been so piercingly accurate," the judge wrote.

Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51007-2005Jan31.html)

[Watchman]

And you know, assorted European nations have recently started wondering just what business exactly assorted CIA-linked passenger planes have been on when they've landed on their airfields for refueling...

[Adrian II]

And you know, assorted European nations have recently started wondering just what business exactly assorted CIA-linked passenger planes have been on when they've landed on their airfields for refueling...We need more Spanish judges. ~;)

[Xiahou]

I suspect the SCOTUS wouldve overturned that- since the precident was set in WW2 for it by the same body. But it's moot now since the congress passed a bill allowing them 1 chance to contest their status in the DC courts- then they are left to the tribunals.

[Adrian II]

I suspect the SCOTUS wouldve overturned that- since the precident was set in WW2 for it by the same body. But it's moot now since the congress passed a bill allowing them 1 chance to contest their status in the DC courts- then they are left to the tribunals.Possible. But Idir and other detainees were not 'caught in a war zone' as the propaganda has it.

[Xiahou]

You don't need to be caught 'in theatre' though- as the Nazi sabateurs found out. It just needs to be proven that they were agents of the enemy forces. In that respect, it may be best for federal judges to be allowed to weigh the evidence of their status- we'll see how it goes. However, if a judge found them to be unlawful combatants, would you accept their lawful execution?

[Red Harvest]

That is just war propaganda.

There are dozens of detainees who were not arrested in war zones. In one of the first cases to reach an American court, this was clearly established. Idir has been deported directly from prison in Bosnia after he had been found not guilty of a terrorist plot.
No, because I'm not referring to those. I'm not discussing the perhaps 10% that might be held taken from outside that zone. I'm talking about the ones in the war zones. You can talk about others if you like, it isn't relevant to my point, I'm referring to the others. This is one of the reasons I would like to keep them segregated and dealt with promptly.

[Devastatin Dave]

Alright, who the hell has hacked into Red's account, he's making sense.~:joker:

[Adrian II]

However, if a judge found them to be unlawful combatants, would you accept their lawful execution?Good question. No, I wouldn't. Those caught fighting the U.S. Army in a war theatre should be treated as prisoners of war in accordance with the Conventions and , consequently, in accordance with U.S. military law. Those caught during police operations (which is essentially what the U.S. is now doing in Afghanistan and Iraq) should be dealt with by the local authorities according to the law of the land, provided that law does not violate their basic rights (as was clearly the case with the prisoners discovered yesterday in the secret Iraqi government facility). You are either at war and treat your prisoners as prisoners of war, or you are not, in which case you treat insurgents like criminals.

[Xiahou]

Ah- but they are being held in accordance with the Geneva Conventions if they're unlawful combatants. We've covered this territory before- none of them would qualify as legitimate POWs.

[Adrian II]

We've covered this territory before- none of them would qualify as legitimate POWs.In that case, hand them over to the local authorities. Ask yourself this question: if you hand over Saddam Hussein, who must be one of the worst crooks alive in Iraq today, to the Iraqi authorities to be judged according to their laws, what legitimate reason do you have to not to treat lesser (suspected) crooks in the exact same way?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

In that case, hand them over to the local authorities.

I thought you wanted us to follow the rules of war?~:confused: Besides werent we already critisized for sending some of them back to nations where they maybe tourtured? Many of them prefer to stay at Camp Gitmo rather than be sent to a real prison in their own country where the jailers dont have to worry about what the rest of the world thinks or how they treat their prisoners..

[Xiahou]

If they are unlawful combatants, we're not required to turn them over to anybody- as said earlier, they could even be executed. Saddam was a big fish, and it makes sense to turn him over to the Iraqis to try for symbolic reasons, if nothing else. I also doubt that Afghanistan wants the detainees captured in their country. Their government has enough on its plate without housing and trying hundreds of dangerous enemy combatants. There would also be concern over their ability to keep them securely- its entirely possible that taliban fighters could try to break them out.

[Adrian II]

If they are unlawful combatants, we're not required to turn them over to anybody (..)As long as you are fighting in someone else's land, you are. Iraq is a sovereign nation.

Anyway, I have to sign off now. I may not agree with many of your answers, but you often ask precisely the right questions that make me think hard, Xaihou.
My pleasure. :bow:

[Xiahou]

Here's (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020123.html) an article on FindLaw that I thought was fairly insightful on the matter.

[Papewaio]

You don't need to be caught 'in theatre' though- as the Nazi sabateurs found out.

It is kind of useful if a spy has been in your country... as it is rather difficult to accuse someone of being a spy when they have not been in your country.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It is kind of useful if a spy has been in your country... as it is rather difficult to accuse someone of being a spy when they have not been in your country.


Wrong. All you have to do is be behind enemy lines. Take those Germans during the battle of the bulge for instance who dressed up as US MPs. They were caught and executed in very short order.

[Papewaio]

But you couldn't have executed them if they were playing dress up within Germany or a neutral country could you?

[Red Harvest]

Wrong. All you have to do is be behind enemy lines.
...and out of uniform IIRC. Just being behind the lines doesn't make one a spy/saboteur (otherwise all aircrew in hostile territory could be summarily shot.) Being in civilian dress or captured uniform does.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Wrong. All you have to do is be behind enemy lines.

...and out of uniform IIRC. Just being behind the lines doesn't make one a spy/saboteur (otherwise all aircrew in hostile territory could be summarily shot.) Being in civilian dress or captured uniform does

Exactly. Red I dont now if I can take us agreeing so much any longer.~D


But you couldn't have executed them if they were playing dress up within Germany or a neutral country could you?

You certainly could if they were spies. Again any German military personel not in uniform caught behind our lines in Germany could have been shot. I would think if you could produce leave papers ot something like that you could get off. But if you did anything against our troops youd be toast.

[Adrian II]

Here's (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020123.html) an article on FindLaw that I thought was fairly insightful on the matter.Good read. The author claims that the term 'unlawful combatants' for Taliban and Al Qaida members 'is based upon a plausible reading of the Geneva Convention' because 'it would be difficult to come to any other conclusion when applying the Geneva Convention's four-part test to al Qaeda fighters'.

Indeed, these fighters do not seem to meet three out of four criteria of the 1949 Convention, hence there is no obligation to consider and treat them as prisoners of war.

He also sheds some light on the motives of the Bush administration for not granting them that formal POW status. It would, in particular, give them two rights that the White House isn't too keen on: (1) protection from irregular U.S. military tribunals, and (2) the right of repatriation. I believe he omits a third, important consideration: the U.S. wants to keep Taliban and Al Qaida detainees for itself in order to control the intelligence they might provide. This is all the more plausible because the U.S. has notiriously poor human intelligence in the Arab and Muslim world.


So far so good. What the article does not address is the fact that most of these detainees should not be in U.S. custody in the first place.

Irregulars who were caught fighting the U.S. during a war should either have been shot (if they presented an immediate danger to U.S. troops) or detained by the U.S. until the end of hostilities and then released. Shooting irregulars on the spot in a war zone is allowed by the Conventions, but it is not the right thing to do for various reasons.

Irregulars who were caught after the cessation of hostilities (and we are well past that point in both Afghanistan and Iraq) or outside of any war zone altogether should be handed over to the local authorities.

Both Afghanistan and Iraq have reverted to the status of sovereign nations, both have 'invited' the U.S. to help police their territory (although they did not have a real choice in the matter), therefore the U.S. has no business arresting people on their territory, detaining them, deporting them and prosecuting them in secret facilities around the world.

Irsurgents should be tried by the nation that is suffering the insurgency. Terrorists should be tried by the nation that is (or whose nationals are) suffering from their acts of terror. If a Saudi terrorist blows up Iraqi or Indonesian civilians, it is the business of Iraq or Indonesia to try them. If an Iraqi terrorist blows up American soldiers, he should be handed over to the U.S. for a criminal trial.

These suspects should all be convicted in regular criminal trials. This takes care of the issue of justice (fair trial instead of military kangaroo court) as well as the issue of repatriation (those found guilty of terrorism can be sentenced to death or long incarceration).

It is not the ideal solution to all problems, but it would be a fair deal. It would requite the U.S. to stop monopolising the 'war against terrorism' which is not a war at all, but a sustained campaign in which many more nations should participate. And it would allow both American citizens and the rest of the world to sort out the guilty from the innocent and to see that justice is being done -- something that would relieve the U.S. from a very heavy propaganda burden.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Both Afghanistan and Iraq have reverted to the status of sovereign nations, both have 'invited' the U.S. to help police their territory (although they did not have a real choice in the matter), therefore the U.S. has no business arresting people on their territory, detaining them, deporting them and prosecuting them in secret facilities around the world.


I havent seen any complaints from these nations. Also where is your proof that this is actually happening other than unsubstantiated reports? This also brings up another intersting point. Just recently what your speaking of was supposedly leaked about the CIA. Wheres the investigation into this leak? Where Fitzgerald when we really need him? It seems CIA leaks are only bad if its a conservative who leaks them.

[Watchman]

You know, I've noticed you neocon apologist types have this habit of starting to whine about "proof" once your back is to the wall... It seems to be a rather less important issue before that point, tho'.

Just pointing out.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

.You know, I've noticed you neocon apologist types have this habit of starting to whine about "proof" once your back is to the wall... It seems to be a rather less important issue before that point, tho'.
.

First of Im not a nec con. Of cousre those on the left always say proof is not needed its the seriousness of the charge that needs to be addressed.

[Tribesman]

Don't know what Gambia has to do with this.
Well perhaps it might be better if you didn't talk about gitmo then until you do .
No, because I'm not referring to those. I'm not discussing the perhaps 10% that might be held taken from outside that zone. I'm talking about the ones in the war zones.
Ah so you are not talking about detainees that you know nothing about , you are only talking about detainees that you know nothing about . Rigggght .

You don't need to be caught 'in theatre' though
True , it is in "zone of operations" which includes your home territory and any allied or ocupied territory where your forces are present or preperations are being made ... Back to this at the end as it deals with the original topic ~:cheers:
It just needs to be proven that they were agents of the enemy forces.
No it needs to be proved that they were operating under certain circumstances and conditions
Ah- but they are being held in accordance with the Geneva Conventions if they're unlawful combatants. We've covered this territory before- none of them would qualify as legitimate POWs.
Some would some wouldn't .

But you couldn't have executed them if they were playing dress up within Germany or a neutral country could you?
Yes you certainly couldn't have .

I havent seen any complaints from these nations
also doubt that Afghanistan wants the detainees captured in their country. Their government has enough on its plate without housing and trying hundreds of dangerous enemy combatants.
oh dear oh dear , Gawain and Xiahou , President Karzai has asked publicly on at least 4 occasions for the Afghani prisoners to be returned .~:rolleyes:

Now back to German "spies"
Why were the numerous Germans captured in Greenland during WWII not executed as spies ? They were operating clandestinely , out of uniform , using subterfuge in the enemies zone of operations , gathering intelligence that was for the German war effort .
Surely they should have been executed as spies .

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Now back to German "spies"
Why were the numerous Germans captured in Greenland during WWII not executed as spies ? They were operating clandestinely , out of uniform , using subterfuge in the enemies zone of operations , gathering intelligence that was for the German war effort .
Surely they should have been executed as spies .


No they surely could have been executed as spies . The same goes for most of those in Gitmo.

[Tribesman]

No they surely could have been executed as spies
well spotted Gawain~:cheers:
They were not executed and they were given POW status despite being out of Uniform (though some were not military personel at all) and fulfilling all the other definitions of spies under article 30 of the HC .
The same goes for most of those in Gitmo.
Speculation Gawain , try "some" to make it correct .~;)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

They were not executed and they were given POW status despite being out of Uniform (though some were not military personel at all) and fulfilling all the other definitions of spies under article 30 of the HC .

Again what does this prove? Only that we are indeed a genorous nation.


The same goes for most of those in Gitmo.
Speculation Gawain , try "some" to make it correct

I dont want to speculate where our national defense is concerned. Ill leave the specualtion to you.

[Tribesman]

Again what does this prove? Only that we are indeed a genorous nation.

No it proves that a judge thought a bunch of meteorologists were not deserving of execution . I wonder if a judge will think that such dangerous people as a driver , a cook or a cameraman currently in Gitmo will also deserve such leniency, or howabout a peanut oil salesman who has never even been to Iraq or Afghanistan , do you think they will go easy on him ?

I dont want to speculate where our national defense is concerned. Ill leave the specualtion to you.
No need Gawain you have an administration being run on speculation , and they are not very good at it are they . I bet you are glad you never voted for them .

[Gawain of Orkeny]

No it proves that a judge thought a bunch of meteorologists were not deserving of execution .
OK how many meteorologists are held in Gitmo? Youve just shot down your argument.


I wonder if a judge will think that such dangerous people as a driver , a cook or a cameraman currently in Gitmo will also deserve such leniency, or howabout a peanut oil salesman who has never even been to Iraq or Afghanistan , do you think they will go easy on him ?



And how many such people do you think are in Gitmo?


No need Gawain you have an administration being run on speculation , and they are not very good at it are they . I bet you are glad you never voted for them .

All administraions run on partial specualtion. This one is no different and niether are you. But yes Im glad I didnt vote for them.

[Watchman]

Can you prove there aren't meterologists, goatherds, street winos or circus clowns in GTMO ? Betcha you can't.

[Adrian II]

Wait, it gets better:

Washington will not tolerate prisoner abuse in Iraq or the infiltration of security forces by militias, US officials said, laying down the law even as Iraqi officials downplayed allegations of detainees being tortured.

"We strongly condemn mistreatment of detainees anywhere," the US embassy in Baghdad said.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Can you prove there aren't meterologists, goatherds, street winos or circus clowns in GTMO ? Betcha you can't.


Can you provet here are or is it mere Specualtion on your part? Betcha you can't.


Originally Posted by AFP
Washington will not tolerate prisoner abuse in Iraq or the infiltration of security forces by militias, US officials said, laying down the law even as Iraqi officials downplayed allegations of detainees being tortured.

"We strongly condemn mistreatment of detainees anywhere," the US embassy in Baghdad said.

See they agree with me.~;)

[Tribesman]

Wait, it gets better:

~D ~D ~D
They didn't really say that did they !!!!! They incorporated militia units wholesale into the security forces , have they forgotten already .
"We strongly condemn mistreatment of detainees anywhere,"
But please please please give us an exemption on torturing detainees~D ~D ~D

[Watchman]

You mean, their BS agrees with your BS ?
:coffeenews:
So what else was new ?


Can you provet here are or is it mere Specualtion on your part? Betcha you can't.Can *you* prove that any of the people held there are guilty of anything ? Of course you can't. Judging by how their jailers refuse to let them out of the legal-status limbo and process them through normal courts, it's a fairly safe bet *they* would have a fair bit of trouble at it too...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Can *you* prove that any of the people held there are guilty of anything ? Of course you can't. Judging by how their jailers refuse to let them out of the legal-status limbo and process them through normal courts, it's a fairly safe bet *they* would have a fair bit of trouble at it too...


Can you prove their not? Look their being held in accordance with the Genva conventions. If you dont like get it changed.

[Adrian II]

They didn't really say that did they !!!!!Oh yes, the U.S. is laying down the law on torture, Mr President. Those Iraqis are bound to be mightily impressed.

[Watchman]

...just go look up the appropriate sections from the Amnesty document I so generously linked in the other thread, will you Gaw ? I think they were in the beginning, kind of building up the case you know. It's late and I don't really feel like finding and copy-paste-quoting the parts about just how fast and loose the US plays with those details...

[Xiahou]

Now back to German "spies"
Why were the numerous Germans captured in Greenland during WWII not executed as spies ? They were operating clandestinely , out of uniform , using subterfuge in the enemies zone of operations , gathering intelligence that was for the German war effort .
Surely they should have been executed as spies .
You're going to have to provide me with some links for that. From what I know of the incident they were almost all either identifiable soldiers or civillians- neither qualify as unlawful combatants.

[Xiahou]

Irregulars who were caught after the cessation of hostilities (and we are well past that point in both Afghanistan and Iraq) or outside of any war zone altogether should be handed over to the local authorities.There are some liberals who would disagree with that assessment. I've heard some say that we're losing the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq- and should be retreating from Iraq. That hardly seems like a time to release combatants.


These suspects should all be convicted in regular criminal trials. This takes care of the issue of justice (fair trial instead of military kangaroo court) as well as the issue of repatriation (those found guilty of terrorism can be sentenced to death or long incarceration).If they were in the country legally and commit their crimes, I might be more inclined to agree. However, when they are sent to the country as agents of an enemy force to sabotage or commit terrorist acts I think 'unlawful combatant' still applies. These terrorists certainly believe they are engaged in warfare- they should be treated accordingly.

[Tribesman]

From what I know of the incident they were almost all either identifiable soldiers or civillians- neither qualify as unlawful combatants.

Which incident , the incidents spanned 3 years, add another year if you wish to add British operations/captures . Since some captures involved non-Germans then they would be unlawful combatants , since there were plans to sabotage the mining facilities they would be sabateurs which means they are unlawful combatants , and since the Germans were involved in intelligence gathering then they were spies operating clandestinely and using subterfuge in the enemies area of operations .

Oh yes, the U.S. is laying down the law on torture, Mr President. Those Iraqis are bound to be mightily impressed.
Since the President , prime minister , interior minister , foriegn minister and nearly all the others stood for election on a policy of getting the Americans out of Iraq do they really give a damn about what the US has to say about their internal affairs~D ~D ~D
In a free Iraq there will be no more torture chambers..... looks like it was a waste of time then eh ~;)
Still at least its not Saddam doing the torturing now , its Iranian backed terrorists , how nice .:shrug:

[Xiahou]

Which incident , the incidents spanned 3 years, add another year if you wish to add British operations/captures . Since some captures involved non-Germans then they would be unlawful combatants , since there were plans to sabotage the mining facilities they would be sabateurs which means they are unlawful combatants , and since the Germans were involved in intelligence gathering then they were spies operating clandestinely and using subterfuge in the enemies area of operations.Again, links? You've made you assertion, now back it up.

[Tribesman]

Again, links? You've made you assertion, now back it up.
Ever heard of Books Xiahou ?~:rolleyes:

[Xiahou]

Again, links? You've made you assertion, now back it up.
Ever heard of Books Xiahou ?~:rolleyes:
Sure have. You're telling me that your stories arent supported anywhere anyplace on the vastness of the Internet? Fine, what books? ~:handball:

If you cant prove something, it makes for poor support of your argument.

[Tribesman]

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/history/northland.html
Here try this one , but its illegal immigrants not illegal combatants~D ~D ~D

[Xiahou]

That'd certainly be a creative way of dealing with them. But I'm confused by that part of the account- how could they have been charged with illegal immigration when not on American soil?

I found a, imo, more thorough article on the Greenland events here (http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/history/h_greenld.html) on the same site. They're reference to the radio team says the following...

A few days earlier the Sledge Patrol had reported to the Northland that a suspicious-looking party of men had landed near the entrance of Franz Joseph Fjord. On Sept. 12, the Northland spotted a fishing trawler flying Norwegian colors in MacKenzie Bay, some 500 miles to the south. The boarding party Smith sent aboard the ship, whose name was the Buskoe, found a sophisticated radio set. Questioning of the Buskoe's crew established that it had indeed dropped off a party of men and a radio transmitter.

That night one of the Northland's officers, LT Leroy McCluskey, went ashore with a party of 12 armed men. They found a supposed hunter's shack and surrounded it while McCluskey kicked in the door. Inside were three surprised but not particularly belligerent German radiomen, who promptly surrendered, offered McCluskey a cup of coffee, and started building a fire to heat it. He confiscated a German codebook just before it went into the flames. The Buskoe and its crew were sent to Boston for internment. The Northland had made the first American naval capture of World War II.

Interesting stories, without a doubt- but I'd need more specific info before I could relate it to this debate. :bow:

[Tribesman]

Another site

http://www.army.mil/cmh/books/wwii/guard-us/index.htm#contents

or for books try any detailed one on the battle of the Atalanic , or Coast guard cutters at war , dogs in warfare also covers it as do several on aerial warfare in europe or any on Kriegsmarine history or forgotten theatres of WWII ,
If you cant prove something, it makes for poor support of your argument.
Would you like a full list of relevant material and authors , many interesting snippets in many varied sources .
For other websites try the Dogsled units , (still in existance as part of the parks/wildlife rangers) , the US airbase in greenland also has a fairly good history section .
Or do you still think I am making this up as I go along ?

how could they have been charged with illegal immigration when not on American soil?

Tricky one that isn't it , like how can people be illegal combatants when they have never been in combat ~;)
A partial answer would be that sections of the Havana act and Greenland defense pact would have been used , though the jurisdiction granted to the US certainly would not have covered all of those captured , but it would have covered any non Danes or non natives . But depending on location then Norwegans and Canadians would also have been out of their jurisdiction as well .

[Tricon]

Just for converstions sakes, I wouldn't compare WWII tribunals -of either side!- to modern tribunals. Back then there was a world war going on, and neither side cared -or had time to care -too much about proof.