Stanley,
I'm not sure I understood your post but I'll take a swing at it.
Regarding waiving Rights, my signature addresses that: "Freedom can never be lost, only given away by ignorance, by choice, or at the point of a gun. Here in America we can still choose."
Can I suggest that you read Citizen's post above? It talks about this abuse from a historical point of view. You know, Solomon said, "There's nothing new under the sun." And he was right. Tyrants do the same things over and over and over and most people seem to be unwilling to see their actions for what they clearly are. They choose to apply a well meaning character to those who would rule over or even kill them.
“There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters” ― Daniel Webster
Sorry if I rambled. His posting was an interesting read that I was semi-aware of historically.
I mean to pose two questions...
1) We have the right to a trial by jury, to confront our accuser and to defend ourselves. A trial in absentia removes the two former rights. We perform trials in absentia when people cannot be brought in (say because they are hiding in Yemen). If we can remove TWO rights because he was unreachable in Yemen then why can't we remove the third, trial by jury, for the same reason?
How is it ok to deny the right to defend himself and face his accuser because of his CHOICE but not ok to deny his trial by jury because of the same choice???
2) Hypothetically, if a person is committing a crime that will imminently cause the loss of life (pointing a gun at a police officer or someone else, murder, attempted murder, bombing something, treason, etc) the government and citizens can legally kill that person while attempting to stop the crime through other means. It occurs daily. If that's the case, then why can't this person be killed? The government tried to get him through various means and could not do so. He knows he is wanted for crimes and yet continues participating in activities aimed at causing the loss of life. He continues fighting as an enemy combatant in an enemy army/organization/whatever.
Let me be specific here. Training and participating in the operations of an enemy organization/army IS causing and attempting to cause death. Also note, this guy was NOT on a hit list. He was on a capture or kill list.
Why, then, can't he be killed when any other criminal causing or attempting to cause death can be killed in the act?
**********************************
What I am driving at is that by supporting a Trial in Absentia you are essentially supporting the stripping of rights due to this man's actions because this guy made certain choices (such as making himself unavailable to try in court).
If that is ok, then I am also correct in saying that by making certain choices he can be deprived of all rights since he gave them up by his choice. If you can remove some rights you can remove all of them after all.
Therefore, if I am wrong about being able to strip all rights it follows that you are also wrong about stripping some rights and then what exactly are you arguing for?