Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 11/26/2001 11:13:06 PM EDT
President Bush has declared that an "extraordinary emergency" allows him to order military trials of non-U.S. citizens--even if they are arrested here, are tried here and reside here legally. The president need only assert that he has "reason to believe" the noncitizen is involved in international terrorism. We all want to fight terrorism, but shredding the Constitution--which applies to all "persons," not just citizens--isn't the way to do it. Under the recently issued executive order, the defense secretary sets all the rules for these tribunals, including how many members will be on the panel, what qualifications they must meet, what standard of proof will be needed to convict, and what type of evidence can be considered. There will be no judicial review. Only the president or defense secretary will have authority to overturn a decision. Astonishingly, the only rule that Mr. Bush's executive order lays out with specificity is that the accused can be convicted and sentenced--to life in prison or death--if two-thirds of the panel agree.
View Quote
[url]http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95001507[/url] Opinions? I'm all for trying terrorists in military courts, but not [i]this[/i] kind of military court. What happens when rounding up all those loose guns constitutes an "extraordinary emergency" ?
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 3:35:31 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 3:58:02 AM EDT
I think they should have a civil trial in LA. Then we could hear how they were deprived as children and influenced by their surroundings and were not responsible for their actions.
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 3:59:44 AM EDT
WTF are y'all talking about? Nothing in the US Constitution ever said that the full guarantees found in the Bill of Rights were guaranteed to foreign nationals, captured in a foreign war, in a foreign land. I suppose that you want to give Bin Laden a jury trial, with a jury of his peers (mostly Islamic clerics and other fundamentalists), and providing him with the best legal defense team? All at OUR expense? Yeah, and if Truman and the United States had thought THAT way in 1945, Hermann Goring would have died of old age, at Karinhall, surrounded by his adoring grandchildren, whom he loved to regale with stories of the pomp and grandeur of the late, lamented Reich. As would the others. We should at least give him as good as he gave our fellow citizens on Sept 11 - which is an unimaginable death, surrounded by unrelenting terror and exquisite pain. Some trial he gave them! Read the Constitution, as amended, BEFORE you make any further comments on it, please. Eric The(Hang'Em,Hang'EmHigh)Hun[>]:)] PS - Don't forget the pork stuffing for Bin Laden!
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 4:03:14 AM EDT
By the way, [b]DK-Prof[/b], why is it that military tribunals are 'good enough' for OUR soldiers, but not 'good enough' for THEIRS? Eric The(Hmmmmm?)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 4:13:26 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 4:17:45 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 4:27:42 AM EDT
Post from DK-Prof -
What I am talking about is that a non-citizen legally living and working in the US with a green card can suddenly be disappeared by Ashcroft with NO evidence of any kind, but just based on a vaguely defined "suspicion" that doesn't have to be justified to anyone.
View Quote
Do you know anyone that fits that description? Can you tell us the numbers of such legal resident, non-citizens that have been rounded up and held with formal charges? Can you tell us that none have filed writs that have not been acted on by courts of competent jurisdiction? Then why do you have your panties in a wad over this? Eric The(DidYouReadTheUSSupremeCourtDecision[u]ExP­arteQuirin[/u]-1942?)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 4:34:42 AM EDT
Post from DK-Prof -
So the logic is that because someone attacked us who has no principles or morality, it's okay to abandon ours to fight him?
View Quote
So Bin Laden does not deserve the death penalty? I think that in a war, you must act in a war-like manner with your enemy. There is nothing in our laws, nor in the Geneva Conventions, that prohibit a military tribunal-type trial and a short walk to a tall gallows for Bin Laden and his cohorts! Just don't forget the pork stuffing!
You need to read more Nietsche.
View Quote
I've read all his works, in my youth. But I'm much older and smarter, now. Nietzsche is just one of many anti-Christs, IMHO. Eric The(War-like)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 4:40:45 AM EDT
ACtually, if you folk read the article I linked to, the military tribunals these folk might be put under, are *not* the same as the tribunals our servicemen are under. *Far* fewer protections. The reallly worrisome thing is the very vague language of the order, and the fact that it completely ignores separation of powers. I have no problems with trying suspected terrorists in military courts -- they're an opposing military, after all. It's just that these, specific military courts are very worrisome, much moreso than the standard military courts our servicement & women are part of. Hell, I'd even be fine if we didn't bother with a trial at all, and just shot them. But By giving them a pretense of a trial, we establish some very scary legal precedents for the rest of us. How long till owning the wrong kind of gun is "contributing to a terrorist atmosphere," and the collection of guns nationwide is a "state of emergency" ?
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 4:55:07 AM EDT
From [u][b]Ex Parte Quirin[/b][/u], US Supreme Court (1942): [Unanimous opinion by Chief Justice Harlan Stone]: The President, as President and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, by Order of July 2, 1942, appointed a Military Commission and directed it to try petitioners for offenses against the law of war and the Articles of War, and prescribed regulations for the procedure on the trial and for review of the record of the trial and of any judgment or sentence of the Commission. On the same day, by Proclamation, the President declared that "[b]all persons who are subjects, citizens or residents of any nation at war with the United States or who give obedience to or act under the direction of any such nation, and who during the time of war enter or attempt to enter the United States... through coastal or boundary defenses, and are charged with committing or attempting or preparing to commit sabotage, espionage, hostile or warlike acts, or violations of the law of war[/b], shall be subject to the law of war and to the jurisdiction of military tribunals." The Proclamation also stated in terms that all such persons were denied access to the courts. Petitioners' main contention is that the President is without any statutory or constitutional authority to order the petitioners to be tried by military tribunal for offenses with which they are charged; that in consequence they are entitled to be tried in the civil courts with the safeguards, including trial by jury, which the Fifth and Sixth Amendments guarantee to all persons charged in such courts with criminal offenses.... We are not here concerned with any question of the guilt or innocence of petitioners. Constitutional safeguards for the protection of all who are charged with offenses are not to be disregarded in order to inflict merited punishment on some who are guilty. But the detention and trial of petitioners--ordered by the President in the declared exercise of his powers as Commander in Chief of the Army in time of war and of grave public danger--are not to be set aside by the courts without the clear conviction that they are in conflict with the Constitution or laws of Congress constitutionally enacted. The Constitution thus invests the President as Commander in Chief with the power to wage war which Congress has declared, and to carry into effect all laws passed by Congress for the conduct of war and for the government and regulation of the Armed Forces, and all laws defining and punishing offences against the law of nations, including those which pertain to the conduct of war. - continued -
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 4:55:49 AM EDT
From the very beginning of its history this Court has recognized and applied the law of war as including that part of the law of nations which prescribes, for the conduct of war, the status, rights and duties of enemy nations as well as of enemy individuals. By the Articles of War, and especially Article 15, Congress has explicitly provided, so far as it may constitutionally do so, that military tribunals shall have jurisdiction to try offenders or offenses against the law of war in appropriate cases.... An important incident to the conduct of war is the adoption of measures by the military command not only to repel and defeat the enemy, but to seize and subject to disciplinary measures those enemies who in their attempt to thwart or impede our military effort have violated the law of war. It is unnecessary for present purposes to determine to what extent the President as Commander in Chief has constitutional power to create military commissions without the support of Congressional legislation. For here Congress has authorized trial of offenses against the law of war before such commissions. We are concerned only with the question whether it is within the constitutional power of the national government to place petitioners upon trial before a military commission for the offenses with which they are charged. We must therefore first inquire whether any of the acts charged is an offense against the law of war cognizable before a military tribunal, and if so whether the Constitution prohibits the trial.... By universal agreement and practice the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition f they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals. * * * For the remainder of the decision, go to 317 US 1 (1942) Eric The(SeeAnySimilaritiesWithOurPresentSituation­?)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 5:39:16 AM EDT
Military tribunals are both appropriate and constitutional. As "E.T.HUN" has previously posted they are good enough for our own military personnel.
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 10:46:24 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 12:16:05 PM EDT
Yeah, that's the problem. Everyone's looking at this and saying "military tribunals are ok" as if all military tribunals avoided judicial review, etc. Well, they don't, at least not till now -- this is "great leap forward" in the abrogation of people's rights. I really expected more people around here would be able to get past knee-jerk "stop the terrorists!" reactions and really think about this in some detail. It's more complex than that, with a lot of nasty potential ramifications down the line.
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 3:29:11 PM EDT
I hope terrorists are as scared of Bush & Ashcroft as some of you seem to be. I think the seriousness of the matter has to be taken into account. We after all are dealing with domestic terrorism. The types of weapons terrorists have at their disposal and quite possibly already on our soil, makes it necessary for our government to have these tools available. If the terrorists are successful in unleashing their bag of sick tricks on US soil, there is a good chance that the citizen who would feel the necessity to file a writ, will already be dead. DK-Prof, hope your dad is doing well. Don't worry, will protect you. HE HE HE
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 7:55:30 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 8:31:24 PM EDT
Post from DK-Prof -
Anyone that Ashcroft CHOOSES will fit that description
View Quote
Oh come now, is this the same ASHCROFT that we were praising just a few months ago as the best friend of the RKBA we've had in a long time? Yet now he's the Gauleiter of the Brave New World? A regular Heinrich Himmler sort of fellow, who desperately seeks to imprison just about anybody based upon some racist view of the propensity of folks of Middle Eastern ancestry to deliberately fly perfectly good jetliners into perfectly good civilian buildings?
Of course I don't know, and neither will you. That's kinda the point.
View Quote
There are precisely 603 individuals presently in federal custody awaiting final determinations of whether they are in fact agents of a hostile group or of an enemy nation, and whether they conspired in any degree in the execution of an act of war against this nation. So that's kinda [b]not[/b] the point!
The 1942 bill was not intended to allow people to be disappeared simply on a basis of ANY suspicion on the part of the Attorney General, without any judicial review or evidentiary hearing.
View Quote
Funny, that's how the law reads, and that's how the US Supreme Court ruled that it read. What part of '[b]or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property[/b]' don't you understand?
Cheney clearly said that those people accused of terrorism do NOT deserve these consitutional safeguards.
View Quote
Well, then, we know that at least he has read the law and the US Supreme Court decisions that uphold that law!
So if this is about domestic terrorism, why did none of this happen when Tim McVeigh blew up a building? I hate to sound like an ACLU guy, but it smacks of racism that suddenly we need all this knee-jerk new stuff for non-citizens, but nobody talked about this when it was a white dude with a crew-cut that killed lots of innocent women and children. So why is it okay to suspend civil rights for swarthy middle-eastern legal immigrants, but not for dangerous weapon-stockpiling militia types?
View Quote
If you HATE to sound like an ACLU-kind-of-guy, why sound like one? I suppose that during WWII, the FBI was viewing folks that looked like the Hun with suspicion. You know why? 'Cause folks who looked like the Hun were busy attempting to carry out acts of sabotage against the US war effort! What racists those FBI guys must have been! Eric The(IThinkThe'KNOW-YOUR-ENEMY'PosterFromWWIIMightBeAproposAtThisPoint­)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 11/28/2001 12:55:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By AnotherPundit: Yeah, that's the problem. Everyone's looking at this and saying "military tribunals are ok" as if all military tribunals avoided judicial review, etc. Well, they don't, at least not till now -- this is "great leap forward" in the abrogation of people's rights. I really expected more people around here would be able to get past knee-jerk "stop the terrorists!" reactions and really think about this in some detail. It's more complex than that, with a lot of nasty potential ramifications down the line.
View Quote
That is exactly what I have been warning about long before 9/11. Just look at past history. Government ALWAYS grows like an out of control cancer especially when the sheeple think it is for their own good. Does anyone really believe that the "Office of Homeland Defense" will downsize anytime in the future? Bush already stated that this will be an ongoing "war against terrorism" taking 10 years. Wanna bet the people in the OHD are going to do their damndest to justify their jobs (just like the ATF did at Waco) if there even is a hint of shutting them down? Since the groundwork has already been laid, what is to keep a future administration from appending the definition of "terrorist" to anyone that is suspected of committing a crime who also holds "anti-government" views?
Link Posted: 11/28/2001 12:23:14 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/28/2001 12:31:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/28/2001 12:23:43 PM EDT by hound]
As stated in another post....McCain is now stating that terrorists are buying guns at gunshows........how many of us have just been renamed as terrorists?
Link Posted: 11/28/2001 12:58:04 PM EDT
I really don't care if they have summary executions of foreign nationals. [b]The Constitution does not apply to non-citizens![/b]
Link Posted: 11/28/2001 1:04:26 PM EDT
I think the tribunal is the right thing to do right now. The scary part is when you create a system, you have a hard time shutting it down. It becomes almost a living thing. We now have Homeland Security, and the tribunal. What happens when we run low on terrorists? What new rules will be created to feed the machine? Who becomes the next criminal. How bout this: militias, then Class 3 owners, then assault weapon owners, then maybe anybody who says something we dont like.
Link Posted: 11/28/2001 1:17:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/28/2001 1:10:24 PM EDT by Garmentless]
Originally Posted By rabbit: ... What happens when we run low on terrorists? What new rules will be created to feed the machine? Who becomes the next criminal. How bout this: militias, then Class 3 owners, then assault weapon owners, then maybe anybody who says something we dont like.
View Quote
Oh, puhleeeze! [rolleyes] Notice that it's the Democrats in Congress fighting this tribunal stuff. Why? Because they want to establish the precedent that non-citizens are entitled to the same rights and covered by the same laws as US Citizens. This ridiculous assertion is done with illegal immigrants(Mexicans) in mind. One reason is to cover up the travesty of our nation's borders. The second, as you know, is illegal immigrants (mostly Mexicans) are the Democrat's fastest growing voting blocks. Democrats will do anything to get that vote, even registering illegals to vote! Hell, they've even done that already! NO RIGHTS FOR ALIENS!
Link Posted: 11/28/2001 1:18:51 PM EDT
garmentless.....where does it say that? only americans are created equal? and on another point The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. rebellion? nope invasion? well kinda, but they all dead.....
Link Posted: 11/28/2001 1:31:20 PM EDT
No, you show me where it does say that the Constitution applies to aliens. Geez, maybe you should fight for the right of illegal mexicans to bear arms!
Link Posted: 11/28/2001 1:31:35 PM EDT
DK-Prof, Great news about your dad, I'll include him in my nightime prayers.
Link Posted: 11/28/2001 1:43:35 PM EDT
illegal aliens----bad example--they should have arms---but in their own country. Or come here legally.....even Noriega got a "real" trial..
Link Posted: 11/28/2001 2:14:08 PM EDT
I thin the most appropriate question that we might want to ask about military tribunals is "why?". I think the main problem that might present itself would be the lack of applicable Federal laws. It is clear that Bush envisions the possibility that Taliban leaders might be tried by the U.S.. However, from a conventional legal perspective, a Taliban conspiracy involving terrorism might be difficult to prove. After all, arguably all they did was treat a war hero of their country as an honored guest. If these tribunals actually do attempt to try the Taliban, I expect that the most significant consequence might be the development of new unwritten "laws" to address their conduct. Moreover, the Bush distraction wishes to use secret evidence against the accused, perhaps not revealing sources and methods to any party associated with the defense. The Federal rules of evidence require authentification of the ID's of individuals speaking in a recording. I suspect they wish to relax that as well. In short, not even Osama has confessed to this crime, and the evidence against him might be difficult to admit into civil court. Another obvious reason is that he wants to keep the tribunals closed from the public, so that any lapses in evidence will go undetected by the public. I really think that if the U.S. decides to try these clowns it should do so in Federal court. Any proceedings in front of a special tribunal will look like a setup. Why give enemies of the United States the satisfaction of being able to claim that racism or anti-Islamic sentiment runs rife throughout the U.S. government? BTW, even military proceedings for service members are not designed to be fair. Just look at who picks the jury. The system is designed to curb gross abuses while affirming the power of the CO. I saved my most important concern for last. Although, I consider myself a conservative, I have been very disappointed by Bush and Ashcroft's treatment of civil liberties and the constitution. In particular, I wonder who elected GW Bush as a potentate with the powers to unilaterally create kangaroo courts, punish criminals, and even execute them, meanwhile denying them effective appellate recourse. I respect the Bush administration and hope that they step back from this stance. The constitution provides for separation of powers for a reason, and I think that the president needs to respect that. Gross deviations from the constitution may lead to the erosion of freedoms that we all cherish.
Link Posted: 11/28/2001 2:37:31 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/28/2001 4:25:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/28/2001 4:18:42 PM EDT by ECS]
Originally Posted By DK-Prof: I have no problem with military tribunals for combatants (and the reason it's good enough for our servicemen is that they chose to subject themselves to it by volunteering).
View Quote
If you think everyone in the military [i]Volunteered[/i] then you obviously are not old enough to remember that some of us GOT DRAFTED!!!!!!!!! DO YOU REMEMBER VIETNAM? I DO. If Military Trials are good enough for U.S. Servicemen, they are good enough for ANYBODY....
Link Posted: 11/28/2001 6:19:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/28/2001 6:12:22 PM EDT by Garmentless]
Originally Posted By AR15Gator: I really think that if the U.S. decides to try these clowns it should do so in Federal court. Any proceedings in front of a special tribunal will look like a setup. Why give enemies of the United States the satisfaction of being able to claim that racism or anti-Islamic sentiment runs rife throughout the U.S. government?
View Quote
Good point. But how about a trial in Afghanistan? That would solve those objections. But my main beef is that I really don't believe that this country is capable of dispensing justice. I don't want them getting out on technicalities, and I don't want them getting jail terms. That only leaves bargaining chips for future terrorists and the possibility that they may be free someday. Look at the crap that keeping Mandela alive caused S. Africa. Bottom line is you can't kill ideas, you can only kill people.
Top Top