Posted on 11/21/2001 9:29:08 AM PST by Croooow
WHO PUT WHAT IN BOB BARR’S CHEERIOS?
Sometimes I just can’t figure that guy out. Right now he’s on a tear about this military tribunals thing. Barr doesn’t like it, and I frankly don’t understand why.
I’ve read the President’s Executive Order. I agree that there are some troubling aspects there …we can tear those apart later. Right now let’s deal with this military tribunal thing in the context of Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorists.
Let’s say that some of our Special Forces guys are wandering around Ashcanistan and here comes Osama holding his hands high … he’s giving up. At this point our guys have four real options.
The best option? Kill the SOB. A gut shot, not one of those Special Forces headshots. Let the bastard suffer.
But, let’s say he lives and is captured. Look more closely at the options.
A UN Trial.
Oh this would be just wonderful. Since the day the United Nations was formed it has been unfriendly toward the United States. In recent decades the UN has been nothing less than an US taxpayer funded soapbox for every petty dictator and activist in the world who has a gripe against America.
Of late the UN has become more than an international anti-American soapbox. The UN is feeling quite bold right now. Just a few months before the terrorist attacks the UN chastised the State of Arizona for going forward with an execution the UN didn’t want to happen. The UN actually stated that Arizona was subject to the mandates of the UN courts and that election had been illegally conducted.
Also, have you ever paid attention to the UN’s signature document when it comes to human rights? This human rights treaty was touted by Bill Clinton as the finest document in support of freedom in the history of the world. Others might feel that honor belongs to the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution. But, no. Clinton says the UN Human Rights Declaration is Numero Uno! Without belaboring this point – you might be interested to know that the UN Human Rights Declaration clearly states that humans have NO rights when it comes to the goals and purposes of the United Nations.
So .. try Bin Laden or some other terrorists captured in Afghanistan before a UN court? A UN court is an anti-American court. The trial would turn into a spectacle wherein the great unwashed would parade in front of international television camera to denounce America as the “true” terrorist Nation. The actual trial of the terrorists would only be a subplot to the anti-American agenda on center stage.
Try him in a US Court.
As soon as we drag that dirt bag over to the United States he immediately earns the protection of the United States Constitution. Yup – that’s right. As long as the terrorist (or any other criminal, for that matter) is (a) not an American citizen and (b) not physically in America, he is not entitled to the protection of our Constitution. No right to an attorney. No right to a jury trial. No right to confront his witnesses. No right to appeal. But … once they’re here, all bets are off.
Can you just imagine a trial on American soil of Osama Bin Laden? Who would want to serve on that jury? Every juror would be a marked man or woman for the rest of their lives --- IF, that is, they voted to convict. Osama is very media savvy. He would seize the opportunity to turn the trial into a spectacle of anti-Americanism. Why do we want to invite such a spectacle to take place right here at home?
A Military Tribunal
George Washington did it. So did Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. Washington and Lincoln did it on American soil with American defendants. The Supreme Court passed on it. No problem.
There is no law, no court ruling, no precedent which confers rights under the United States Constitution on non-citizens who commit crimes overseas.
Look, the young men and women we sent over there in the American uniforms don’t get full constitutional protection if they commit a crime while in our armed services. They’re subject to the Uniform Code of Military Conduct. Isn’t it somewhat strange that those opposed to military tribunals for the terrorists want them to enjoy more rights than our own military men would have?
I do have a theory about those on the left who oppose the tribunal idea. They WANT an anti-American spectacle. They know a terrorist trial – especially one of Bin Laden – would be the media event of the decade. What a time for them to wheel out their anti-American agenda?
But how does that explain Bob Barr?
And didn't I read somewhere that the FedGov was going to pay approximately 70% of the insurance claims for 9-11?? (I wish I could find the source--anyone else see this?)
This is a good idea, even the secrecy aspects. An open proceeding could expose our intel methods and put servicemen and women as risk. THis concern overrides my concerns for possible infringments on Bin laden's rights. THis is a war.
BTW even rat Senators on TV acknowledge the bill they passed after 9-11 give the President the same powers as a declaration of war.
You are correct. To do otherwise just proves what a billion or so Moslems already think about us -- that we talk about freedom, but don't practice it when there are dark-skinned people of other cultures involved.
Article III, Section 2... The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Amendment IV
No person shall be . . .be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. . .
A tribunal is simply a more formal way to make certain that the person being summarily dealt with is the person intended...nothing more, nothing less.
In the right hnds it will "make certain." In the wrong hands it will be only window dressing which serves as an excuse to execute anyone who "they" want dead.
We don't want our laws to allow secret actions which require their operation to be in honorable and trustworthy hands.
I had always thought that it would be a war crime to shoot unarmed members of the opposition if they were trying to surrender. Is that incorrect?
Wrong. I want the state, in its operations against the people's enemy, to be secretive, cunning, and lethal. I do not want lawyers snoopervising.
The state is a killing machine; that's why the citizenry pays the big bucks.
In this case especially, the people want their money's worth. ;^)
And you would be correct.
I haven't reached a decision on this yet. But, a 'secret' trial is still a trial isn't it?
The standard for conviction falls below the “beyond a reasonable doubt” norm, and allows for the execution of the accused based on a two thirds majority (rather than unanimity) of the jury.
But they do still call it a “trial”.
While it's pleasing Barr has the Constitution in mind (as I expected he did); he has chosen the wrong path by declaring that the Judiciary should treat these acts of war as common crimes.
I do not think the Judicial Branch will let the Legislative Branch force it into such a disreputable act,
The Congress can take positive action, besides declaring war, by amending the UCMJ to include these alien terrorists, or amending the WPA to apply the UCMJ to the terrorists.
I think that Bush does want to have the best of both worlds on the War Declaration issue...but with the unusual circumstances of the event and the poor performance of our Legislative Branch, wherein the Power to Declare War resides when done seperately from the action taken in accordance with the War Powers Act.
Congress could craft a special animal, but the time for that has past and the leadership on both sides is too weak. Let the gripes continue, they make some valid points, but as even Barr's clarifications show, there are justifications and precidents for much of what was done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.