Appropriate Justice for Terrorists:Using Military Tribunals Rather Than Criminal Courts

FindLaw.com ^ | Sep. 28, 2001 | John Dean

[Polybius]

What's the opinion of the Legal Beagles on F.R.?

It seems to me that using Military Tribunals would send a clear message that the terrorism now being committed against the USA is not merely a "crime" to be handled like another O.J. Trial media circus.

Such acts of terrorism are war crimes as defined by the 1949 Geneva Conventions. In addition, they are acts of war committed by foreigners when dressed in civilian clothing amongst our own population. Traditionally, such conduct has merited the death penalty after conviction by Military Tribunal.

[John Valentine]

An idea whose time has arrived, if we are indeed at war, as I believe we are. And has the President has said we are.

At the same rime, a formal Declaration of War would not be out of order.

[CatoRenasci]

In short, I think this may be correct. I have concerns in the long run that this could be abused by a Clinton II administration.

[VA Voter]

In the long run all governments abuse their power. That is why our culture and system of government is under such attack from within.

That said, we must impose the harshest possible justice we can to win the current war and worry about creating peacetime abuses under some future Clinton later.

[Guna]

" Such tribunals are more efficient, less costly, and more likely to provide swift and sure justice."

Excellent.

I wonder if Ashcroft's removal of jurisdiction from Mary Jo White and placing it in DC is in some way a prelude to establishing a military tribunal? I hope it is.

As another Freeper already pointed out, We don't need another OJ media circus. "If the towel don't fit, you must aquit!"

[Viet Vet in Augusta GA]

Just double-time the guilty b*st*rds past the window...

[packrat01]

Interesting supposition.

Due process for those who would fly a plane into a building; would be that they be catapulted into a brick wall.

This one slipped under the radar.

As ever, Freepmail me if you don't want to be pinged.

[packrat01]

Missed it big time... See also #7

[Snow Bunny]

I want to thank you for the pings you send me. I appreciate them and thanks for this one too. We should all try to be as informed as much as possible. Thanks again.

[anniegetyourgun]

Thanks for ping. I like the idea. Keeps our enemy-friendly media at bay, swifter and more sure justice, keeps national security secrets, etc.

Clearly, W. has a plan in executing this war - whether they are his ideas or those of his advisors, he's turned out not to be the dummy so many in this nation thought.

[Landru]

To think; the ACLU has already begun bleeting & wringing their filthy hands at the mere suggestion of this.
...and it ain't even events that'll happen on American soil they're whining about, at that.

~oy.

[ImpBill]

My solution is to make sure none of the terrorists make it to any court or tribunal. I understand the Islamists believe that to die in Jihad is martyrdom. I am ready, willing, and given the opportunity, able to see their wish to die a martyr's death, without the frills of a trial, be realized.

[gumbo]

[Rehnquist] adds that because judges are often loath to interfere with wartime activities, they often defer decisions until hostilities end. "If the decision is made after hostilities have ceased, it is more likely to favor civil liberty than if made while hostilities continue."

This seems wise. So all you civil libertarians wringing your hands -- calm down.

Sometimes (and wars are the primary 'sometimes') those "precious" civil liberties will have to be ignored, if ultimately they are to be preserved.

Yes, that's a paradox. So is: "in order to have peace, one must prepare for war."

Btw, I'm not a legal beagle. Just thought I'd chime in. Thanks for the ping, packrat01.

[goldilucky]

Very good post here!

First they need to define what a "terrorist" is.

After Pres. Bush signed the Patriotic Bill 2001, one should wonder who is targeted as the "terrorists"? Is one who believes in liberty, and individual freedom permanently blackballed as a terrorists?

As the laws are silent in times of war, this also applies to our constitution of the united states of America. But we have been under these "silent times" for so long since our courts fly military Commander in Chief banners with the yellow fringe. Meaning the courts are under military rule; and not constitutional.

[Barn Owl]

Narry a problem, Keep those pings & pongs a comin'

Barn Owl

[goldilucky]

Thanks for pinging me. That was an exceptional article. See my post in response to post #7.

[Aedammair]

Bump'a'rooney! I've bookmarked for a thorough read later, but I would like to know how military trials differ from regular criminal trial. Especially how the threshold of proof would differ and standard(s) for admissibility of evidence. Anyone know?