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

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

[rubbertramp]

This is just government by extortion. Get a warrant and shoot whomever....Texas style.

BTW, William Sullivan was accidented in a hunting accident, this time of year in '74..a bit of historical nostalgia. Guess he wasn't wearing orange.

[Graewoulf]

Thanks. Your reply was well documented and clearly stated.

[SusanUSA]

It would have some characteristics of the military courts in existence, but the new "military courts" for those accused of "terrorism" would operate under a completely different set of rules.

Rules which are being written as we type. They are making most of it up as they go along. I am also concerned for over what this Patriot Act and this military (not executive) order could expand to include in it's definition of "acts of terrorism". And if a President Clinton had signed these you can bet ALL on this forum would be, too!

Btw, thank you for the flag to #100. Interesting and helpful.

[SusanUSA]

Would these new courts be subject to review by the Supreme Court? And what about the right of appeal?

Also, the last I heard there were suggestion circling around that the hearings be held on a ship located in international waters.

[Landru]

re#139; Fabulous insights & a wonderful presentation contrasting exactly what this nation had to deal with yesterday under the Lincoln administration, as opposed to today under Dubya's.

Beautifully done.

[SusanUSA]

I've been looking for an above average answer to the question, "How can it be said we are "at war" when Congress had not made a declaration of war"?.
Your post has excellent historical information in it! (Though we would probably disagree as to what the southern states should be labeled in regards to the War Between the States.)
Thank you!

[SusanUSA]

The Patriot Act has a sunset date to expire on December 31, 2005. With an exception to on going foreign investigations.

[GROUCHOTWO]

There is one other thing. This came out during the Liddy law suit. Charles Colson stated that the DNC break in made no logistical sense because the RNC had moles there, there was no Republican need for added information.

Considering that Washington insiders hated Nixon, the break in was a golden gift to them. Many consider John Dean as the DC crowd's point man.

[NixNatAVanG InDaBurgh]

Nearly all politicians abuse their power over time. That's why our founding fathers set in place an elaborate system of checks and balances.

I had thought about all the points of view expressed on this thread, (and others,) and if I may be so bold, it needs desperately to be pointed out that the Constitution does us no good if we have no country. Thus far, the Constitution is gaining ground while you look at ONE issue which really has no relationship to our Constitutional Rights. Far from being a lessening of our rights, rights we were sorely afraid we WOULD lose in liberal courts are being rethought and decidedly coming down in favor of the PEOPLE, NOT the government.
Prayer is back and it's okay with the courts. G-d Bless america can be proudly placed on a school sign. Gunrights cases have been decided in favor of the INDIVIDUAL'S right to keep and bear arms...and against the Reno credo that says the STATE has the right to decide who gets to keep and bear arms and that it is a collective, rather than individual, right. Because when it came down to the nitty-gritty, the PEOPLE roared and we maintained. We will do so again and again, forever if need be. What else can we possibly be fighting for?
WE are not our enemy. Our enemy comes by land and sea, by rail and trail, in words and in deeds, to destroy everything we hold dear. You are advocating we let them. They did not fight for OUR rights. WE did. And they could have had them but for the asking. As GW said, they had a choice. They chose wrongly.

[VA Voter]

Well reasoned comments.

[goldilucky]

As I said in my past post, the U.S. should get out of the U.N. period. That also applies to our military court operations through them which is also unconstitutional. Treaties or "agreements" do not supercede our laws of the constitution.

[Enough is ENOUGH]

I have to go with the following paragraph from the article on this one:

Our criminal justice system, which requires a unanimous finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by twelve jurors, Crona and Richardson note, "is designed to err on the side of letting the guilty go free rather than convicting the innocent. However, when this nation is faced with terrorist attacks that inflict mass murder or hundreds of millions of dollars of damage in a single instance, we can no longer afford procedures that err so heavily on the side of freeing the guilty. Protection of society and the lives of thousands of potential victims becomes paramount."

I would not want to see a foreign terrorist acquitted because his Miranda rights were not read to him.

We have been putting our faith in the Supreme Court all this time to protect our justice system. I see no reason at the present time to abandon this faith unless of course if they allow this edict to extend to citizens depending on the facts and circumstances of such case.

[packrat01]

So in some States, a sign that says "This property protected by a 12 gauge three nights a week..." makes them a terrorist. After all, many criminals are civilians.

I'm sorry, but I don't follow what you mean by "protected by a 12 gauge three nights a week."

A shotgun. Firearm. Boom-boom. Big bore (as in large diameter). Bigger than a 20 gauge, smaller than a 10 gauge. Tell you what; rent "Big Jake". Double barrels used in that flick.

[Landru]

"The point is how do you define a 'terrorist.'"

Much in the same way pornography was once described by a wise person; "I can't describe pornography; but I know it when I see it."

I'm afraid we'll simply have to agree to disagree on this one, 'Jade. OK?
I still hold you, your opin in the highest of esteem.