Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Appropriate Justice for Terrorists:Using Military Tribunals Rather Than Criminal Courts
FindLaw.com ^ | Sep. 28, 2001 | John Dean

Posted on 11/01/2001 3:58:19 AM PST by Polybius

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 221-223 next last
To: Victoria Delsoul
1. What happens when the terrorists are apprehended? Do they go through our judicial system just like any common criminal? Who knows, he might even be acquitted or paroled in 15 or 20 years. Most of them are young guys. Fifteen, twenty or even thirty years in jail to a 25 years old is not that bad.

And what do we do if 10 years down the road, some liberal idiot, i.e., Clinton, decides to "pardon" these people as a show of solidarity, i.e., FALN, or the need to win an election?

81 posted on 11/16/2001 1:15:25 PM PST by Commonsense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: The Documentary Lady
I think U.S. citizens are excluded; for the near term, anyway. What's you do to get deemed a terrorist?
82 posted on 11/16/2001 1:15:25 PM PST by packrat01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: monkeywrench
agree to throw a hissy-fit, or agree that it's bad news? and why sadly?
83 posted on 11/16/2001 1:15:25 PM PST by packrat01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: XBob
The problem is exactly that no State has claimed responsibility for 9/11, and we do not choose to declare war on those we suspect of harboring its perpetrators. The Taliban was de facto in control of Afghanistan, but even before 9/11 hardly any foreign power recognized their government--and we certainly don't NOW.

De jure, then, we aren't at war with any State, and our president is simply pursuing prudent--but not secret, as he is authorized to do--action against some pirates. We have had a CIA for half a century, and I for one would be amazed to learn that it had never killed a foreign national abroad. So establishing a military tribunal is actually far more lawyerly than possible alternatives, overseas.

As to terrorists inside our borders, that is in principle a somewhat different matter. The best analog of the present situation is the Civil War. There was a case where you had people who had been native born citizens waging war on the U.S. When a Confederate soldier was captured, he was on "U.S." soil so far as the federal government was concerned. But such people were generally paroled after the hostilities were ended, if not before.

Undoubtedly some of the sleepers in the U.S. have availed themselves of the opportunity to become naturalized citizens, and that puts them in different legal standing from aliens. Yet they committed perjury in taking an insincere oath of loyalty to the U.S., and deserve the greater condemnation on that account. Of course we have of late seen influential people vigorously defending insincere oaths by a certain member of the bar not now accredited to appear before the SCOTUS . . .

On which account I would like to see the Constitution amended to make the governors of the nation's States the tribunal for impeachments.

84 posted on 11/16/2001 1:15:50 PM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: XBob
Yes they did. We should declare war in return, instead of shredding our own Constitution in response. The politicians are using this attack on us as a means to further their own careers. They seem not to care whether we win or lose. They should be forced to act in accordance with our Constitution and declare war so that the President can exercise full war powers.

Putting foreigners on our soil under the jurisdiction of a military tribunal is entirely proper and would be within the President's war powers once war is declared.

85 posted on 11/16/2001 1:15:51 PM PST by Twodees
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: packrat01
BTTT- interesting idea. Seems a reasonable idea to me.
86 posted on 11/16/2001 1:16:32 PM PST by mafree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: packrat01
Thanks for the ping, packrat01.
87 posted on 11/16/2001 1:16:54 PM PST by Bigg Red
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: packrat01
Conyers and his ilk don't like this one bit. If they don't like it, it must be good. It's a shame there are so MANY in congress that don't give a rats butt about this country.
88 posted on 11/16/2001 1:17:46 PM PST by monkeywrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Commonsense
And what do we do if 10 years down the road, some liberal idiot, i.e., Clinton, decides to "pardon" these people as a show of solidarity, i.e., FALN, or the need to win an election?

That's exactly right. That's why we need effective justice using military tribunals. The extermination of terrorists may not always be feasible and some terrorists will be apprehended rather than killed. These terrorists will go through our civil judicial system unless Congress declares war or passes a law permitting the use of Military tribunals against the terrorists who committed these atrocities.

"Congress should pass such an act - in part because terrorism is very different from other crime. For one thing, existing international laws prohibit such activities. As Crona and Richardson note, when terrorist acts of aggression target innocent civilians, they are not "legitimate acts of war under international law, but rather must be regarded as war crimes or crimes against humanity." The 1949 Geneva Conventions prohibit attacks on civilians. And the Geneva Protocol II expressly prohibits "acts of terrorism."

"Nevertheless, we have so far treated terrorist as ordinary criminals - charging them with common law crimes, and give them all the protections of our criminal justice system. The 1993 World Trade Center attack, for example, led to indictments that were tried before a judge in the Southern District of New York.

"Granted, Congress has not declared war in authorizing President Bush "to use all necessary and appropriate force against" those involved with "the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." But it would trivialize what was done to treat it as ordinary crime."


89 posted on 11/16/2001 1:17:58 PM PST by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Twodees
what nation(s) do we declare war against, and for what reason(s).
90 posted on 11/16/2001 1:20:07 PM PST by XBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: GVgirl
It's not really a question of "civilians". It's a question of "foreign enemy." The tribunal decides if the individual is quilty of participation in/ or conspiracy to commit acts of war.

But who decides whether the individual is tried before the tribunal?

And, to whom does the individual appeal this decision?

How does one know if the individual is a "foreign enemy"?

91 posted on 11/16/2001 1:20:09 PM PST by BabylonXXX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: BabylonXXX
But who decides whether the individual is tried before the tribunal? And, to whom does the individual appeal this decision? How does one know if the individual is a "foreign enemy"?

Those are good questions. I presume, without any other reference, that the ultimate decision to use a tribunal would rest with the President of the United States as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Bush has already indicated his approval of the process by issuing the EO and directing the Sec. of Defense to select a convening authority. As tribunals would not be used for US citizens, anyone tried by this system would be a foreigner. Whether they are an enemy or not would be decided by the tribunal. A matter that would be fairly obvious in most cases involving the capture of a combatant/saboteur/conspirator during a time of war. It is my understanding that there is no appeals process, although I'm sure someone would launch a Supreme Court protest upon the first use of these tribunals.

92 posted on 11/16/2001 1:20:58 PM PST by GVnana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: XBob
What's wrong with declaring war against every single terrorist organization whose name is known? War doesn't have to be declared only against another nation. You shouldn't have to ask about the reason. We were attacked on our own soil. That's the reason. Bin-Laden declared war against the US two years ago in the name of his organization, Al-Queda. That's a perfectly legitimate enemy. It's also convenient that Al-Queda exists in every one of the ME nations which sponsor terrorism.

Look at the list of enemies in the joint resolution that Congress fobbed off on the President, "permitting" him to conduct a limited war under their supervision. That list of hostiles should be as legitimate in a declaration of war as it is in the joint resolution.

93 posted on 11/16/2001 1:21:18 PM PST by Twodees
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: goodieD
Can't we just kill them?

No, first we have to give them a fair trial, and then kill them.
Love your approach, Goodie, got a great laugh from me.

So far on page one I haven't seen the most important reason why this is a necessary step.

How many average people are going to want to serve on a jury and then be marked for reprisals by other terrorists?

94 posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:42 PM PST by patriciaruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Comment #95 Removed by Moderator

To: XBob
".........why are military trials not just fine for the terrorists? They are fine for the military, why not for the terrorist jihad warriors?"

I could be wrong about this but here's my take on it. I think it has something to do with an oath the terrorists swear to when being tried in a court. Furthermore, the U.S. courts does not have jurisdiction over these terrorists. They would have to be tried in a Muslim court.

96 posted on 11/16/2001 4:13:22 PM PST by goldilucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
I don't think foreign terrorists may be tried in a U.S. court. Even if the court is military, the issue of jurisdiction stands to reason that the U.S would have no jurisdiction over the terrorists. They would have to be tried in a Muslim court.
97 posted on 11/16/2001 4:19:47 PM PST by goldilucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Guna
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.


When did he do that?

98 posted on 11/16/2001 5:09:11 PM PST by Lady In Blue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dan Day
In the Declaration, "all men are created equal" implies that no man is born a king. In other words, it repudiates hereditary monarchies. The "liberty" it speaks of is the right of men not to live under governments of these kings, but rather to form governments of their own, as is stated in the Declaration:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Aliens are considered to have the rights in the Declaration. But that means that they come from another place where another "government has been instituted among them". They do not have the rights delineated in the Constitution - the Constitution is the framework of the government of the CITIZENS of the United States.

If Aliens have the same rights as citizens under the Constitution, then second amendment rights apply. In which case, the Mexican Army is completely within its "constitutional" rights to march across the border under arms and take up residence in Tucson. Plus they get to vote. You buy that?

Your interpretation of the usage of the word "persons" was argued successfully in one famous case: Plyler v. Doe. But Plyler rests on the 14th, and a comment by Justice Douglas that the founders really did mean just persons, as in anyone who happens to be in the country under whatever auspices. Justice Rehnquist disagreed with him at the time and said so. To say I disagree is to put it mildly.

The Declaration is a human rights document but the Constitution is not. The Constitution is the framework of a "government among men", i.e., Citizens, and is amendable. The Declaration is not.

99 posted on 11/16/2001 5:30:27 PM PST by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Comment #100 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 221-223 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson