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.
At the same rime, a formal Declaration of War would not be out of order.
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!"
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.
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.
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.
It is about time we understood that and I am happy to see that it has even sunk into the thick heads of office holding public servants.
Nukem
Shoot them in the head upon capture.
My prediction is that some 16-year old Pashtun rifle company commander is going to show up with a few of his 14-year old friends (who have 20 years combat experience between them) holding a bloody sack wanting to know where their 10-million American dollars are before they'll let anyone take a peek inside the bag.
My suggestion to whomever it is that these kids choose to contact not have a smart look on their face when they meet them.
Just pay them the money and let them know that there are businessmen in the UK, Germany, and California who said they'd add to the pile.
These kids will want gold too. Paper money isn't going to cut it.
like the line from the movie 'one eyed jacks' when karl malden told marlon brando:
'oh, i'll give you a fair trial.....and then i'm going to hang you'! (take note tali-terrorists)
Personally, I am opposed to the death penalty, but in the case of acts of war the perpetrators are entitled to the fruits of war.
The American people have suffered enough. The is no just reason to require the American people to make a case against an openly avowed foreign enemy who seeks death for Americans.
We have no obligation to offer the enemy the opportunity to seek our mercy.
We are a sovereign nation. We have the right to our own justice and our own defense. Surrender that, and you will have world-order tyranny.
Seems they are not needed since every President seems to pass laws by simply signing 'Executive Orders'.
While a Military Tribunal seems to be OK...(as long as SOMEONE declares war....I REALLY have a problem with the 'Secrecy Part'.
If BIn Laden is captured...he needs to be tried in full view of the public.
redrock
Oh no it is not. Let our military hunt them down and kill them where they cower. That would be appropriate.
Sounds dangerous to me. What happens if someone like Hillary has this power?