Posted on 11/16/2001 1:09:11 PM PST by Elkiejg
WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 (UPI) -- House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, D-Mich., said Wednesday a decision by President George W. Bush that terrorist suspects might face a military tribunal adds to questions about civil liberties.
In a Nov. 14 letter to Committee Chairman Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., Conyers called for hearings on civil liberties, including an administration plan to monitor some defendants' communication with their lawyers, and the status of suspects detained in the government's investigations of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Conyers said Bush's Tuesday decision to establish military tribunals run by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld only adds to his concern.
"Indeed, the very purpose of the directive appears to be to skirt the usual constitutional and criminal justice rules that are the hallmark of our democratic form of government."
While Sensenbrenner did not return calls seeking comment, Conyers' request comes one day after United Press International reported that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., might soon hold hearings on the new government policy on monitoring communication between defense attorneys and their clients, and the status of what lawmakers said could be 1,000 people detained by the government. Some of those detainees have reportedly been released.
Leahy twice sent letters to Attorney General John Ashcroft on the issues on Oct. 31 and Nov. 9.
"We also have received no cooperation from the Justice Department in our effort to obtain information regarding the 1,000 plus immigrants who have been detained in connection with the terrorism investigation, as reflected in a letter that several Democratic Members transmitted to the attorney general on Oct. 31, 2001," Conyers wrote to Sensenbrenner Wednesday. "We would be remiss in our duties, however, if we did not also oversee the extent to which the Department may be abusing its authority and wrongfully targeting innocent Americans."
These guys are soldiers out of uniform, clearly hostile to US interests and humanity itself.
National Self Defense: The act of defending the U.S.; U.S. forces; and in certain circumstances, U.S. citizens and their property, U.S. commercial assets, other designated non-U.S. forces, foreign nationals and their property, from a hostile act or hostile intent. As a subset of national self-defense, the act of defending other designated non-U.S. citizens, forces, property, and interests is referred to as collective self-defense. Authority to exercise national self-defense rests with the NCA, but may be delegated under specified circumstances; however, only the NCA may authorize the exercise of collective self-defense.
The SROE distinguish between the right and obligation of self-defensewhich is not limitedand use of force for the accomplishment of an assigned mission. Authority to use force in mission accomplishment may be limited in light of political, military or legal concerns, but such limitations have no impact on the commander's right and obligation of self-defense.
Once a threat has been declared a hostile force, United States units and individual soldiers may engage without observing a hostile act or demonstration of hostile intent. The basis for engagement becomes status rather than conduct. The authority to declare a force hostile is given only to particular individuals in special circumstances.
Appendix A to Enclosure A of the SROE contains guidance on this authority.
802. ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER
(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:
(1) Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.
(2) Cadets, aviation cadets, and midshipman.
(3) Members of a reserve component while on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal Service.
(4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.
(5) Retired members of a reserve component who are receiving hospitalization from an armed force.
(6) Members of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve.
(7) Persons in custody of the armed forces serving a sentence imposed by a court-martial.
(8) Members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Public Health Service, and other organizations, when assigned to and serving with the armed forces.
(9) Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces.
(10) In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.
(11) Subject to any treaty or agreement which the United States is or may be a party to any accepted rule of international law, persons serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces outside the United States and outside the Canal Zone, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
(10) In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.
Ok, to me, (9) covers their behavior while in custody, and I am assuming (10)covers friendly persons accompanying the troops.
POW's are still covered under the Geneva convention, and putting them on trial may even be a war crime, at the very least it's not very productive, I mean what else can you do to them?
No criticism intended, I've just spent too much time lately trying to convince people that their fears on various issues are founded in speculation, editorial spin, or lack of subject knowledge rather than in fact.
Good point, actually a "crimes against humanity" charge is more than appropriate, in this case.
It all depends on if US citizens are affected here.
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.