Give Tribunals a Try (Why Safire & co. need to calm down)

National Review Online ^ | 11/16/2001 | Jonah Goldberg

[gfactor]

First of all, the passport would simply define where the perp would be tried - it would not be a get out of jail free card.

We're talking about american passports right?

And second, passports can be verified, and authorities could easily trace a bogus one in that situation.

Better hope they don't decide yours is bogus. "authorities" don't make mistakes, specially the ones in secret military tribunals. Specially when they would find it convenient for you to be guilty. Again, I wonder how hard it is to "assume" the personality of a US citizen via some form of identity theft. Not that it would succeed, but that citizenship would be judged under the standards of this "court". and a determined prosecutor, with an "effective" apppointed defendant, might make a good case.

[dirtboy]

Better hope they don't decide yours is bogus.

My passport was issued in Philly. They have a record of that. If a foreign terrorist were to steal my passport to alter it, it would no longer match. I'm not worried about the citizenship determination aspect. The key matter is to make sure these tribunals are kept limited to foreign terrorists under specific, limited circumstances.

[gfactor]

I'm not worried about the citizenship determination aspect. The key matter is to make sure these tribunals are kept limited to foreign terrorists under specific, limited circumstances.

I guess the point i'm trying to make is that these are mutually exclusive statements.

if a "mistake" is made -- perhaps conveniently so -- and my passport with coffee stains etc.. looks fake, my contesting of the claims made by tribunal will be made under the "speedy and effective" system of the tribunal, by my tribunal appointed lawyer.

I understand the systems of how passports are determined to be real or fake. Its just a question of whether these determinations will be made in a court, or by a zealous tribunal.

[dirtboy]

Its just a question of whether these determinations will be made in a court, or by a zealous tribunal.

And I'm saying IMO you're worrying about the wrong thing here.

[AndyJackson]

Don't compromise the Constitution.

Why is it that military tribunals are perfectly legitimate for dispensing justice to the the millions of men and women who serve to defend the Constitution, but somehow, when you extend the authorities granted under the UCMJ to the other side it becomes "unconstitutional."

You and Mr. Safire should think and study hard about what sorts of rights are or are not extended under these circumstances, because a lot of American men and women want to know.

[WhiteKnuckles]

Too bad this fifth-rate intellectual lightweight ...

LOL! And you are a first-rate intellectual heavyweight? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

LET'S DECLARE VICTORY – and get out!

Nice essay ... NOT!

[ozzymandus]

Yeah, that's what we need, secret trials! It worked so well for the KGB, we oughta do it here! Who shall we try it on first, gun owners, tax protestors, right-to-life demonstrators? Will we have secret executions to go along with the trials? Jonah Goldberg shows once again why he's a lightweight mama's boy.

[Gimlet]

Exactly. These are the methods of the cowards. Why is Ashcroft running scared? Who is giving the administration this bad advice? Let us defend our country and our values and our Constitution. No secret trials. No erosion of the Sixth Amendment. What are we thinking! Power like this in the hands of ONE man. OK so we trust Bush to use it right but can we? Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. And what about the next holders of the office. Do we trust them? Why? And who else may find themselves subject to this arbitrary kangeroo court justice? What if the anthrax killers turn out to be your neighbor and what's more - YOU become a suspect because you attend the same Church, shop at the same supermarket, and had them over for a barbeque last summer?

[spycatcher]

You must have read the article with blinders on since he's an excellent writer and a clear thinker. It may be tougher for you to see as an 8th rate intellectual, so we'll give you some slack. Luckily you just attacked him and didn't try to dispute his logic, we've seen enough disasters lately.

P.S. I tried to read your article linked above...let me be generous and just suggest you use the services of an editor to clean that jumbled mess up.

[spycatcher]

We've had secret trials for US citzens for a while now in FISA courts. Those are more dangerous and worthy of Safire's and your concern. But don't sweat it when it's non-citizens making war against us. The vermin don't deserve lawyers or require trials before bombs drop, so why is giving them one when captured not being generous.

It's a war people. I know we haven't had a real one since WWII, but that doesn't mean it's OK to not learn the rules.

[Captain Kirk]

Freedom is considered by to be a quaint outmoded concept by many "freepers" today. "War is the health of the state" after all, and they seem to be willing to go with this gameplan.

[Gimlet]

Captain - I am afraid you may be right. Safire had another good column today. Specifically commenting on the Military justice code and also on how this new anti-constitutional approach by the administration may backfire. (Spain refusing to extradite suspected terrotists.)Why are FReepers not up in arms about this? Well - this FReeper is. The Constitution is just too important to mess with.

[connectthedots]

The alleged constitutional concerns of several posters are without merit, at least at this point. I would suggest that the terrorists would likely have a much fairer trial in front of a military tribunal than before a jury, or a federal judge.