Posted on 11/16/2001 3:13:16 PM PST by Lady In Blue
This is the same senator who used his time on the impeachment of Bill Clinton, to further his agenda. He is weak kneed and a self-important liberal.
This is WAR senator, you had your chance to do the right thing and you decided Party over Principal and refused to honor your oath of office to uphold and protect the United States Constitution. Your argument is specious and misleading, a thin veil for ink...once again.
Sit down sir your time is up! Let President Bush get done what needs to be done, you and your party are a little late.
Seriously, Cheney indicated, is that trying terrorists in military court sends a clear signal that they are international outlaws, not entitled to even the rudimentary rights afforded ordinary prisoners of war.
If the Demo-crats could read, and study history, maybe they might learn something. "Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it." The Libs want anothe OJ Simpson Circus Trial!
This needs to be sent to all of the whiney,liberal media who are shaking in their boots over this issue!I can't believe these people!Poor little Osama and the one-eyed guy who were responsible for murdering all of those people in the WTC and the pentagon,now has to be given the same rights as American citizens! What kind of dream world are they living in?! I heard Rumsfeld say a few days ago that he is having his people get all the info he needs so that he can make a careful decision as to how to proceed.
The main differences under the UCMJ are slight differences in procedures, some additional offenses unique to the military (think disobeying orders, etc.), and the appeals process. One of the procedural differnces often touted by the liberals is the lack of a jury. The UCMJ provides for a jury, it just has a different name. The officers on the tribual are the jury. In the interest of seeking the truth they can ask questions of the witnesses. There is an appeal process. It's just different, but it still winds up in the USSC.
The real reason a lot of folks oppose this idea is they don't like the death penalty and they want an open show trial, ala OJ Simpson, taking years.
The foreign terrorists who could be subjected to such tribunals ''don't deserve to be treated as prisoners of war,'' Vice President Cheney said. ''They don't deserve the same guarantees and safeguards we use for an American citizen.''
Just what the Soviets said. Then not long after, citizens found to be sympathetic to the "foreign terrorists" were similarly tried. Then secret trials became the norm. But I don't expect stupid, braindead Americans to give a damn about this creeping totalitarianism -- after all, the government is only trying to PROTECT us...
Perhaps the best reason for a military tribunal is that we would be spared another OJ Simpson circus. I suspect a civil trial would take years. A military tribunal would cut the BS that defense attorneys are so fond of.
Yeah, man, don't want anything messy to get in the way. Hell, why even have trials. Anyone the government thinks might be a terrorist, or knows a terrorist, or harbors deviationist terrorist thoughts should be either immediately sent to special work camps or be executed. You don't read much Solzhenitsyn, do you? Creeps like you and others here are the welcomers of totalitarianism, those cheering as Hitler rides by. You are sickening.
You have all the rights under the UCMJ that you have in civilian court.
The only propaganda is coming from your totalitarian crap posted here. These trials are CLOSED -- SECRET -- trials! If you support these kinds of Soviet courts -- oh yeah, those accused in Soviet closed trials were afforded all their rights too -- you are a totalitarian. Simple. And an enemy of America and all patriotic Americans.
A tribunal is a trial where the accused is afforded the same protections our servicemen are given. The procedures are spelled out in the Uniform Code of Military Justice which is a part of the Federal Code and authorized by the US Constitution.
"You don't read much Solzhenitsyn, do you?"
No, I have not, but I have read and studied the UCMJ. Have you?
"The only propaganda is coming from your totalitarian crap posted here."
How can Constitutionally authorized prosecutions be "totalitarian? Do you have something against the US Constitution?
"These trials are CLOSED -- SECRET -- trials!"
Yes, I do support these. Do you support providing classified information to the enemy, information that could get people killed? Or, do you support witholding that evidence from the court freeing the terrorists who murdered 5,000 Americans in one day?
"If you support these kinds of Soviet courts -- oh yeah, those accused in Soviet closed trials were afforded all their rights too -- you are a totalitarian. Simple. And an enemy of America and all patriotic Americans."
You demonstrate a profound ignorance of military and constitutional law. Once again, these trials are constitutional. So you might wish to explain how supporting actions specifically authorized by the Constitution, Congress, and the President is "totalitarian" or makes one an "enemy of all patriotic Americans".
Some people need to worry about their asses getting nuked by terrorists. Either for or against the terrorists. I dare civil libertarian punks to make my day.
The main differences under the UCMJ are slight differences in procedures, some additional offenses unique to the military (think disobeying orders, etc.), and the appeals process. One of the procedural differnces often touted by the liberals is the lack of a jury. The UCMJ provides for a jury, it just has a different name. The officers on the tribual are the jury. In the interest of seeking the truth they can ask questions of the witnesses. There is an appeal process. It's just different, but it still winds up in the USSC.
Once again, these trials are constitutional. So you might wish to explain how supporting actions specifically authorized by the Constitution,
OK smart guy, show me exactly where it says closed secret trials are the order of the day. I am afraid it is not in my copy. And no, we are not in a state of war, as if even that would give your totalitarian prescription any weight.
No, I have not,
Didn't think so. You totalitarians just don't seem to like what he has to say about your favorite system of government.
If you've been reading these threads you should have noticed that "secret" military trials were held during WWII. The constitutionality of these trials was upheld by USSC. These trials were conducted by military tribunal.
I would suggest you might try reading Section 1, Article 8 of the Constitution. Congress is specifically authorized to regulate the armed forces. Pursuaint to that authority, the UCMJ was written as a part of the Federal Code. Just a few of the relevent passages here are: "To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;", "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;", and "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;". Take note of the parts about establishing "tribunals", punishing "Offenses against the Law of Nations", and "Regulation of the land and naval forces".
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.