Having Their Day in Court

NRO ^ | 11/30/01 | Robert H. Bork

[walden]

I feel vindicated: based on substantial experience with both, Bork says that if he were guilty, he would want a civilian jury, but that if he were innocent, he would prefer a military court. I said the same thing a few days ago on this forum based only on my personal acquaintence with two retired military judges. Anyway, the idol of the conservative right has now opined on the issue. :)

[goldstategop]

Excellent article by Robert Bork. He makes it clear there is a definite need for military tribunals. I concur in that not only are they constitutional, what's more I see no reason in the world why enemies watching us should learn how we discovered and apprehended terrorists. Our sources of information and intelligence methods are assets we should never dilvulge under any circumstances. If we are reluctant to do so in peacetime we should absolutely forbid their disclosure in war time where what we know could make a difference between victory or defeat. Where the security of our country is concerned, hostile aliens and American traitors who aid the cause of the enemy should be summarily dealt with since by definition they are an immediate danger. At least we have been graced by a fine legal mind who understands perfectly and explains in no uncertain terms why the President is doing what he decided to do.

[JohnHuang2]

Absolutely awesome piece. Thanks for posting. This brilliant work is just another reason why the Dems were so afraid of the notion of a Justice Robert Bork: The power of his arguments and the forcefulness of his delivery.

[JohnHuang2]

Heads up

[beekeeper]

I have participated in several Courts Martials. I have been the defending counsel and prosecutor, early in may career as a line officer in the USN. What Bork says is true. Justice is what happens in a military court. It is stripped of all the grandstanding that happens in civil court. When I was the procecutor, and a Ltjg, I faced two civilian lawyers and won. Fairly easy. The sailor was up for unauthorized absence (he had made a career of it and had prior brig time. We gave him several chances to straighten out but finally gave up).

On the day of his trial, he was UA. He changed his plea from not-guilty to guilty.

[.38sw]

Thanks for the ping. I'll have to read it later. If anyone hasn never read any of Judge Bork's books, I highly recommend trotting on down to the library and checking one out. He wrote one about courts and their decisions, and it was very enlightening. And frightening.

[JohnHuang2]

Thanks for the ping

You're welcome.

[mlocher]

thanks for the post. this is the most comprehensive case for tribunals i have seen. the more i hear the arguments for tribunals, the more in favor of them i am.

when a trial threatens national security, it should go through a military tribunal or other such mechanism guaranteeing secrecy.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Hang 'em high: Military tribunals right for terrorists

[billybudd]

If US citizens will be tried by secret military tribunals, then we've essentially destroyed our justice system. One thing that bothers me on this issue is that people only think in terms of one possibility instead of two. The suspect could be either guilty or innocent. And people who support tribunals say "If he's guilty, he doesn't deserve any Constitutional protections", all the while ignoring the possibility that the suspect is innocent. So we're just supposed to trust the military courts to try,convict, and execute the right people? If they're so efficient, why don't we use them for all crimes? The reason our justice system is open is that there can be some kind of public accountability. It may be ok to use tribunals for foreigners, who definitely have no Constitutional rights, but should not be used against citizens. If we do, we'll be going back to the secret courts and secret evidence of the medieval period.

[JohnHuang2]

Morning, Cincy =^)

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Mornin' JohnHuang2 =^)

[JohnHuang2]

I'll give this one another bttt -- hehe ;^)

[anniegetyourgun]

As the daughter of a former JAG lawyer who never lost a case, it was always clear to me that real justice is meted out in military hearings. I distinctly recall a rape case where the accused was pronounced guilty at the conclusion. The violated woman was vindicated and there wasn't a person in the small courtroom who could have said otherwise after hearing the evidence. The way things ought to be....

But I digress - Bork is right - the President needs this available tool.

[JohnHuang2]

Morning to you, too, Annie =^)

[walden]

Thanks for the reference!

[eureka!]

Thanks for the ping. That the left kept this mind off of the SCOTUS is such a tragedy....

[B4Ranch]

Bingo! Bork says it better than anyone I read so far.

[Hail Caesar]

bump