Secret Trials Endanger US Security

www.WorldNetDaily.com ^ | 12/13/01 | Harry Browne

[zandtar]

Odd, I thought the Constitution and Bill of Rights applied to American citizens only. Now it applies to the citizens of every country in the world? Guess the Brits are going to be rather upset to learn their folks now have the right to keep and bear arms.

[deport]

And then there are opposing views......

FRIDAY NOVEMBER 30 2001

Military tribunals: A wartime necessity

---

© 2001 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

When Leon Czolgosz shot President William McKinley in 1901, he was tried before a civilian court, as was Giuseppe Zangara, the would-be assassin of President-elect Franklin Roosevelt in 1933.

When John Hinckley Jr. shot President Reagan in 1981, he, too, was tried before a civilian court. But those who plotted the murder of Lincoln were tried by a military commission at Ft. McNair – with U.S. Army Judge Advocate General Joseph Holt presiding – and hanged.

The difference? In April 1865, the Union was still at war. Spies and saboteurs caught behind Union lines were turned over to the Army. This was true for both sides. Thus, in judging President Bush's decision to use military tribunals, only two questions need to be answered. Is America at war? Is our homeland under attack?

With Marines and special forces in combat in Afghanistan, and grieving New York firefighters still digging in that smoking pile of rubble in lower Manhattan for the charred remains of their buddies, the answer to both is obvious. Why then is Bush being treated like some arsonist of the Bill of Rights for following tradition and doing his duty as a wartime commander in chief?

General Washington used a military tribunal to try and hang Major John Andre, the British spy and emissary to Benedict Arnold. FDR used military tribunals to try Nazi saboteurs put ashore from U-boats. Six Nazis were executed. Lincoln used military tribunals to convict and hang Southern saboteurs. Moreover, he suspended habeas corpus, imprisoned thousands without trials, locked up editors and made himself a virtual dictator of the Union.

But if history has approved of the wartime military tribunals of Washington, Lincoln and FDR, why is John Ashcroft under siege? After all, more innocents have been massacred in atrocities in Bush's war than in any other war in U.S. history. Why the double standard, Sen. Leahy?

Some now argue that the Nazi saboteurs should have been tried in civilian court. But suppose instead of six, it had been 600 Nazis. Suppose Tojo had put ashore 1,000 "kamikaze tourists" in 1941 with orders to run amok, bombing and killing, to create panic in America as soon as Japan attacked. Would each and every Nazi and Japanese saboteur have been entitled to his own separate civilian trial?

Have those demanding civilian trials for foreign terrorists thought through the logic of their position? They are saying it is permissible to drop a 15,000 pound daisy-cutter bomb on Osama bin Laden and his extended family in Kandahar, but if he makes it to U.S. soil and blows up the Sears Tower, the families of his victims must pay for his defense and his trial can be carried on Court TV.

Would prosecutors be required to permit bin Laden's lawyers to question al-Qaida defectors who betrayed him, or see raw intelligence data leading to his indictment? This is not a game we are in, but a war where the next great terrorist attack could be the detonation of an atomic weapon in an American city.

Recall: It took longer than World War II to convict and execute Timothy McVeigh. If every terrorist who slips into the United States is instantly entitled to all of McVeigh's protections and appeals, America will become a haven for terrorism, because America will be the safest place on earth to plot and ply their murderous trade.

This hostility to military tribunals is rooted in part in that 1960s radicalism exemplified by Bill Clinton's letter to his ROTC colonel, saying the best people he knew "loathed" the military.

Since Vietnam, this attitude has infected our popular culture and is reflected in films from "Dr. Strangelove" and "Seven Days in May," to "Apocalypse Now" and "Platoon." In the 1990s movie, "A Few Good Men," a wiseacre Ivy League grad (Tom Cruise) uses his cleverness to expose the fascistic militarism of the Marine officer (Jack Nicholson), who commands the detachment at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Hollywood formula is ever the same: Liberal heroes triumph over military fascists.

The line used to infer that West Pointers are somehow suspect jurors is: "Military justice is to justice what military music is to music." But who would not prefer John Philip Sousa to punk rock? And does anyone think a tribunal of Navy or Marine officers would have handed in a verdict as chowder-headed as did the O.J. jury, mesmerized by the "If-the-glove-doesn't-fit-you-must-acquit!" antics of the "Dream Team"?

But this matter can be readily resolved. Let Congress vote to outlaw military tribunals in the war on terrorism, then let voters sit in a tribunal of judgment on a malingering Congress. My guess? Capitol Hill will raise a mighty racket about military tribunals to mollify their goo-goos, but it will not dare to confront Bush. They've read the polls.

[skeeter]

I heard Harry Browne interviewed a week or two ago re: 9/11 & the war in Afghanistan.

I used to think he was credible but now I firmly believe the man is out to lunch.

[narby]

Here's one registered Libertarian and (small time) party contributor who's had it up to here with the whole bunch. Starting with Browne.

The long time policy of the Libertarian party regarding national defense has always been one of my sticking points with the party. But now that the chips are down, they're sticking with that idiotic isolationist policy. I.E. they really meant that stuff.

I haven't gotten around to re-registering, but I will soon.

[sinkspur]

I heard Harry Browne debate Sean Hannity, and Browne was reduced to a blubbering mess.

The thing is, Browne really believes what he's saying, which makes it all the scarier.

Judging from the reaction of Libertarians on this forum, Browne is finished in elective politics.

[jimt]

As another registered Libertarian, I don't see anything inconsistent between our current conduct of the war and the party's stated defense position. We were attacked (initiation of force) and we are responding appropriately to redress that attack. Don't give up on the party because of Harry. If you see an LP press release stating Harry's line, it's a different story. But right now he's speaking for himself alone, not for the LP.

[sinkspur]

Gosh. I'm bookmarking Pat's column.

It's the best thing I've read on military tribunals.

[RANGERAIRBORNE]

"Judging from the reaction of Libertarians on this forum, Browne is finished in elective politics."

What, you mean that he won't be able to get a massive 0.4% of the vote next time around??? Why, a shock like that might make the Libertarians turn to drugs!

[LibTeeth]

Sounds like the fantasy of some dope smoker, doesn't it? Harry can't fool me; he really wants to see terrorists go free. Yes, that would be a real attractive platform; just like the Republicans want to starve children and old people. I believe it.

[Les_Miserables]

Well, "member since November 6, 2001", get a grip and get lost.
I'm sick of these whipped @ss, muddy headed liberals who call themselve "Libertarians" that can't tell that their own pants are on fire. We need to get over this hypocritical crap and begin to deal bluntly and effectively with the problem. As soon as we fix it we can let these numbnuts back on ther soapboxes while we gather the tomatoes and practice our aim...and while I'm at it, where are the Libertarians when babies are being slaughtered in the name of "libertarian freedom"? You people are truly something else. As Charlie Brown said, Good Grief!

[Grut]

Odd, I thought the Constitution and Bill of Rights applied to American citizens only. Now it applies to the citizens of every country in the world?

It applies to the American government wherever it may be operating and directs its treatment of 'people' generally. It talks about 'citizens' in only a few places.

[LibTeeth]

Re: Odd, I thought the Constitution and Bill of Rights applied to American citizens only. Now it applies to the citizens of every country in the world? Guess the Brits are going to be rather upset to learn their folks now have the right to keep and bear arms.

Actually the brits do have a (historical and common law) right to keep and bear arms, their government just hasn't pledged to uphold those rights.

As to alienable rights, such as voting, those are reserved for citizens, not aliens, or the people in general. Other rights inherent in "the people" and pre-existing the social contract such as the right of free association, free speech, and the right to self defense (and the arms necessary for such)do in fact apply to non-citizens, at least theoretically, and have been historically upheld in rare instances. But since the Bill of Rights has been turned into a Chinese menu by both the left and the right, these are all just theoretical considerations by and large.

Once we regard rights as something government grants they become turned into priviledges. I pray we all stay in the priviledged ranks, but I know that leviathan prefers variety in it's diet. Right now the beast is barely dipping it's fingers into the appetizers. The smug amongst us may soon find we are being set up to be the main course. Time will tell, but the trend in US affairs is away from individual freedom and towards more interventionism. Better hope these new modes sunset before the next liberal regime pendulums back into office or else the slope might just fall off quicker than any of us can now imagine.

[agincourt1415]

RangerAirbourne: I agree with you and thank you for serving in the FINEST Army in the World, in an Elite Corps of fighters.

Plus the really great thing about a Military Proceeding is that after the trial and convictions - and review by Clarence Thomas at the Supreme Court - they get taken out and Shot - end of story - Brown get with the program - this is WAR.

[LibTeeth]

Monsier Miserable, you have my vote for self appointed czar of the right to free speech, free association, and free expression. I've been a member far a tad longer. May I please continue to stand on my soapbox? Will you "let" me?

Now, we could discuss the ideas here, but lobbing turds is far more satisfying. Lately the bananas have really been getting ripe around this Republic. Missileboy, I believe you "just got the goodbye look".

[zandtar]

It applies to the American government wherever it may be operating and directs its treatment of 'people' generally. It talks about 'citizens' in only a few places.

And who does the American government govern?

[Grut]

And who does the American government govern?

Anybody it lays its hands on.

I know a lot of Freepers want SUDDENLY to believe that rights come from the Constitution but trust me, wishing doesn't make it so. Fortunately.

[RANGERAIRBORNE]

"they get taken out and Shot - end of story "

Yes- how's THAT for "closure"?

RULE .303- works every time it's tried. (BTW, Agincourt- how about those French? What great fighters! I don't remember the exact score at Agincourt, but it was in the neighborhood of 5,000 to 20, I believe).

[missileboy]

The screen name is fitting - you exhibit the hospitality of the French. I guess somehow ideas here are judged by the standard of how long one has been a member of the "good ol' boy network". If that's the case you'd be happier at a site where you can control the membership and hence the dialogue. You wouldn't have to worry about real debate since you wouldn't find any of 'da boys' disagreeing with you.

But I wouldn't expect anything less from one who simply parrots meaningless terms, showing pitiful ignorance of any political understaning.

I'm sick of these whipped @ss, muddy headed liberals who call themselve "Libertarians"

I'm sure you come across a lot of 'liberals' who hide under the libertarian label. I hear that's pretty common these days. BTW, please define liberal in true political terms, (and not through more name-calling in the interest of avoiding the question.) Please explain how one could be a liberal libertarian. Would Thomas Jefferson and the other founders who meticulously devised our court system be liberals, Libertarians, or Liberal Libertarians?

We need to get over this hypocritical crap.

Agreed. The rule of law is much to much of a pain in the a** when it's time to just act on emotion and do what we 'feel' like. Ever occur to you that maybe if we had followed the rule of law before, our pants might not be on fire? Probably not, you were probably more interested in how we could get Clinton out of office for getting his noodle wet.

Where are the Libertarians when babies are being slaughtered in the name of "libertarian freedom"?

We're on the sidelines saying, "Once again the new world order has decided to claim Kosovo as the next target" while America either blames it all on Clinton (avoiding the problem with the system) or yells, USA, USA!. We are the few who point out that while US forces are dying in Somalia for a b.s. mission, 800,000 plus are being slaughtered in Rwanda within a few months - and the citizens of this country, not being independent enough to avail themselves of this, (since the trusty media didn't think that much of a story) can't even begin to explain where Rwanda is, being victims of public education. Or maybe they're pointing out another statist venture gone awry in Nicaragua as US special forces and the terrorist contras blow up bridges, attack medical institutions, lay mines in harbors and attack peasant farmers to instill fear in the populace in the name of freedom. Of course, you "conservatives" think that's ay-OK because the president has an (R) in front of his name.

[missileboy]

I heard Harry Browne debate Sean Hannity, and Browne was reduced to a blubbering mess.

Yeah, Hannity must have been proud to have won that debate by hitting the mute button and not letting Browne speak. That's excellence in broadcasting. Same thing when D'Amato filled in for Hannity on TV.