Appropriate Justice for Terrorists:Using Military Tribunals Rather Than Criminal Courts

FindLaw.com ^ | Sep. 28, 2001 | John Dean

[gatorman]

John Valentine said . . . "At the same rime, a formal Declaration of War would not be out of order."

The ability to declare war against a non-nation has been the subject of much controversy. But many Congress critters want to be able to give President Bush the congressional authority to carry out hostilities against terrorist groups as he sees fit.

A Declaration of War would automatically invoke the War Powers Act and allow him to effectively use military tribunals as one measure, however, he would not be limited to just that means. Marshall Law could delegate those powers to civilian, government elected or appointed officials.

I am for the use of military tribunals - give 'em a fair trial, then go out and shoot the bas*ards (if found guilty).

FReeregards . . .

[AuntB]

Thanks for the ping, packrat. I think this is only logical. This is a military (as in WAR) problem, not some bow tied bunch of attorneys.

[Syncro]

There needs to be a clear line.

There isn't.

That's the problem here.

Anyone could be declared a terrorist, just on an anonomous declaration.

[eureka!]

Bump.

[Colt .45]

"In the long run all governments abuse their power. That is why our culture and system of government is under such attack from within."

That's why you have these four boxes ...

1. The "soapbox"

2. The Ballot box

3. The Jury box

4. The cartridge box.

And they must be used in that order!

[Sabertooth]

Put me down as one who welcomes the idea of military tribunals in principle, but opposes it until war is formally declared.

I understand the the need may arise during wartime to suspend some civil liberties. Hence the need to formally declare a beginning and and end to that state of war.

If anyone wants to accuse me of unnecessary quibbling, my response would be, "Why the unnecessary quibbling over a formal Declaration of War?"

[Alas]

Constitutional Rights are only guaranteed to citizen owners of the USA.

It is about time we understood that and I am happy to see that it has even sunk into the thick heads of office holding public servants.

Nukem

[Landru]

"Btw, I'm not a legal beagle."

Maybe not; but did you sleep in a Holiday Express last night?

That's the question.

[Dan Day]

Constitutional Rights are only guaranteed to citizen owners of the USA.

Absolutely not true, both from a judicial perspective (i.e., countless court decisions are clear on the fact that non-citizens *ARE* guaranteed constitutional rights), and from a philosophical perspective (the American system is founded on the concept that these rights are "endowed by the creator" to all people, and not just people with American citizenship).

[Twodees]

A declaration of war would make military tribunals perfectly acceptable. Military tribunals in wartime have jurisdiction over non-citizens in cases under military jurisdiction and do not deprive citizens of access to civil courts for civil offenses.

Military tribunals are illegitimate without either a declaration of war or establishment of martial law.

[Alas]

Can't declare war, terrorism isn't limited to countries we could now name, But the Constitution does allow for:

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; Article One Section Eight #11

But, does congress have either the guts or the moral fortitude to grant letters of marque and reprisal ?

Only time will tell, but I some how think that the leftist commies in the congress and the senate will once again rule the day.

So, maybe we had just better go ahead and try the terrorist by military tribunal.

Nukem

[Alas]

Show me where in either the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence where the foudners are addressing other than those who will make up the country, the citizen owners.

Nukem

[Sabertooth]

Can't declare war, terrorism isn't limited to countries we could now name...

Is there a Constitutional requirement that we have to name them? I haven't heard of it, nor have any of the Constitutional scholars I've heard discuss the subject suggest that there is.

We can declare war on "terrorists and the states that harbor them." We can issue the declaration in such a way that we can later name the states was we see fit.

I understand that this is still fairly open-ended, but at least less so than what we have now. Absent that, I'd be willing to consider your "marque and reprisal" suggestion.

Either way, what we have now is insufficient protection for any suspension of civil liberties. We need to do this right, and the failure to do so has been one of the few glaring shortcomings of President Bush's handling of the War on Terror.

[goodieD]

Am I missing something here? Why is everyone so happy about this? Won't it waste time and cost money? Can't we just kill them? Wouldn't that send a better message to any future terrorists?

[Dan Day]

Show me where in either the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence where the foudners are addressing other than those who will make up the country, the citizen owners.

Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

What part of "all men" are you having trouble with?

Constitution:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

"All men" have rights. The Constitution protects those rights.

It is a sham to claim that you believe in rights, and then cavalierly attempt to deny them to anyone who isn't a US citizen.

[Gumlegs]

All of what you post is true, however, it is also true that the Constitution stops at our borders.

[gumbo]

Maybe not; but did you sleep in a Holiday Express last night?

Ha, no, but I will tomorrow night! (Honest Injun, we're going to pick up our daughter from college in Pennsylvania tomorrow, and that's where we're staying.) Look for super-brilliance emanating from me this weekend.

[StoneColdGOP]

Screw terrorists' legal rights.

Shoot them in the head upon capture.

[ohioWfan]

Meaning the courts are under military rule; and not constitutional.

And those being tried in them will be foreign terrorists, not Americans. No constitutional rights are involved because they will be non-citizens.

[ohioWfan]

You guys better watch what you wish for because you're probably going to get it.

What............justice??

One way or the other, the Bush administration is going to bring these terrorists to justice (or justice to them). Those who are still alive at the end of this war (hopefully the number will be small) will be brought to trial and receive appropriate punishment............ Count on it.