Posted on 11/01/2001 3:58:19 AM PST by Polybius
HA!
Ahhh...sure, gumbo.
But look; be a good fellow, now.At least tell CPowell he has 'till the end of the week to clean out his desk, & turn in his keys to the Men's Room, anyway.
Would *only* be Hoyle to the ol' General...
My prediction is that some 16-year old Pashtun rifle company commander is going to show up with a few of his 14-year old friends (who have 20 years combat experience between them) holding a bloody sack wanting to know where their 10-million American dollars are before they'll let anyone take a peek inside the bag.
My suggestion to whomever it is that these kids choose to contact not have a smart look on their face when they meet them.
Just pay them the money and let them know that there are businessmen in the UK, Germany, and California who said they'd add to the pile.
These kids will want gold too. Paper money isn't going to cut it.
like the line from the movie 'one eyed jacks' when karl malden told marlon brando:
'oh, i'll give you a fair trial.....and then i'm going to hang you'! (take note tali-terrorists)
Personally, I am opposed to the death penalty, but in the case of acts of war the perpetrators are entitled to the fruits of war.
The American people have suffered enough. The is no just reason to require the American people to make a case against an openly avowed foreign enemy who seeks death for Americans.
We have no obligation to offer the enemy the opportunity to seek our mercy.
We are a sovereign nation. We have the right to our own justice and our own defense. Surrender that, and you will have world-order tyranny.
Like most of Paul's bills, it won't even get a hearing in committee.
Who decides if the civilian is a foreign enemy or not?
If a legal alien is arrested and charged with a cime, who decides whether or not he is to be tried before a military tribunal? And, to whom does he appeal this decision?
"The Nazis sought to halt the proceedings with habeas corpus petitions, claiming that since the state and federal criminal courts were available, the military tribunal had no jurisdiction. The Supreme Court rejected the claims, and let the military tribunal's convictions of the men for violating the laws of war, spying and conspiracy stand. The Supreme Court noted:"The … enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed … to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."
Since Congress hasn't declared war and there is no Constitutional prohibition against the use of military tribunals to address terrorism such as the September 11th attack, it is imperative for Congress to pass a law authorizing the use of Military tribunals against the terrorists who committed these atrocities.
Our criminal justice system is not equipped to handle terrorism of this scale, as the 1993 World Trade Center bombing cases showed. First, the threat of terrorist retaliation against jurors could result in not guilty verdicts based on juror fear, rather than lack of incriminating evidence. Secondly, sometimes relevant evidence may not be presented to the juries because of national security concerns. Finally, we cannot overlook the clear danger of gullible juries bamboozled by legal chicanery from unscrupulous lawyers like the O.J. "dream team." These problems would not be a factor with military tribunals. Furthermore, military personnel are trained to deal with war criminals. Military tribunals are far better equipped than regular criminal juries to render impartial and just verdicts in these types of cases.
It's not really a question of "civilians". It's a question of "foreign enemy." The tribunal decides if the individual is quilty of participation in/ or conspiracy to commit acts of war.
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.