Abandoning the Constitution to Military Tribunals

Village Voice ^ | 11/21/01 | Nat Hentoff

[dead]

Now would you care to address at least one of the points or questions I posed in #79?

You asked one question in #79, and I answered it. I think the course we took in convicting the WTC bombers was a good model.

Here's another question, do you support the killing of the Taliban and Al Quaeda currently taking place in Afghanistan?

Without a doubt. They are military combatants, clearly engaged in battle with our troops. I hope we kill every last one of them.

Regarding people caught on American soil, I favor a trial by jury. If it can be proven (I don’t know what mechanism can be used) that they are agents of a foreign government or military, then a military tribunal can be used. Though I’d still prefer a jury trial with defense lawyers and an airing of the evidence. It strengthens our hand when demanding the same rights for our citizens or soldiers on foreign soil.

This order, as it is written, establishes the concept that the leader of a government can imprison a foreign national, try them without defense lawyers, introduce secret evidence that the accused cannot see or refute, and execute them upon conclusion.

I don’t know why you can’t recognize that that is a bad international precedent to establish.

[jwalsh07]

Congress gave Bush an authorization to do what is necessary. The War Powers Act of 1973 would seem to indicate that that decrees the same power as a Declaration of War....... I think.

II. War Powers Resolution (1973)

The Constitutional powers of the President as Commander In Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by circumstances are exercised only pursuant to

(1) a declaration of war,
(2) statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories, possessions or Armed Forces.

[dead]

Hyperbolic BS.

It is what the order says. Read it.

[Askel5]

It's not there ... goes from one on November 6th to one authorizing state of emergency "construction" powers on November 16th.

I guess they don't catalogue the ones where he's just re-upping whatever Clinton said. Those don't appear either but are detailed in full in the daily briefs of the past week.

[deport]

I posted the order in reply #46 on this thread.... It is to be published in the FED REG... It isn't an EO as I read it.....

[hocndoc]

Agreed, Mr. Henthoff gave a balanced, reasonable, referenced opinion on the problems with the military tribunals.

How many Executive Orders have been repealed by their authors or the next President?

Would you want Hillary Rodham Clinton to have this power?

[CA Conservative]

Something about 'for the people, of the people , and by the people' which make MTs very wrong.

There are a few people who would be surprised to hear that - like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, etc...

[Askel5]

I missed your #46, sorry.

I find "bushcountry.org"'s Rest assured the ACLU and liberal organizations will fight this a bit rich. Starting to understand why so many around here are running around bleating about "bleeding hearts" everytime someone points out the letter of our Constitution.

Thanks for the redirect.

[nagdt]

...and the vast right wing conspiracy moves on.

Perhaps soon an oh so great liberal whiner will again park his/her trailer outside the White House and take this country further down the road to anarchy.

GWB is a great president and the Village Voice is a POS.

[DSH]

If Bush were to use tribunals to try citizens or to punish other crimes, then you might have some reason to object. But the fact of the matter is, the tribunals are legal, constitutional, a common tool in every war, and even acknowledged in international law.

Interestingly, if one believes that the constitutionality of this sort of military tribunal is established by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), then the distinction that Bush's Executive Order draws between citizens and non-citizens is arguably irrelevant, from the standpoint of constitutional permissibility. One of the accused in the Quirin case, a man by the name of Haupt, while of German descent, contended that he was a naturalized American citizen (although this issue was apparently not free from doubt).

Given the basis for its ruling, the Court found it unnecessary to address the matter of Haupt's putative American citizenship. In this regard, I direct your attention to this passage from the Quirin decision:

"Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war. Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war. Cf. Gates v. Goodloe, 101 U.S. 612, 615 , 617 S., 618. It is as an enemy belligerent that petitioner Haupt is charged with entering the United States, and unlawful belligerency is the gravamen of the offense of which he is accused."

317 U.S. at 37-38.

[moonman]

Sorry if I didn't qualify my statement, I was referring to this portion of the post .... "In view of Congress's yielding most of what John Ashcroft wanted in his and Bush's anti-terrorism bill—despite the damage to the Bill of Rights—its members, concerned with being reelected in this time of terrorism, are not likely, with a few exceptions, to rise to the defense of American values and laws."

Congress, as well as President Bush, has been stripping us of freedoms we enjoyed before 9/11. As Ben Franklin said (close to quote) over 220 years ago, 'Whenever we trade freedom for security, we stand to lose both!'

[Lurking Libertarian]

"The Court has another chance now to teach the president that he is not above the law. Tell that to you representatives and senators—now!"

Does this moron know that it WAS the REPRESENTATIVES and SENATORS that DREW UP the bill, PASSED IT, and THEN sent it to President Bush to become law?

Nope, this was an Executive Order, never passed by Congress.

[agave]

Relax, Nat. Only the bad guys need worry about this. If you are a law-abiding American citizen, this doesn't affect you. If you are not a terrorist, or someone who is aiding and abetting terrorists, this doesn't affect you.

[hocndoc]

exactly. How do we protest the Afghan's arrest, trial, and execution of the Christian "subversives"?

[Dane]

The reasaon for Military Tribunals, Mr. Hentoff

[moonman]

See post #113 .... hmmmmmm ... UNCLE! hahaha

[Native American Female Vet]

Only Congress has the power to set up tribunals. Its in the constitution Article 1 Section 8. No matter how right or wrong the tribunal is Bush was not the one to to do it.

[VaBthang4]

[hocndoc]

I agree with you. Mr. Henthoff is consistantly pro-life. And willing to buck his former leftist associates by not being silent where he disagrees with them.

Besides the Fourth amendment, we're supposedly fighting for the freedom to peacefully dissent. Even when the majority disagrees with us.

Thank God for America's freedom.