Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Abandoning the Constitution to Military Tribunals
Village Voice ^ | 11/21/01 | Nat Hentoff

Posted on 11/20/2001 11:10:54 AM PST by dead

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 281-284 next last
To: avenir
I read a piece in TIME (!) which said that the President's authority to do so was "well established". Anyone have any experience in this area?

Nope, I've never been President.

41 posted on 11/20/2001 11:50:33 AM PST by SGCOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: avenir
I've seen several pieces pertaining to such extraordinary actions in past crises, so I just view this angst by the lamestream media as something they decided to pick up to wail and whine about.

These are extraordinary times, and they call for extraordinary measures. I'm glad Dubya has the cajones to take this action; I tremble to think what AlBoreGore would have done.

My personal opinion: Toss some CHEESE to these village idiots to go with their WHINE!

42 posted on 11/20/2001 11:51:07 AM PST by bureaucrud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: avenir
I read a piece in TIME (!) which said that the President's authority to do so was "well established". Anyone have any experience in this area?

Nope, I've never been President.

43 posted on 11/20/2001 11:52:08 AM PST by SGCOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Dirtboy, you make some excellent points, and you word it all masterfully let me add, though, I have to say I'm in agreement with the Prez and Ashcroft. I did stop to ask myself "how will I feel if another Clinton gets in office and has these same powers".

Clinton, the "bent one" claimed powers he didn't have and placed himself above the law for 8 years. It just seems to me that when a criminal occupies the WH, it won't matter what precedent is or is not there, they'll do what they want to do. Let's hope the public has learned that character really does matter.

44 posted on 11/20/2001 11:52:45 AM PST by Media2Powerful
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: dead
"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?

45 posted on 11/20/2001 11:53:12 AM PST by moonman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

The order that is being discussed........

President Bush's Order:

Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism.

By the authority vested in me as President and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution (Public Law 107-40, 115 Stat. 224) and sections 821 and 836 of title 10, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  Findings.

(a)  International terrorists, including members of al Qaida, have carried out attacks on United States diplomatic and military personnel and facilities abroad and on citizens and property within the United States on a scale that has created a state of armed conflict that requires the use of the United States Armed Forces.

(b)  In light of grave acts of terrorism and threats of terrorism, including the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, on the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense in the national capital region, on the World Trade Center in New York, and on civilian aircraft such as in Pennsylvania, I proclaimed a national emergency on September 14, 2001 (Proc. 7463, Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks).

(c)  Individuals acting alone and in concert involved in international terrorism possess both the capability and the intention to undertake further terrorist attacks against the United States that, if not detected and prevented, will cause mass deaths, mass injuries, and massive destruction of property, and may place at risk the continuity of the operations of the United States Government.

(d)  The ability of the United States to protect the United States and its citizens, and to help its allies and other cooperating nations protect their nations and their citizens, from such further terrorist attacks depends in significant part upon using the United States Armed Forces to identify terrorists and those who support them, to disrupt their activities, and to eliminate their ability to conduct or support such attacks.

(e)  To protect the United States and its citizens, and for the effective conduct of military operations and prevention of terrorist attacks, it is necessary for individuals subject to this order pursuant to section 2 hereof to be detained, and, when tried, to be tried for violations of the laws of war and other applicable laws by military tribunals.

(f)  Given the danger to the safety of the United States and the nature of international terrorism, and to the extent provided by and under this order, I find consistent with section 836 of title 10, United States Code, that it is not practicable to apply in military commissions under this order the principles of law and the rules of evidence generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts.

(g)  Having fully considered the magnitude of the potential deaths, injuries, and property destruction that would result from potential acts of terrorism against the United States, and the probability that such acts will occur, I have determined that an extraordinary emergency exists for national defense purposes, that this emergency constitutes an urgent and compelling govern-ment interest, and that issuance of this order is necessary to meet the emergency.

Sec. 2.  Definition and Policy.

(a)  The term "individual subject to this order" shall mean any individual who is not a United States citizen with respect to whom I determine from time to time in writing that:

(1)  there is reason to believe that such individual, at the relevant times,

(i) is or was a member of the organization known as al Qaida;

(ii) has engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit, acts of international terrorism, or acts in preparation therefore,  that have caused, threaten to cause, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy, or economy; or

(iii) has knowingly harbored one or more individuals described in subparagraphs (i) or (ii) of subsection 2(a)(1) of this order; and

(2)  it is in the interest of the United States that such individual be subject to this order.

(b)  It is the policy of the United States that the Secretary of Defense shall take all necessary measures to ensure that any individual subject to this order is detained in accordance with section 3, and, if the individual is to be tried, that such individual is tried only in accordance with section 4.

(c)  It is further the policy of the United States that any individual subject to this order who is not already under the control of the Secretary of Defense but who is under the control of any other officer or agent of the United States or any State shall, upon delivery of a copy of such written determination to such officer or agent, forthwith be placed under the control of the Secretary of Defense.

Sec. 3.  Detention Authority of the Secretary of Defense.  Any individual subject to this order shall be --

(a)  detained at an appropriate location designated by the Secretary of Defense outside or within the United States;

(b)  treated humanely, without any adverse distinction based on race, color, religion, gender, birth, wealth, or any similar criteria;

(c)  afforded adequate food, drinking water, shelter, clothing, and medical treatment;

(d)  allowed the free exercise of religion consistent with the requirements of such detention; and

(e)  detained in accordance with such other conditions as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe.

Sec. 4.  Authority of the Secretary of Defense Regarding Trials of Individuals Subject to this Order.

(a)  Any individual subject to this order shall, when tried, be tried by military commission for any and all offenses triable by military commission that such individual is alleged to have committed, and may be punished in accordance with the penalties provided under applicable law, including life imprisonment or death.

(b)  As a military function and in light of the findings in section 1, including subsection (f) thereof, the Secretary of Defense shall issue such orders and regulations, including orders for the appointment of one or more military commissions, as may be necessary to carry out subsection (a) of this section.

(c)  Orders and regulations issued under subsection (b) of this section shall include, but not be limited to, rules for the conduct of the proceedings of military commissions, including pretrial, trial, and post-trial procedures, modes of proof, issuance of process, and qualifications of attorneys, which shall at a minimum provide for --

(1)  military commissions to sit at any time and any place, consistent with such guidance regarding time and place as the Secretary of Defense may provide;

(2)  a full and fair trial, with the military commission sitting as the triers of both fact and law;

(3)  admission of such evidence as would, in the opinion of the presiding officer of the military commission (or instead, if any other member of the commission so requests at the time the presiding officer renders that opinion, the opinion of the commission rendered at that time by a majority of the commission), have probative value to a reasonable person;

(4)  in a manner consistent with the protection of information classified or classifiable under Executive Order 12958 of April 17, 1995, as amended, or any successor Executive Order, protected by statute or rule from unauthorized disclosure, or otherwise protected by law, (A) the handling of, admission into evidence of, and access to materials and information, and (B) the conduct, closure of, and access to proceedings;

(5)  conduct of the prosecution by one or more attorneys designated by the Secretary of Defense and conduct of the defense by attorneys for the individual subject to this order;

(6)  conviction only upon the concurrence of two-thirds of the members of the commission present at the time of the vote, a majority being present;

(7)  sentencing only upon the concurrence of two-thirds of the members of the commission present at the time of the vote, a majority being present; and

(8)  submission of the record of the trial, including any conviction or sentence, for review and final decision by me or by the Secretary of Defense if so designated by me for that purpose.

Sec. 5.  Obligation of Other Agencies to Assist the Secretary of Defense.

Departments, agencies, entities, and officers of the United States shall, to the maximum extent permitted by law, provide to the Secretary of Defense such assistance as he may request to implement this order.

Sec. 6.  Additional Authorities of the Secretary of Defense.

(a)  As a military function and in light of the findings in section 1, the Secretary of Defense shall issue such orders and regulations as may be necessary to carry out any of the provisions of this order.

(b)  The Secretary of Defense may perform any of his functions or duties, and may exercise any of the powers provided to him under this order (other than under section 4(c)(8) hereof) in accordance with section 113(d) of title 10, United States Code.

Sec. 7.  Relationship to Other Law and Forums.

(a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to --

(1)  authorize the disclosure of state secrets to any person not otherwise authorized to have access to them;

(2)  limit the authority of the President as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces or the power of the President to grant reprieves and pardons; or

(3)  limit the lawful authority of the Secretary of Defense, any military commander, or any other officer or agent of the United States or of any State to detain or try any person who is not an individual subject to this order.

(b) With respect to any individual subject to this order --

(1) military tribunals shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to offenses by the individual; and

(2) the individual shall not be privileged to seek any remedy or maintain any proceeding, directly or indirectly, or to have any such remedy or proceeding sought on the individual's behalf, in (i) any court of the United States, or any State thereof, (ii) any court of any foreign nation, or (iii) any international tribunal.

(c)  This order is not intended to and does not create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by any party, against the United States, its departments, agencies, or other entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

(d)  For purposes of this order, the term "State" includes any State, district, territory, or possession of the United States.

(e)  I reserve the authority to direct the Secretary of Defense, at any time hereafter, to transfer to a governmental authority control of any individual subject to this order.  Nothing in this order shall be construed to limit the authority of any such governmental authority to prosecute any individual for whom control is transferred.

Sec. 8.  Publication.

This order shall be published in the Federal Register.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

November 13, 2001.


46 posted on 11/20/2001 11:54:14 AM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: dead
I think you misspelled the name of the source. Shouldn't that have been "Idiot" instead of "Voice".

Memo to N. Hentoff: Your village called; they need their idiot back. Please check in with them.

47 posted on 11/20/2001 11:54:31 AM PST by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Media2Powerful
Thanks, I do agree with the concept of tribunals and disagree with Hentoff on that point - but we should recognize their potential danger and allow Constitutional checks and balances to mute that danger.
48 posted on 11/20/2001 11:55:27 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Media2Powerful
Let's hope the public has learned that character really does matter.

And let’s hope the unicorns can once again play under magical rainbows…

49 posted on 11/20/2001 11:55:42 AM PST by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: jedi
The fool wouldn't fight with the knife he had for fear of cutting himself, so he was killed.
50 posted on 11/20/2001 11:59:46 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: dead
To dead,Mr Hentoff never got past the first part of the First Amendment.It's he who is ignorant of The US Costitution!He has also got"W" incorrectly identified.The "Lawless President"left on Jan 20th,2001!!!
51 posted on 11/20/2001 12:00:40 PM PST by bandleader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
OOPS!

I didn't reread it before I posted it. I read it the other day and thought she covered both subjects. It was somewhere else then that I heard or read the discussion on the military tribunals. Maybe it was on Fox Sunday.

This is one of those times I wish I had just shut my mouth (fingers)

I still disagree with Hentoff and think he's a jerk in this article. </participation on this thread> LOL. Thanks, btw, for being a much nicer person than dead.

52 posted on 11/20/2001 12:00:55 PM PST by Media2Powerful
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Media2Powerful
Hey, we're on the same side, but we should never forget the last eight years - as much as I like Bush, we still need to maintain the checks and balances of the Constitution - if not for protection against Bush, then for protection against his successors...
53 posted on 11/20/2001 12:04:44 PM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
I agree that there are some vaild concerns with the tribunals...but it is over the top to call Bush a lawless president, and this kind of "concerned" thinking usually flows from the mouths of those who want to free cop killers. As for the tribunals themselves, can you imagine if these terrorist were in the courts afforded to OUR CITIZENS the circus that the Johny Cockran types would make of it?
54 posted on 11/20/2001 12:04:53 PM PST by Moby Grape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember
I think you misspelled the name of the source. Shouldn't that have been "Idiot" instead of "Voice". Memo to N. Hentoff: Your village called; they need their idiot back. Please check in with them.

Can you refute what Hentoff says here? It's astonishing to see how many posters blindly follow the actions of a Republican president, when a Democrat president would have been excoriated for the exact same thing.

55 posted on 11/20/2001 12:04:56 PM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Impeach the Boy
but it is over the top to call Bush a lawless president

Actually, dead did that - he changed the title. Hentoff's title was "Abandoning the Constitution to Military Tribunals"...

56 posted on 11/20/2001 12:07:41 PM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: dead
During his terms as governor of Texas, George W. Bush made it clear that he was dangerously ignorant of the Constitution—not only denying due process to the record number of people he executed but also refusing effective counsel to indigent inmates of Texas prisons.

All of those prisoners executed did have appeals, and the Federal Courts found no problem with them. Moreover the Supreme Court has twice ruled military tribunals constiturional for those who commited acts of war against the US, under both Lincoln and FDR. Mr Hentoff's constitutional expertise seems a good deal more questionalbe that President Bush's.

57 posted on 11/20/2001 12:08:19 PM PST by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Hentoff says it is by EO in his article:

I made the same mistake when bashing it the other day; that's why I mentioned it. No trace of it in the Federal Register.

Rather, it's like some Commander In Chief memo or something.

58 posted on 11/20/2001 12:15:17 PM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
Can you refute what Hentoff says here?

Hentoff's first sentence was so idiotic as to demolish any credibility for anything else he had to say. The ridiculous rant about Bush's tenure as governor showing him to be ignorant of the constitution and the executions denying due process to convicted murderers showed Hentoff to have the same intellectual prowess as Danny Glover.

59 posted on 11/20/2001 12:19:16 PM PST by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: dead
I agree with Hentoff most of the time, but he's cuckoo here.

"The only times that military tribunals have been permitted in the past have been in a declared war with respect to enemy aliens—people who are involved in fighting against us in a declared war on behalf of a nation with which we're at war."

So people who perform the identical acts receive a higher standard of consideration if they're working freelance rather than for a country with which we're at war? That doesn't make any sense at all. If anything it should be the reverse.

Anyway, if the Congressional Resolution isn't the functional equivalent of a declaration of war, I don't know what would be. The Constitution doesn't delineate the precise form required for Congress to use its war powers. The entire Civil War was fought without a Declaration of War, and saboteurs and spies were dealt with harshly (by both sides).

60 posted on 11/20/2001 12:22:21 PM PST by Restorer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 281-284 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson