Posted on 11/21/2001 9:29:08 AM PST by Croooow
WHO PUT WHAT IN BOB BARRS CHEERIOS?
Sometimes I just cant figure that guy out. Right now hes on a tear about this military tribunals thing. Barr doesnt like it, and I frankly dont understand why.
Ive read the Presidents Executive Order. I agree that there are some troubling aspects there we can tear those apart later. Right now lets deal with this military tribunal thing in the context of Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorists.
Lets say that some of our Special Forces guys are wandering around Ashcanistan and here comes Osama holding his hands high hes giving up. At this point our guys have four real options.
The best option? Kill the SOB. A gut shot, not one of those Special Forces headshots. Let the bastard suffer.
But, lets say he lives and is captured. Look more closely at the options.
A UN Trial.
Oh this would be just wonderful. Since the day the United Nations was formed it has been unfriendly toward the United States. In recent decades the UN has been nothing less than an US taxpayer funded soapbox for every petty dictator and activist in the world who has a gripe against America.
Of late the UN has become more than an international anti-American soapbox. The UN is feeling quite bold right now. Just a few months before the terrorist attacks the UN chastised the State of Arizona for going forward with an execution the UN didnt want to happen. The UN actually stated that Arizona was subject to the mandates of the UN courts and that election had been illegally conducted.
Also, have you ever paid attention to the UNs signature document when it comes to human rights? This human rights treaty was touted by Bill Clinton as the finest document in support of freedom in the history of the world. Others might feel that honor belongs to the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution. But, no. Clinton says the UN Human Rights Declaration is Numero Uno! Without belaboring this point you might be interested to know that the UN Human Rights Declaration clearly states that humans have NO rights when it comes to the goals and purposes of the United Nations.
So .. try Bin Laden or some other terrorists captured in Afghanistan before a UN court? A UN court is an anti-American court. The trial would turn into a spectacle wherein the great unwashed would parade in front of international television camera to denounce America as the true terrorist Nation. The actual trial of the terrorists would only be a subplot to the anti-American agenda on center stage.
Try him in a US Court.
As soon as we drag that dirt bag over to the United States he immediately earns the protection of the United States Constitution. Yup thats right. As long as the terrorist (or any other criminal, for that matter) is (a) not an American citizen and (b) not physically in America, he is not entitled to the protection of our Constitution. No right to an attorney. No right to a jury trial. No right to confront his witnesses. No right to appeal. But once theyre here, all bets are off.
Can you just imagine a trial on American soil of Osama Bin Laden? Who would want to serve on that jury? Every juror would be a marked man or woman for the rest of their lives --- IF, that is, they voted to convict. Osama is very media savvy. He would seize the opportunity to turn the trial into a spectacle of anti-Americanism. Why do we want to invite such a spectacle to take place right here at home?
A Military Tribunal
George Washington did it. So did Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. Washington and Lincoln did it on American soil with American defendants. The Supreme Court passed on it. No problem.
There is no law, no court ruling, no precedent which confers rights under the United States Constitution on non-citizens who commit crimes overseas.
Look, the young men and women we sent over there in the American uniforms dont get full constitutional protection if they commit a crime while in our armed services. Theyre subject to the Uniform Code of Military Conduct. Isnt it somewhat strange that those opposed to military tribunals for the terrorists want them to enjoy more rights than our own military men would have?
I do have a theory about those on the left who oppose the tribunal idea. They WANT an anti-American spectacle. They know a terrorist trial especially one of Bin Laden would be the media event of the decade. What a time for them to wheel out their anti-American agenda?
But how does that explain Bob Barr?
And I really don't like the idea that the decision about whom to use this against lies solely with one man, with no avenue for appeal.
I think the fact that you trust President Bush to use this power wisely, obscures the fact that it is not a power he should command. Unless it is a power that you believe should belong to every president, and every other nation's leader, I don't see why you think we should entrust it to Bush.
To claim this power as our sole perogative weakens our claim that we are a lawful, just and free nation.
Be it resolved that the die-hard Clinton defenders have NO right to complain about military tribunals.
If Osama kills in waging war on our nation do we send the FBI and NY Police after him? No, we wage War.
I have to disagree with this option too, the best way is for us to find him shot in the back by one of his own.
Do we treat drug-law offenders the same way? We have an alleged "War on Drugs."
Under what conditions can we legitimately say we are at war? Does Congress have any say? If we don't formally declare war, do we allow the Executive Branch to apply wartime rules when it's convenient, and ignore them when not?
It's our responsibility to hold our leaders to some degree of consistency and adherence to the rule of law. The Constitution is quite explicit as to what must happen before we are at War.
That's precisely why we should oppose due process issues being dealt with in secret. If they were to conduct the tribunals publicly, and use them only for individuals apprehended abroad, I would be a lot less troubled (see #28 above.)
You replyed:
And you would be correct.
I would say you are missing some distinctions. What you cite applies to Combatants. Non-combatants have protections as well. However, a commander who has his opposition fleeing the battlefield is not a war criminal if a fleeing soldier is killed, un-armed, just by the simple claim by others that there was efforts to surrender underway. Soldiers laying down their weapons and surrendering aren't to be killed -- they become POWs.
A head terrorist or sabatour is always unarmed when trying to conceal his involvment. He is not protected in the same way.
The problem with secrecy is that we don't know how much care is being used in deciding just who is and who is not "the people's enemy."
How would we know? I don't think the record indicates that we've done very well with "trust me" from our government.
I love it!
I think it's clear that the 4th Amendment refers to persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. -- has nothing to do with enemy soldiers in time of war. I don't think you mean to be saying that the U.S. military is now at war with individuals in the U.S., do you?
Two words: Law School.
Yes, I know Boortz is a lawyer but most people do not survive the mental lobotomy performed on them by the professors.
Hell they don't. A military defendent has the right to an attorney, he has the right to confront his accuser, et al. What do you think the Judge Advocate General Corps is for? If things were the way Mr. Boortz seems to think they are, there would be no need for military lawyers.
So's a show trial or a trial before a kangaroo court. I don't think you'd want to go there.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.I feel he has to play the card game with what he has been dealt. He may have helped shuffle back 3 days after the event, but talk of non-authorization leaving him out on his lonesome without a formal declaration flys in the face of what he was authorized by Congress to do, and to do in preety broad terms.(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
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.