WHO PUT WHAT IN BOB BARR'S CHEERIOS?

Nealz Nuze ^ | 11/21/01 | Neal Boortz

[Croooow]

WHO PUT WHAT IN BOB BARR’S CHEERIOS?

Sometimes I just can’t figure that guy out. Right now he’s on a tear about this military tribunals thing. Barr doesn’t like it, and I frankly don’t understand why.

I’ve read the President’s Executive Order. I agree that there are some troubling aspects there …we can tear those apart later. Right now let’s deal with this military tribunal thing in the context of Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorists.

Let’s say that some of our Special Forces guys are wandering around Ashcanistan and here comes Osama holding his hands high … he’s giving up. At this point our guys have four real options.

• Kill the SOB right there where he stands.
  
• Turn him over to the United Nations to be tried before the world court.
  
• Bring him back to the United States to be tried in a U.S. Federal Court.
  
• Try him before a military tribunal.

  The best option? Kill the SOB. A gut shot, not one of those Special Forces headshots. Let the bastard suffer.

  But, let’s 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 didn’t 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 UN’s 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 – that’s 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 they’re 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 don’t get full constitutional protection if they commit a crime while in our armed services. They’re subject to the Uniform Code of Military Conduct. Isn’t 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?

[dead]

I think the crux of the argument is that some people, like yourselves, truly believe that this order will be used only against guilty terrorists. Others, like me, are more skeptical.

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.

[Croooow]

"Also, have you ever paid attention to the UN’s 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."

Be it resolved that the die-hard Clinton defenders have NO right to complain about military tribunals.

[KC Burke]

What you cite is certainly something to look at but by that same analysis of what you attempt to apply, acts or events of war on our soil would be "crimes" and that was certainly not the intention. These weren't common law, civil or statute crimes committed but acts of war, war-crimes and acts of terrrorism and sabotauge.

If Osama kills in waging war on our nation do we send the FBI and NY Police after him? No, we wage War.

[Randy Larsen]

The best option? Kill the SOB. A gut shot, not one of those Special Forces headshots. Let the bastard suffer.

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.

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

Bob Barr does not need anything in his Cheerios. One of the reasons I respect him is he says what he believes. I suspect this ties into the report I heard on the radio today. Bob Barr wants a declaration of War. I happen to agree with him. This is a war. A declaration of war removes any ambiguity.

[Steve_Seattle]

The president will be making his decisions based on evidence provided to him by both military and civilian intelligence sources. This is not all that different from a county prosecutor signing an arrest warrant based on evidence gathered by the police. The fact that one man signs the order does not mean that he is acting on a personal whim. And as far as the claim that "rumor" and "hearsay" could be used as evidence, the order simply says that material subject to pre-existing regulations governing classified material cannot be released. As to whether these regulations could be abused in the hands of "the wrong people," so can the Constitution itself. In the hands of the wrong people, the Constitution is a meaningless piece of paper. No law is any better than the people who have the power to administer it. The administration is acting on the assumption that any further terrorists acts - or rather, the failure to prevent them - will be blamed squarely on the administration. And you can bet that a lot of the same people who are now screaming about "civil liberties" and "racial profiling" will be the first to say that the administration "should have known about" or "should have prevented" any future terrorist acts.

[headsonpikes]

Declaration of War bump.

[LSJohn]

These weren't common law, civil or statute crimes committed but acts of war, war-crimes and acts of terrrorism and sabotauge.

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.

[LSJohn]

As to whether these regulations could be abused in the hands of "the wrong people," so can the Constitution itself. In the hands of the wrong people, the Constitution is a meaningless piece of paper. No law is any better than the people who have the power to administer it.

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.)

[KC Burke]

DO said:
I had always thought that it would be a war crime to shoot unarmed members of the opposition if they were trying to surrender.

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.

[LSJohn]

I want the state, in its operations against the people's enemy, to be secretive, cunning, and lethal.

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."

[LSJohn]

But, a 'secret' trial is still a trial isn't it?

How would we know? I don't think the record indicates that we've done very well with "trust me" from our government.

[Amore]

lawyers "snoopervising"

I love it!

[LSJohn]

And to me it is clear that "person" does not here refer to non-citizens against whom the U.S. military is waging war.

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?

[aculeus]

But how does [one] explain Bob Barr?

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.

[Junior]

Look, the young men and women we sent over there in the American uniforms don’t get full constitutional protection if they commit a crime while in our armed services.

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.

[LSJohn]

Your #41 clarifies most of what I've been trying to say. Good job.

[Junior]

But, a 'secret' trial is still a trial isn't it?

So's a show trial or a trial before a kangaroo court. I don't think you'd want to go there.

[Iwo Jima]

The Bush Administration has successfully made this issue of military tribunals in the view of most people all about Osama bin Laden and his people. But no one who opposes this order (at least none that I have heard about) is saying that bin Laden, Al Qaida, the Taliban or other combatants in any other country should be brought to this country for any reason, much less to be given a trial with full constitutional safeguards. Those people should be hunted down and killed where they are found as is proper and necessary in war or similar hostilities. No trial, nowhere, by anybody.

What Bob Barr, Ron Paul, and many defenders of liberty and the Constitution posting on this website find unforgivable is the usurpation of powers by Bush to do what no branch of the government could legally do -- violate the most basic Constitutional principles which he and many of us are sworn to uphold, not destroy.

You seem to read Bush's Executive Order and think "bin Laden" and that nothing is too vile to wish on him. Others like myself read the order and think about their spouse or mother-in-law from Mexico or Canada who has never had anything to do with any terrorists or terrorism, but based on the non-reviewable whim of one man can be tried and put to death in secret by hand-picked "judges" with no right of appeal or much of anything which gives a trial moral legitimacy in the eyes of Americans. This makes us a nation of men (or, even worse, MAN), not laws. It doesn't matter who the man is, our founders fought, died, and made tremendous sacrifices to insure that in this country NO PERSON OR GROUP OF PERSONS had powers like these.

Before you state that "That's not what the order is intended to do," let me go ahead and reply that intentions are debatable, subject to change, and not really all that meaningful, whereas the plain meaning of the words of the order clearly "allows" for these and a multitude of other injustices. If the order is not meant to apply to each and every non-citizen, then why is it written that way?

To those who claim that the order only applies to "terrorists," I would say that that is a classic example of "question-begging" -- it assumes what is sought to be proven. How does someone challenge being tried as a terrorist on the grounds that they are not a terrorist? Of course, they can't, and that is by design.

This is a bad, bad business, and totally unncessary. Those who love and have fought for the Constitution and the principles upon which this country was founded should cry tears of sorrow. And rage.

[KC Burke]

The adopted law is SJ23 passed onthe fourteenth which says in part:

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(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.

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.