Posted on 11/21/2001 9:29:08 AM PST by 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.
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?
The War Powers Act, (a whole can of bad stew in itself) should be ammended to take care of this issue while staying in historical and constitutional context.
This is terrible. If GW thinks someone is a terrorist, that person may be treated as a terrorist -- no due process to determine that the person is actually a terrorist. This troubles me a lot less in GW's hands than in some of the other possibilities I can think of for Presidents in the future, but he is only going to "know" what he is told by people whose agendas we don't fully know.
Way too much power in the hands of one fallible man.
BTW, I hope you saw #59 above by Iwo Jima. . . . . the best post on the thread, IMO.
The military tribunal is hated by feather bedding lawers who want the wealth producung work.
(God bless Bob Barr.)
I'm keepin' my eye on you!
FReegards
There seems to be a whole lot of fevered question-begging going on here, Iwo Jima. You've bought the "kangaroo court" interpretation of this story (so fondly promulgated by the progressive Left) hook, line, and sinker. At least, that's what it looks like to me.
One thing that ought to be plenty obvious to all thinking, sober Americans (inclusive of those sensitive to the fact that we've been watching our constitutional rule of law being trashed and gutted by the pestilential legal beagles for some time by now) is that any law, promulgated by any allegedly legitimate government, that does not measure up to a real, persistent human need of the sort the Constitution was designed to remedy (or defend), is a nullity. Call this the "Jeffersonian view" of the present matter.
That being the case, it seems to me, what we need to determine in the present circumstances, is: Are real human needs being met by George Bush's recent Executive Order authorizing military trials for active combatants -- who are not United States' citizens -- against American life, liberty, and property?
My answer to this question: With over 5,000 dead Americans entered onto one branch of the scale of justice, I'd say, YES. A real human need is being met here. And it is a need that the powers duly authorized by the Constitution cannot legitimately evade: Our rule of law was designed to protect American life, liberty, and property by engaging in active defense of our nation against all threats foreign and domestic.
It turns out that the President of the United States, as commander-in-chief of all United States armed forces, has Constitutional authority in wartime to undertake whatever actions protect national security. He gets his "war powers" from Article II of our founding document.
President Bush did not, by the way, instigate this war; so it's not like he engineered a devious pretext to strip Americans of their liberties. His job is to do the very best he can to destroy the people who are trying to destroy us, preferably before they succeed in doing it.
Let's face it, kids: America is not only an "open society." We are a "wide-open" society. Our enemies are exploiting the American rule of law for fun and profit. That being the case, they are hardly in a position to claim its protections, if their little tushes happen to get caught in the "sling of reality."
I can live with the profiling of individuals by national origin -- under wartime conditions (though I could not tolerate it otherwise). Any person who wishes America well probably won't mind too much if they have to bear a reasonable amount of personal "inconvenience." People who are not direct threats to the national interest are people who would be quickly discharged from official inspection. But to me, this seems like the responsible, prudent, even necessary thing to do at a time when our country faces implacable, ingenious, and highly talented enemies from outside our shores.
In short, I don't think that the present, newly established military court regime is a threat to American citizens. And BTW, where better to try a P.O.W. -- whether captured abroad or here at home -- than in a military court? Such courts do not have Fourth, Fifth, etc. Amendment "protections." But such courts do have to function within the regime of the Geneva Convention. Full human rights concerns are adequately addressed through that body. We don't have to "soil" our Constitution to "protect" the enemies of that document -- and the political order it establishes.
So, let terrorists be judged by international and admiralty law. They do not deserve to be judged under the terms of the United States Constitution -- which they are actively seeking to destroy in any case.
Well, I've said my piece. FWIW. Thank you kindly, LSJohn, for bumping this article to me. best, bb.
You have more confidence in the inclination of the members of the tribunal to seek justice than do I, and perhaps less skepticism about the possibility that secrecy is desired to keep information about this case from us.
Dear LSJohn, you seem to have more confidence than I do in the premise that President Bush wishes to preside over a destroyed America. And you expect this, from a sworn officer of the U.S. Constitution and thereby justly eligible to execute full Article II powers for the common defense of the nation in wartime.
Usually, I am the one who stands accused of sporting the venerable Tin-Foil Beanie. But maybe now it's your turn. :^)
Let me reiterate what I believe is the truly critical aspect of the issue in dispute:
Trial by military court of combatants willfully engaged in war against the people, property, and/or territory of the United States does not dispense at all with the requirements of justice. It merely moves the venue from the legal system of a particular sovereign state (i.e, the United States Constitution), to the international rule of law that particularly applies to the exigencies of wartime: The Geneva Conventions.
The people who have determined to destroy the Constitution and the public order that it supports are in a really sorry position to advance any claim to the protection of either the Constitution or the public sentiment. You can't have it "both ways."
This is their problem. Don't make it yours, LSJohn: This whole thing is about defeating enemies, not citizens.
And as far as the government "not telling us everything": Good grief, LSJohn -- anything we know, the enemy knows. Sometimes it serves to have a "dumb" enemy. So do the math.
That doesn't mean I like it. It only means I understand it -- and have considered that this sort of thing may be necessary for reasons of the common good and the public order, in the longer run.
Thanks for writing, LSJohn. I truly appreciate (and am grateful for) your great talent for detecting great issues (IMHO). Hope God's love and grace fill your Thanksgiving in every way. best, bb.
Maybe President Bush and the generals should just not tell anybody anything. It seems every little thing gets this dripping "oh my gosh, how could they do this" coverage from the press, even such things as not having the White House tour this Christmas. It's like they look for little specks to turn into mountains. Meanwhile, when slick willie was in charge, they tried to make molehills out of the mountains of crud oozing from Washington.
That's what I was taught in school--a nation of laws not men.
Seems to me you have this a little bit upside down. I lack confidence that he (or any other single person) will have the knowledge, understanding, sanguinity, sense of justice etc, etc, etc, to be certain that such measures are administered appropriately. Even if he is a perfect man, he can easily be victimized by those who provide him the data upon which he bases his decision to certify an individual as a terrorist.
...justly eligible to execute full Article II powers for the common defense of the nation in wartime.
According to the rhetoric which has become the currency of the day, we are at war; according to the Constitution, we are not.
...international rule of law that particularly applies to the exigencies of wartime: The Geneva Conventions.
Geneva Convention Relative to Treatment of Prisoners of WarArticle 3
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited ......
/snip
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
/end excerpt
I have no doubt that you and I have almost identical goals for the future of our country. . . . . we obviously have some differences on tactics.
Bless you and yours and have a wonderful Thanksgiving.
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.