Wartime Tribunals Raise Red Flags

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel ^ | 11/25/01 | Craig Gilbert

[ninenot]

Wartime Tribunals Raise Red Flags

[ninenot]

If Jim Sensenbrenner is worried, so am I--and so should we all. Another signal that the Admin. is moving toward a more totalitarian State.

[anniegetyourgun]

The drumbeat continues ....

[B4Ranch]

I wonder if the politicians are truely concerned or are they reacting to their other lawyer friends?

[ninenot]

Laz--please note that this is a successfully posted URL--from me, the HTML-apprentice. Also please not the content of the article.

[ninenot]

In the case of Senator Feingold, it's a close call. However, Sensenbrenner is straight-up. He was also very unhappy with the original "anti-terror" legislation, on which the Admin (Ashcroft) and Denny Hastert (a supine whore of the first order) rammed a bunch of garbage into the bill, such as Section 802. Bob Barr and Tom DeLay were also quite PO'd about the moves by Hastert and Ashcroft....

[BS-Detector]

I will admit, there is plenty to be upset about with the terrorist bill. I also agree that lawyer-client confidentiality should be respected.

However, Military Tribunals (even secret ones) for forigners suspected of terrorist activity is constitutional, and necessary for national defense.

Ever wonder why most Spy cases in the US are settled out of court? Because the government doesn't want to present in open court the classified information necessary to ensure the conviction. For example, the US government withheld the most damning evidence against the Rosenberg's to protect our having broken the Soviet codes (the Verona files). Fortunately, there was sufficient evidence for a conviction anyway. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case with the Chinese Scientist at Los Alamos. (That's why I think the FBI spent so much effort trying to find those hard drives!)

Let's think this through...

- Do we really want our Spies and informants being called to testify in court, thus blowing their covers and endangering their lives (and hindering recruitment of other informants)?
- Do we really want our methods of electronic surveillance, satellite imagery, & decryption techniques revealed in court?
- Do we really want all our counter-terrorist/counter-intelligence doctrine broadcast to the world on Court-TV?

Revealing such secrets would be a far greater victory for our enemies than any conviction obtained, even of Bin Laden himself. Enemy possession of such national secrets would greatly enhance their ability to evade our defenses, opening the door for even worse attacks than those experienced Sept. 11.

Every time I see or hear arguments against the Military Tribunals I come to one conclusion, the individual doesn't trust the government.
Well, in some things we are just going to have to, as Justice Robert Jackson wrote:

"There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

[SteveH]

With apparently very few exceptions, other tribunals have occurred only under times of formal declarations of war. This includes the administrations of Lincoln and FDR, who are rather notorious for playing fast and loose with the Constitution.

When I add this EO with the recent EO by GWB on the Presidential Records Act, extending to all Presidents from Carter to the present the ability to delay public release of presidential records indefinitely based on nebulous and arbitrary reasons, I begin to get a picture of GWB that is not flattering to him with regards to protecting the Constitution that he has sworn to defend. (Note: revealing dirty secrets about his father's terms of office would force Bush to repudiate his father, which in turn would cause immediate questioning of his appointments to high office of so many from Bush Sr.'s administrations.)

I extrapolate that Bush realizes that these are drastic actions and would be viewed as such in most informed circles of power. I believe Bush is taking a gamble that at least some of the actions he is taking will chafe Congress and/or the courts and that at least some of the actions are at risk of being overturned. His "out" if they are overturned are the nature of the horrible events that occured, so his downside risk is possibly minimized by emotional impact of those events with the public.

Still, I believe Bush would not take such drastic acts unless he were forced to by extraordinary circumstances. I am talking about the kind of circumstances that led to the events at Ford Theater. That does not necessarily condone the actions Bush took: he signed up for the job willingly and he should have realized the risks that come with the job.

Personally, I find it dismaying that most Presidents since Lincoln have felt it necessary to preserve the cloak of privacy over these internal intrigues that swirl about the capital. The country is no longer in its infancy, nor is it challenged by some greater external military threat or civil war. There seems little excuse for letting the sun shine on the dirty secrets that have so far held the nation together. It's a judgement call, but I think the country would be stronger, not weaker, from holding to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights for all, and stronger, not weaker, from releasing information that may be personally discomforting to certain people in certain positions of power. Right now, the country becomes incrementally more vulnerable to destruction from within by removing Constitutional and lawful safeguards, and destruction from within is surely, as ever since Lincoln first remarked on it, the overriding danger, even in this day.

[cricket]

Think this issue is close to bogus, as presented by those who are against Military trials. . .

. . .and that it is offered by those who feel compelled to advance a dissonant voice where opinion is otherwise fairly unanimous in support of this Administation.

Do not know how any sane person could want anything BUT the Military to handle this. . .we have had enough 'rights' experiments with our Military; and changing the legal prescriptions now; and for Terrorists. . .makes no sense at all. . .

[FreeReign]

...lawyer-client confidentiality should be respected.

It -- lawyer-clent confidentiality -- is respected. Incarcerated people are still allowed a reasonable amount of time alone with their lawyer. Where did you here they weren't?

[layman]

In my opinion, the courts should be in the business of discovering the 'truth'. The client-attorney confidentiality privledge does nothing to advance this purpose. And, the idea that the accused may not be forced to testify against himself was meant to preclude coercive confessions. Instead the courts have twisted this to mean that the accused has the right to remain silent.

Confidential discussions with attorneys and the right to remain silent benefit the guilty, not the innocent. Our criminal justice system is set up to protect the guilty, not the innocent. Attempting to prosecute terrorists in our courts, as they exist today, is laughable. Tribunals are necessary because our criminal justice system is 'of the attorneys, by the attorneys, and for the attorneys'. Ask OJ.

[clikker]

Confidential discussions with attorneys and the right to remain silent benefit the guilty, not the innocent.

What makes you so sure that every defendant is guily? What makes you think that all people accused of a crime have committed it? Isn't everyone still considered innocent until proven guilty?

Over the long run, our judical system has proven to be fair and effective, a few aberrations notwithstanding.

[ninenot]

Personally, I think that foreign nationals who are reasonably suspected of espionage or acts of war/terrorism against the USA, whether nabbed in the US or on foreign soil, could be tried by tribunal. However, Sensenbrenner, who is NOT a liberal by any means, (check his voting record) is concerned that this license could be over-used by an enthusiastic Administration--whether this one or one in the future. THAT is something with which I can agree.

There are other portions of the 'anti-terror' Act which are also worrisome.

As to trusting the Gummint--need I remind you of the LAST Administration's frequent and flagrant ventures into purely un-Constitutional territory? Need we do a body-count, domestic and foreign? There's WAY too much power in the Exec Branch to hand it over to an unscrupulous gang, as was done 1992-2000.

[ninenot]

. I am talking about the kind of circumstances that led to the events at Ford Theater.

You mean like finding GWB at Fort Marcy Park with someone else's .38, no blood, no grass on the shoes, and a "suicide" note??

Clintoncide??

[BS-Detector]

The link to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has a sidebar which states:

"Attorney General John Ashcroft decided to allow investigators to monitor
conversations between some people and their attorneys, without judicial review."

[FreeReign]

The link to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has a sidebar which states: "Attorney General John Ashcroft decided to allow investigators to monitor conversations between some people and their attorneys, without judicial review."

The Milw. Journal Sentinel is not being informative. Investigators are monitoring all phone coversations -- not meetings that take place in person.

[phrespearit]

America has a double edged sword now that the tribunals are at hand. Osama could face a secret tribunal or he could be sent to New York City for trial. The liberals could possibly accept a guilty plea for a lesser crime in a plea bargain and sentence him to one year probation (sarcasm). Remember the sentences recently of terrorists who slaughtered hundreds of innocent people.

[layman]

Isn't everyone still considered innocent until proven guilty?

Yes, they are. But I believe if they are innocent, the right to remain silent does nothing to advance the objective of discovering the truth. The same applies to conversations with their attorneys.

[jwalsh07]

Snesebrenner is allowing his "feelings" to blur his vision a bit here. He feels dissed so he's striking back but even he concedes in the article that tribunals are constitutional and called for in this instance.

As for the lawyer-client pivilege as regards terrorists or unlawful combatabnts I ask three questions. When our soldiers question them in the field, do they have to have an attorney present? Secondly, does the Geneva Convention guarantee this tight to saboteurs behind enemy lines?Thirdly, what price are we willing to pay for maintaining that privilege for terrorists, an incident that causes 5000 deaths, 50,000 deaths, 5 million? Just wondering.

[DugwayDuke]

"Congress is also the only ones given power to create tribunals. The tribunals must be inferior to the supreme court also. So it is not constitutional. If They wanted tribunals it has to go to congress and be reviewable by the supreme court. Otherwise its not constitutional. Have you ever even read the constitution its not that long. Give it a read sometime.

Have you ever read Section 836 Article 10 of the United States Code? This law was passed by Congress about fifty years ago. It authorizes tribunals. USSC can review tribunals, see Quirin. Therefore, these tribunals meet your standards and are constitutional. BTW, in Quirin, USSC says they're constitutional too.