Appropriate Justice for Terrorists:Using Military Tribunals Rather Than Criminal Courts

The very idea of a military tribunal is something that Hitler would have done, IMO. As well, it proves once again to the world that our government is run by a bunch of hypocrites. Finally, it's simply a bad precedent.

One should ask why would a military tribunal be necessary at all?. Is the government's case that weak that it would be unable to pass the scrutiny of our system of Justice?, or is this just another attempt to undermine the Constitution?.

Other that that, I'm still waiting for some of the government's evidence as to exactly who perpetrated the events of 9/11.

---max

The very idea of a military tribunal is something that Hitler would have done, IMO. As well, it proves once again to the world that our government is run by a bunch of hypocrites. Finally, it's simply a bad precedent.

As the posted article pointed out the precedent has already been set. By Abraham Lincoln. By Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

One should ask why would a military tribunal be necessary at all?. Is the government's case that weak that it would be unable to pass the scrutiny of our system of Justice?

You were around for the O.J. Trial, weren't you?

In addition, do you want civilian juries being threatened with death to themselves and their families if they convict a terrorist? These terrorists have committed acts of war. The military has volunteered to risk their lives to protect this country in times of war. A civilian picked out of a jury pool has not.

Other that that, I'm still waiting for some of the government's evidence as to exactly who perpetrated the events of 9/11

Such evidence is procured by intelligence sources that are put at risk when those sources are exposed to the entire world via CNN.

Extraordinary times require extraordinary measures. I support Bush and his expanded powers.

You have to lock your door if you know Charles Manson and his murderous gang are after you. Metaphorically, they used our unlocked doors to murder us in our own beds. Things are never going to be the same.

Get used to the new way of life and thank Osama for it.

Lastly, be thankful that the cop-on-the-beat is Bush.

The libs have ruined our judicial system for so many decades, that it is high time something has to be done to reverse their ruinous damage.

Let the pendulum swing the other way for a while.

As for me, I'll take my chances any day with a military tribunal court system, at least it will be fair.

As the posted article pointed out the precedent has already been set. By Abraham Lincoln. By Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Neither of these presidents created military tribunals. Congress did.

Lincoln DOES have some similarity with Bush in one respect: Like Bush, he did away with Habeas Corpus. However, if you will find that the U.S. Supreme Court declared Lincoln's actions unconstitutional and illegal in the 1856 case of Merryman.

You are correct that there is precedent. However, the precedent states that Bush's EO is a flagrant violation of the Constitution.

I have to say I am wary of this Patriotic Act simply for the fact that U.S. citizens may be tried in these military tribunals. I don't believe these tribunals are limited to foreign terrorists.

We are already having a judicial crisis. Here is an exerpt I found in an article addressing this situation:

...Today there are more than 100 VACANCIES in the federal courts ... and more conservative judges are retiring.

Nearly half of all active judges today were appointed by former President Bill Clinton - and we know how too many of them feel about religious freedoms!

Incredibly, President George W. Bush can't get hearings for most of his nominees! (Even though former President Bill Clinton had many of his judges confirmed in his first year of presidency.)

The Senate has never taken this long - only 17 of 64 nominations have been confirmed this year! And these are candidates rated by the American Bar Association as "qualified" or "well qualified."

These competent men and women with high principles will affirm our freedoms of speech and religion. But that's the problem. The ACLU and others want to keep these judges off the bench!

* They attack those who are against crime and pornography.
* They oppose anyone who doesn't share their ideology.
* They would have a nominee automatically disqualified because of religious convictions!
And the battle over the first vacancy on the Supreme Court of the United States looms ahead, while these groups work at full speed for their anti-freedom agenda...

The leftist socialists who have overtaken the Democratic Party and who are very effectively pressuring our government into socialism are blocking Bush from filling the judicial vacancies.

Everyone interested in freedom should pressure the Bush Administration to get off their dead asses and show some fortitude by making 100 recess appointments during the Christmas break to fill these vacancies and send an unmistakable message to these social-crats that we're not going to let them wreck this country any longer. This is what bothers me about Bush. While he is at it he could also clear the socialist dead wood who inhabit the State Dept appointed jobs.

Yes, the Patriot Act bothers me too. Just the name of it scares me, however, I am still in favor of a military tribunal for Middle Eastern connected terrorists both foreign and those in this country illegally. If this procedure shows any sign of being exploited against our own liberties I would expect all of us to take a major stand against those responsible.

Only in YOUR mind.

There is NOTHING " extralegal " about a miltary tribunal. George Washington , Lincoln, and FDR all used them.

The Taliban , members of al Qaeda, OBL, and Mullah Omar, are NOT citizens of the USA, they aren't in the USA, and those members of sleeper cells here , aren't citizens either. Please state chapter and vers, AND your source for miltary tribunals being " extralegal ", or admit that you are wrong.

"That's also a very good question: Would these new courts be subject to review by the Supreme Court? And what about the right of appeal?"

The EO directed SecDef to develop rules and regulations for the conduct of the tribunals to include post trial procedures. These have not been published at this time.

I expect these rules and regulations to follow established procedures similar to those found in the UCMJ simply because those tasked with developing these rules will be military lawyers. They will not cut from new cloth but will look for established rules and procedures they are familiar with and that have stood the test of time and constitutional scrutiny. In any event, these rules and regulations will have to published, just as the EO was published. Until that time, it is unwise to claim these procedures will violate any one's rights.

You might wish to review the UCMJ. It is available on line. Here is one location:

http://www.constitution.org/mil/ucmj19970615.htm#IX

If you're interested in the appeals process, look in the section entitled post trial procedures. You'll find that several courts of review and appeal are available. The "Court of Military Review", the "Court Of Military Appeals", and USSC, in that order. These courts are in addition to the mandatory review of all courts martials and tribunals by the convening authority. IOW, there are up to four levels of review and appeal.

"Constitutional Rights are only guaranteed to citizen owners of the USA.

It is about time we understood that..."

Please state the basis of your opinion that the Bill of Rights of the Constitution does not apply to all persons present in the United States, citizen and non-citizen alkike. I believe that it does apply to both citizens and non-citizens, including illegal aliens.

We try non-citizens all the time in criminal courts, observing all Constitutional safeguards. Why we would do this if they have no Constitutional rights.

If you can cite any case law on this subject, I would be pleased to read it. Maybe when people who make such a starling statement as you have made would go to the trouble of supporting it, will be the time that we understand what you are saying to be true.