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

FindLaw.com ^ | Sep. 28, 2001 | John Dean

[Iwo Jima]

And your point is???????

[Iwo Jima]

All Ms. Coulter is saying is that we should revoke the immigrant status of certain immigrants. I do not argue against that position. But that is not what this discussion is about.

I am sure that Ms. Coulter would not make or support the statement which you have made to the effect that non-citizens have no Constitutional rights. I have no reason to "ask" her about her opinion because I know what the Supreme Court has said, not just once in one factual situation but countless times under a multitude of factual scenarios. I have spent all afternoon reading and in some cases re-reading these cases, and I am confident of my position. I don't need anyone, even someone as attractive and vivacious as Ms. Coulter, to do my thinking for me.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

"I am sure that Ms. Coulter would not make or support the statement which you have made to the effect that non-citizens have no Constitutional rights."

Don't assume, ask her, or are you afraid you might find out the truth?
She's the expert, not me, not you.
Since you seem to have a lot of time to spare, you might consider defending the Constitution in the real world also.

How YOU can assist/support HOMELAND DEFENSE
17yrs old and up, no upper age limit. Something for everyone to do

[Iwo Jima]

What made you think of me? Was it the "no upper age limit?" LOL!

Thanks for the tip.

[jwalsh07]

Utalkintame?

Utalkinta..................me?

U............talkin.............tome?

If you have something rational to ask, ask, otherwise ping somebody who gives a crap.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

"Was it the "no upper age limit?" LOL!"

LOL, in the Coast Guard Auxiliary I am in I'm one of the youngest ones in.
And I'm 53. There are quite a few WWII Vets in this particular flotillia.
SALUTE

[Iwo Jima]

Well, I have to admit that it would be nice to be in some outfit where I would be considered a "youngan." That hasn't happened in quite some time.

[Iwo Jima]

No, I'm not talking to you.

[goldilucky]

".........How can we bring him before this new "military court"?"

I really do not know how to answer thie question but I believe he will be brought before this court. And I believe that this is an "experiment" just to see how the federal government will extend the military enclaves to private citizens.

[goldilucky]

Thank you very very much for that site. And you are soo right to note that whatever is not a threat might as well be staged. I keep my eyes and ears open which enable me to foresee events and sometimes visions which become reality.

[185JHP]

When I read the part of this post that says: "rules of evidence are neither applicable, nor necessary," it reminds me of one of the best lines in a great song from when boomers were young: "When he says in love and war all is fair, he's got cards he ain't showing!" LOL

[america-rules]

Is Bush A Dictator?

[nopardons]

If an American citizen is a follower of OBL's, and has a hand in the 9/11 attack he can be tried, as the Rosenbergs were for treason, or perhaps sedition, if treason isn't quite right.

Washington, Lincoln, Johnson, Wilson, Kennedy and FDR all used Military Tribunal courts, with which to prosecute people. If I had my druthers, EVERY last person in Afghanistan, connected wih OBL will be killed. Frankly, I don't care to have them tried anywhere.

Just WHY are you so upset by military tribunals ? Are you expecting that they will be used against you ? Since their is a 200 + year precident for them, ANY future president can decide to use them. Worry about that , if you care to.

[goldilucky]

That was an excellent point that Iwo Jima made about Article I, Sec. 8, Clause 9.

I do hope that the Supreme Court will overrule this administrative procedure.

The only way the public can be mislead, is if they do not know the difference between "military courts" and true constitutional courts. The only true constitutional courts are the state Supreme Courts and the Supreme Court of the U.S. The federal courts are "inferior" courts pertaining to equity, and commerce. Little is dealt with on civil matters and if so, are done with discretion.

[DugwayDuke]

"Question: how can President Bush, Congress, or anyone create a tribunal which is superior to or independent of the Supreme Court? I am quite certain that the Supreme Court will say that they cannot." - Black Jade.

"The only way the public can be mislead, is if they do not know the difference between "military courts" and true constitutional courts. The only true constitutional courts are the state Supreme Courts and the Supreme Court of the U.S. The federal courts are "inferior" courts pertaining to equity, and commerce. Little is dealt with on civil matters and if so, are done with discretion." - goldilucky.

The EO references Section 836, Title 10 of the Federal Code. Congress wrote this law that establishes procedures for the conduct of military courts martial and tribunals. This section gives the President discretion to adapt these procedures as necessary. IOW, the Constitution gave Congress the power to establish "inferior courts". Congress specfically established military courts martial and tribunals as "inferior courts". As for USSC finding these tribunals un-Constitutional, you might wish to review Quirin. Once again the facts are against you.

[goldilucky]

"The EO references Section 836, Title 10 of the Federal Code. Congress wrote this law that establishes procedures for the conduct of military courts martial and tribunals. This section gives the President discretion to adapt these procedures as necessary. IOW, the Constitution gave Congress the power to establish "inferior courts". Congress specfically established military courts martial and tribunals as "inferior courts". As for USSC finding these tribunals un-Constitutional, you might wish to review Quirin. Once again the facts are against you."

That is title 10 Sec. 836 of the U.S.C. re military tribunals? If so, I'll look into that.
Thanks for the Quirin case.