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?
Best thread title of the day, by the way.
The grandstanding and opportunism has already started. Barr is probably jockeying for power and attention.
We have been told that there is direct evidence against Laden. Most of us have accepted that on faith. If he is captured, that should be proven in a court, be that federal or military.
We expect our justice to be fair. We expect the evidence to be overwhelming. If these are true, why not allow the world to see? In my opinion, closing the proceedings would lead just about every nation but our own to suspect the proceedings. I think we do our nation more harm than good by closing these hearings.
I read the other day where these types of military hearings were actually proposed for McVeigh and Nichols. If that is accurate, would we really have wanted them held behind closed doors?
We need to be careful what we sign onto in our name, and more importantly in the name of our nation.
Yes I know, WWII and yada yada. Well the premise holds true, that the light of day promotes truth and understanding.
In addition, the order signed by Bush establishing the right to hold military tribunals is an utterly horrifying overreach on the part of the executive branch.
The president, and the president alone, has assumed the power to declare that any foreign national may be subject to these secret tribunals if the individual may be one that is thought to: “have caused, threaten to cause, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy, or economy and it is in the interest of the United States that such individual be subject to this order.”
We are basically saying that it is within a nation's right to have their leader declare any citizen of another nation an enemy and execute them (after a secret trial) without presenting any evidence of guilt or even clearly enumerating the charges against that person.
It's insane.
While President Bush will use the ability with integrity he will not always be president, our last president used the IRS as a club to bash detractors over the head with. Hate crimes and hate speech means what ever the law wants it to mean at any given time. It is no stretch to see hate speech being redefined as incitement to terrorism, will that happen? Who knows but it is best not to have any precedents set that allows a military tribunal to be called up at the drop of a hat to serve a function of any president who wants to silence critics.
Congress must either declare that a state of war exists within the meaning of the UCMJ, or pass new legislation to supersede Bush's tribunals order.
Or try to force the Judiciary to treat an obvious act of war as a common crime.
The War Powers Resolution has been a Constitutional minefield long overdue to be traversed, Barr is to be commended for making the Congress take that trip- if he does.
If Bush could do this, why couldn't Laden or Saddam Hussein do the same thing to US citizens? This is a big can of worms in my opinion.
I would say he does.
He is waging War as defined under his Constitutional role as Commander in Chief and he can issue a shoot on sight, or accept no surrender rule on people such as these. A tribunnal is simply a more formal way to make certain that the person being summarily dealt with is the person intended...nothing more, nothing less.
An unarmed sabatour is not a non-combatant. Neither is he a proper combatant laying down his arms. The theater for this action is not the criminal theater (within the states or out) but instead the battlefield. If he can order such a war criminal, terrorist or sabatour shot-on-sight by the Military he heads(which I believe he can), he can order such a person examined and then dealt with by the Military he heads. It isn't a trial, its a tribunnal.
Barr said that he agrees with Military Tribunals for bad guys captured overseas, but not (under the present circumstances) for those captured within the United States for acts committed here. Barr said that absent an official Declaration of War, which he supports by Bush opposes, those domestic acts should be tried in US courts. Barr gave historical examples of prior trials by Military Tribunal inside the United States, all of which occurred during times of declared war. He made clear that he supports Military Tribunals, but that Congress must declare War in order for the President to rightfully assume wartime powers within the borders of the United States.
As for why Bush opposes an official Declaration of War by Congress, Barr said that the administration wants to have its cake (all wartime powers) and eat it too (not trigger certain of its consequences). Barr said that the only argument that the White House gave him for opposing an official (Constitutional) declaration was that Bush doesn't want to trigger "War Clauses" within insurance policies which would deny coverage to those suffering damage from the actions of our enemies.
As usual -- and as Neal Boortz acknowledged, there is more to Bob Barr's considered positions than meets the eye (or ear). It's the Constitution...
The best option? Kill the SOB. A gut shot, not one of those Special Forces headshots. Let the bastard suffer.I absolutely positively disagree. If you let him suffer there is always the slight possibility he could somehow live. Give him a gut shot, then a head shot, a couple more gut shots. Make him dead, that is the primary objective and don’t let emotion get in the way. Then take some pictures, cut off a finger for DNA proof, and drop a daisy cutter on top of him so that they don’t have a casket to parade around.
Otherwise I agree with the article. Anything other than a military trial would be bad for American and good for terrorists, whether of the leftist or muslim variety.
patent
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.