ALAN KEYES: "Taking Advantage"

WND ^ | Saturday, December 1, 2001 | Dr. Alan Keyes

[Keyes For President]

WorldNetDaily: Taking advantage

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25520

Saturday, December 1, 2001

---

---

Taking advantage

---

By Alan Keyes

---

© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com--> © 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

From military tribunals to the questioning of foreign nationals and incarceration of suspected terrorist accomplices, the war on terror is obliging Americans, and the government of these United States, to think carefully about the rules that should pertain in the application of government power to individuals – particularly non-citizens.

We shouldn't be alarmed at debate about Bush administration policies in fighting the war. We are a cosmopolitan people, fighting a war against a global, secretive and determined foe. Our adversary seeks to take advantage of the freedom America offers in order to undo that freedom. Preserving the security of American society without sacrificing our liberty is a complicated task, and it is good that so many intelligent citizens are taking part in the debate about how best to do it. And it is also good that, under the Constitution, our national executive can take the steps he deems necessary without waiting for perfect agreement from all of us.

It remains our task to be vigilant that government power remain reasonable, and constitutional. Substantial abuse of government power would undermine the very constitutional system that the actions of our military and civilian officials are pledged to defend. And yet, fear of such abuse must not paralyze our ability to respond to the threat we face. Our founders knew the fear of abusive government power and found the courage to be wise in establishing a government that would be unlikely to become abusive. We should imitate them in retaining the courage to be prudent in our own time.

We must be careful, but determined. Where the use of government power can be justified – in terms of the threat to national security – we must not be unduly fearful of government action. We should trust common sense, and the Constitution, to see us through.

We must be careful not to identify this as a war against certain ethnic or religious groups, rather than as against individuals identified with certain activities. Individuals commit terrorism, and these are our enemies – not the groups to which they happen to belong.

Does this mean that to avoid the charge of "racial profiling," the United States government should be seeking to question all non-citizens in the United States, not just recent arrivals from the Muslim world? Of course not. We have an experiential basis for believing that America faces a threat from individuals fitting a certain description. There is nothing wrong with focusing our inquiry on the area from which the threat is most likely to come.

The goal is to identify terrorists who threaten the United States, so that we can effectively eliminate that threat. Questioning recent visitors from the Muslim world is a manifestly reasonable step to take in the pursuit of that goal.

Visitors to America are here as a privilege, and we can accordingly set terms and conditions that reflect our security requirements. Foreigners who object to being asked questions about what they might know regarding America's mortal enemies certainly should not continue to receive the privilege of being guests of America.

Regarding those foreigners who are actually accused, or might be accused, of a crime under American law, the Constitution clearly indicates that due process must be followed – not just for citizens, but for all persons. For this reason, I believe that it would not be justified to try foreigners captured in America – even those accused of terrorist acts – outside the normal course of our legal procedures simply because they are foreigners.

By definition, military tribunals combine executive and judicial power in a way that is dangerous to civil liberty. Recourse to such tribunals apart from theaters of war, and the exigencies of war, will destroy the constitutional distinction between the judicial and the executive power. There is good reason to judge that the normal application of American law would be unreasonable in the case of terrorists captured in Afghanistan and in the course of military action. The capture and treatment of such people would naturally and reasonably be a matter of military, not civil justice.

But the Constitution, and sound political judgment, require that even foreign enemies of America, if captured and held in America while the American justice system is functioning properly, should be tried if possible under the normal course of that system. "Due process," of course, is a term that must be interpreted with prudence and discretion, and the arrest, accusation and trial of a foreign terrorist on American soil might differ in many ways from the treatment of home-grown criminals.

But the transfer of jurisdiction over such prisoners from civil to military justice should only occur as a matter of real necessity, for it would be the effectual declaration of a limited form of martial law in the United States, itself. Such a course could become necessary, but we should recognize its great danger and leave it as a last resort. No such hesitation is necessary in Afghanistan.

---

Be sure to visit Alan Keyes' communications center for founding principles, The Declaration Foundation.

---

Former Reagan administration official Alan Keyes, was U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Social and Economic Council and 2000 Republican presidential candidate.

[Keyes For President]

Does this mean that to avoid the charge of "racial profiling," the United States government should be seeking to question all non-citizens in the United States, not just recent arrivals from the Muslim world? Of course not. We have an experiential basis for believing that America faces a threat from individuals fitting a certain description. There is nothing wrong with focusing our inquiry on the area from which the threat is most likely to come.

The goal is to identify terrorists who threaten the United States, so that we can effectively eliminate that threat. Questioning recent visitors from the Muslim world is a manifestly reasonable step to take in the pursuit of that goal.

Visitors to America are here as a privilege, and we can accordingly set terms and conditions that reflect our security requirements. Foreigners who object to being asked questions about what they might know regarding America's mortal enemies certainly should not continue to receive the privilege of being guests of America.

[Keyes For President]

There is good reason to judge that the normal application of American law would be unreasonable in the case of terrorists captured in Afghanistan and in the course of military action. The capture and treatment of such people would naturally and reasonably be a matter of military, not civil justice.

[sharktrager]

bold be gone.

[Kale]

That' a greeaaaat idea, Alan. So what you're saying is, if a terrorist commits a mass atocity on foreign soil, he should be subject to a military tribunal, but if he does it on American soil, he should get an OJ trial with Greta Van Sustren? Wouldnt that make all the terrorists want to come America FIRST before they commit their crimes? It basically ensures more terrorism at home than abroad.

[Symix]

Our founders knew the fear of abusive government power and found the courage to be wise in establishing a government that would be UNLIKELY to become abusive.

In these times when the quiet logical discussion is almost absent and is replaced with emotional (to the point of hysterical) baseless accusations or more subtle soothing-numbing "everything is fine" type, it is so refreshing to find the words of Dr Keyes who always base his statements from a perspective of the American citizen, as we should.

You can agree or disagree with his logic or his conclusions or (like many here) with his person, but one can not help but admit that his analysis are always on a money and hard to disprove (maybe that is the reason of him being ignored by the media or RNC).

I like these Saturdays when I can finally read some rational thoughts coming from a Constitutional perspective - which is to preserve this nation (against enemies foreign and domestic). Compare this attitude to that of Clintons with their global village or countless groups sucking money from the American tax-payers in order to destroy them. Sad.

[Satadru]

In order to be a valid trial, the court must have jurisdiction where the crime is committed. The military has no jurisdiction within American soil, and hence cannot legally try anyone. For a military tribunal to try someone for a crime committed in the US would require the military to have jurisdiction in that area, which necessarily requires the declaration of Martial Law.

[Kale]

Thats not true at all. If a Kamikaze pilot had flown into San Francisco during WWII, and somehow miraculously survived, do you really think he would go in front of San Francisco Municipal Court? No. He would go in front of a military tribunal, just like the German Sleeper Cells did in 1942 (two years before D-day mind you), under FDR. Unlawful combatants from foreign soil most definitely will go before a tribunal. On top of that, American soldiers on our soil go before a military court if they commit crimes- why should a terrorist be given MORE rights than one of our Marines?

[Kale]

Here is the President's Executive Order, verbatim. What's striking is how how precise it is. The blow-hards in the press and Congress are blowing this WAY out of proportion.

Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism By the authority vested in me as President and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution (Public Law 107-40, 115 Stat. 224) and sections 821 and 836 of title 10, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Findings. (a) International terrorists, including members of al Qaida, have carried out attacks on United States diplomatic and military personnel and facilities abroad and on citizens and property within the United States on a scale that has created a state of armed conflict that requires the use of the United States Armed Forces. (b) In light of grave acts of terrorism and threats of terrorism, including the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, on the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense in the national capital region, on the World Trade Center in New York, and on civilian aircraft such as in Pennsylvania, I proclaimed a national emergency on September 14, 2001 (Proc. 7463, Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks). (c) Individuals acting alone and in concert involved in international terrorism possess both the capability and the intention to undertake further terrorist attacks against the United States that, if not detected and prevented, will cause mass deaths, mass injuries, and massive destruction of property, and may place at risk the continuity of the operations of the United States Government. (d) The ability of the United States to protect the United States and its citizens, and to help its allies and other cooperating nations protect their nations and their citizens, from such further terrorist attacks depends in significant part upon using the United States Armed Forces to identify terrorists and those who support them, to disrupt their activities, and to eliminate their ability to conduct or support such attacks. (e) To protect the United States and its citizens, and for the effective conduct of military operations and prevention of terrorist attacks, it is necessary for individuals subject to this order pursuant to section 2 hereof to be detained, and, when tried, to be tried for violations of the laws of war and other applicable laws by military tribunals. (f) Given the danger to the safety of the United States and the nature of international terrorism, and to the extent provided by and under this order, I find consistent with section 836 of title 10, United States Code, that it is not practicable to apply in military commissions under this order the principles of law and the rules of evidence generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts. (g) Having fully considered the magnitude of the potential deaths, injuries, and property destruction that would result from potential acts of terrorism against the United States, and the probability that such acts will occur, I have determined that an extraordinary emergency exists for national defense purposes, that this emergency constitutes an urgent and compelling govern-ment interest, and that issuance of this order is necessary to meet the emergency. Sec. 2. Definition and Policy. (a) The term "individual subject to this order" shall mean any individual who is not a United States citizen with respect to whom I determine from time to time in writing that: (1) there is reason to believe that such individual, at the relevant times, (i) is or was a member of the organization known as al Qaida; (ii) has engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit, acts of international terrorism, or acts in preparation therefor, that 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; or (iii) has knowingly harbored one or more individuals described in subparagraphs (i) or (ii) of subsection 2(a)(1) of this order; and (2) it is in the interest of the United States that such individual be subject to this order. (b) It is the policy of the United States that the Secretary of Defense shall take all necessary measures to ensure that any individual subject to this order is detained in accordance with section 3, and, if the individual is to be tried, that such individual is tried only in accordance with section 4. (c) It is further the policy of the United States that any individual subject to this order who is not already under the control of the Secretary of Defense but who is under the control of any other officer or agent of the United States or any State shall, upon delivery of a copy of such written determination to such officer or agent, forthwith be placed under the control of the Secretary of Defense. Sec. 3. Detention Authority of the Secretary of Defense. Any individual subject to this order shall be -- (a) detained at an appropriate location designated by the Secretary of Defense outside or within the United States; (b) treated humanely, without any adverse distinction based on race, color, religion, gender, birth, wealth, or any similar criteria; (c) afforded adequate food, drinking water, shelter, clothing, and medical treatment; (d) allowed the free exercise of religion consistent with the requirements of such detention; and (e) detained in accordance with such other conditions as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe. Sec. 4. Authority of the Secretary of Defense Regarding Trials of Individuals Subject to this Order. (a) Any individual subject to this order shall, when tried, be tried by military commission for any and all offenses triable by military commission that such individual is alleged to have committed, and may be punished in accordance with the penalties provided under applicable law, including life imprisonment or death. (b) As a military function and in light of the findings in section 1, including subsection (f) thereof, the Secretary of Defense shall issue such orders and regulations, including orders for the appointment of one or more military commissions, as may be necessary to carry out subsection (a) of this section. (c) Orders and regulations issued under subsection (b) of this section shall include, but not be limited to, rules for the conduct of the proceedings of military commissions, including pretrial, trial, and post-trial procedures, modes of proof, issuance of process, and qualifications of attorneys, which shall at a minimum provide for -- (1) military commissions to sit at any time and any place, consistent with such guidance regarding time and place as the Secretary of Defense may provide; (2) a full and fair trial, with the military commission sitting as the triers of both fact and law; (3) admission of such evidence as would, in the opinion of the presiding officer of the military commission (or instead, if any other member of the commission so requests at the time the presiding officer renders that opinion, the opinion of the commission rendered at that time by a majority of the commission), have probative value to a reasonable person; (4) in a manner consistent with the protection of information classified or classifiable under Executive Order 12958 of April 17, 1995, as amended, or any successor Executive Order, protected by statute or rule from unauthorized disclosure, or otherwise protected by law, (A) the handling of, admission into evidence of, and access to materials and information, and (B) the conduct, closure of, and access to proceedings; (5) conduct of the prosecution by one or more attorneys designated by the Secretary of Defense and conduct of the defense by attorneys for the individual subject to this order; (6) conviction only upon the concurrence of two-thirds of the members of the commission present at the time of the vote, a majority being present; (7) sentencing only upon the concurrence of two-thirds of the members of the commission present at the time of the vote, a majority being present; and (8) submission of the record of the trial, including any conviction or sentence, for review and final decision by me or by the Secretary of Defense if so designated by me for that purpose. Sec. 5. Obligation of Other Agencies to Assist the Secretary of Defense. Departments, agencies, entities, and officers of the United States shall, to the maximum extent permitted by law, provide to the Secretary of Defense such assistance as he may request to implement this order. Sec. 6. Additional Authorities of the Secretary of Defense. (a) As a military function and in light of the findings in section 1, the Secretary of Defense shall issue such orders and regulations as may be necessary to carry out any of the provisions of this order. (b) The Secretary of Defense may perform any of his functions or duties, and may exercise any of the powers provided to him under this order (other than under section 4(c)(8) hereof) in accordance with section 113(d) of title 10, United States Code. Sec. 7. Relationship to Other Law and Forums. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to -- (1) authorize the disclosure of state secrets to any person not otherwise authorized to have access to them; (2) limit the authority of the President as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces or the power of the President to grant reprieves and pardons; or (3) limit the lawful authority of the Secretary of Defense, any military commander, or any other officer or agent of the United States or of any State to detain or try any person who is not an individual subject to this order. (b) With respect to any individual subject to this order -- (1) military tribunals shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to offenses by the individual; and (2) the individual shall not be privileged to seek any remedy or maintain any proceeding, directly or indirectly, or to have any such remedy or proceeding sought on the individual's behalf, in (i) any court of the United States, or any State thereof, (ii) any court of any foreign nation, or (iii) any international tribunal. (c) This order is not intended to and does not create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by any party, against the United States, its departments, agencies, or other entities, its officers or employees, or any other person. (d) For purposes of this order, the term "State" includes any State, district, territory, or possession of the United States. (e) I reserve the authority to direct the Secretary of Defense, at any time hereafter, to transfer to a governmental authority control of any individual subject to this order. Nothing in this order shall be construed to limit the authority of any such governmental authority to prosecute any individual for whom control is transferred. Sec. 8. Publication. This order shall be published in the Federal Register. GEORGE W. BUSH THE WHITE HOUSE, November 13, 2001.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011113-27.html

[FreedomPoster]

Ouch. Paragraphs are our friends. Linked-to below.

President Issues Military Order
Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism

[Mind-numbed Robot]

The terrorists have declared war on the United States, openly and proudly proclaiming such. They have, in addition, committed acts of war in furtherence of that declaration. The attacks on our embassies and our citizens in foreign countries were acts of war, just ignored as such by the cowardly Bill Clinton. Attacks on our citizens and property in this country were also acts of war, as declared by them, but until 9/11/01 these acts were purposely downplayed by our government because Bill Clinton did not want to deal with it for his own selfish reasons. Therefore, they were called crimes, just as you are labeling them, when in fact they were acts of war.

This war is admittedly different from WWII, our last declared war, but not much different from the Vietnam effort except that action was kept away from our shores. However, the enemy used terrorist tactics on both their own people and on our soldiers. In this case, they are doing it all over the world including here. To try to downplay these acts as crimes instead of facing the truth is to play into the enemies hands.

Dr. Keyes concerns are intellectually valid but, as is always the case, the proper enforcement of the law is dependent on the integrity and courage of the leaders in charge. That is true whether we are talking about a local sheriff or the President of the U.S. Laws can be properly applied or abused, depending on the leadership. That is why we say, and attempt to be, a nation of laws not men, but the reality is often different. That is why character matters, regardless of what the Democrats say. I am confident that Bush will do the right thing, just as confident as I am that Clinton, either one, Gore, and most other Democrats would not do the right thing. We are in good hands for now and we should go to great lengths to make sure we stay that way.

[Deadeye Division]

Mr. Keyes appeared as the keynote speaker at a fund-raising dinner for Toledo Christian Schools, Inc. last night.This article is in today's Toledo Blade.
Keyes urges Americans to seek truth

[Libertarianize the GOP]

For a Keyes fan.

[MadameAxe]

fyi

[Symix]

from the article you pointed to:
Mr. Keyes appeared as the keynote speaker at a fund-raising dinner for Toledo Christian Schools, Inc. last night.This article is in today's Toledo Blade.

>Alan Keyes, a former ambassador and U.S. presidential candidate who is known as the conscience of the Republican Party,

I like this formulation...

[Native American Female Vet]

What many fail to understand is that there are laws and secret courts already set up here to deal with this. The Forieign Intelligence Survelliance Act of 1978 has secret courts. Here is a good but old article about it.

Here is a snip from it

Inside America's Secret Court: The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

by Patrick S. Poole

Introduction

In a highly restricted room inside the Department of Justice Building in Washington D.C. resides a federal court that meets in complete secrecy. Even though the rulings this secret court issues may result in criminal charges, convictions and prison sentences for US citizens, their writs and rulings are permanently sealed from review by those accused of crimes and from any substantive civilian review. This is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), which considers surveillance and physical search orders from the Department of Justice and US intelligence agencies. During the 20-year tenure of the FISC the court has received over 10,000 applications for covert surveillance and physical searches. To date, not a single application has been denied.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)<1>  was passed in 1978, during the days of increased terrorist activity against American citizens around the world. The Cold War and American involvement in the Middle East raised fears both about increased spying on US government, military and business facilities and personnel and about terrorists planning attacks in the US and against Americans overseas. In this atmosphere, federal law enforcement and intelligence administrators requested Congress to increase surveillance powers to combat these growing trends. The FISA statute was also a regulative response to the allegations of domestic spying by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies during the 1960s and 70s. However, with the FISA legislation passed, the process was cloaked in absolute secrecy. While few Americans are even aware of the court's existence, the FISC routinely hears applications for surveillance and physical searches from federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies.  The FISA court issues more surveillance and physical search orders than the entire federal judiciary combined.

[Native American Female Vet]

Thanks for the ping!

[Optimist]

I am confident that Bush will do the right thing, just as confident as I am that Clinton, either one, Gore, and most other Democrats would not do the right thing. We are in good hands for now and we should go to great lengths to make sure we stay that way

BUT will the next occupier of the White House do the right thing, and how do we prevent this precedent being the new standard for government authority and its excesses?
As you say "we are in good hands FOR NOW"!!

If you are "CONFIDENT that Clinton... would not do the right thing" you are already qualifying whether or not this is an appropriate action of government and are showing your bias.

Regardless of how much I may agree with your sentiments about past, current or future leaders of this country, this is a VERY dangerous step towards offering power, and sacrificing liberties, to (what appears to be for now) a benevolent despot.