Secret Trials Endanger US Security

www.WorldNetDaily.com ^ | 12/13/01 | Harry Browne

[missileboy]

Secret trials endanger security

By Harry Browne

© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

Why are the Bill of Rights, open trials, the rule of law and the traditional American rules of evidence important?

Two reasons:

1.If an innocent person is convicted and punished, it's an injustice to that person – and the founding fathers were determined that Americans wouldn't suffer the injustices that had oppressed so many innocent people in the Old World.

2.If an innocent person is convicted, the real criminal will be free to commit more crimes.

So it misses the point to say the civil liberties of individuals must be balanced against the safety of the community. If individual civil liberties aren't protected, the safety of the community is endangered by putting the wrong people in prison, i.e., by allowing the guilty to continue to function.

It's vital that only the guilty be convicted – whether the accused is suspected of a petty theft, a terrorist act or mass murder.

It's vital that only the guilty be convicted – whether the accused is an American citizen, a green-card resident or an outright foreigner.

Whatever the crime, whoever the accused, your safety requires that only the guilty be convicted.

Each rule is important

The Bill of Rights and the rules of evidence were developed to assure that only the truly guilty are convicted.

The right to a trial by jury: A defendant must be tried by "a jury of his peers" so that he isn't judged by people who can gain personally by convicting him.

The right to a public trial: If the prosecutors, judges and juries can't be seen and judged by the public, they can short-circuit a fair trial.

The right to counsel: A defendant isn't likely to have the talent and skills necessary to call the jury's attention to logical gaps in the prosecution's case. So the defendant must have a skilled lawyer. To assure that the right person was convicted, appellate courts have ordered retrials when the accused didn't have competent counsel.

The right to confront one's accusers: No evidence is valid if the person offering it can't be cross-examined by the defense. Hearsay evidence is worthless because you can't be sure what someone meant by what he said if you can't question him.

The right to remain silent: If you're nervous or inarticulate, a skilled policeman or prosecutor could cause you to say something that's incriminating but not literally true.

The right to private consultation with an attorney: To mount a competent defense, a defendant must be able to speak freely to his attorney – confident that his words won't be taken out of context or otherwise misinterpreted.

These are just some of the rules that are vital to assure that the innocent aren't convicted while the truly guilty go free.

If these rules are discarded – as the Bush administration proposes to do with secret military trials – we have no guarantee that the people convicted, and possibly executed, will be the true villains. And if the wrong people are convicted, the guilty ones can continue terrorizing Americans.

And those who say "terrorists have forfeited their rights" are forgetting the most important point: Without a fair, open trial, you can't be sure the accused person really is a terrorist. Allowing government employees to act as investigators, prosecutors, judges and juries isn't the same as conducting a fair, open trial.

Why the Bill of Rights is ignored

The Bill of Rights, the rule of law and the rules of evidence are there to protect both individuals and society. If the individual isn't safe from false prosecution, society isn't safe from criminals.

Saying the terrorist danger justifies tearing up the Bill of Rights makes as much sense as saying a threat of invasion justifies disbanding the military.

It's a shame that schools don't show children why the Bill of Rights is so important.

But then, why would government want to teach children that it's important to protect individuals from government?

[LSJohn]

Where in the U.S. Constitution does it state what the government may or may not do to it's noncitizens?

Article III, Section 2, Clause 3:

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

AmendmentV

No person shall...... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

[LSJohn]

Do you, or don't you make a distinction between prisoners of war and criminals with prima facie evidence?

Of course, but if the evidence indicates that the crime was committed in Afghanistan or other territory in which U.S. doesn't have jurisdiction I would think they should be treated differently than prisoners against whom the evidence indicates the crime was committed within U.S. jurisdiction, but I'm not sure the Constitution or international law (Ugh!) allows us to go into another country and seize a prisoner without the permission of the host government for prosecution in our own courts... although I think our courts have held that we can.

For example, the criminal court would have only to prove that Mr. Achmed Al Rashid received communications from known terrorists.

I think it should take more than that. I have received communications from the DNC and the RNC. Only if it can be shown that I responded in a cooperative manner can I be legitimately be said to support even someof their activities. Only if I responded cooperatively to a communication which suggested specific action should I be held in any way responsible for that action.

Once that is established, Mr. Rashid becomes a prisoner of war.

No, once it is established that he conspired in a criminal action, he is charged with a crime under civil law. If his crime is only[!?} a war crime committed in a war zone, he remains a prisoner of war and is subject to prosecution by military authorities. In the past, prosecution for war crimes outside the territory of U.S. jurisdiction has been by international military tribunal, not U.S.-only. If his only crime is fighting alongside proven terrorists in Afghanistan he may well have merely joined the enemy of his enemy in protecting his homeland from invasion.

[garbanzo]

Not that Browne had any future in elective politics to begin with - but frankly I think he's completely nuts on this and it's really dragging down the libertarian movement.

[FreeReign]

Article III, Section 2, Clause 3:

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

AmendmentV

No person shall...... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

The Preamble:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America". -- End Preamble.

OBL has no constitutional rights here in the U.S. -- he is not a person of this country. In fact he wages war against this country.

[FreeReign]

So you think you are a person under the constitution, WRONG! Everyone in the US is a citizen under civil (military) law, since the Civil War. The constitution is a Common Law document, which you are not entitled too, it is only used as a reference. Neither is Bin Laden.

Just because you -- Big Banana -- say it, it must be true.

[annalex]

I agree that the communication has to be substantial and has to contain an element of operational control, to designate someone as a combatant.

However, I don't agree that the civil jurisdiction should have anything to do with military tribunals. War is by nature transnational, so I would treat prisoners of war and war criminals the same regardless of the location of their offence.

I also don't agree that there is anything special in international military tribunals. The tribunal should represent the military that is engaged in the hostilities. Presently, that includes the US and the British, and at a great stretch, the Pakistanis.

[LSJohn]

I don't agree that the civil jurisdiction should have anything to do with military tribunals.

I wasn't suggesting that it should; I was suggesting something you apparently like even less: if a crime was committed within our jurisdiction, the charge and trial should be by civil authorities, and due process should be in full force, because that's how we best determine guilt or innocence. Our convenience isn't sufficient justification to make it easier to convict the innocent, and that's my primary concern.

[annalex]

If we are at war then either the entire war is unjust, or presumption of innocence doesn't apply to captured combatants, hence civil courts cannot try them.

[Big Banana]

The only difference between a Civil trail, and a military tribunal, is jurisdiction. They are both ship's in the eyes of the law, with different passengers. All common Law courts of the US dissapeared in the Civil War.