Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bin Laden could face military trial abroad
UPI ^ | Wednesday, November 14, 2001

Posted on 11/16/2001 1:11:38 PM PST by JohnHuang2

WASHINGTON, Nov 14, 2001 (United Press International via COMTEX) -- Special military courts authorized by President Bush could be used to try Osama bin Laden and his chief lieutenants overseas, as well as foreign nationals already arrested in the United States, according to senior U.S. officials Wednesday.

Attorney General John Ashcroft, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld all left both possibilities wide open in remarks to reporters Wednesday.

The three were all separately questioned about an executive order signed Tuesday by President Bush that authorizes the creation of one or more military commissions to try non-citizen terrorist suspects, which could be held in secret and with different and much looser rules of evidence than criminal courts.

Although details remain to be worked out, the order clearly gives the administration the power to establish such courts either at home or abroad, and try before them any non-citizens identified by the President as members of bin Laden's al Qaida group who have planned or executed terrorist attacks against the United States, or anyone who has harbored them.

Ashcroft in particular repeatedly and pointedly refused to rule out a military trial for bin Laden and his associates for their alleged roles in plotting the Sept. 11 terror attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

"In the course of the war we might capture terrorists in Afghanistan," Ashcroft said. "I don't think we have to bring them back to the United States for justice."

The attorney general added "foreign terrorists ... do not deserve the protection of the Constitution."

And when White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked whether the special court could try some of those hundreds of foreign nationals being held in the United States, he replied, "Yes."

"The military order does not make a distinction between whether this would take place within Afghanistan or whether it could apply to anybody who was detained in the United States," said Fleischer, stressing that the order did not apply to citizens.

Under the order, the Secretary of Defense has to establish the special courts, and draw up the rules under which they will operate. But Tuesday evening, Defense Department public affairs officials said that they had learned about the order after it had been issue to the media.

It remained unclear Wednesday when -- and indeed perhaps whether -- such rules might be drafted. "It's up to the President to decide if and when he wants such a thing established," said Rumsfeld early Wednesday morning, "We're in the process of thinking through the details."

Ashcroft repeatedly said the United States was at war and special measures were needed.

"It's pretty clear that we're at war now ... That distinguishes this setting form other settings ... I believe those who commandeered airplanes (to carry out the Sept. 11 attacks) ... committed the kinds of activities that constitute war crimes..."

"They're acts of war, against civilization, in my opinion, as well as the United States," Ashcroft said.

Under current U.S. case law, the military can only court-martial civilians during time of war.

However, the president appears to regard the current conflict with al Qaida as a war, and the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Resolution," enacted by Congress following the Sept. 11 terror attacks, as the equivalent of a declaration of war.

The resolution, passed Sept. 14, allows Bush to use "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11."

Peacetime courts-martial of civilians were found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1957's Reid vs. Covert.

--

(Reported by Mike Kirkland and Kathy Gambrell in Washington and Pam Hess at the Pentagon)

By United Press International

Copyright 2001 by United Press International.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 11/16/2001 1:11:38 PM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
These people who write these articles are so clueless. Terrorists in the US are NOT civilians; they are military agents of a foreign power, here to conduct military operations. When they conduct them against US civilians, that constitutes a war crime under clear principles of international war. This whole notion of "civilians can only be tried in time of war" fails to understand this point.
2 posted on 11/16/2001 1:11:42 PM PST by Defiant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: Sunshine Patriot
A lien on your property is a right to collect against it. Alienating your property is to mortgage it, or allowing someone an interest in it. Inalienable means that you cannot give up your rights.
4 posted on 11/16/2001 1:11:45 PM PST by Defiant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: JohnHuang2
Forget the trial. A cave makes a great tomb. It's a heck of a lot cheaper and the Dersh*twitzes of the world don't make a reputation and get a book deal out of it.
7 posted on 11/16/2001 1:11:59 PM PST by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Bush made a truly brilliant end run around the sniveling, sidling, snake-eyed ACLU lawyers with this executive order. We might actually get some terrorists convicted! Jailed! Executed! Imagine that!

Actually, I think of those attorneys as the ACPU.

8 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:02 PM PST by PoisedWoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
We don't want a trial. Why listen to those that are unfriendly to the US protest? I really don't want to hear anything more from Phil Dohnoue.

Could you have imagined Nader's cabinet? Jeezzzzzzzz. Hey, we should hope that Nader attracks more voters next time. This only splits the demos. Sort of what idiots like Perot and Buchanan like to do.

9 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:26 PM PST by boycott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sunshine Patriot
Okay.....so "inalienable" is a commie plot. Hadn't heard that one before. Is there a substantive difference, and can you explain why people stopped using "unalienable"?
10 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:26 PM PST by Defiant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
That's right. We'll have a trial, just for the record, but it should be 'post-mortem' only!
11 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:33 PM PST by SlightOfTongue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Why screw around? Kill 'em out of hand and leave mock trials and the Constitution out of it.
12 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:39 PM PST by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: Sunshine Patriot
Your point is absolutely correct, but entirely misplaced with respect to the non-distinction between "inalienable" and "unalienable". Most likely, "unalienable" is an incorrect usage, and people favorable to the founding fathers used the correct form. If you can't see the difference between that and calling a commie a "progressive", or a socialist a "Liberal", then you need to loosen your tinfoil hat.
14 posted on 11/16/2001 1:16:56 PM PST by Defiant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson