President Bush signed an executive order today, allowing for terror suspects who are not U.S. citizens to be tried by the military.
I approve. I’d hate to see OBL, for example, tried in a normal civilian court. As a circus, it would rival the O. J. Simpson trial.
For complete text of the Bush Executive Order, see: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/bush_terror_order011113.html
Absolutely not, and I hope this gets challenged and struck down.
Terrorism is a civilian offense and the people involved in perpetrating it are not members of a military as defined by Geneva, and as such, are to be considered civilians, not POWs.
IANAL, but aren’t the rules a bit different in military courts than in civilian ones?
So all the targets we’re bombing is Afghanistan are civilian?
Marc
Yikes. Does this mean that rules of evidence do not apply in military courts? If so, what is the benefit of this? Denying a terrorist rights and due processes available in a civilian trial is hardly fair.
And its only applicable to non-US citizens! Isn’t that discriminatory?
The rules of evidence do apply in military courts-martial; however, they do not apply in Article 15 hearings. The Executive Order in question says “trial.” Article 15 hearings are not trials.
I’m confused. What’s the basis for the extension of military jurisdiction over a foreign national? It sure as heck isn’t that he or she is in the military, 'cause he/she ain’t.
I’m not getting why the military court would have jurisdiction if the civil court would not, and I’m not sure that “because the President said so” means much.
Is anyone aware of any other situations wherein the military exercises jurisdiction over non-military persons, whether citizens or not?
MGibson what are you talking about? We are bombing military targets in Afghanistan, but that’s because the Taliban are a military organization. We are not bombing the Taliban because they are the terrorists, we are bombing them because they are a military that is sheltering terrorists.
There is 10 U.S.C. 906:
(Note that other articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice all begin with “Any person subject to this chapter…”)
“In a time of war” – that doesn’t help us much, unless war has been declared, which it hasn’t.
Well, I was just providing a factual answer to your question. (I also can’t seem to find a definition of “time of war” anywhere in there, but I would assume that that article would not apply during undeclared wars like Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, and whatever the official name of this one winds up being; if so, that would make the provision pretty much obsolete, since formal declarations of war have gone out of style and it appears somewhat unlikely there will be any new ones.)
Well we have been bombing some terrorist camps. Am I to understand that all terrorist camps are part of the Taliban? Have we not hit Al Quaida targets? Sorry I didn’t spell that right.
Marc
I beleive that the constitution only applies to citizens of the United States and that under normal circumstances we allow it to be extended to people of other nations on our soil as a courtescy. Sort of you respect our citizens while they are in your country and we will respect yours kinda thing.
These are NOT normal circumstances. The United States is under attack from a well originized and determined group. The resolution passed by congress gives the president broad warlike powers. This is no time for candy ass measures. Things may get even uglier before it gets better, thats what war is and why we try so hard to stay out of them.
I say they are not US citizens and that when they commit or plot military actions agaist the US that they should not try to hide behind the protections and liberties that our free society provides for its own people. They will get the same type of treatment we gave Milosavic, Noreaga, and those Nazis at Nuremburg. No better, but no worse.
Actually, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution DOES apply to non-citizens.
:rolleyes:
Yes, see this MSNBC article What rights for non-citizens?; at least some rights are definitely protected by the Constitution for non-citizens.
I felt queasy when I first heard this. I still do since I don’t understand all of the ramifications. NPR stated that the White House pushed this forward because military courts can be held outside the physical borders of the US. Was this step taken by the White House to avoid the World Court or to eliminate extradition questions?
Any lawyers who could help with all the questions raised in these postings?
So what about Noreaga. We went down to Panama and grabed him brought him back to the Us and tried him. Believe he is still locked up in Florida. What did the Supreme Court have to say about that. Do you really think the Supreme Court are going to have any sympaty for people who are mailing anthrax to federal offices and plotting the destruction of our cities. Get real.
In times of attack you can throw out the damn rule book. Passions run high, espically in a government that is under attack. Desparate Times, Desparate Measures.
But not unconstitutional, just realistic.
Noriega’s capture and trial has been subject to a lot of criticism, especially from European academics, on its extraterritoriality.
If military courts provide lesser protection of rights for the accused, I wouldn’t like to get arrested on charges on terrorism in the US right now, as an innocent non-citizen, and get tried before a military court.
Some innocent probably will get hurt, but the possible good outweighs the possible harm in my view. If we can prevent another September 11th or a smallpox attack by getting tough on foreign national accused of terroism then.
Military court does not mean that we are going to try them and then shot them. It just means that we are going to hold them to a tougher standard.
By the way, the constitution is what those old men (and women) in Washington D.C. interpit it at the time. They may come back five years from now and say we shouldn’t have done some things but for now it looks like the chief executive is going to use his constitutional authority to execute in times of crisis. You go GW.
Ends justify the means? I dont see any good if people are jailed to justify our objective. I know some people do slip through the cracks and are wrongfuly convicted but that doesn’t mean it should be happening.
On the topic at hand I don’t really have the basis in law (yet!) to even hazard a guess to how this all plays out in the legal system.
I will say though that I do approve of military court trials if they are done for the reasons stated. (Keeping crucial intellegence secret, extradition complications, etc)
I don’t think anyone wants to see members of the Taliban escape trial because extradition couldn’t be secured.
Things get a lot more tricky with people on our own soil. I’m willing to bet there will be some resistence to this domestically from organizations like the ACLU.
I agree with Czaoth, but go further. The laws in civilian courts have been developed for a damn good reason. This is to protect the individual from being unfairly tried, and these laws shoudn’t be brushed aside. I’d certainly like some more information on the difference between a military court and a civilian court. Is the standard of proof higher or lower, for example? I’m a bit suspcious that this has been introduced because GWB has received legal advice that the evidence against al-Qaeda on the terrorist attacks wouldn’t get a conviction in a civilian court, because the evidence would not allow a jury to convict beyond reasonable doubt.
A back-door conviction, in absentia or otherwise, through a military court is unfair.