I’m not sure that’s the case under Bush’s executive order. From the link in the OP:
That doesn’t sound like the rules of evidence I’m familiar with; it’s more like a stripped down, rough’n’ready kind of “we all know he did it” approach.
Unless I’m reading this one wrong, it says that the admission of evidence is subject to two executive orders, as well as statutory restrictions. Again, the idea of the executive setting the rules of admissibility for the tribunal doesn’t match my understanding of how evidentiary principles are determined.
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Monty
Again, that doesn’t seem to be the case under Bush’s executive order:
If I was innocent and arrested on charges of terrorism (or whatever the charge would be), it seems I would not be able to rely upon:
improperly obtained evidence (“fruits of the poisoned tree”). So if my confession is obtained under duress;
unless I’m mistaken, classified evidence (which makes no sense since the military court is composed of officers who keep classified secrets secret. Maybe its to prevent lawyers and translators from coming into military secrets. Oh, and the accused, of course); and
an appeal court fixing up the mistaken judgment of the inferior court (which, trust me, happens all the time).
MEBuckner - I think this court is called the Star Chamber.
I know there are always exceptions to general principles. And I’m sure that in pretty much every country you’re going to find laws foreigners can’t benefit from.
I was speaking in a general way, in response to a statement saying roughly that constitutionnal rights applied only to US citizens and were extended to foreigners only out of courtesy. This in untrue, despite possible limited exceptions in particular circumstances, in all democratic countries, and I still stand for this statement.
And since I read the rest of the thread since, it’s obviously true for the US too (though I don’t think it wasn’t really necessary to read the thread to assume that).
The fact that there can be exceptions allowing to limit the rights of foreigners to a due process of law in some circumstances doesn’t mean that "the constitutionnal rights extend to foreigners just out of courtesy ". There’s a link about your supreme court stating the contrary in this thread, and this ruling is hardly surprising
I didn’t express my opinion about this issue in my previous post. But in response to what you’re saying, I’d say that no exceptions should be made to the rule of law under these circumstances (perhaps in some really extreme circumstances, like there’s an open war on your territory, complete with armies and bombers). The rule of law should prevail in a democratic country. And I would say, even in the very interest of the US in these circumstances, since everybody in the world will be looking to the US if these terrorists are ever brought to court. Your country would lose a big chunk of credibility not respecting all the forms.
The crimes are irelevant. In your country like in mine, someone is considered innocent until proven guilty.
For all what I know, I could come tomorrow in NY, and some police officer could think I look like a terrorist. So, according to you, I shouldn’t benefit from regular legal rights because the idea which popped up in his mind was “terrorist” instead of “illegal immigrant”?
These rights are there for a good reason : to make sure that someone won’t be condemned just because someone else (being the president of the US or the officer at the corner of the street) thinks he could be a terrorist, but because everything has been done to make sure he was actually one. You can’t deprive someone from his rights to a due process of law just because he’s a terrorist, since you can’t know if he’s a terrorist or not when he doesn’t benefit from them at the first place.
A sovereign country can decide whatever she wants. For instance that all the ennemies of the people as defined by a secret commission must be sent in a work camp in Alaska for an undetermined duration. But democratic countries, including the US, usually respect some standarts.
We have sent people to camps based on thier racial profile before. Remember the Japanese. It took them almost 50 years to get settlement on that one.
Why do we have to be attacked by bombers and armies for you to think that we can take these actions. Terrorism is an act of war in a modern age designed to circumvent armies and bombers, but still have the same effect.
I am obviously from the US, where are you from? I would invite everybody who post to state where they are from so that us ignorant, belligirant amerocans can get a better perspective on how the world thinks we should handle our affairs.
Are you proud of that, or are you saying that was a travesty?
Please direct me to where I said that.
And so this justifies a court which impedes the rights freedoms and liberties of those people in its sovereign jurisdiction, such rights freedoms and liberties being part of what your country is (properly) proud of?
I’m an Australian. How does this assist your argument?
Dave, no we are not proud of the japanese thing. I just cite it as an example of an exterm american reaction to an exterm attack. The terror court thing is going darm but not as far as we could.
As far as wanting to know your country, I only want to make it clearer if we are having a internal US discussion or if we are having a US vs “the world” type discussion.
Just trying to get a gage on how other citizens here feel about this situation as opposed to how people of other free democratic nations feel about it.
And to clarify my stance, it sucks to have to resort to this quasi martial law type deal for non-citizens for high crimes (see I didn’t say treason) agaist our nation but I as a US citizen don’t have a problem with it. Yet.
I know exactly what you’re talking about, though you’re slightly misguided (Stern would never get into the realm of terrorist organizations). But, he pisses enough people off here in the U.S. in his relentless search for “Lesbian Love Connection” contestants, or women who will be spanked live on the radio. Imagine trying to find such people in Irag or somewhere. They don’t even let women walk around with their faces uncovered!
Not remotely. Because Davecomes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I clearly cannot choose the argument in front of you.
Look, people, we have to expect a certain amount of hyperbole under the present circumstances.
We have already seen some of this coming out of the US Department of Justice. The Atty Gen seems to think that announcement of an impending wave of terrorism was sufficient to keep someone from blowing up the Golden Gate Bridge. This new executive order on military commissions is probably just more of the same and well may reflect the Atty Gen ‘s inclination toward authoritarian government and the restriction of individual liberties.
As a practical matter the national government has always had the power to institute military commissions. We are not talking about Courts Martial here. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (1948) explicitly recognizes that military commissions have concurrent jurisdiction with Courts Martial for trials and proceedings under the “Law of War.” The German saboteur cases from WW II were military commission proceedings under the Law of War, not Courts Martial under the then Articles of War. The same is true of the quasi-political war trials following WW II. The Nurnberg trials were not Courts Martial but special proceeding for violations of the law of war. As a general proposition a Court Martial has personal jurisdiction only of members of the armed forces. While military commissions may look like Courts Martial and even act like them, they are not Courts Martial.
The law of war is a pretty foggy concept. As in the case of the Nuremberg Trials, it can embrace some natural law ideas. Before Nurnberg a crime against humanity was a novel concept, as was the crime of waging an aggressive war. These were not ideas that were seriously urged at the end of WW I when the Allies had the Kaiser in their power and elected to let him go into retirement/exile.
The catcher to this whole thing is whether it is politically possible for the Federal government to prosecute people accused of violations of the law and usages of war in secret proceedings. That there is already some screaming coming out of Congress is a pretty reliable indication that the use of military commissions is not politically acceptable. I have a lot of trouble thinking that given this country’s insistence on open judicial proceedings and at least the appearance of fairness that the Federal Government is about to convene secret Star Chamber type proceedings to deal with people thought responsible for the terror raids in NYC and Washington.
…as for me, I am alert but not intimidated and buying durable goods at low interest as fast as I can.
I’m an American. I think this is an EXTREMELY bad idea.
If I go to Saudi Arabia, and I get arrested for theft, I get my hand chopped off. I must obey their laws.
Likewise, if I am a Saudi, and I come to America, and get arrested for theft, I will have a long, drawn out trial with the oppertunity for appeals, and the like. This is no surprise. A country’s laws do not follow the citizens.
Not only is this a bad idea because of the possibility of other countries reciprocating, but it is against a fundamental basis of our courts. Justice is blind. Our justice system is in place to punish the guilty, not to punish those who are suspected of being guilty. If an innocent person was tried and convicted in one of these tribunals, and doesn’t get to appeal, that would be a very sad thing, indeed.
Dick Cheney claimed that terrorists do not deserve the same treatment as our own citizens. I agree. Unfortunately, nobody can GUARANTEE that everyone brought in front of these tribunals is guilty. Taking away the liberties of a law-abiding citizen is wrong.
Also, this order doesn’t just extend to those involved in the Sept 11 attacks, or even Al-Qaeda. It extends to ALL whom the president deems a terrorist. It seems to me that this executive order gives the President carte blanche to give a harsh, unfair trial to anyone. All he has to do is “wave the magic wand” and call the defendent a terrorist.
I concurr. This is an EXTREMELY bad idea from any point you look at it. The USA has been criticizing for decades countries which were doing the same thing with much more justification to do it. The USA has been criticizing for decades countries for not giving Americans the same judicial process they would have in the USA, even though they may be getting better treatment than their own nationals. This is an invitation for other countries to treat Americans worse rather than better.
In any case, due judicial process is there to determine guilt or inocence. This prejudices guilt before the process even starts (since you’re guilty we’re putting you in the fast lane). Why is this OK with foreigners and not with Americans?
This is not only a bad idea. It is immoral and probably unconstitutional.
Perhaps the Bush administration is invoking this military tier of justice to handle Talaban and Bin Laden supporters captured in Afganistan. If we capture a known terrorist over there (say one on the FBI list)it would be convenant and probabaly a little bit more fair that letting the northern alliance kick him through the streets of Kabual and then blow his head off (not that I really have much of a problem with that). We would then have a set game plan on how to deal with the situation.
Now if we were to capture terrorist red handed trying to blow up some public facility in the US and didn’t want to have a OJ type media circus or have our sources compromised we would have the option of trying them on a military base. We would at least be able show that we had the forethought of handeling these exterm cases and deal with them in an orderally fashion.
Even though these trials may be secert, you can bet that our incredibly nosy free press will push the government to its limits or that the government will purposely leak information that it wants released. Remember what GW told us on September 11, this war is going to be fault differtly than any other war we have know. Special Ops, hit squads, ariel bombings, and yes in the courts. He is merely slanting the rules in his favor at every opportunity he can get right now. We will just have to wait and see iff the justic department tries to take these new rules to far and to raise issue with them when the do. Thats a blessing of living in a free society, even in times when you have to limit certain freedoms for some to increase the security of the majority.
Free press a bad thing? No, my point is that while we are limiting (not total taking away) this one area of freedom in a very select number of cases we still will have more freedoms than just about any other country in the world.
Al Quida and the Taliban hate the free press. That is why they probably are the ones who attacked the National Enquirer (not so sure about Tom Brochaw or Petter Jennings attacks).
May I politely suggest, jaybee, that perhaps a greater familiarity with history might temper your injudicious pounding of the drumhead. I’ll even get you started: Look up the Sedition Act of 1918. Go ahead, we’ll wait.