Is Terror Court a good idea?

[sailor]

And it is the executive order I object to on that basis. I thought this was clear from the get go.

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by sailor *
Nope, I do not think other civilized nations have criminal laws which discriminate against foreigners.

I’m not saying that that particular form of discrimination is common. I’m just saying that discrimination, in general, is an almost universal feature among nations.

I cannot see why Americans should be allowed to be terrorists any more than anyone else.

It’s not so much as that they are more allowed to be terrorists, but that it is an act of a different nature. When it is domestic, it is crime. When it is foreign, it is war.

[clairobscur]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
clairobscur

If I say that there are two categories of rights, rights tied to citizenships and rights which are given an universal value, and that the rights we are refering to in this thread fall in the second category, is it clearer?

Well, no. I thought that the issue was that they are tied to citizenship. IOW, they are in the first category.**

Don’t know what mean IOW, but indeed I think they belong to the first category. So seem to think your supreme court, so I’m in good company. And in case it still wouldn’t be extremely clear, I’m refering to the rights to due process of law in general, not to this particular situation, since I was originally responding to someone who made a general statement about courtesy rights.

[

It has nothing to do with the fact that military justice includes or not due process nor with the debate about the the terrorists being handled to military courts or not. It’s another debate on which I also gave my opinion later in the thread.

I think that if you’re going to switch topics, you should make it more clear.**

I meant that I separetly, in my former posts, responded first to the statement about “courtesy rights”, and later gave my opinion about the particular issue of the military commissions.

What people accept or not has nothing to do (or not much to do) with legal/ constitutionnal issues.

But you seem to be basing your argument of commonly accepted principles. If what people accept is irrelevant, then why do you keep on bringing up that “democracies don’t do this”? **

.**
[/QUOTE]

What people accept or don’t accept is a political, social, cultural, contextual or whatever issue…It’s not a legal or constitutionnal issue. That’s why it’s irrelevant when one is talking about a constitutionnal or legal issue.
A lot of people could want to skin alive a baby killer without trial, it doesn’t make skinning alive baby killers without trial a commonly accepted legal principle. There’s possibly a majority of people in my country who support the death penalty, but it’s still unconstitutionnal.
And by the way, the fact that I said that democratic countries don’t do it was a secondary point. If I had knew I would have to write so much posts thereafter, I would have responded only “I’m pretty certain that in the US the constitutionnal rights aren’t extended to aliens just out of courtesy”, without mentionning any generally accepted principle.

[The_Ryan]

clairobscur:

Don’t know what mean IOW, but indeed I think they belong to the first category. So seem to think your supreme court, so I’m in good company.

IOW: in other words.
Perhaps you think that they should be in the first category, but if these rights are tied to citizenship, then they aren’t in the first category.

[Dave_Stewart]

*Originally posted by Neurotik *
**

*Originally posted by Dave Stewart *
**I’m an Australian. How does this assist your argument? **

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. **

Neurotik - if you can’t argue in a rational, grown-up fashion, let me direct you to the Sesame Street website. It might be more your speed.

There was an interesting article today in the (pro-Western) South China Morning Post, heavily criticising this tribunal and comparing it to courts in Myanmar.

The article’s opening paragraphs went along these lines, drawing a hypothetical analogy: an American is arrested in an Asian country, tried before a court of military officers, with no right of appeal, and limited rules of evidence. The American government would be filing protests quicker than you could blink.

And rightfully so, too.

The article also quoted Dick Cheney. Quotes like:

“We think it guarantees that these people will have the kind of treatment that we think they deserve.”

make me wonder which facist planet he’s living on.

Where are the proud citizens the land of the brave and the home of the free? If this law was against citizens you’d be obliged to take up your arms against tyranny right now.

Y’know, I used to be an opponent of the US evidentiary doctrine of the “fruits of the poisoned tree” - that is, you can’t use evidence improperly obtained in court to secure a conviction. But with paranoid security types running around the US right now looking for scapegoats, it seems to me that this is a necessary rule: and if the military tribunal does not apply it (it seems that it is not obliged to do so), then that is a very scary thing indeed.

[jshore]

*Originally posted by jaybee *
Clairobscur - You are right, you don’t understand American law…[Lots of stuff about what Americans are like]

Speak for yourself here, jaybee. This is another American who agrees a lot more with clairobscur than yourself!

Our governments priority now is with its own citizens, the people who elected them.

[hijack]
Well, actually, if you look at the economic stimulus package recently passed by the House and endorsed by Bush, it appears that our government’s priority now is with the rich people and corporations who gave them the money that helped them get elected. But we digress…
[/hijack]

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).

Now, I have admittedly been out of the country for a while and may not be completely up on things, so correct me if I am wrong … But last I heard, not only was Al Quaida not proven to be the perpetrator of the anthrax attacks, but in fact the FBI was saying that their “profile” of the most likely perpetrator was of someone engaging in home-grain terrorism. Have you heard otherwise?

[Dave_Stewart]

*Originally posted by notcynical *
**

*Originally posted by Dave Stewart *
**
I would hate, as an example which has just jumped into my head, to be a foreign investigative journo for Stern or somewhere (Stern reporters always end up in messes) doing a deep cover investigation on terrorists, and then end up in front of a military court. **

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! **

“Stern” is a German investigative magazine.

Quiet different to Howard Stern.

[jshore]

As a follow-up to my last comment, here is a report in the Christian Science Monitor (Nov 19), Domestic loners top suspect list in anthrax attacks - CSMonitor.com

With the discovery of a fourth letter containing anthrax, this time addressed to Sen. Patrick Leahy (D) of Vermont, investigators are increasingly leaning toward the theory that a lone domestic terrorist may be responsible - someone with a grudge against the media and Democratic politicians.

Although the FBI still has not ruled out the possibility that Al Qaeda may be involved, experts say the small number of the anthrax attacks so far seems to indicate a less coordinated operation. Now, the targeting of Senator Leahy, who chairs the Judiciary Committee but is not an especially high-profile figure, may point to an attacker with strong domestic political views in line with certain right-wing extremists.

Should we try right-wing extremists in military courts to!?!

[Rossarian]

*Originally posted by Dave Stewart *
**

*Originally posted by Neurotik *
**

*Originally posted by Dave Stewart *
**I’m an Australian. How does this assist your argument? **

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. **

Neurotik - if you can’t argue in a rational, grown-up fashion, let me direct you to the Sesame Street website. It might be more your speed.**

Don’t worry Dave, he wasn’t trying to insult you. He was merely quoting The Princess Bride. I thought it rather funny.

[Dave_Stewart]

Oh. Whoops. Sorry.

[Northern_Piper]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by The Ryan *
**

*Originally posted by clairobscur *

I guess it’s clear to everybody that we are refering here to the rights to a due process of law.

Are we? I got the impression from Monty’s posts that military justice includes due process.**

The standard military courts set up under statutes passed by Congress, yes.

But, the commission that triggered this debate is set up by the President by executive order. Amongst other things, that order provides:

1. The President gets to decide who will be tried under that order;

2. Any person subject to the order is detained by the Secretary of Defence - no mention of any judicial scrutiny of the detention, like bail;

3. The Secretary of Defence gets to set the standards of evidence to be used, on a much lower standard than are used by the civilian courts;

4. Admissibility of evidence is subject to two Executive Orders of the President, rather than laws which have been enacted by Congress, or set by the judiciary under the common law;

5. The military commission is to be judge of both law and fact (i.e. - no independent jury);

6. The commission may convict by a two-thirds majority - unanimity is not required;

7. The Secretary of Defence gets to decide what post-conviction process, if any, will be allowed;

8. No appeals to the courts are permitted;

9. The Commission can sentence the person to death.
   It’s a process, all right; that’s about all I can say about it.

If you were tried by this process, The Ryan, would you be satisified that you had a fair trial?

[samclem]

Would Timothy McVeigh have been subject to this military court had GW’s order been in effect at the time of the OKLA. bombing? If, indeed, the anthrax perp is a domestic type, will he be tried in this military court?

A prediction: Bin Laden will be tried by some form of International Court. It will certainly be in the best interest of the US and the Arab world, and probably Society as a whole. I can’t see where anyone would disagree with my last sentence, unless they were only after revenge.

clair said

I’m not a lawyer nor a native speaker, obviously. So, I can express myself poorly

You have no need to apologize, “Frenchy.”(sic) If anything, your posts exhibit a command of English which would keep you out of last place in grammar and spelling in this thread. :rolleyes:

[clairobscur]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
**clairobscur:

Don’t know what mean IOW, but indeed I think they belong to the first category. So seem to think your supreme court, so I’m in good company.

IOW: in other words.
Perhaps you think that they should be in the first category, but if these rights are tied to citizenship, then they aren’t in the first category. **

No…I mispoke in my last post. I meant I believe they belong to the second category : the rights which are given an universal value.

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by clairobscur *
No…I mispoke in my last post. I meant I believe they belong to the second category : the rights which are given an universal value.

I do not consider it nitpicking to point out that there is a big difference between “they belong to the second category” and “they belong in the second category”. Do understand the distinction I am getting at? If these rights are denied on the basis of citzenship, then they belong to the second category.

[Northern_Piper]

originally posted by samclem:
Would Timothy McVeigh have been subject to this military court had GW’s order been in effect at the time of the OKLA. bombing? If, indeed, the anthrax perp is a domestic type, will he be tried in this military court?

McVeigh wouldn’t have been subject to the tribunal; need more information before we can say about the anthrax attacks.

The order sets out who is subject to the tribunal:

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:[ul]

list there is reason to believe that such individual, at the relevant times,

list is or was a member of the organization known as al Qaida;[/ul]

ul 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[/ul]

ul has knowingly harbored one or more individuals described in subparagraphs (i) or (ii) of subsection 2(a)(1) of this order;[/ul][/list]

So McVeigh wouldn’t be caught because he was an American citizen.

As for the anthrax attacks, the order would only apply if he/she/they are non-citizens, and are a member of al-Q, or have engaged in acts of international terrorism [an undefined term], or have knowingly harboured such individuals. We’ll just have to wait and see.

Note as well that it is the President personally who makes the initial determination that a particular individual fits within the terms of the order.

[Dave_Stewart]

Is it just me, or is the purpose of this to circumvent an acquittal for lack of evidence in the event Mr bin Laden is caught?

[sailor]

I wonder if that executive order is even constitutional.

[december]

*Originally posted by sailor *
**I wonder if that executive order is even constitutional. **

It probably is. The Constitution doesn’t prohibit the President from ordering that foreign terrorists be shot on sight. So, giving them a trial and then shooting them should be not prohibited. Furthermore, there is some precedent for Presidents taking extraordinary powers during times of crisis.

Also, as a practical matter, I can’t see the courts overruling the President on this power, unless it’s abused.

[gex_gex]

said by the ryan

This is a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”.

four legs good two legs bad. catchphrases aren’t the basis of a legal system.

regardless, isn’t this a major precedent for the procedure likely/appropriate should any al-qaeda nasties be caught?

[sailor]

>> The Constitution doesn’t prohibit the President from ordering that foreign terrorists be shot on sight.

We must be reading a different constitution then. My edition says something about due process of law etc. War is one thing but I do not think the SCOTUS would find it to be constitutional for the president to order anybody to be shot on sight if he can be arrested and brought to trial without danger. Or do you really think it would be legal for the president to unleash the army on NY cab drivers and shoot them all?

Using deadly force is justified to defend yourself or others. Using deadly force for the sole reason of avoiding a cumbersome trial is not in the constitution that I would know.