You just got whooshed. Who wants to explain it to december?
Unless I’m missing something here, we have two lines of argument going on here. One argument, advanced by Smiling Bandit and perhaps others, is that trial of non-citizens by military commission is a good idea because other wise we might not get the right result. This is an argument that assumes that there is a right out come and looks for a process to legitimize that outcome. While this statement may not be fair, it illustrates the problem with the argument. It is one of those situations where we change the rules of the game in order to narrow the possible result. If there is not enough scoring then change the rules of football so that the defense can’t knock the receiver down of beat up on the quarterback. Same thing, if we can’t be sure of getting a conviction and an executed death sentence from a conventional civil court, we will set up a special court that is not subject to judicial supervision and review.
The other argument, advanced by Sailor and others, is that we need to maintain some appearance of fairness and conventional ideas of due process of law and that the best place to do that is in the established and functioning civil courts. This argument focuses on the process rather than the result. In situations in which American citizens have been hauled before military courts in foreign countries, the US government has protested over the unfairness of the process. It seems a more than a little incongruous for the US to now proceed to do the very thing we have urged other countries not to do. I am inclined to this second argument.
That 65% of the people surveyed in a recent poll think that military commission is alright should not be a surprise to anyone. The propaganda drums have been beating pretty heavily and an outcome oriented approach has certain seductiveness. The choice between putting people we haven’t caught yet before a regular civil court or a special purpose military court is really a pretty sophisticated one and one not really given to resolution by the rough and tumble of media politics.
One more comment, some administration spokesman in the last day or so said that assumptions that a military commission will be inherently unfair shows an undeserved lack of faith is military lawyers. Maybe so. But, go ask anyone who has served as a military lawyer. Ask what happened to the judge advocate who told troopers in the 3d Infantry that the US incursion into Lebanon in the early 1970s was unlawful. Ask if it is true that the military lawyer’s mission is not to tell the commander what he can’t do, it is to tell the commander how to do what he wants to do. It is not the job of the military lawyer to make political decisions. If the political decision is to go foreword with military commissions the military lawyer will either figure out a way to do it or resign.
december: Many of the Middle Eastern countries dislike the US anyhow. They will tend to be on our side to the degree that we show a willingness to use our power effectively.
I wish you would substantiate this with detailed factual evidence, because it seems to me entirely unsupported by reality. For example, Israel has frequently demonstrated its willingness to use its power effectively, but that doesn’t mean that its Arab neighbors “tend to be on its side”. I think it’s completely false to declare that other countries’ support for our policies has nothing to do with how just and wise our actions are, and everything to do with how effective we are at getting our own way.
Huh? What happened?
december: Europe, Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, and Asia are not essential. I’m grateful for their broad support, but we could and would pursue this war without their support if we had to.
Are you forgetting how many terrorist suspects have been apprehended in European countries by European security forces since 9/11? Are you unaware of how much popular support has been demonstrated for anti-American terrorism in many Latin American countries? Do you not know that, for example, India has been strongly questioning the US’s pressure on it to refrain from military responses to terrorism on its own turf (such as the Srinagar attack) that would destabilize the region much more gravely? Do you really imagine that it doesn’t really matter whether or not these and other countries trust us to do the right thing and respect the basic rights of non-Americans?
This kind of isolationist, unilateralist indifference to the concerns of other nations, in the belief that we can somehow make ourselves safer while increasing everybody else’s enmity towards us, is madness pure and simple. Let us not become so fixated on our frantic efforts to protect ourselves and others that we end up throwing away everything we’re trying to protect.
Nobody on the opposing side has answered the question of why military tribunals are necessaery to deal with non-citizens but not with US citizens. Are US citizens allowed to bring down western civilization? I have asked this question several times and nobody has addressed it. If the civilian court system is enogh to deal with US citizens who would be terrorists, why is it not good enough to deal with foreigners.
december, the idea that the USA can isolate and fight this or anything else without the support and cooperation of Europe and other countries is so ridiculous I am not even going to address it. From intelligence to strategic support to … The WTC was partly plotted in Europe. US forces are using European bases, etc. Your understanding of international relations is severely limited. And I remind you about the other thread you started in the pit complaining about Spain refusing extradition of terrorists. So what is it? Does America need Europe’s help or doesn’t it?
So, we have an executive order which only applies to non-US citizens. Any subject to that order is bound to have some citizenship. Think about those Arab terrorists who have acquired some European citizenship. First of all, Europe will refuse extradition. Suppose somehow they end up in US hands. The stink going to be raised in Europe if one of their citizens would be tried by a military court is something you cannot imagine. Doing it would be one of the stupidest things the US could do as it would just alienate their allies unnecessarily. I do not know what Egypt or other muslim countries may do in such a case.
The order is unnecessary and chances are it may backfire.
If anything, alienating other countries makes us even LESS safe than before. Without support, we’re all alone, and it will be no one’s fault but our own if we act like the Grand High Poobah of the Earth.
Someone above quoted some “government official” as saying that criticism of this “military court” scheme indicates a lack of confidence in military courts.
No, it indicates a lack of confidence in those like Bush and Ashcroft who have demonstrated a complete lack of confidence in the US justice system by this action.
Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds…” I personally have no interest in analyzing this apparent inconsistency. IMHO it’s quite enough of a challenge to conduct trials in such a way that the innocent are acquitted and the guilty are convicted and punished.
America would like Europe’s help, but we will wipe out al Qaida without it if necessary. Spain isn’t giving us their appropriate help, but I still expect us to prevail.
William Tecumseh Sherman said, “War is hell.” If we have to put up with a big stink, well, that’s just part of the price we must pay in order to protect the civilized world against these terrorists.
Bolding MINE.
Yet there might not be much of the “civilized” world left to protect…
:rolleyes:
>> I personally have no interest in analyzing this apparent inconsistency. IMHO it’s quite enough of a challenge to conduct trials in such a way that the innocent are acquitted and the guilty are convicted and punished.
This “apparent inconsistency” is crucial to your reasoning supporting the need for military tribunals. If you have no interest in analyzing it you would do well to realize you have a half baked opinion which can do more harm than good.
Only very ignorant people with no understanding of the USA’s international interests and relations would spout that kind of isolationist crap. It is good that Colin Powell and company know better and are doing a good job of keeping the coalition together. Whether you like it or not America cannot impose its will on the rest of the world. The rest of the world united is more powerful than America many times in every aspect.
>> If we have to put up with a big stink, well, that’s just part of the price we must pay in order to protect the civilized world against these terrorists.
What is the “civilised world” to you? I guess London, Rome, Paris, Berlin, Madrid, Prague, are not part of your “civilised world” whereas any trailer park in Arkansas is much more representative of your “civilization”.
I have a complete lack of confidence in the ability of US civilian courts to handle high profile cases. Let’s look at the record. [ul] []Oliver North was not convicted of the Iran-contra crimes he committed [] Linda Tripp was not convicted of Illegal wire-tapping [] Monica Lewinsky was not convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice [] O J Simpson – no comment! [] The murderers of Jon Benet Ramsey have not been prosecuted (in part because civilian court rules made investigation difficult.) [] Cop-killer Mumia Abu Jamal was properly sentenced to death, but his execution has been unjustly delayed. [] The 1991 WTC bombers were unjustly not sentenced to death. []Going back in time, former Texas Governor John Connolly was acquitted of taking a bribe, even though the person who paid the bribe was convicted for that act. [/ul] Not only have the civilian courts not gotten all of these cases right; they’ve gotten every single one wrong. Why would anyone have confidence in the ability of civilian courts properly to handle high-profile terrorist cases?
The examples you gave make the assumption that conviction is “getting the cases right”. While I don’t neccesarily agree with the verdicts in all those cases, the fact that the jury acquits a suspect doesn’t mean the jury doesn’t know what it’s doing.
Also, how do you know that a military tribunal will neccesarily know how to properly handle high-profile terrorist cases? Courts-martial sometimes convict and sometimes acquit.
december, do you believe all those cases you mentioned should have been tried by military tribunals? And why are civilian courts then the place to try terrorists with US citizenship like Tim McVeigh? Shouldn’t they also be tried by the military tribunals? Are you aware that you are disqualifying the entire American judicial system? Following your logic you can easily disqualify the entire democratic process which leads to things like Congress (I forget who said “the US has the best Congress money can buy”) You do realise that by saying the judicial system is a bad system you are attacking the very foundation of America? Will you please make up your mind? Is America perfect in every way and absolutely superior to anything on Earth or not?
No.
For one thing, al Qaida’s attack on thet WTC had more in common with a war than McVeigh’s Oklahoma City bombing did. (but, sailor, you knew that.)
I don’t know.
Yes, and I blame the liberals and civil liberties extremists for decimating the US justice system.
I regret the level of corruption and influence peddling. Still, I think the US Government functions better than most others.
On the contrary, I’m supporting the US judicial system, by holding it to appropriate standards.
America is not perfect, but it is better than most other countries.
And just what is the correct result anyway? How can any one know what the correct result is for the trial of a charge that has not been made against a person who has not been charged? Who is charged, what are they charged with? Does my learned friend December just want anybody who may be charged with some bad act that can, no matter how tenuously, be connected to September 11 to be tried before a military commission, in secret, without appeal or review, and without confrontation because such a process gives rise to the correct result and an instantaneous execution of sentence (a quick finding of guilty of what ever the charge might be being the correct result)?
There is an even less complicated, surer and quicker system that may appeal to my friend. Let’s just authorize any CID operative to just shoot anyone they happen to come across that looks the least bit suspicious. No guilty evil doers will escape popular vengeance that way.
This is a crisis. America has been attacked. We must have vengeance. We cannot let the principles that this country was founded on interfere with the impulse to have a correct result. To think otherwise is simply cow-towing to foolish consistency.
Bah! I quit.
P.S. The 3d Division JA was pointedly told that his military career was over. His last weeks were spent processing household goods claims from an abandon barracks at an unused artillery range, without a telephone.
By God, I haven’t quit. You all knew it would come to this sooner or later. We can’t try suspected terrorists in civil courts because THE LIBERALS have perverted the civil courts. There is no debating a troll.
Now, I’ve quit.
One measure of fairness is to compare the actual result with the right result. The examples were based on my appraisal of the right result. YMMV.
No. BTW, AFAIK the military tribunals will not try anybody tenuously connected to 9/11. There is an appeal process. Witnesses are confronted.
What I find really stupid is that more people object to the tribunals than to battlefield executions.
I guess this is sarcasm. But, I’m confused, SG. Are you saying that this isn’t a crisis or that America wasn’t attacked? I want al Qaida totally wiped out, not for vengeance, but for your safety and mine.
Already done. Zacarias Moussaoui is a french citizen and has been arrested in the US. The FBI apparently suspect he was supposed to be on the hijacked planes (at least he took flight lessons). Perhaps I already mentionned that on this board. I’m not sure.
So would you suggest moving “high profile” domestic cases to military courts?
Or do you have some other type of court in mind when whomever you think is qualified to do it decides that a case is “high profile?”
Your criticism seems to be that the courts are not perfect. What percentage of all the “high profile” cases handled result in poor (in your opinion) outcomes?