[Ninong]

Bush signs order allowing terrorists to be tried in military court: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...829EST0824.DTL

Only applies to terrorists who are not U.S. citizens... does not require approval of Congress... places them in the hands of Donald Rumsfeld.

One thing I like about this Republican administration: It is very predictable.

Ninong

[organicreefer]

good move,streamlined executions ,i love it

[wgscott]

Sorry to be difficult, but weren't you agreeing with the secret roundup and secret detention of these "terrorist suspects" a month ago?

Since we won't be told who they are, and won't be told what they are being charged with, and since their trials will be conducted in secret, how do we know that they aren't US Citizens. Also, the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, applies to everyone here, illegally or otherwise. You can't torture Mexicans, for example, just because they snuck in.



Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person besubject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness againsthimself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

[saltjunkie]

i am no means an expert or even qualifed to speak on the constitution... but what is the meaning of this statement.....

except in cases arising in the land or naval forces

Also, does our constitution cover those from a country during war time, in which with we are at war. (english sucks too?)
WG, why is it that you never approve of what your country does, for you, but yet never complain of the luxuries and life that you have here?
Yes some things i can agree with, our government may do and go about things politically incorrect, but are we the only?
Have you condemned or even thought of how wrong an injustice was done to you countrymen?
Why are we to blame for that?nothing in any way associated with my country or myself trained those men to hate my people, hijack planes and KILL thosands and thousands of people who just wanted to work, get paid, go home and live the AMERICAN DREAM.
But that dream is what prolly caused this hatred in you and those that have performed these incomprehensable (spelling thing) acts.....
Rick
I may be wrong, and I apologize now for putting words in your mouth, and possible not searching thru all the anti- american dribble that you have posted on this and any number of boards....

[wgscott]

[Salty Dog]

Originally posted by wgscott
Since this will be my final post to your board

Flounder has left the building..........................again.

oops wrong board.

Originally posted by wgscott
So for that, thank you for posting your virulant slander, because now I won't have to waste my time coming back here.

Countless others thank you as well

[saltjunkie]

There was another post on this board, in which i let myself be heard.
Also, you forget to copy nd paste this...

I may be wrong, and I apologize now for putting words in your mouth

Thats one thing that is great about the internet, you can make things appear as you want them.
And I like my constitution, but again you failed to copy and paste this part

i am no means an expert or even qualifed to speak on the constitution

You answered a question for me that I had, and I appreciate it, due to the fact that i did not understand the wording.

How dare you wipe your arse on the Constitution

Is that not the same thing you just accused me of?
Why leave?
Did I say something offensive to you?
You got me back pretty well... I am not leaving.
Dont take the high road here and pretend you have never posted anything that could be possibly taken wrong or misinterpreted by people.
Go ahead, chop this post up now to make it say and sound as you need it too....
Rick

[organicreefer]

the attacks of september 11 have changed the game.congress has not declared war because there is no state to declare against(correct me if im wrong).while at the same time the attacks were both an act of war,and a war crime(attacks on innocent civilians).
lets not forget that al qeadahas declared war on us
it might be a good idea to have regular proceedings for anyone detained in the u.s.,but anyone caught in afghanistan,or by our military in the course of an action on terrorism,should be subject to war time "rules" imo.

[Ninong]

Hey WG,

Moi?

Didn't you detect at least the slightest hint of sarcasm in my post? I would have thought that my selection of emoticons would have been sufficient warning that you should not assume that I was in complete agreement with the actions of the Vice-President and the Attorney General... Oh, and the President, too!


Check out what I said:

Only applies to terrorists who are not U.S. citizens... does not require approval of Congress... places them in the hands of Donald Rumsfeld.

One thing I like about this Republican administration: It is very predictable.


(P.S. -- OK, I see by your comments in a later post that you did pick up on my sarcasm: WG said: "Also, why are you not complaining that Ninong is similarly disposed, as (apart from my barb to someone I consider to be a good friend at this point) he appears to be in agreement with me on this one, and also is the one who initiated the discussion." The truth is that I'm having a difficult time making up my mind on this one. I would like to give the President the benefit of the doubt. All I can say is that the scope of the order is breathtaking but I don't feel in the mood for picking it to death under the present circumstances.)


I'm just an impartial observer. I didn't vote for Nader/LaDuke like some other people I know. Saint Ralph must be ecstatic by now. He said on several occasions that the interests of the Green Party would be better served if there were a clearly defined opposition party in power. Al Gore wasn't green enough for Ralphie, remember?

You should be thrilled. And don't tell me you didn't see this coming. C'mon, Cheney for V-P? That was the tipoff right there. And then Ashcroft for AG just confirmed that this would be an administration that would fulfill all of Nader's dreams. How much more advance notice did you need? If you think the upcoming economic stimulus package with its retroactive multi-billion dollar corporate tax rebates is outrageous, just think how outrageous it could have been if the Republicans had not lost control of the Senate.

Besides, in times like these, we should all rally round the flag and support the President. As a life-long Democrat, how can I be any less supportive than my party's national leadership. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and let him run with the ball. He hasn't fumbled yet.

Don't tell me you don't have confidence in the Supreme Court's ability to prevent any unconstitutional usurpation of power by the Chief Executive?

Regards,

Ninong

[Biomanjcs72]

Well, I'm not quite sure how I feel about the whole issue of Military Tribunals, But I'll comment on the evidence that wouldn't be allowed in conventional courts.

First of All, I work in the legal field (No, I'm not a bloodsucking lawyer, atleast, not yet anyway).

I'm just going to make the statement that the rules governing evidence in our court systems are EXTREMELY stringent, and many guilty people go free simply due to a processing error, or because evidence is deemed inadmissable, for one reason or another. For instance, The CIA has intercepted satellite phone conversations, etc, of Bin Laden's network, which probably reveal his guilt (and that of his accomplices) A US rule governing Wire taps states that recordings are not admissible as evidence unless one of the parties (on the recording) knew the recording was taking place i.e. undercover, wearing a wire, etc.

So, in that regard, I'm not sure it's such a bad idea, but as for the rest of it, the secrecy stuff, maybe not having proper representation, I'm still out on as far as opinion goes, but it's definately scary, to say the least, almost reminds you of the KGB or GESTAPO.

[schrocat]

wg,

sorry to see you go...

Here's a parting gift.

You were mostly right about the Iraq sanctions. Not 100%...but right enough.

There, you got a convert. Enjoy!!

Good luck on that thicker skin graph thing...

[Ninong]

Originally posted by Schrocat:

Good luck on that thicker skin graph thing...

As opposed to a skin graft?

Just wondering.

Ninong

[schrocat]

congradulations,

I stand correxted.

[ccull]

dude, at least post once more with where you'll be hanging out, or email ccull@swbell.net - i really enjoy your posts

[MarkS]

You can find him in Reefs.org's The Sump forum. He posts under the name Anemone of the State.

HTH,
Mark

[Reinhold]

Originally posted by wgscott
Hope that I am not bored enough or pissed off enough by this to contact my attorney.

I'd recommend you make your attorney's day and call him/her right away! What lawyer wouldn't just jump at the chance to go after a person who posts his/her opinion on a bulletin board? He'll drop those divorce and malparactice cases like a hot potato. You'll make a million!

[Salty Dog]

[Ninong]

Originally posted by Ninong:

The truth is that I'm having a difficult time making up my mind on this one. I would like to give the President the benefit of the doubt. All I can say is that the scope of the order is breathtaking but I don't feel in the mood for picking it to death under the present circumstances.

Now that I have had time to research this subject, I am more inclined to agree with the President's position. This agreement is based on the assumption that the President would be extremely careful in the selection of foreign terrorists subject to military tribunals. As far as the individuals who are presently detained in the U.S. are concerned, there are probably less than a dozen that we know to be affiliated with al-Qaida based on the evidence. As far as Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mohammed Omar, and their top lieutenants are concerned, they are all fair game.

We made a mistake in treating the terrorists who perpetrated the 1993 bombing of the WTC as criminals instead of terrorists. They were clearly terrorists and technically "unlawful belligerents." There is ample precedent for trying them in military tribunals.

Ninong

[wgscott]

Kangaroo courts must not stand
By William Safire (Nov. 28, 2001)

As soon as German U-boats put eight saboteurs on U.S. shores during World War II, one of the eight called the FBI to betray the mission but was brushed off as a crackpot. Days later, he called again and managed to persuade the FBI he was an authentic saboteur. Partly to keep this embarrassment of bungled enforcement from becoming known, the eight were secretly tried by a military court inside the FBI headquarters.

Unexpectedly, a U.S. Army lawyer assigned to the Germans mounted a spirited defense. Col. Kenneth Royall, citing the landmark 1866 Supreme Court decision of Ex Parte Milligan -- holding that martial law could not be applied where federal civil courts were in business -- challenged the secret tribunal's legality.

FDR told his attorney general, according to Francis Biddle's memoirs, that he would resist any Supreme Court decision to give the accused saboteurs a regular court trial: ``I won't hand them over to any United States marshal armed with a writ of habeas corpus.'' Confrontation was averted when a cowed Supreme Court unanimously acknowledged the extra-judicial power of a president armed with a congressional declaration of war. Six of the eight captives went to the electric chair; J. Edgar Hoover was awarded a medal of honor.

Now President Bush, with no such congressional declaration, is using that Roosevelt mistake as precedent for his own dismaying departure from due process. Bush's latest self-justification is his claim to be protecting jurors (by doing away with juries). Worse, his gung-ho advisers have convinced him -- as well as some gullible commentators -- that the Star Chamber tribunals he has ordered are ``implementations'' of the lawful Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Military attorneys are silently seething because they know that to be untrue. The code demands a public trial, proof beyond reasonable doubt, an accused's voice in the selection of juries and right to choose counsel, unanimity in death sentencing and above all appellate review by civilians confirmed by the Senate. Not one of those fundamental rights can be found in Bush's military order setting up kangaroo courts for people he designates before ``trial'' to be terrorists. Bush's fiat turns back the clock on all advances in military justice, through three wars, in the past half-century.

His advisers assured him that a fearful majority would cheer his assumption of dictatorial power to ignore our courts. They failed to warn him, however, that his denial of traditional American human rights to non-citizens would backfire and in practice actually weaken the war on terror.
Spain, which caught and charged eight men for complicity in the Sept. 11 attacks, last week balked at turning over the suspects to a U.S. tribunal ordered to ignore rights normally accorded alien defendants. Other members of the European Union holding suspects that might help break Al-Qaida may also refuse extradition.

Thus has coalition-minded Bush undermined the anti-terrorist coalition, ceding to nations overseas the high moral and legal ground long held by U.S. justice. And on what leg does the U.S. now stand when China sentences an American to death after a military trial devoid of counsel chosen by the defendant?

We in the tiny minority of editorialists on left and right who dare to point out such constitutional, moral and practical anti-terrorist considerations are derided as ``professional hysterics'' akin to ``antebellum Southern belles suffering the vapors.'' Buncha weepy sissies, we are. (Frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a damn -- I've always been pro-bellum.)

The possibility of being accused, however, of showing insufficient outrage at those suspected of a connection to terrorists shuts up most politicians. And a need to display patriotic fervor turns Bush's liberal critics into exemplars of even-handedism. Careers can be wrecked by taking an unpopular stand.

But not always. Forty years ago, my political mentor introduced me to his senior partner, Ken Royall, who after World War II had been appointed by President Truman to be the last secretary of war. Royall, then head of a New York law firm, considered the high point of his career his losing fight to get a group of reviled Nazi terrorists a fair American trial.

William Safire is a columnist for the New York Times.

[Reinhold]

wgscott:

I could have sworn you were never coming back to this board? Did you miss me?

Kind of like herpes...leaves for awhile, but always reappears eventually.