|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
 Posted - 11/20/2001 : 05:49:44
|
While it seems that everyone is a bit nervous at the idea of secret military courts for non-citizens suspected of terrorism, or aiding terrorism, President Bush, in defending his desire for them, brought up a point I hadn't heard before:
quote:
It is in the interests of the safety of potential jurors that we have a military tribunal.
So what do you all think of this angle? The justification of having the trial secret, so terrorists can't target jurors to influence the verdict, seems initially to be a reasonable one. But is this not as important as having a public trial?
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
 Posted - 11/20/2001 : 08:12:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So what do you all think of this angle? The justification of having the trial secret, so terrorists can't target jurors to influence the verdict, seems initially to be a reasonable one. But is this not as important as having a public trial? [TD]
I don't quite buy it, TD. Most demands for secrecy are to avoid administration embarrassments and to short-circuit long, drawn-out "due process" procedures. The concept of witness protection could be applied to anyone, regardless of nationality. I'm not a lawyer, but things could get real dicey. To wit... (foresooth, even)
Let's say an accused terrorist is a French national captured in a Islamic country. Do you tell the French? Do you tell the Islamic country where the terroist was captured? Whose jurisdiction? What about extradition? Where's the trial?
Okay, how about a Saudi captured in Afghanistan who is shown to be part of Al Quaida? And the Saudis find out and want to have a public trial in Riyadh?
And how about a "non-citizen" caught on U.S. soil, is whisked away for trial and the American media finds out?
This is not a clear cut case like the Nuremberg trials in defeated Nazi Germany. Here's some comments from the Loyal Opposition.
http://europe.cnn.com/2001/US/11/16/inv.tribunals/
Keep in mind, any presidential decree can be overturned by Congress. We may be in a technical state of war, but there are many issues regarding the legal aspects of it. Also, at the time of the Nuremberg trials, there was no U.N. and a host of legal advocacy groups that could make things hot for a military trial.
Me thinks someone in the White House has seen to many episodes of JAG. The staffers want to see Catherine Bell and David Elliot stick it to the terrorists with a romantic interlude between court room scenes. 
Exit. Stage Left. 
(:raig |
 |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2001 : 08:32:48 [Permalink]
|
I don't buy it either. I think he's just trying to justify it after the fact because it's starting to come under fire from the left and right. A lot of what he's done is coming under fire from his own ranks and he's starting up the ol' excuse machine. I hope he has a lot of quarters.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2001 : 08:34:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Me thinks someone in the White House has seen to many episodes of JAG. The staffers want to see Catherine Bell and David Elliot stick it to the terrorists with a romantic interlude between court room scenes.
I wouldn't be at all surprised... 
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2001 : 08:43:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
A lot of what he's done is coming under fire from his own ranks and he's starting up the ol' excuse machine. I hope he has a lot of quarters. [@tomic]
CHA-CHING.....WHIR.....WHIR......WHIR
CHUNG.....CHUNG.....CHUNG
... ......................
Sorry, you lose Dubya...
(:raig
|
|
|
|
comradebillyboy
Skeptic Friend
USA
188 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2001 : 19:33:36 [Permalink]
|
i think this is contrary to everything america stands for. if you have a real case why is a kangaroo court required? there already exist procedures for protecting secret information and methods. they have public trials for mafia dons and manage to protect jurors and witnesses.
the main purpose of secrecy is to protect the government from embarassment.
bush and asscroft are greater threats to our freedom than any terrorist.
comrade billyboy
Edited by - comradebillyboy on 11/20/2001 19:38:00 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2001 : 20:12:21 [Permalink]
|
I think what the President is doing is utter bullshit. The US has faced greater threats over the years from the likes of the Soviet Union and except for the McCarthy era managed to keep acting like the US of A. Now Bush acts like some emperor grabbing more and more power and showing no regard for the basic freedoms that make the US what it is(or was) and with ideals we could be proud of. Yes there are threats to our security to address but we don't have to start acting like the Soviet Union we used to criticize. I could deal with some of the things Bush was doing before the 11th. That was just minor compared to what I feel now. Now I feel that the current administration is a far greater threat to America than bin Laden ever was. I wish that plane did hit the White House. Cheney has a bad heart....
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2001 : 05:38:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I wish that plane did hit the White House. Cheney has a bad heart....
How horrible...
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Grand Nubian
Skeptic Friend
USA
73 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2001 : 08:25:52 [Permalink]
|
I think that it's every citizens duty and right to serve and defend our nation in some capacity.
I would serve on such a jury even if it cleary compromised my security.
A better alternative between the two extremes of citizen safety and military tribunals would be to have public trials with a military jury or voluntary pool of jurors.
At least this would allow for the trials to be held accountable.
As the assumed victims of terrorist acts, we should be granted the right to face our assualters and witness each step of the trial process.
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2001 : 09:04:27 [Permalink]
|
Upon further reading, I agree that there is no excuse or defense of this. These so-called Military Tribunals go against the most basic values that we hold dear as Americans (as comradebillyboy has stated). Anyone accused of a crime has a right to be considered innocent until proven guilty, to face his accusers, to have legal representation, and to have a public trial by jury. Period.
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2001 : 09:17:43 [Permalink]
|
20 minutes to curtain, everyone. 20 minutes.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/11/21/moussaoui.tribunal/index.html
Overture, curtain, lights!
This is it. The night of nights.
No more rehearsing or nursing a part.
We know every part by heart!
Overture, curtain, lights!
This is it. We'll hit the heights!
And oh, what heights we'll hit!
On with the show, this is it!
(Well, it's ALMOST show time)
(:raig
|
|
|
|
James
SFN Regular
USA
754 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2001 : 19:04:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Overture, curtain, lights!
This is it. The night of nights.
No more rehearsing or nursing a part.
We know every part by heart!
Overture, curtain, lights!
This is it. We'll hit the heights!
And oh, what heights we'll hit!
On with the show, this is it!
What is that from? I know that the Bugs Bunny & Tweety Show had that for an intro song.
"Necessity may be the mother of invention, but laziness is usually the father." -Bailey's First Law |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2001 : 00:23:11 [Permalink]
|
Well, I hate to admit it, but these proposed military tribunals are just a wee bit in conflict with our constitution. That's what you get from a document that's over two hundred years old! It ignores the fun we can have with no oversight, and a complete lack of regard for human rights. If the executive thinks that someone is a bad person, then who are we to say that they can't try them any way they damned well please. With a little effort we could make Al-Quaida and the Taliban look like rank amateurs. Go G.W.
Seriously, there is no evidence that putting aside the Bill of Rights could have made any difference in stopping the recent terrorist attacks.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2001 : 01:20:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Seriously, there is no evidence that putting aside the Bill of Rights could have made any difference in stopping the recent terrorist attacks.
That's a big part of what pisses me off so much. If I thought there was a real need for this I would feel differently but what I have gathered is that the President is so in love with the death penalty he wants to make sure it's a certainty and equal under the law be damned.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
lpetrich
Skeptic Friend
USA
74 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2001 : 02:22:58 [Permalink]
|
And an even worse aspect of these proposed tribunals is that their judges would be hand-picked by GWB himself.
A secret military tribunal *might* be OK if the judges were selected from respected military-court judges and reasonable court procedures were applied in it, but this hand-picking suggests a kangaroo court, as if GWB does not trust anyone but himself to select judges.
|
|
|
|
Espritch
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2001 : 07:11:10 [Permalink]
|
When organized crime figures are tried, the security of witnesses and juries is certainly an issue. They are still permitted full due process, including trial by Jury. If the system is able to deal with them, it should be able to deal with terrorists.
This is an attempt by Bush and Ashcroft to make an end run around the constitution because they don't want to be bothered by the tricky issues that due process raises. It should not be tolerated.
Edited by - Espritch on 11/24/2001 07:13:58 |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
