Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum...
    You are currently logged out and viewing our forum as a guest which only allows limited access to our discussions, photos and other forum features. If you are a 12ozProphet Member please login to get the full experience.

    If you are not a 12ozProphet Member, please take a moment to register to gain full access to our website and all of its features. As a 12ozProphet Member you will be able to post comments, start discussions, communicate privately with other members and access members-only content. Registration is fast, simple and free, so join today and be a part of the largest and longest running Graffiti, Art, Style & Culture forum online.

    Please note, if you are a 12ozProphet Member and are locked out of your account, you can recover your account using the 'lost password' link in the login form. If you no longer have access to the email you registered with, please email us at info@12ozprophet.com and we'll help you recover your account. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum (and don't forget to follow @12ozprophet in Instagram)!

Trial by Tribunal

Discussion in 'Channel Zero' started by Pistol, Nov 14, 2001.

  1. Pistol

    Pistol Dirty Dozen Crew

    Joined: Jul 12, 2001 Messages: 19,358 Likes Received: 298
    Military Tribunals

    I was just wondering what everyone thought about this. I'm pretty sure alot of you are gonna disagree and call civil right violations etcetera.

    Tuesday November 13 8:47 PM ET

    Bush Order: Terror Trials by Military
    By RON FOURNIER, AP White House Correspondent

    WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush approved the use of a special military tribunal Tuesday that could put accused terrorists on trial faster and in greater secrecy than an ordinary criminal court. The United States has not convened such a tribunal since World War II.

    Bush signed an order establishing the government's right to use such a court but preserving the option of a conventional trial.

    ``This is a new tool to use against terrorism,'' White House Counsel Albert Gonzales said.

    Bush's order does not require approval from Congress.

    Detention and trial of accused terrorists by a military tribunal is necessary ``to protect the United States and its citizens, and for the effective conduct of military operations and prevention of terrorist attacks,'' the five-page order said.

    The order sets out many of the rules for any military tribunal and the rights of anyone held accountable there. A senior Justice Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said only noncitizens would be tried before the military commission.

    ``These are extraordinary times and the president wants to have as many options as possible,'' said Justice Department spokeswoman Mindy Tucker. ``This option does not preclude any Department of Justice options that might also be available.''

    In either a military or a civilian court, any suspect would retain rights to a lawyer and to a trial by jury, the administration said.

    Anyone ever held for trial under the order would certainly challenge its legitimacy, said Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice in Washington, and a lawyer who regularly practices before military courts.

    ``There's no recent history in this country of this. It's an extraordinary step for the president to have taken,'' Fidell said, adding that it moves the country closer to a genuine war footing.

    There is precedent for such panels.

    President Franklin Roosevelt had suspected World War II saboteurs secretly tried by military commission, and six were executed. The Supreme Court upheld the proceeding. An enemy who sneaked onto U.S. soil ``for the purposes of waging war by destruction of life or property'' was a combatant who could be tried in a military court, the Supreme Court ruled.

    Military tribunals were also used during and after the Civil War.

    Gonzales, the president's top lawyer, said a military commission could have several advantages over a civilian court, including secrecy.

    ``This is a global war. To have successful prosecutions, we might have to give up sources and methods,'' about the way the investigation was conducted if the trial was held in a civilian court, Gonzales said. ``We don't want to have to do that.''

    A military trial could also be held overseas, and Gonzales said there may be times when prosecutors feel a trial in the United States would be unsafe.

    From the perspective of the U.S. commander in chief, ``the easy way to go is a military commission'' because ``you have unfettered discretion'' and ``the most significant aspects of judicial review are curtailed,'' said former military prosecutor A. Jeff Ifrah.

    The problem with federal district courts or courts-martial from the point of view of the chief executive is that there is appellate review plus stringent federal rules of evidence, said Ifrah.

    Recent terrorism trials have taken place in U.S. criminal courts, where the rules require the government to reveal its evidence either in open court or in filings it must fight to keep secret.

    Michael Scardaville, policy analyst for homeland defense at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said there are legitimate reasons for holding the trials in private.

    ``This isn't Judge Judy, two people fighting over who gets the car after a divorce. It's about very classified elements of America's national security.

    ``They can say, `Not only are we not going to let the press in, it's going to be in the middle of a military base.''

    Michael Ratner, an international law and war crimes expert at Columbia University, said the government would lose all credibility with the Muslim world if it tries terrorists by a military commission.

    ``I am flabbergasted,'' Ratner said. ``Military courts don't have the same kind of protections, you don't get the same rights as you do in a federal court. The judges aren't appointed for life, there is no civilian jury.''

    The order is the latest effort by the administration to toughen the nation's laws against terrorists.

    After the Sept. 11 attacks, the administration pushed through Congress an anti-terrorism bill that Bush said was vital but civil liberties groups said went too far, violating Americans' constitutional rights.

    It expands the FBI's wiretapping and electronic surveillance authority and imposes stronger penalties for harboring or financing terrorists. The measure also increases the number of crimes considered terrorist acts and toughens the punishments for committing them.

    Under the new order, Bush could establish a military commission in the future by asking the secretary of defense to establish the rules for one.

    ``This does not identify by name who should be exposed to military justice,'' Gonzales said. ``It just provides the framework that, should the president have findings in the future, he could'' order Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld to establish such a commission.
     
  2. BROWNer

    BROWNer Guest

    anybody have any thoughts on this?
    criticisms? praise?
    flesh it out....this is serious poop.
     
  3. Boring Bastard

    Boring Bastard Elite Member

    Joined: Feb 1, 2001 Messages: 3,784 Likes Received: 1
    I don't think I get it really!!!
     
  4. mental invalid

    mental invalid Dirty Dozen Crew

    Joined: May 11, 2001 Messages: 13,050 Likes Received: 8
    ...the gist of it i got, was that they are doing it because that way the trial can be done in secret, rather then have a public trial...i was some what confused at the announcement of this...perhaps its giving osama too much credit, when in fact he really is nothing more then a smart criminal with alot of money and good timing...i dunno, what are the other implications of bush's decision?...and why did germany issue an international arrest warrant for the supposed 20th hijacker that never was? why germany, why not us?...
     
  5. Pistol

    Pistol Dirty Dozen Crew

    Joined: Jul 12, 2001 Messages: 19,358 Likes Received: 298
  6. rip

    rip Elite Member

    Joined: Nov 10, 2001 Messages: 2,667 Likes Received: 0
    i say fucc it we catch ne terrorists automaticly exicute them on sight.( and i know i spelt exacute wrong)
     
  7. boxcarwilly

    boxcarwilly Senior Member

    Joined: Nov 8, 2000 Messages: 1,288 Likes Received: 0
    "Detention and trial of accused terrorists by a military tribunal is necessary ``to protect the United States and its citizens, and for the effective conduct of military operations and prevention of terrorist attacks,'' the five-page order said. "

    *basically in my eyes the best protection we can afford as the American people is to be told the truth about terrorists, and the actions of the American government, but we live in a day and age of repression so this right, the right to fair trial and jury of peers is taken away on a whim, no conclusive evidence is necessary in a military court to sentence some scapegoat to immediate death, they couldnt talk they are dead.

    ``These are extraordinary times and the president wants to have as many options as possible,'' said Justice Department spokeswoman Mindy Tucker. "

    *yes these are extraordinary times, dont get me wrong mindy, but how far will GW go in terms of as many options as possible there has been mass media censorship already, even on the standpoint of personal opinion. several journalists for the NY Post and Atlantic Monthly have had their syndicated columns taken away from them for no more than publishing the opinion that the terrorists are not cowards or else they would not have died for what they believe in. First Amendment rights are going extremely fast... just waiting for the other.

    when you have the secretary of state saying that we need to watch what we say and not comment on things we are basically turning into a police state.

    "The problem with federal district courts or courts-martial from the point of view of the chief executive is that there is appellate review plus stringent federal rules of evidence, said Ifrah. "

    *this is what a trial is and our justice system is so fucked anyway, Mumia/Peltier/mcveigh scapegoated tried on suspicious terms with suspicious evidence, dare i say the scapegoating isnt ending, basically all of the evidence pointing to bin-Laden points dierectly back at the us government, trained and paid for by us to fight wait who the Northern Allaince who is just as much of a bunch of human rights violaters as the Taliban is. but all the finger pointing gets us nowhere, there were most likely no Muslims aboard the planes just fictitious names and events to cover something larger up. i still have the ability to say this and think this if this type of trial by fire is enacted i will be shot on site for even thinking this type of thought.

    "It expands the FBI's wiretapping and electronic surveillance authority and imposes stronger penalties for harboring or financing terrorists. The measure also increases the number of crimes considered terrorist acts and toughens the punishments for committing them. "

    *like speaking my mind in a public forum? like mentioning on my syndicated broadcast (aside to Bill Maher) that the terrorists have more heart than any American alive today. like carrying a weapon, like killing William Cooper because he know too much which is a whole other subject.
     
Top