you have no idea what you're talking about. the government is not circumventing the legal system w/ Military Tribunals. they were established by an act of congress, passed in the wake of the hamdan decision, and which Obama himself voted for.
Yes it was a different situation. The British had troops on what would be American soil, and were a much greater threat. Yet what passed for due process at the time was followed.
In that case then what is your problem with things like the Stimulus package that were also passed by an act of Congress. For that matter if health care reform passes with a public option will you be OK with it since it was passed by Congress?
That it was an act of congress doesn't mean it is not a circumvention of the legal system. Congress cannot abridge rights to due process without a change to the Constitution.
not the same argument. saying i don't agree with an act of congress (the stimulus, as an example) is completely different from arguing, as SL42 is, that said act is "outside the legal system." and i'd remind SL42 that obama voted for the act in question.
First off it is outside the legal system. It is legal as it is a law that is passed but military tribunals are not in under the Judicial branch. What I take SweetLou's argument is that he doesn't agree with the principle not that these are against the law. That is why your argument is basically saying that its OK because those were a legal act. That doesn't mean they are part of the legal system.
it's a stupid argument. nothing good can come of this trial: --- How Obama is Bringing Martial Law to America Posted by Shannon Love on November 15th, 2009 (All posts by Shannon Love) In my previous post, I listed some (but far from all) of the practical problems presented by trying in a civil criminal court an individual (1) who was captured overseas, (2) had evidence against him collected using covert means, with (3) no chain of evidence or custody, and (4) was harshly and physically interrogated with (5) all witnesses and methods being secret. The greatest danger posed in the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) isn’t that he will go free. The greatest danger is that he will be convicted and that during his appeals the courts will ratify all of the extraordinary measures used to capture and convict him. The great danger is that the courts will ratify the rough, inaccurate and ambiguous norms of martial law as applying to all civil criminal trials. After a couple of decades of these court decisions reverberating throughout the legal system, we could end up living under de facto martial law. The Constitution recognizes only two types of trials, the civil and the military. The Fifth Amendment states: No person shall be held to answer for any 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 be subject 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 against himself, 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. Until the Obama administration overturned two centuries of precedence, America had two systems of justice, the civil and the military. The military system played a very small and focused role. It served rough justice in the chaos of war and in places like the open sea in which no nation’s law governed. For over two hundred years, those captured by the military outside the civil boundaries or caught carrying out military action on US soil, were tried by military tribunals. Up until the 1950s the military used drum head trials to convict and execute those found fighting in violation of custom and international law. Pirates were often hung at sea within hours of their capture. In WWII, anyone fighting disguised as a civilian faced summary execution with the approval of just three officers. For over two hundred years we were careful to keep a firewall between civil and martial law. We did so because civil and martial law are polar opposites. Civil law is focused on protecting the rights of the accused against the overwhelming power of the state. When there is doubt, the accused walks free. Martial law is focused on imposing a minimal order on bloody chaos. It was focused on allowing the military to complete its mission and win wars. When there is doubt, the accused is presumed guilty. Now, Obama wants to bring martial law into a civil court room in Manhattan. In order to let a civil conviction of KSM stand, the higher courts will have to overturn almost all the current constitutional protections of the accused. They will have to overturn the requirement for Miranda warnings. They will have to overturn the Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination. They will have to overturn the right to face one’s accusers and to examine all evidence and evidence gathering methods. Even if the courts throw out his conviction, the government will never allow him to go free, so we will toss out protection against double jeopardy if they try to convict with a military tribunal, and toss out the right of no imprisonment without trial if they don’t. Our system of justice relies on precedent and equality of procedure. The same rules apply to every civil trail. We can’t say that it’s okay to deny the right against self-incrimination in one person’s trial while saying it’s okay in another. If the courts overturn the rights of one individual accused, it must overturn the rights of all of them. Nothing good will come of this trial. If it is conducted outside the bounds of normal civil law, it will be nothing but a corrupt show trial whose outcome was preordained by politicians. Instead of showing the world that America is a land of laws in which even our enemies receive fair treatment, it will show the world the opposite. If it is conducted within the bounds of normal civil law, then it will force the courts to choose between letting a mass murdering terrorist walk free and setting dangerous legal precedents that will undermine the basic civil rights of all Americans. Obama has unleashed something in America far, far more dangerous than any excesses Bush might have committed. He has taken all the horrible compromises we must make in war and driven them into the heart of the civil legal system. If the courts do not set Khalid Sheikh Mohammed free, the cancer of martial law will metastasize into the entire justice system. We may eventually wish we had never caught the b*stard at all.
I didn't read that copy pasted blog post from chicagoboyz.net, but man it certainly looked long! wow! And the case citations - they were impressive! I bet it was a fine piece of scholarship.
So now your argument is that he might actually get convicted? You're all over the place here. I will agree with the piece you cited though that it was a bad precedent what was done to KSM and other detainees. The problem though with the solution that piece you cited is to continue with the bad precedent. I will agree trying KSM in criminal court is fraught with problems but largely it is because of the questionable legality of what was done earlier.
i assume you mean IF you're going to complain, and of course, you don't, since there's a process already in place, approved by congress and the courts, and supported by hundreds of years of military, and judicial tradition, to deal with people like KSM.
are you saying that there is a process in place to deal with evidence gained by "enhanced interrogation techniques"
