14-11-2001 09:17									#1
	What Kind Of America Is This? Increase Your PM Length

I don't know about this. While I think tough measures are needed, is this going too far. How long before this is extended to citizens? It's a tough call. You be the judge. No pun intended.



http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/200...ks_bush_36.html
-------------------------------------------
By RON FOURNIER, AP White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush (news - web sites) 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 (news - web sites) 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 (news - web sites) 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 (news - web sites)'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.

	14-11-2001 12:09									#2
	Put an end to popups!

I've said it and I'll keep saying it...some very prominent politicians - VERY PROMINENT POLITICIANS, if you catch my meaning, need to be assassinated over actions such as these, because I'm damn sure they won't be impeached, and I'm damn sure our right-wing Supreme Court won't strike these actions down. The President has no Constitutional authority for this, not by any stretch of the Constitution, and is destroying the separation of powers in the US. **** him! At this point I wish we had Gore, he at least wouldn't have done this ****!

	14-11-2001 13:11									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Times like these bring out the fascists; not much different on this side of the pond.

If there are procedural problems in ordinary courts, adjust them through the law. This is just a cop out for the statists.

	14-11-2001 13:14									#4
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Acts of terrorism are both acts of war and war crimes; as such, a military tribunal is perfectly acceptable.

	14-11-2001 13:20									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

there is no difference between a terrorist and a german nazi during ww2 put on trial for war crimes

so yes a military trial is acceptable.

	14-11-2001 13:23									#6
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

but perhaps it is best we use civilian courts and let juries set all the terrorists go free because the method of gathering evidence against terrorist requires sometime illegal means and invasion of privacy- and would be thrown out in a civilian court

	14-11-2001 14:16									#7
	Full PM-box? Change here!

While I don't particularly care about what the Americas do to themselves I really hope that this doesn't give Chretien any ideas.

My issue is:
-If you're a terrorist you give up certain rights extended to 'conventional' criminals.
-Therefore if you are a suspected terrorist you lose rights. Reasonable grounds seems to mean whatever the prosecution wants it to (grounds for suspicion are very vague).
-The line between being a 'Terrorist' and many other kinds of criminal activity is very vague.

Is somebody connected to a Mafia a 'terrorist'? Your ordinary gangbanger off the street?

What about anti-poverty groups that protest free trade and co-ordinate things like gas masks etc?

Isn't this type of legislation way too tempting to leave so vague and with such extraordinary intimidation powers (i.e. new tactic tell us or we will prosecute you as a 'terrorist')

	14-11-2001 14:27									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Seeker -The line between being a 'Terrorist' and many other kinds of criminal activity is very vague. Is somebody connected to a Mafia a 'terrorist'? Your ordinary gangbanger off the street? What about anti-poverty groups that protest free trade and co-ordinate things like gas masks etc? Isn't this type of legislation way too tempting to leave so vague and with such extraordinary intimidation powers (i.e. new tactic tell us or we will prosecute you as a 'terrorist')

Excellent point. In fact, the US has already had some problems with a similar law, the RICO statute. Originally formulated as a way of fighting organized crime in particular, it had this way of being twisted by the feds so that it could be applied to all sorts of folk who "organized" their crimes. Thus, a law designed to get John Gotti and his mafia pals suddenly was being used to get abortion clinic protestors. Not that I mind seeing the latter punished, but that's no way what RICO was intended for.

	14-11-2001 19:44									#9
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Sounds very similar to the nuremburg tribunal.
For various practical reason I would prefer and international war and terroist crimes tribunal. Such as: other countries sharing the cost; lower burnden of proof that USA courst; broader reach of vicarious criminal resposiblity to leaders of the actors; most PR acceptance of the tribunal world wide; less procedural protections for defendants. Much of what goes on in the current Hague war crimes tribunal could not occur under USA jurisdiction.

	14-11-2001 19:57									#10
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Military personnel are put on trial in military courts.
Terrorists fall outside the realm of civilian courts.
Terrorists either aren't citizens of the United States, therefore have no rights that equate to citizens, OR, if they are citizens, then their rights should be revoked.

Sorry, I agree with Bush on this point.

	14-11-2001 20:03									#11
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Here we go again worrying about the precious rights of terrorists.

I for one, never plan to be going to trial for comitting terrorist acts are you?

I couldn't give one sh1t for the rights of terrorists.

Some of you law nuts would probably insist Osama be released if the soldiers that detained him forgot to read him his rights and get him an attorney

This isn't petty civilian court as dissident pointed out. Totally different ballgame!

	14-11-2001 20:14									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Seeker Is somebody connected to a Mafia a 'terrorist'? Your ordinary gangbanger off the street?

No. Terrorists have political objectives.

quote: What about anti-poverty groups that protest free trade and co-ordinate things like gas masks etc?

Depends. Are we talking about groups like Black Bloc and the like?

	14-11-2001 20:31									#13
	Inflate your Upload Space

I don't think anybody cares about the rights of terrorists, but not everybody who has been detained (they're not releasing the count anymore, but I think the government is holding about 1200 people) is a terrorist. What about their rights? Plenty of innocent people might not get as fair a trial as they would ordinarily. If we already knew that all these people were terrorists, we wouldn't even need a trial, would we?

	14-11-2001 20:34									#14
	Tired of ads?

Wrong.
There still has to be a trial, that's part of democracy.
Can you just imagine the outcry if there were none?

	14-11-2001 20:35									#15
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

The point isn't that it's a military tribunal (although the President has absolutely zero Constitutional authority to exstablsih one—not that it's ever stopped them in the past). The real problem is that the rules of evidence are not being applied to this court. A lot of the evidence is conjecure, innuendo, stuff that would make it into a Grand Jury but not into a criminal trial.

Remember, the FBI has publically called certain American political groups, specifically, Workers World, Take Back the Streets, and Carnival Against Capitalism, potential terrorist organizations. That means, secret searches, torture, and now convictions based on flimsy evidence for Americans engaging in their political rights of free speech. All the gov has to do now is label your organization as terrorist or potential terrorist and you have no rights.

Some of you are so hot to get the terrorists that you are applauding the government doing just what the terrorists wanted them to do. You people are so f*cking dumb, you deserve what is coming. It's too bad the rest of us have to pay the price of your cowardice.

That's right, YOU are the cowards. You who will let the government do what ever it wants because you're afraid of some less than a chance of being struck by lightening terrorists. Oh, the Constitution is inconvenient because I'm scared and I want vengence to feel less impotent.

	14-11-2001 20:39									#16
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I think that David's right. I don't think that the SCOTUS will strike this measure down since the precident for this goes back to George Washington's presidency, at least according ot CNN.

che: Hell according to my professor, the government has labeled the NRA a subersive organization so what you say isn't suprising.

To All: Can anyone give me a comparison between civilian criminal codes and the UCMJ (what I assume will be used in these tribunals)?

	14-11-2001 20:55									#17
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Che your bravery astounds me

What exactly is coming? What is the price? Please enlighten us all. I'm curious as to how something like this effects me, or you for that matter, on a personal level.

	14-11-2001 21:09									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

“First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.” -- Martin Niemoeller

You know, you can boil a live frog to death without the frog trying to escape. You put the frog in a pot of cool water. Slowly you turn the heat up, just a little. When the frog has acclimated, you turn the heat up a little more. In this way, you can raise the water to boiling, without the frog jumping out when it would if you simply dropped it in a pot of boiling water. . . . It works for people too.

BTW, I'm not that brave. I'm trying to decide whether I should be one of those raging against the night to no effect and maybe die honorably or if I should git while the gittin's good.

Last edited by chegitz guevara on 14-11-2001 at 21:15

	14-11-2001 21:14									#19
	Got spare money?

I completely agree with what you are saying, Che.

	14-11-2001 21:22									#20
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I fail to see your points.

Who are "they" at this point and who are they coming for?

On a personal level, I think American citizens as a whole, have more rights than they ever had.

Name a point in history where your average every day American citizen has had more rights than today.

I don't see how something like this will effect the rights and priviledges of your average citizen.

The temperature in the pot is a comfortable luke warm and I don't see the temperature rising.

	14-11-2001 21:46									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by drake Name a point in history where your average every day American citizen has had more rights than today.

The 1970s.

Okay, Drake, the point is this: American protest groups (right and left) are being labled as terrorist or potential terroist groups. Under the latest laws, under these executive orders, under the current climate of fear and propaganda the courts are unlikely to strike them down. Historically the courts have never struck down these draconian laws during war.

Several years ago I was forwarded a list of groups included on the FBI's list of terrorist organizations (I realize it's hearsay). On the list were various unoins, such as the Teamsters, the United Autoworkers, and the United Steelworkers. Catholic nuns, such as the Mayknoll Sisters have been labled terrorist groups in the past (the '80s) because they created an underground railroad for political refugees escaping from the Central American terrorist governments our government called allies.

According to Dino the NRA is a suspect organization (mush as I despise their politics, I will defend them). The FBI has publically labeled certain leftist groups (Workers World, Take Back the Streets, Canival Against Capitalism—I just saw the damned interview yesterday can't find the link) as potential terrorists.

But yeah, I guess since it doesn't effect you, why should you care? But then, why do you care about terrorism, since it will never effect you? You stand a better chance of being struck byu lightening then being involved in a terrorist attack.

Maybe, Drake, this is just wrong, and should be stood up to as something terribly immoral and unconsitutional. Maybe it is just one more sign of impending doom. All I know is that since the '80s, our rights have slowly been erroded, and we just took a big hit.

	14-11-2001 21:55									#22
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I really wish that someone would come up with a definition of terrorism that has a chance of being widely accepted.

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara All I know is that since the '80s, our rights have slowly been erroded, and we just took a big hit.

Just? This particular power has been available to presidents since George Washington.

The parts of the Patriot Act that go against judicial precident scare me a lot more than this.

	14-11-2001 22:05									#23
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Expand a bit......

Since the 70's, what rights have been eroded?
How has it gotten worse for your average citizen?

Also, do you really think this latest act was created because of the teamsters or catholic nuns ( )?

Intimidation from a union for instance and the murder of thousands of innocent people certainly goes into different categories of terrorism wouldnt you say?

I would say this is a very targeted act. One that won't be abused.

But who knows.........

Impending doom ?

	14-11-2001 22:55									#24
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures for one thing, in the name of the drug war.

1st Amendment protections from religion (freedom of religion means freedom from other people's religions).

5th Amendment protections against cruel and unsual punishments.

Constitutional right of habeus corpus severly limited.

Constitutional right to a fair trial and competitent legal representation limited.

And so on.

	14-11-2001 23:10									#25
	Inflate your Upload Space

Che, while I appreciate your expertise, what you just said means nothing to me!

I'm really looking for something that effects your common law abiding citizen. Most of these things relate to the treatment of criminals, which is quite honestly, very low on my priority list.

Tell, me, as a result of these infringements, how your every day citizen (as in one who doesnt commit crimes ) is losing out. Tell me how I am losing out! Tell me how YOU are losing out!

	14-11-2001 23:12									#26
	Got spare money?

You don't have to be a criminal to be suspected.

Last edited by General Ludd on 14-11-2001 at 23:43

	14-11-2001 23:19									#27
	Got spare money?

Loss of 4th Amendment protections reulted in me being stopped and searched by the police. I was doing nothing illegal, just walking around after dark with my best friend who was heading out to the West Coast the next day. I was 24 at the time, as was my buddy. We weren't tresspassing or smoking or drinking, suddenly three police cars are surrounding me and my buddy and going through our things.

Most of the other rights do affect innocent people who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The loss of Habeus Corpus has caused the SCUSA to rule that innocence is no defense against imprisonment. Because of the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, you only have a small number of years to introduce new evidence. People who have introduced exonerating evidence after that time (2 years IIRC) have to spend out their term, even though they proved that they didn't committ the crime. According to SCUSA, they had a fair trial, and that's all they are entitled.

So hope you aren't one of the huge number of innocent people who go to prison. And with one out of every 100 Americans in the penal system, your odds are better of being convicted of something you didn't do than being in a terrorist event.

	14-11-2001 23:30									#28
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I can't say that I'm stunned by this move by Shrub, but I am quite stunned by the reactions of a few of the people here.

Frodo hit it right on the head. A few of you are saying, "So what, they're terrorists, they don't deserve rights." Even if that were accepted, you're missing the bigger picture--what of the innocent people accused of terrorism and put on trial under these new guidelines? What realistic chance do they have of proving their innocence before a military tribunal? There's about an equal chance of the Carolina Panthers winning the Super Bowl this season.

Calm your emotions for a minute and remember why we have a Constitution. To protect the rights of criminals? No. To protect the rights of the accused? Absolutely.

	14-11-2001 23:39									#29
	Increase the size of your Attachments

You know, at this rate, by 2004 Generalissimo Bush will just cancel the election

I mean seriously. It's been what, 2 months, and civil liberties took a bigger blow that they have in past decades.

	14-11-2001 23:49									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Oh Please, and of course, none of the ACP memembers here remember that when various states o f emergency ended in this country (starting with the Civil War, all the way up to WW2) everything went right back to normal!

Sit down and chill. Countrary to Most furriners beliefs, America is a Democracy. We do pride ourselves on Peaceful,if not always smooth, transitions in government policies.