Remember that our concepts of due process have advanced considerably since the 1860s, thanks, in large part, to decisions by the United States Supreme Court over the course of the 20th century.
The fact that these cases would be tried before a military tribunal does not mean that there would be no respect for the rights of the defendants. I assume you are familiar with the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals in Germany - those trials were conducted by international military tribunals before three-judge panels. The documentation of the trials is voluminous. I've reviewed several volumes and I think the respect for the rights of the defendants was impeccable. So there is definitely precedent for using a military tribunal in such matters.
I think non-lawyers don't realize how many different ways there are to try cases. In almost all countries all over the world, except for countries which are, or were, in the British Commonwealth, there is no right to a trial by jury. Instead, the finders of fact are a panel of judges, usually a three judge panel. As Americans, we are used to the jury system, but even so, we don't always have a right to a trial by jury. You don't get a jury in a divorce case, for example.
As an investor, you know that disputes with your broker go to binding arbitration, almost never to court, so there's another example of cases which don't get jury trials.
As long as the proceedings are conducted properly, the defendants will get a fair trial.
BTW, my maternal grandmother was from the Turtle Mountain Chippewa tribe near St. John, North Dakota, close to the Canadian border. Either her father or her stepfather, I am not sure which, was all or part French Canadian, surname Premeaux, but her last name was King - I have done a little research on the genealogy but not much. |
