Yes, it was deplorable, and illegal. Just because they had jurisdiction (which is highly controversial), they did not have the right to enter the house without a court order.
Waco, Randy Weaver, Elian. The alarm bells are blasting, but no one is listening.
Well, at least secret military tribunals, an idea that has been in the planning for five years, is being modified. What a travesty that would have been, as Rep. Congressman Ron Paul says:
Some have claimed this military tribunal has been in the planning stages for five years. If so, what would have been its justification?
The argument that FDR did it and therefore it must be OK is a rather weak justification. Roosevelt was hardly one that went by the rule book- the Constitution. But the situation then was quite different from today. There was a declared war by Congress against a precise enemy, the Germans, who sent eight saboteurs into our country. Convictions were unanimous, not 2/3 of the panel, and appeals were permitted. That's not what's being offered today. Furthermore, the previous military tribunals expired when the war ended. Since this war will go on indefinitely, so too will the courts.
The real outrage is that such a usurpation of power can be accomplished with the stroke of a pen. It may be that we have come to that stage in our history when an executive order is "the law of the land," but it's not "kinda cool," as one member of the previous administration bragged. It's a process that is unacceptable, even in this professed time of crisis.
There are well-documented histories of secret military tribunals. Up until now, the United States has consistently condemned them. The fact that a two-thirds majority can sentence a person to death in secrecy in the United States is scary. With no appeals available, and no defense attorneys of choice being permitted, fairness should compel us to reject such a system outright.
Those who favor these trials claim they are necessary to halt terrorism in its tracks. We are told that only terrorists will be brought before these tribunals. This means that the so-called suspects must be tried and convicted before they are assigned to this type of "trial" without due process. They will be deemed guilty by hearsay, in contrast to the traditional American system of justice where all are innocent until proven guilty. This turns the justice system on its head.
One cannot be reassured by believing these courts will only apply to foreigners who are terrorists. Sloppiness in convicting criminals is a slippery slope. We should not forget that the Davidians at Waco were "convicted" and demonized and slaughtered outside our judicial system, and they were, for the most part, American citizens. Randy Weaver's family fared no better.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr112901.htm
--
Military tribunals, the right way
Jump to first matched term
The following editorial appeared in the Chicago Tribune on Wednesday, 1-2:
X X X
When President Bush signed an executive order in November providing for the establishment of special military commissions to try suspected terrorists, critics accused him of setting up "kangaroo courts" that would trample on basic rights and discredit American justice before the world. The administration only fed the worst fears when Attorney General John Ashcroft rashly accused critics of tactics that "only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve."
The original order was so broadly and vaguely worded that it was impossible to know whether the military tribunals were a prudent, careful attempt to deal with the special circumstances of an unconventional war, or a flimsy parody of due process. But now, as their likely framework begins to emerge, it appears that the administration has gone to some lengths to assure accused terrorists a fair and open forum. Judging from the details that have leaked to the press, the critics should take heart _ and some of the credit.
The need for such tribunals should be obvious. War should not be subject to the same constraints as law enforcement. The nation's civilian courts are not designed to handle crimes of war committed by enemy soldiers. The Constitution creates safeguards intended to assure that the innocent are not punished, even though the guilty may go free.
As University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein recently told the Senate Judiciary Committee, "When national security is threatened, the nation's highest priority is to eliminate the threat, not to grant the most ample procedural safeguards to those who have created the threat."
The critics found fault with several aspects of the order, particularly those permitting the proceedings to be closed, permitting the death penalty to be imposed with only a two-thirds' vote of the panel, and barring court appeals.
Some secrecy may be essential, partly to avoid the release of sensitive information that could impede the American war effort or endanger those who testify against terrorists. The draft language preserves that option when it is necessary to protect national security _ which may not satisfy the critics, but does follow the practice used for American military personnel in court-martial proceedings.
In other respects, the proposed rules do more to meet objections. Though conviction would be allowed on a two-thirds' vote, the death penalty could not be imposed without a unanimous vote. The administration had suggested that convictions would require something less than proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," but the draft reverses course, holding these commissions to the same standard used in civilian courts. It also allows for appeals to a separate military panel, an essential device to minimize the chance of error.
The administration's decision to try suspected hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui in federal court should further assuage doubts, by making it clear that it plans to use military commissions only in cases where national security demands it. They appear to be a last resort, not a first resort.
Prosecuting a war involves a constant balancing act between respecting individual rights and safeguarding national security. In its plan for military tribunals, the administration seems to be getting the balance just about right.
___
newsalert.com |
