| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
08 Oct 2004 09:48:10 PM |
| Object: |
Losing Liberty |
http://www.detnews.com/2003/editorial/0309/16/a08-272308.htm
{Chart on Prisoners Rights on site}
Tuesday, September 16, 2003
Losing Liberty: Due process
Military Tribunals Challenge America's Legal Tradition
The Constitution makes no provision for military courts to try
foreigners arrested on American soil
By The Detroit News
America faces a question that could decide whether it remains a nation
of principles, guided by laws it holds sacred even in a time of
tremendous fear and uncertainty.
That question: Are terror suspects entitled to the same constitutional
protections as everyone else?
So far, the Bush administration has decided that terrorism is such an
extraordinarily heinous crime, and presents such a real threat to the
security and stability of the nation, that it merits an exemption from
the Bill of Rights.
Some of the moves proposed by the administration, particularly the use
of military tribunals to try foreigners arrested on American soil,
would change the fundamental nature of the United States as a nation
of laws.
Military tribunals are a stunning departure from American legal
tradition, as well as a violation of existing U.S. statutes and
international law.
The conservative Heritage Foundation of Washington, D.C., described
military tribunals on American soil as a move away from "normal legal
processes in the United States and from some of its most fundamental
judicial traditions." The tribunals provide even less protection than
courts set up to try terrorists in Northern Ireland.
The Constitution doesn't prescribe a different set of legal rules for
trials of noncitizens. Although it reserves some other rights only for
citizens, in legal proceedings, it requires that all "persons" accused
of a crime be granted "due process of law."
That includes the right to a jury trial and representation by a
lawyer.
Supporters of military tribunals argue that it is inappropriate to
expect the government to extend the full set of criminal procedural
rights to such deadly enemies as terrorists -- especially when the
best weapons against them are speed and secrecy.
But this is not the first time the country has faced a mortal threat
to its existence. Arguably, the Civil War presented an even greater
security challenge to the nation. At that time, Southern agents were
conspiring to seize U.S. weapons, liberate prisoners of war and
persuade allies in the North to join the Confederacy in destroying the
United States.
Yet the Supreme Court in an 1866 ruling outlawed the use of military
tribunals to try Southern saboteurs not enrolled in the Confederate
Army.
Military justice can never be used against civilians, the court said,
as long as civilian "courts are open and the process unobstructed."
The court retreated slightly from its blanket prohibition against
trying civilians in military courts in World War II, when it weighed
the legitimacy of a special tribunal to try Nazi saboteurs who
illegally sneaked into the country. But the fact that the Supreme
Court took the World War II case demonstrates a civilian oversight
that the Bush administration is not permitting this time.
And in the World War II case, the tribunals were authorized by
Congress, not the executive branch. In today's struggle against
terror, Congress has not approved military tribunals.
President George W. Bush maintains that as commander-in-chief he has
the constitutional authority to convene military tribunals. But the
Constitution grants the president no such power. Instead, it gives
that authority to Congress.
Placing that power with the president would put in his hands the
authority of the executive, legislative and judicial branches at once
-- something James Madison defined as "the essence of tyranny."
The argument that the Justice Department lacks the necessary tools to
combat terrorism doesn't fly.
If it is concerned about having its intelligence secrets aired in open
court, it can ask Congress to amend the Classified Information and
Procedures Act so it can withhold even more classified information in
the charges presented to the accused.
And it can ask Congress to formally suspend the writ of habeas corpus
-- and obtain the power to detain even U.S. citizens. To do so, it
would have to persuade Congress, as the Constitution requires, that
the country is in the throes of invasion or rebellion.
This is a high burden. But it was intended to be. America's Founders
wanted to preserve the country's liberties when they were most in
danger -- in time of war.
Third in a series
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Vote for Bush. Why vote for the lesser of two evils?
No matter the candidates the superstition industry wins.
'Jesus' is a sock-puppet Christians utilize to add 'authority' to
whatever action they intend on taking. -Stoney
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
