I'm getting even grumpier.

[Hubris Boy]

Damn.

I was in a pretty good mood, until I saw this on the Washington Post website a little while ago:

By Ron Fournier
AP White House Correspondent
Tuesday, November 13, 2001; 6:00 PM

WASHINGTON-- President Bush signed an order Tuesday that would allow for the trial of people accused of terrorism by a special military commission instead of civilian courts, The Associated Press has learned.

The order, signed by Bush before he left for Crawford, Texas, gives the Bush administration another avenue to bring the Sept. 11 terrorists to justice, said White House counsel Albert Gonzales.

"This is a new tool to use against terrorism," Gonzales said in a telephone interview. The White House was to release the order late Tuesday.

Gonzales, a former Texas Supreme Court judge who is the president's top lawyer, said a military commission could have several advantages over a civilian court. It is easier to protect the sources and methods of investigators in military proceedings, for example, and a military trial can be held overseas.

Gonzales said there may be times when prosecutors feel a trial in America would be unsafe.

"There may not be a need for this and the president may make a determination that he does not want to use this tool, but he felt it appropriate that he have this tool available to him," the lawyer said.

© 2001 The Associated Press

Gaaaaaaah. Ewwwww. Yuck. I feel dirty just reading it.

I couldn't find any further information about this, not even the text of the executive order itself. Google was no help, neither were the White House or Dept. of Justice websites. Have any Dwellars seen anything further on this? Are there any Constitutional scholars in our little community? IANAL, but I have a few questions I'd like to kick around:

• From whence would a "special military commission" derive it's authority to conduct such a trial? Surely not the Constitution. Or did I miss the section on "Special Military Commissions"?
  
• Would this commission try foreign nationals only? Or would it be empowered to try American citizens, too? Does Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution not apply anymore? How about the Sixth Amendment?
  
• How would a person end up in front of this commission? Would there be an indictment by a Grand Jury? Or are we gonna take a pass on the Fifth Amendment, too?

Does this bother anyone else? Or am I just being a paranoid nutcase?

p.s.- Hello Kitty is worried, too.

[elSicomoro]

Very interesting...

Obviously, Dubya and his buddies found a loophole. Or could this somehow be related to the anti-terrorism bill passed recently?

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by sycamore
Very interesting...

Obviously, Dubya and his buddies found a loophole. Or could this somehow be related to the anti-terrorism bill passed recently?

Accprding to Dubya staff there is precedent for this action in the FDR, LIncoln and Washington administrations.

It still kinda has a Nightwatch-type feel to it, I'll admit.

[lisa]

Originally posted by Hubris Boy
I couldn't find any further information about this, not even the text of the executive order itself. Google was no help, neither were the White House or Dept. of Justice websites. Have any Dwellars seen anything further on this?

Found a story on it on foxnews.com at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,38707,00.html

It *does* sound potentially ugly...

[jaguar]

*June 2002 Evil Terrorist Mastermind Hello Kitty is put on trial at the Special Military Commission for crimes against patriotism.
(FoxNews)

[tw]

Originally posted by MaggieL
Accprding to Dubya staff there is precedent for this action in the FDR, LIncoln and Washington administrations.

So when did Congress declare war? In each precedent, the US was at war. We have not declared war on anyone which is also why Silverstein can collect his $billion on WTC insurance.

Remember, these are the same people who wanted to bomb China over a Navy spy plane. It gets rather scary that they make decisions based upon people's fears rather than facts. Last time a White House administration use fear to get what the people did not want: Gulf of Tonkin - which we now know to be a total lie and which another President sued in the Supreme Court to keep us from learning that truth.

What is wrong with civilian courts that they cannot be 'trusted' to do justice? Or is it that civilian courts might first require proof? OK, I was surprised at the expression "Homeland Security" which is used in governments that aspire to military dictatorship. However to declare military justice when we are not at war? These are right wing extremists in power. Maybe we just forgot how extremist their thinking really is? The only government that works is a dicatorship dominated by right wing extremists?

[Hubris Boy]

Originally posted by tw

So when did Congress declare war? In each precedent, the US was at war. We have not declared war on anyone which is also why Silverstein can collect his $billion on WTC insurance.

"... A state of actual war may exist without any formal declaration of it by either party, and this is true of both a civil and a foreign war" in which the President is "bound to meet it in the shape it presented itself." The Prize Cases, 67 U.S. 635 (1863)

and

The President may introduce the US armed forces into hostilities in the event of

• 1) a declaration of war,
• 2) specific statutory authorization, or
• 3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces

--50 USC 33, § 1541(c)

There's no question that we're at war.

My question was about the authority of a "special military commission" to try civilians. MaggieL's right... it's all been done before. German saboteurs who were captured in the US during WWII were handled this way. And Lincoln certainly played fast & loose with the Constitution during the War of Northern Aggression. There are plenty of precedents... but were they LEGAL? I still haven't found the answer.

[wwarner11]

Like most people in this room I am not a lawyer nor do I profess to be a authority on the constitution. But I do think the administration is taking the attitude that everyone involved with the Sept. 11 attack is in fact part of a militia, regardless of the citizenship or nationality of these individuals. When you think this through, what you then have, is not an assault on the constitution, or the law abiding citizens of this country. I would like to think this is what is happing and not a suspension of our constituently rights.I hope I am right.

[russotto]

Originally posted by Hubris Boy
Damn.

I was in a pretty good mood, until I saw this on the Washington Post website a little while ago:


Gaaaaaaah. Ewwwww. Yuck. I feel dirty just reading it.

There's some precedent for this, in the American colonies pre-Revolution. I believe it was called the Star Chamber. Perhaps this is the perfect post-Mayoral job for Giuliani -- he can be the prosecutor.

[russotto]

Originally posted by wwarner11
Like most people in this room I am not a lawyer nor do I profess to be a authority on the constitution. But I do think the administration is taking the attitude that everyone involved with the Sept. 11 attack is in fact part of a militia, regardless of the citizenship or nationality of these individuals. When you think this through, what you then have, is not an assault on the constitution, or the law abiding citizens of this country. I would like to think this is what is happing and not a suspension of our constituently rights.I hope I am right.

You've got means and ends reversed, I'm afraid. The removal of civil rights through things like this and the PATRIOT act is the end. The excuse of fighting terrorism is the means.

What makes the President think he can override Article III (the judiciary) by fiat, I don't know. But it seems likely he'll get away with it.

[Griff]

Actually, the Star Chamber was an English court used by the monarchs to try nobles and suppress dissent, very secretive, lottsa torture ect... http://encarta.msn.com/index/concise...?z=1&pg=2&br=1

Pretty creepy parallels to Bush's new tool especially when you hear people complaining about our "unfortunate" inability to torture all the foreign nationals we've been picking up.

[Griff]

As far as the colonials go, this is the kind of thing those guys would have started a revolution over, think I'll look at the Dec of Ind seems like proper courts used to be a big deal... Rep. Ron Paul actually used the "R" word this week. How long do you see these courts and the supposed temporary PATRIOTIC Act lasting? I'm thinking they'll become a permanent part of the empire... war without end and all that.

[jaguar]

Reminds me vaguely of Leni's War Communism policy at the turn of the centuary except in a litigatory framework not an economic one.

[Hubris Boy]

Originally posted by Griff
think I'll look at the Dec of Ind seems like proper courts used to be a big deal... Rep. Ron Paul actually used the "R" word this week.

Did he really? The "R" word, eh? Heh. I'm not surprised. Ron Paul's probably the only member of Congress who'd have the balls to use it. Do you remember where you saw it, Griff? It's probably a gem; I'd like to check it out.

How long do you see these courts and the supposed temporary PATRIOTIC Act lasting? I'm thinking they'll become a permanent part of the empire... war without end and all that.

You mean H.R. 3162? The "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001"? <sarcasm>Who knows? I don't think anybody's ever read it. Certainly not the people in Congress who voted for it. Wasn't it Leahy who complained that there were only two copies of the bill in the entire Senate, and that nobody'd had time to read it before the vote?</sarcasm>

Seriously, though, I seem to recall reading that most (but not all) of the provisions in the bill have a 4-year sunset limit. But a lot can happen in 4 years. Bush's executive order is another matter. I don't think there's any limit on executive orders, is there?

Gotta go... gonna run out to the store and stock up on .30-30 ammo before they decide that my Winchester Model 94 is an assault rifle.

[Griff]

I think Ron Paul was quoted in an Insight magazine article, Hafta look for it.

Nice choice in assault rifles there. Dad bought me the same for my 16th birthday, good little brush gun.