('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
Here is a pertinent Newsweek article:
If we take Osama bin Laden alive—or catch some of his recruits in the United States or abroad—what would we do with them? Well-connected officials say one option is to try accused terrorists as war criminals before military tribunals. Conventional criminal trials may still be more likely, especially for accused terrorists caught in the United States. But if the president so ordered—with or without congressional approval—a military trial could be conducted at home or abroad, rapidly, in complete or partial secrecy, with liberal use of all relevant evidence, no need for proof beyond a reasonable doubt and limited appeals. Defendants sentenced to death could be executed within weeks.
The president’s constitutional authority to order such trials is clearly established. In June 1942, eight English-speaking German saboteurs secretly landed on beaches in New York’s Long Island and Florida with explosives and instructions to disguise themselves as civilians, blow up factories, bridges, railroads and department stores, and spread terror. But one turned himself in and led the FBI to the other seven. They were secretly tried by a military commission specially created by President Franklin Roosevelt and convicted. Six were executed, less than two months after hitting the beaches. A unanimous Supreme Court upheld this procedure, ruling that an enemy “who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property” was an “unlawful combatant” subject to military trial and not “entitled to the status of prisoners of war.”
Recent terrorism cases have gone to ordinary criminal courts. But the rules may change. Proving guilt in an ordinary trial requires disclosure of critical intelligence secrets; protecting the courthouse and participants would be costly and far from foolproof. And the media spotlight might provoke further terrorism. But a military trial also has disadvantages. International opinion would range from skeptical to hostile. And any decision to drop the “reasonable doubt” rule could lead to convictions of innocent people. Either way, it may be hard to avoid further casualties of war.
— Stuart Taylor Jr.
>Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 03:30:59 -0700
> Samantha Atkins <email@example.com> firstname.lastname@example.org Re: Tolerance strategies (was: Two Essays on the violence...)Reply-To: email@example.com
>Mike Lorrey wrote:
>> Samantha Atkins wrote:
>> > Mike Lorrey wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Well, we could start by renaming the DoD as the Department of
>> > > Retaliation.
>> > >
>> > > Next, adjust our military Code of Conduct to allow flexibility in action
>> > > that is determined by the action of those who attack us. If you obey the
>> > > Classical Laws of War, we operate in similar fashion. If you obey
>> > > ComIntern tactics of Insurgency, Infiltration, Subversion, AgitProp, and
>> > > Terrorism, we use the same tactics against your own home front. Under no
>> > > conditions do we initiate force using the lowest common denominator, we
>> > > always initiate at the highest standard of behavior until the enemy
>> > > proves otherwise inclined.
>> > >
>> > > On that line, we get rid of pollyannish restrictions on doing dirty
>> > > deeds in the dark in all circumstances. We let the circumstances
>> > > determine the tactics. By operating externally in such a fashion, we
>> > > create an incentive for others to operate at the highest standard of
>> > > conduct.
>> > Excuse me but part of what got us into this mess is considering
>> > such restrictions "pollyannish" in practice and doing more than
>> > a few dirty deeds around the world. We have not been above
>> > initiating the dirty deed either.
>> When I hear such whines, I am reminded of the situation in Lebanon in
>> the early 1980's. Several dozen Americans were held hostage by Hezbollah
>> and Islamic Jihad. They tried to do the same to some Soviet citizens.
>Whines??? You are being a dishonest asshole. I am done talking
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:16 MDT