From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Wed Jan 01 2003 - 11:32:28 MST
Dehede011@aol.com wrote,
In a message dated 1/1/2003 1:46:26 AM Central Standard Time,
mail@HarveyNewstrom.com writes:
> > You need to look no further than the current case of Zacarias Moussaoui
who is currently on trial in federal court.
> Is this the character you have been touting as an American Citizen being
imprisoned on secret evidence?
No, not at all. This was to prove that the Bush Administration desires to
use military tribunals instead of the civil courts so they don't have to
reveal their secret evidence to the judges or the civil court system. I
don't remember making any claims about American citizenship for any of these
cases.
> He has not been imprisoned as yet. He has been held as a bad risk of
fleeing our nation's jurisdiction.
OK. I am not arguing this fine distinction of terminology.
> And once again you are wrong on all counts. A military tribunal is a
court.
Again, I am not arguing this fine distinction of terminology. By "courts" I
meant the civil courts and by "military tribunal" I meant the military
tribunal courts.
> You can bet that a civilian court will have to rule on the legality of
transferring the defendants case to a military court before he can be tried
in the military court.
For transfer, yes, only because he is already in the custody of the civil
system and in the middle of a civil trial. For defendants who are taken
directly to a military facility to undergo a military trial, the civil
courts do not have to give their permission.
> In addition your statement "without giving any information to the courts"
is pure hyperbole. Military courts come under the jurisdiction of what is
called The Unified Code of Military Justice. The UCMJ was passed by
Congress in the late 40s and is a strict but fair set of laws. Every person
entering the military is lectured extensively about the code upon entry. I
passed a course in the UCMJ that went into even more depth and lived under
that code for over four years. So has every other ex-serviceman under age
of 70. I have read that studies show a higher percentage of defendants beat
the rap in military courts than in civilian courts.
You don't have to lecture ME about Military Justice! I served my country as
a security intelligence reconnaissance expert for black agencies that don't
officially exist. I was EXTENSIVELY briefed that if I was deemed to have
leak any information into the public domain I would "disappear" into the
secret military system. I have no rights to lawyers, trials, juries, no
right to see the evidence, no right of appeal, no right to a public
statement, and no right to have my family or friends notified of why I
disappeared. I knowingly signed away these rights to perform specialized
security services to my country. I know VERY WELL how secret military
tribunals work.
> > "For future cases held in the secret military tribunals, the courts
would not even be informed that the event had occurred."
> Where did you ever get the idea that we have such a thing as a "secret
military tribunal?"
If you would just read the newspaper or any of the links I provided, you
would know that an alternate system of military justice is available for
prosecuting enemy combatants outside the civil court system. Most people
think this is a new invention for the use on terrorists, but I personally
know that this system has existed for a long time. You yourself referenced
the Military Code of Justice above. You must be nitpicking on the single
word "secret". The only point you aren't getting is that for interests of
national security these military trials can be held in secret without
informing any branch of government outside the military. Bush has even
authorized the assassination of certain enemy combatants without any further
involvement or notification of any branch of government. These
authorizations for the military to operate in secret are common in times of
war and in areas of national security.
> The military is almost always sort of strict but wonderfully open and
direct. Everyone around the trial area will know about the trial. Maybe
someone can help me with this also, I haven't studied the UCMJ for 45 years
but Harvey says "the courts would not even be informed that the event had
occurred." Assuming that Harvey means that the civilian courts would not
even be informed of the military trials after the first one, isn't it true
that all military trials come under the Federal Court system and can be
appealed in Federal Court?
Not when national security is as stake. Military tribunals can execute
military justice in matters of national security or during wartime or during
emergencies that cannot be appealed. Appeals, if any, for a secret military
trial would also be in a secret military court.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <http://HarveyNewstrom.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:50 MST