White House Proposes Secret Military Tribunals for American Citizens.

[Sam]

Yes, really.

The Washington Post: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101334.html)

The plan, which would replace a military trial system ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in June, would also allow the secretary of defense to add crimes at will to those under the military court's jurisdiction. The two provisions would be likely to put more individuals than previously expected before military juries, officials and independent experts said.

[...]

Under the proposed procedures, defendants would lack rights to confront accusers, exclude hearsay accusations, or bar evidence obtained through rough or coercive interrogations. They would not be guaranteed a public or speedy trial and would lack the right to choose their military counsel, who in turn would not be guaranteed equal access to evidence held by prosecutors.

Detainees would also not be guaranteed the right to be present at their own trials, if their absence is deemed necessary to protect national security or individuals.

We have officially left behind mere bad governance and are careening headlong toward genuine despotism.

(Link fixed.)

[Drew Van T.]

Is it too much to hope for that the Supremes will reject the new system, too?

[Wesley Dodds]

Hahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah a!!!!

I'm sorry, that was the sound of my brain finally shutting down in horror/shock. I'll be over in the corner drooling and playing with myself.

[StoneGold]

I think you linked to the wrong article. I'm getting 9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon

[Boldido]

Hahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah a!!!!

I'm sorry, that was the sound of my brain finally shutting down in horror/shock. I'll be over in the corner drooling and playing with myself.

So in other words, doing what you normally do.

[Wesley Dodds]

So in other words, doing what you normally do.

Basically, yeah.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I think you linked to the wrong article. I'm getting 9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon

Same. That is itself an interesting article, but I'd like to see the one cited, too.

[StoneGold]

Same. That is itself an interesting article, but I'd like to see the one cited, too.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I'm outraged, but over something completly different. And I searched some other news sites, couldn't find any references. That seems like it would be pretty goddamn big news.

[moebius]

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I'm outraged, but over something completly different. And I searched some other news sites, couldn't find any references. That seems like it would be pretty goddamn big news.

Nothing our media or our government does should surprise you anymore.

[StoneGold]

Nothing our media or our government does should surprise you anymore.
I said outrage, not surprise.



Besides, I'd be surprised if the administration suddenly supported the hike in minimum wage without tying it to free money for the rich.

[Sam]

Whoops, sorry. I did indeed link to the wrong article. Though this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html) one is indeed pretty damning too, in a completely different way. I love that the governmental response to the Pentagon and NORAD outright lying to the 9/11 Commission was to have the Pentagon investigate whether there was wrongdoing.

I'll correct my initial post.

[macul]

The bolded portion states "those under the military court's jurisdiction." Who does that normally include? Are U.S. citizens currently under military jurisdiction? The given portion of the article doesn't state the military's jurisdiction is expanding to U.S. citizens (if it doesn't already include them?).

edit: Just realized that as worded, my post sounds like I'm not considering military personnel to be U.S. citizens, which of course isn't the case. I think I might have misread the initial post. I thought sam was saying the tribunals would be extended to non-military.

[StoneGold]

Yeah, while the article is still pretty creepy, I couldn't find any reference to US citizens anywhere in it. Granted, this is also a report about a leaked draft, so, whatever.

[StoneGold]

edit: Just realized that as worded, my post sounds like I'm not considering military personnel to be U.S. citizens, which of course isn't the case. I think I might have misread the initial post. I thought sam was saying the tribunals would be extended to non-military.
Although the article doesn't specify, I don't think they are talking about military personnel. Besides, like military personnel get tried for anything these days. Well, maybe meth distribution, but that's besides the point. I'm pretty sure these are for captured "enemy combatants," whomever they might be. Although the opening graph of "include trials, for the first time, of people who are not members of al-Qaeda or the Taliban and are not directly involved in acts of international terrorism, according to officials familiar with the proposal," could use a little more specifics. Or at least I missed them.

[Sam]

The bolded portion states "those under the military court's jurisdiction." Who does that normally include?

Traditionally, it has only included members of the Armed Forces, and sometimes crimes committed by captured enemy combatants. This bill would expand that jurisdiction to, well, whatever Donald Rumsfeld says it is.

Are U.S. citizens currently under military jurisdiction?

No. We are garaunteed the right to a civil trial by our peers, under Bill of Rights protections.

The given portion of the article doesn't state the military's jurisdiction is expanding to U.S. citizens (if it doesn't already include them?).

It never comes right out and says it applies to American citizens, but it does say it applies to anyone suspected of engaging in anti-American activities. (Nice and vague, huh?)

An AP article goes into specifics on the proposed legislation's effect on American citizens:

Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060728/ap_on_go_pr_wh/detainee_rights;_ylt=AqYkldIHXLiIeuVur6hg9CsD5gcF; _ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--)

U.S. citizens suspected of terror ties might be detained indefinitely and barred from access to civilian courts under legislation proposed by the Bush administration, say legal experts reviewing an early version of the bill.

[Adam Crocker]

Yeah, while the article is still pretty creepy, I couldn't find any reference to US citizens anywhere in it. Granted, this is also a report about a leaked draft, so, whatever.

Phrasing as though the Tribunals are specifically aimed at U.S. citizens is misleading since they aren't. However, it does say...

The plan, which would replace a military trial system ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in June, would also allow the secretary of defense to add crimes at will to those under the military court's jurisdiction. The two provisions would be likely to put more individuals than previously expected before military juries, officials and independent experts said.

If I'm reading things right, the Secretary of Defence can basically put any crime he/she pleases under the jurisdiction of military tribunals, never mind the actual jurisdiction of tribunals or the constitution.

And even without that the Bush administration is essentially proposing to replacing the military tribunal system that the Supreme Court struck down with the exact same thing that's been shown not to work in the first place. I mean really, the sheer gall of even proposing something like this after the same system was shot down by the Supreme Court and shown by ineffective at even proving the innocence of detainees (and there have been a lot of them at Gitmo). Tried in absentia? Isn't that something police states do? The only difference is now they'll supposedly be applied to more than alleged Al-Qaeda members.

[StoneGold]

And even without that the Bush administration is essentially proposing to replacing the military tribunal system that the Supreme Court struck down with the exact same thing that's been shown not to work in the first place. I mean really, the sheer gall of even proposing something like this after the same system was shot down by the Supreme Court and shown by ineffective at even proving the innocence of detainees (and there have been a lot of them at Gitmo). Tried in absentia? Isn't that something police states do? The only difference is now they'll supposedly be applied to more than alleged Al-Qaeda members.
In fairness, it's a draft proposal, and sometimes in draft proposals you put down stuff you know you aren't going to get so it makes other stuff seem less crazy.



Or they're evil. Your pick.

[Adam Crocker]

In fairness, it's a draft proposal, and sometimes in draft proposals you put down stuff you know you aren't going to get so it makes other stuff seem less crazy.

Well it's the Bush administration, who have pretty shown utter contempt for checks and balances on government authority. And with the record of Gitmo (as well as the extraordinary rendition program) itself I really don't see much reason to give them the benefit of the doubt here.