Før første gang siden andre verdenskrig, tillater nå USA militærtribunaler
som dømmer i sivile saker. Det er bestemt av Bush direkte, uten å gå
omveien om det lille fikenblad av demokrati USA har. Anonyme kilder sier
at det er bare ment mot "noncitizens". Interessant at de ikke sier dette
offentlig.
Dette er som tatt ut fra "Dictatorship for Dummies": Skap frykt, start
krig, innfør autoritær lovgivning, skap rasende fiender som ikke har noe å
tape og vent på nye terroraksjoner. Gjenta.
Mvh,
Per
"if something vanishes from your house, you won't know if it was a thief or the
government" -- Richard Stallman
Sources: Reuters | AP | AP U.S. | The New York Times |
ABCNEWS.com
Wednesday November 14 2:48 AM ET
Military Commision to Try Terrorists
By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/htx/ap/20011114/us/attacks_terrorist_trials_1.html
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Sept. 11 attacks and the threat of new terrorism
justify President Bush's decision to approve the use of military tribunals
the likes of which the United States has not seen since World War II,
administration officials say.
Bush approved use of such a court Tuesday, should anyone ever be called to
justice for terror assaults. His emergency order does not require approval
from Congress.
``This is a new tool to use against terrorism,'' White House Counsel
Albert Gonzales said.
A special military court could try accused terrorists in greater secrecy
than a conventional court, and much more quickly, lawyers in and out of
government said.
Rules for such a court could give the government a freer hand to introduce
evidence or statements that probably would be excluded from a regular
criminal trial, and military jurors might be more likely to vote for a
death sentence, said David B. Rivkin, a Washington lawyer who published a
legal paper on Bush's options this month.
Convicted terrorists might be executed shortly after a trial, with few or
none of the long delays for additional court appeals common in criminal
courts, lawyers said.
``The easy way (for the government) to go is a military commission,''
former military prosecutor A. Jeff Ifrah said.
Unlike U.S. district courts or military courts martial, ``a commission is
governed by whatever the president and to a certain extent the Congress
dictate,'' Ifrah added.
Military commissions date to the late 17th century, operating side by side
with the better-known courts martials. The United States last convened one
on orders from President Franklin D. Roosevelt after German saboteurs
secretly landed on U.S. shores in 1942.
Detention and trial of accused terrorists by a military tribunal is
necessary ``to protect the United States and its citizens, and for the
effective conduct of military operations and prevention of terrorist
attacks,'' Bush's five-page order said.
The administration also could hold a trial in an ordinary criminal court,
but said it wanted the option of using a military court.
In either a military or a civilian court, any suspect would retain rights
to a lawyer and to a trial by jury, the administration said.
``These are extraordinary times and the president wants to have as many
options as possible. This option does not preclude any Department of
Justice options that might also be available,'' said Mindy Tucker, Justice
Department spokeswoman.
Bush's order sets out many of the rules for a future military tribunal and
rights of anyone held accountable there. A senior Justice Department
official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said only noncitizens would
be tried before the commission.
The defense secretary would follow up with more specifics should a
tribunal be needed, the White House said.
Anyone ever held for trial before such a court would certainly challenge
its legitimacy, said Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of
Military Justice in Washington, and a lawyer who regularly practices
before military courts.
``This is going to raise a raft of legal issues and will be a test of the
president's power,'' Fidell said.
Gonzales, the president's top lawyer, said a military commission could
preserve the secrecy of U.S. investigations into terror networks.
In a conventional court, a victory might require giving other terrorists
information about U.S. ``sources and methods,'' Gonzales said. ``We don't
want to have to do that.''
A military trial also could be held overseas, and Gonzales said
prosecutors may feel a trial in America would be unsafe.
Recent terrorism trials have taken place under heavy security in U.S.
criminal courts, where the rules require the government to reveal its
evidence either in open court or in filings it must fight to keep secret.
Laura W. Murphy, director of the Washington office of the American Civil
Liberties Union, said for a military trial to have constitutional
legitimacy, Bush must justify why ordinary courts could not do the job.
``Absent such a compelling justification, today's order is deeply
disturbing and further evidence that the administration is totally
unwilling to abide by the checks and balances that are so central to our
democracy,'' she said.
Roosevelt had the World War II saboteurs secretly tried by military
commission, and six were executed. The Supreme Court upheld the
proceeding, although Rivkin said it is not clear whether that case would
guide a modern challenge. An enemy who sneaked onto U.S. soil ``for the
purposes of waging war by destruction of life or property'' was a
combatant who could be tried in a military court, the Supreme Court ruled
then.
Military tribunals also were used during and after the Civil War.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 11-07-02 MET DST