lucky-E-leven
Aphrodisiaddict
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2004
- Posts
- 17,241
found this little tidbit here and thought it was interesting http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15122
The World War II case in which German aliens came to the United States just to engage in unlawful combat prompted President Franklin D. Roosevelt to establish a military commission. It is widely believed that this was the direct inspiration for President Bush's order to create such commissions. President Roosevelt's military commission tried four German saboteurs who came ashore from a U-boat at Amagansett, Long Island, on June 13, 1942, and four more who landed four days later at Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. Their mission was to blow up rail centers, bridges, locks on the Ohio River, the New York water supply system, and a number of industrial plants. They were quickly arrested and found guilty. The case went to the US Supreme Court, which upheld their convictions.[12] Six of the eight were executed a few days later. The other two were spared electrocution because they had informed on their associates, and were eventually released from prison a few years after the end of the war and repatriated to Germany.
If a similar case arose today, and it was shown through proper procedures that the persons arrested were in fact would-be saboteurs or terrorists, it would be difficult to argue that just because they set foot in the United States they are entitled to all the protections available under the United States Constitution.[13] Yet President Bush's order goes too far in the case of such persons, since the order appears to abolish their remedy of habeas corpus, in which they could question a military commission's jurisdiction. The President's order states:
With respect to any individual subject to this order—
(1) military tribunals shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to offenses by the individual; and
(2) the individual shall not be privileged to seek any remedy or maintain any proceeding, directly or indirectly, or to have any such remedy or proceeding sought on the individual's behalf, in
(i) any court of the United States, or any State thereof,
(ii) any court of any foreign nation, or
(iii) any international tribunal.
Despite this plain language, the President's counsel, Alberto R. Gonzalez, has contradicted it, writing:
The order preserves judicial review in civilian courts. Under the order, anyone arrested, detained or tried in the United States by a military commission will be able to challenge the lawfulness of the commission's jurisdiction through a habeas corpus proceeding in a federal court.[14]
Hence, it must be assumed either that the Defense Department regulations will specify that habeas corpus is available to those detained in the US or that Mr. Gonzalez recognizes that, whatever the order says, such a remedy cannot be constitutionally denied by the President. Under the Constitution, habeas corpus may only be suspended "in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion." Moreover, the passage refer-ring to the suspension of habeas corpus appears in Article I setting forth the powers of Congress rather than in Article II dealing with the authority of the President.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, minsue, there is little to condone but it seems to me (according to the guidelines for military tribunals of terrorists) that there is very little hope for any of them now concerning trials and representation. Rights, however important, seem somewhat relative where these captives are concerned... Don't take that to mean that I believe we should toss them into the same category of deserving them as you and I do, but it is disheartening to think that amongs the vast numbers of people who deserve to be right where they are there are most assuredly some that probably don't.
E
