Going a little too far...?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hard to believe that someone could think bypassing (and thus undermining) the judicial system in favor of military courts answering to the Secretary of Defence would be in any way, a good idea.

El Presidente anyone?

[mawilson 2,133]

Who thinks it's a good idea, besides the dictators themselves?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Who thinks it's a good idea, besides the dictators themselves?

Infidel (on other page) suggested that this amounts to typical ACLU-style "muzzling" of law enforcement, preventing them from doing their job.

[desert_fox 32]

Hard to believe that someone could think bypassing (and thus undermining) the judicial system in favor of military courts answering to the Secretary of Defence would be in any way, a good idea.

El Presidente anyone?

The judicial system??? federal courts???

The military has always had their separate justice system (Uniform Code of Military Justice) and the federal courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever, nor ever had.

The supreme court only said that whatever Bush wants to do has to be approved by Congress. So he presented his package to Congress, now its in their hands and until they pass some kind of legislation...nothing will happen. Im sure that Kennedy will want to give them some kind of path to citizenship.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hard to believe that someone could think bypassing (and thus undermining) the judicial system in favor of military courts answering to the Secretary of Defence would be in any way, a good idea.

El Presidente anyone?

The judicial system??? federal courts???

The military has always had their separate justice system (Uniform Code of Military Justice) and the federal courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever, nor ever had.

The supreme court only said that whatever Bush wants to do has to be approved by Congress. So he presented his package to Congress, now its in their hands and until they pass some kind of legislation...nothing will happen. Im sure that Kennedy will want to give them some kind of path to citizenship.

We're not talking about strictly terrorism-related offences here. The proposal (as described) would allow the Secretary of Defense carte blanche to add whatever offences he feels appropriate to the jurisdiction of the military courts. How will this not impact the civilian (non-military) judicial system?

Do you think this is a good idea?

[I'm Gone 60]

The supreme court only said that whatever Bush wants to do has to be approved by Congress. So he presented his package to Congress, now its in their hands and until they pass some kind of legislation.

If that's the case, getting the public in an uproar and having people contact Congress is probably why it was leaked.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Hard to believe that someone could think bypassing (and thus undermining) the judicial system in favor of military courts answering to the Secretary of Defence would be in any way, a good idea.

El Presidente anyone?

The judicial system??? federal courts???

The military has always had their separate justice system (Uniform Code of Military Justice) and the federal courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever, nor ever had.

The supreme court only said that whatever Bush wants to do has to be approved by Congress. So he presented his package to Congress, now its in their hands and until they pass some kind of legislation...nothing will happen. Im sure that Kennedy will want to give them some kind of path to citizenship.

With great fanfare, George W. Bush announced to a group of carefully selected 9/11 families yesterday that he had finally decided to send Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and 13 other alleged terrorists to Guantánamo Bay, where they will be tried in military commissions. After nearly five years of interrogating these men, why did Bush choose this moment to bring them to "justice"?

Bush said his administration had "largely completed our questioning of the men" and complained that "the Supreme Court's recent decision has impaired our ability to prosecute terrorists through military commissions and has put in question the future of the CIA program."

He was referring to Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, in which the high court recently held that Bush's military commissions did not comply with the law. Bush sought to try prisoners in commissions they could not attend with evidence they never see, including hearsay and evidence obtained by coercion.

The Court also determined that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to al Qaeda detainees. That provision of Geneva prohibits "outrages upon personal dignity" and "humiliating and degrading treatment."

Bush called on Congress to define these "vague and undefined" terms in Common Article 3 because "our military and intelligence personnel" involved in capture and interrogation "could now be at risk of prosecution under the War Crimes Act."

Congress enacted the War Crimes Act in 1996. That act defines violations of Geneva's Common Article 3 as war crimes. Those convicted face life imprisonment or even the death penalty if the victim dies.

The President is undoubtedly familiar with the doctrine of command responsibility, where commanders, all the way up the chain of command to the commander in chief, can be held liable for war crimes their inferiors commit if the commander knew or should have known they might be committed and did nothing to stop or prevent them.

Bush defensively denied that the United States engages in torture and foreswore authorizing it. But it has been well-documented that policies set at the highest levels of our government have resulted in the torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of U.S. prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo.

Indeed, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act in December, which codifies the prohibition in United States law against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of prisoners in U.S. custody. In his speech yesterday, Bush took credit for working with Senator John McCain to pass the DTA.

In fact, Bush fought the McCain "anti-torture" amendment tooth-and-nail, at times threatening to veto the entire appropriations bill to which it was appended. At one point, Bush sent ####### Cheney to convince McCain to exempt the CIA from the prohibition on cruel treatment, but McCain refused.

Bush signed the bill, but attached a "signing statement" where he reserved the right to violate the DTA if, as commander-in-chief, he thought it necessary.

http://www.alternet.org/stories/41411/

Edited September 11, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The supreme court only said that whatever Bush wants to do has to be approved by Congress. So he presented his package to Congress, now its in their hands and until they pass some kind of legislation.

If that's the case, getting the public in an uproar and having people contact Congress is probably why it was leaked.

Rightly so - no way this sort of thing is compatible with democratic government. Makes you wonder what crackpot comes up with these whacked out ideas

[desert_fox 32]

Hard to believe that someone could think bypassing (and thus undermining) the judicial system in favor of military courts answering to the Secretary of Defence would be in any way, a good idea.

El Presidente anyone?

The judicial system??? federal courts???

The military has always had their separate justice system (Uniform Code of Military Justice) and the federal courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever, nor ever had.

The supreme court only said that whatever Bush wants to do has to be approved by Congress. So he presented his package to Congress, now its in their hands and until they pass some kind of legislation...nothing will happen. Im sure that Kennedy will want to give them some kind of path to citizenship.

We're not talking about strictly terrorism-related offences here. The proposal (as described) would allow the Secretary of Defense carte blanche to add whatever offences he feels appropriate to the jurisdiction of the military courts. How will this not impact the civilian (non-military) judicial system?

Do you think this is a good idea?

so what?? they would still have to be convicted. Im assuming of course that at least the trials would be fair and meet some kind of 'beyond a reasonable doubt', etc.

The military justice system has always been good and fair and more lenient than the federal courts when it comes to the sentence.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hard to believe that someone could think bypassing (and thus undermining) the judicial system in favor of military courts answering to the Secretary of Defence would be in any way, a good idea.

El Presidente anyone?

The judicial system??? federal courts???

The military has always had their separate justice system (Uniform Code of Military Justice) and the federal courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever, nor ever had.

The supreme court only said that whatever Bush wants to do has to be approved by Congress. So he presented his package to Congress, now its in their hands and until they pass some kind of legislation...nothing will happen. Im sure that Kennedy will want to give them some kind of path to citizenship.

We're not talking about strictly terrorism-related offences here. The proposal (as described) would allow the Secretary of Defense carte blanche to add whatever offences he feels appropriate to the jurisdiction of the military courts. How will this not impact the civilian (non-military) judicial system?

Do you think this is a good idea?

so what?? they would still have to be convicted. Im assuming of course that at least the trials would be fair and meet some kind of 'beyond a reasonable doubt', etc.

The military justice system has always been good and fair and more lenient than the federal courts when it comes to the sentence.

Because it undermines the independence of the federal judicial system. Which offences should be prosecuted this way? - its already been ruled that military tribunals for terrorism suspects are illegal, that in itself should suggest that open-ended expansion of the programme for non-terrorism related offences is not only illegal, but constitutionally damaging.

Perhaps the military system is a 'fairer' - but it will have a lot of people thinking "kangaroo court"

[desert_fox 32]

Because it undermines the independence of the federal judicial system. Which offences should be prosecuted this way? - its already been ruled that military tribunals for terrorism suspects are illegal, that in itself should suggest that open-ended expansion of the programme for non-terrorism related offences is not only illegal, but constitutionally damaging.

Perhaps the military system is a 'fairer' - but it will have a lot of people thinking "kangaroo court"

independence of the federal judicial system????? I dont understand what you mean.

The federal courts have absolutely no jurisdiction when it comes to military law...never had, nor ever will.

If Congress amends the UCMJ and the pres signs it....it becomes law. It could be appealed up thru the military appeal system to the Court of Military appeals.....these are civilian judges. I dont that the US court system ever gets involved.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Because it undermines the independence of the federal judicial system. Which offences should be prosecuted this way? - its already been ruled that military tribunals for terrorism suspects are illegal, that in itself should suggest that open-ended expansion of the programme for non-terrorism related offences is not only illegal, but constitutionally damaging.

Perhaps the military system is a 'fairer' - but it will have a lot of people thinking "kangaroo court"

independence of the federal judicial system????? I dont understand what you mean.

The federal courts have absolutely no jurisdiction when it comes to military law...never had, nor ever will.

If Congress amends the UCMJ and the pres signs it....it becomes law. It could be appealed up thru the military appeal system to the Court of Military appeals.....these are civilian judges. I dont that the US court system ever gets involved.

The proposal (again - as described) suggests that non-terrorism-related offences (at the discretion of the Secretary of Defence) would be prosecuted by a Military Court instead instead of the Federal Courts which would ordinarily deal with the cases.

It suggests that military law would be put to previously civilian (Federal) jurisdictions, giving increased power to the executive at the expense of the judiciary.

Edited September 11, 2006 by erekose

[desert_fox 32]

Because it undermines the independence of the federal judicial system. Which offences should be prosecuted this way? - its already been ruled that military tribunals for terrorism suspects are illegal, that in itself should suggest that open-ended expansion of the programme for non-terrorism related offences is not only illegal, but constitutionally damaging.

Perhaps the military system is a 'fairer' - but it will have a lot of people thinking "kangaroo court"

independence of the federal judicial system????? I dont understand what you mean.

The federal courts have absolutely no jurisdiction when it comes to military law...never had, nor ever will.

If Congress amends the UCMJ and the pres signs it....it becomes law. It could be appealed up thru the military appeal system to the Court of Military appeals.....these are civilian judges. I dont that the US court system ever gets involved.

The proposal (again - as described) suggests that non-terrorism-related offences (at the discretion of the Secretary of Defence) would be prosecuted by a Military Court instead instead of the Federal Courts which would ordinarily deal with the cases.

It suggests that military law would be put to previously civilian (Federal) jurisdictions, giving increased power to the executive at the expense of the judiciary.

A federal court has no jurisdiction on crimes commited outside of the country.,..only in the case of US Citizens who go overseas and commit certain kinds of crimes, and certain drug crimes where drugs are being imported into the US and only thru extradiction proceedings...think these apply??

its all governed by the Geneva Convention....so change your arguement. Congress will pass some kind of law giving some kind of military tribunals jurisdiction in these matters.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Because it undermines the independence of the federal judicial system. Which offences should be prosecuted this way? - its already been ruled that military tribunals for terrorism suspects are illegal, that in itself should suggest that open-ended expansion of the programme for non-terrorism related offences is not only illegal, but constitutionally damaging.

Perhaps the military system is a 'fairer' - but it will have a lot of people thinking "kangaroo court"

independence of the federal judicial system????? I dont understand what you mean.

The federal courts have absolutely no jurisdiction when it comes to military law...never had, nor ever will.

If Congress amends the UCMJ and the pres signs it....it becomes law. It could be appealed up thru the military appeal system to the Court of Military appeals.....these are civilian judges. I dont that the US court system ever gets involved.

The proposal (again - as described) suggests that non-terrorism-related offences (at the discretion of the Secretary of Defence) would be prosecuted by a Military Court instead instead of the Federal Courts which would ordinarily deal with the cases.

It suggests that military law would be put to previously civilian (Federal) jurisdictions, giving increased power to the executive at the expense of the judiciary.

A federal court has no jurisdiction on crimes commited outside of the country.,..only in the case of US Citizens who go overseas and commit certain kinds of crimes, and certain drug crimes where drugs are being imported into the US and only thru extradiction proceedings...think these apply??

its all governed by the Geneva Convention....so change your arguement. Congress will pass some kind of law giving some kind of military tribunals jurisdiction in these matters.

I'd be interested to read the bill as proposed - as (to me) giving the secretary of defence wide latitude to prosecute crimes (of his choice) that are not terrorist-related seems highly questionable.

[desert_fox 32]

Because it undermines the independence of the federal judicial system. Which offences should be prosecuted this way? - its already been ruled that military tribunals for terrorism suspects are illegal, that in itself should suggest that open-ended expansion of the programme for non-terrorism related offences is not only illegal, but constitutionally damaging.

Perhaps the military system is a 'fairer' - but it will have a lot of people thinking "kangaroo court"

independence of the federal judicial system????? I dont understand what you mean.

The federal courts have absolutely no jurisdiction when it comes to military law...never had, nor ever will.

If Congress amends the UCMJ and the pres signs it....it becomes law. It could be appealed up thru the military appeal system to the Court of Military appeals.....these are civilian judges. I dont that the US court system ever gets involved.

The proposal (again - as described) suggests that non-terrorism-related offences (at the discretion of the Secretary of Defence) would be prosecuted by a Military Court instead instead of the Federal Courts which would ordinarily deal with the cases.

It suggests that military law would be put to previously civilian (Federal) jurisdictions, giving increased power to the executive at the expense of the judiciary.

A federal court has no jurisdiction on crimes commited outside of the country.,..only in the case of US Citizens who go overseas and commit certain kinds of crimes, and certain drug crimes where drugs are being imported into the US and only thru extradiction proceedings...think these apply??

its all governed by the Geneva Convention....so change your arguement. Congress will pass some kind of law giving some kind of military tribunals jurisdiction in these matters.

I'd be interested to read the bill as proposed - as (to me) giving the secretary of defence wide latitude to prosecute crimes (of his choice) that are not terrorist-related seems highly questionable.

The UCMJ already has those kinds of laws....."Behavior unbecoming an officer" or something like that...been afew years since I was in the AF. This give the military prosecutor a blank check...

read the law that Congress passes if they ever get around to it. The ball is in their court now...otherwise these clowns will sit in Cuba for the rest of their lives......sniff sniff!!