Inquire Within Message

Good morning,

You posted a message that was REALLY GOOD! Finding that article was some very fine work. I have included that message below:

Re: Anon (Q): It's on, don't panic
Information on Military Tribunals.

It looks like there's some legal justification for this, especially in the case of foreigners and their co-conspirators working with the Muslim Brotherhood to sabotage and take down the United States government and to institute Shariah law (proven by their own documents).

I believe they can be tried as terrorists or with aiding and abetting terrorists and be subject to military tribunal. At least that's how I read this:

"Within one month of capture, the eight Germans were tried by a military tribunal of army officers. The prosecution team consisted of 10 military lawyers. A single military lawyer, Colonel Kenneth Royall, represented the defendants. The tribunal found all eight guilty. Six were sentenced to death by electrocution, and the two defectors were sentenced to prison terms.

"The defendants appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court claiming that under the Milligan decision, they should have been tried in a U.S. civilian criminal court. Meeting in a special summer session, the court heard arguments and issued a unanimous opinion. Writing for the court in Ex Parte Quirin, Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone denied the appeal. The court noted that Congress had authorized the use of military tribunals for offenses against the law of war. (The law of war is based on international treaties and, among other things, it forbids a country's military personnel from operating in another country out of uniform.) The court went on to distinguish the Milligan case. It ruled that the saboteurs were belligerents (enemy soldiers at war), who because they had entered the country out of uniform to conduct sabotage, had violated the law of war. They therefore were not entitled to the status of prisoners of war. Nor were they entitled to the protections under the Milligan case, which only applied to non-belligerents not associated with the enemy. This was true even for one German saboteur who claimed U.S. citizenship. "Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent," wrote the court, "does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because it is a violation of the law of war."
..
Supporters of military tribunals cite their necessity under the circumstances. They fear that trying terrorists in open U.S. courts could compromise intelligence gathering by forcing the government to disclose its sources. They also fear that regular criminal trials would be tempting targets for further terrorist actions putting the lives of judges, jurors, and witnesses at risk. They argue that traditional due process standards, such as unanimous jury verdicts, would make the conviction of terrorists difficult, if not impossible, because traditional evidence such as informer and eyewitness testimony is so rare in such cases. Finally, they worry that big terrorist trials could turn into media circuses, such as the O.J. Simpson case and others, which would erode the image of America and its anti-terrorist cause around the world.
..
Whether President Bush's plan for military tribunals is ever employed and what its results will be remain to be seen. But one thing is certain. The proposal to use military tribunals marks a significant change in government policy concerning terrorism. Instead of treating foreign terrorists as criminals subject to our criminal laws and procedures, the U.S. government now views terrorists as foreign enemies subject to the law of war and trial by military tribunal. Only time will tell if the rest of America holds the same view.

[link to www.crf-usa.org]
-Inquire Within-