Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Bush's Proposal for Military Tribunals
Topic Started: Sep 8 2006, 04:35 AM (119 Views)
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
According to the NY Times, Bush's proposal for military tribunals is being criticized strongly by military lawyers and the Republicans in the Senate. An excerpt from the story:

Quote:
 
In Congress, Republican leaders said the House would vote on the president’s proposal the week after next, and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Representative Duncan Hunter of California, argued in favor of the administration’s approach in a hearing on Thursday morning with military lawyers.

But the military lawyers argued back. And the Senate Republicans said there were still several areas of contention between them and the administration, chiefly, a proposal to deny the accused the right to see classified evidence shown to the jury.

Brig, Gen. James C. Walker, the top uniformed lawyer for the Marines, said that no civilized country should deny a defendant the right to see the evidence against him and that the United States “should not be the first.”

Maj. Gen. Scott C. Black, the judge advocate general of the Army, made the same point, and Rear Adm. Bruce E. MacDonald, the judge advocate general of the Navy, said military law provided rules for using classified evidence, whereby a judge could prepare an unclassified version of the evidence to share with the jury and the accused and his lawyer.

Senate Republicans said the proposal to deny the accused the right to see classified evidence was one of the main points of contention remaining between them and the administration.

“It would be unacceptable, legally, in my opinion, to give someone the death penalty in a trial where they never heard the evidence against them,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who has played a key role in the drafting of alternative legislation as a member of the Armed Services Committee and a military judge. “ ‘Trust us, you’re guilty, we’re going to execute you, but we can’t tell you why’? That’s not going to pass muster; that’s not necessary.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/08/washingt...artner=homepage
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Military lawyers - talk about a bottleneck.....

We don't need them. Fire every damned one of them and get them out of the way.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
According to the article, McCain and Warner agree with the criticism, too, and are drafting alternatives. Even if you think Graham is just a military lawyer, they are not.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
They can disagree, but politically, the timing is impeccable.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Jolly
Sep 8 2006, 06:02 AM
politically, the timing is impeccable.

Impeccable for the Democrats, perhaps.

The proposal is generating a national dialog on just what principles America stands for. I'm seeing it in the news, hearing it on the radio and hearing it on the street.

The Bush proposal includes allowing the use of evidence obtained via torture and trials where the accused is not allowed to see the evidence against him. I've not seen Mc Cain's version yet, but reports are that it's the same proposal but without these provisions.

So far, it looks like Bush's proposal is DOA, both with the people and with the Congress. McCain's proposal has a much better shot. Americans, as a group, prefer that we treat prisoners in the manner in which we would expect others to treat out own soldiers if they are captured.

The system is holding.
Wag more
Bark less
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
QuirtEvans
Sep 8 2006, 04:35 AM
But the military lawyers argued back. And the Senate Republicans said there were still several areas of contention between them and the administration, chiefly, a proposal to deny the accused the right to see classified evidence shown to the jury.

Brig, Gen. James C. Walker, the top uniformed lawyer for the Marines, said that no civilized country should deny a defendant the right to see the evidence against him and that the United States “should not be the first.”


The US would not be the first. Although we have abolished the death penalty, Canada has such a provision in place. As I believe do Britain and Australia. We are all civilized countries.

It is a good proposal.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Steve Miller
Sep 8 2006, 06:20 AM


The proposal is generating a national dialog on just what principles America stands for.  I'm seeing it in the news, hearing it on the radio and hearing it on the street.

The Bush proposal includes allowing the use of evidence obtained via torture and trials where the accused is not allowed to see the evidence against him.  I've not seen Mc Cain's version yet, but reports are that it's the same proposal but without these provisions.

So far, it looks like Bush's proposal is DOA, both with the people and with the Congress.  McCain's proposal has a much better shot. Americans, as a group, prefer that we treat prisoners in the manner in which we would expect others to treat out own soldiers if they are captured.

The system is holding.

This is what gives me great hope for the United States and is what makes me proud to be an American.

As depressed and angry as I get about Bush and his concerted effort to undermine the Constitution and the principles upon which our country function, we are seeing that the sytem DOES work -- and it looks like it is working damned well. It may be slow. It may take actions by the courts in one situation, the Congress in another, the people in another, but slowly we are seeing the damage caused by Bush being undone.

We don't know if all of it will be undone and I expect some of the authroitarian aspects of Bush's Presidency will remain as his legacy. But overall, the most perverse distortions he has implemented will be eliminated -- although it may take some time.

The forces of freedom and human dignity are hard to kill.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Steve Miller
Sep 8 2006, 07:20 AM
Jolly
Sep 8 2006, 06:02 AM
politically, the timing is impeccable.

Impeccable for the Democrats, perhaps.

The proposal is generating a national dialog on just what principles America stands for. I'm seeing it in the news, hearing it on the radio and hearing it on the street.

The Bush proposal includes allowing the use of evidence obtained via torture and trials where the accused is not allowed to see the evidence against him. I've not seen Mc Cain's version yet, but reports are that it's the same proposal but without these provisions.

So far, it looks like Bush's proposal is DOA, both with the people and with the Congress. McCain's proposal has a much better shot. Americans, as a group, prefer that we treat prisoners in the manner in which we would expect others to treat out own soldiers if they are captured.

The system is holding.

Here's my take on the politics...

This issue refocuses the country on the War on Terror. It will be the dominate topic of debate for the next 60 days, as the bills are fought over in Congress.

It moves the Dems off of their major strategy, which is to pound the war in Iraq. they will have to be very careful in this election atmosphere to not appear weak on terrorists.

The President has reframed the national debate from the bully pulpit.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
He's also allowed the Democrats to paint him and the House Republicans as the second coming of the Spanish Inquisition, with McCain and Warner and Graham as their shield against "weak on terror" attacks. Particularly interesting, given how the House is at risk. We'll have to see how that plays out.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Register for Free
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply