Going a little too far...?

[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.

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!!

But to prosecute civilians?

[desert_fox 32]

[

But to prosecute civilians?

they are not civilians...they are ENEMY COMBATANTS as defined by the Geneva Convention

civilians do not attack US military

Edited September 11, 2006 by desert_fox

[mawilson 2,133]

But to prosecute civilians?

Hmm, I just re-read the article, and I'm not sure it implies that. They are talking

about playing fast and loose with foreign nationals (who already fall under the

jurisdiction of military courts), not US citizens.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

[

But to prosecute civilians?

they are not civilians...they are ENEMY COMBATANTS as defined by the Geneva Convention

civilians do not attack US military

How can a person not engaged in direct terrorist actions be described as a "combatant". Where's the combat?

But to prosecute civilians?

Hmm, I just re-read the article, and I'm not sure it implies that. They are talking

about playing fast and loose with foreign nationals (who already fall under the

jurisdiction of military courts), not US citizens.

So far.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080101334.html

http://www.civilrights.org/issues/cj...s.cfm?id=45974

All for our protection eh?

Seems to me that this cross quite a few ethical lines, not to mention setting down the foundation stone of a future dictatorship.

I cannot imagine Congress, not to mention the Supreme Court approving this.

Only our Military should have such trials.