The Bush plan for military tribunals..Will Congress buy it?

"Today's plan is a radical scheme, designed to resurrect a system of martial law that literally America has never seen,"Do Americans want their sons or daughters tried under these kinds of circumstances?" said Neal K. Katyal, a professor at Georgetown Law Center in Washington, who argued the Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld case before the Supreme Court.

He is talking about Bush's "new rules" for trying terrorists..or enemys of the state. Whatever you want to call the people that Bush wants to ramrod through a judical system of his own making. He wants the legislative branch get their ass in gear and give him the power to judge, and convict individuals on based on questionable evidence which may or may not have been gained using nefarious methods, and with limited due process.

Due Process is something America is proud of, our country was built on. Its who we are, we are fair..we don't use kangaroo courts in matters of grave importance such as life or death, we do not lower our standards. As John D. Hutson, the Navy's top uniformed lawyer from 1997 to 2000 said in his assessment of the Shrub's "proposal":

"We know you're guilty. We can't tell you why, but there's a guy, we can't tell you who, who told us something. We can't tell you what, but you're guilty."

This LAT writeup states there is a senate version of the military tribunals that differs in two areas with the Shrub's Christmas Wish List...Evidence that was received under "questionable" circumstances and evidence that is classified as secret and the accused hasn't been privy to or able to refute in a trial.

A NYT article about the Shrub's "proposal" states that military lawyers and various GOP legislators aren't buying what the Shrub is selling because: "some provisions would not withstand legal scrutiny or do enough to repair the nation’s tarnished reputation internationally."

Another quote from the NYT article: "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.”

No, we do not want to be first on that short list.. Doesn't that type of move put us in the same catagory as China and Russia? Both of which have human rights violations up the wazoo and kangaroo courts. I don't know about you, dear reader, but I do not wish to become bedfellows with either of those two countries when it comes to prosecuting enemies of the state. We are civilized..we are not barbarians or tyrants. We can not become that which we have fought against in other countries around the world. The whole idea of coerced evidence being used to convict someone of a crime punishable by death or life in prison goes against everything we believe in, doesn't it? As I blogged yesterday, evidence obtained by "questionable" methods is unreliable, and usually worthless according to Intel experts..and we want to use this info to convict individuals, perhaps even sentence them to death?

Another point I would like to make..who defines what is "Torture"? I hope it isn't the boys in the administration..they play fast and loose with everything they touch if it suits their interests.

Guess who is pushing the hardest and bitching the loudest for the administrations set of "new rules"..come on..guess..

Dick Cheney.

If Dick likes it..I know its a bunch of hogwash. Whats their favorite battlecry about using states secrets priviledge? Say it with me now...

We can't give the enemy our secrets, even in a court of law, and even if someone's life depends on it..you just have to take our word for it, because its ...secret.

Tags: Military Tribunals, War on Terror, Detainees+right+to+Due+Process" rel="tag">Detainees right to Due Process