No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger....
It appears, according to the above text, a military tribunal cannot be utilized to indict and/or try a person who is NOT in "the land or naval forces, or in the Militia...." If we broaden the meaning of the passage to include attacks ON the military, the attacks of September 11, 2001, still do not fit into that broader definition. However, it appears the exclusion of the armed forces was, instead, to ensure that the military controlled disciplinary actions against soldiers, rather than to give the military trial power over civilians.
Many of the "conservative" talk-show hosts tell of their fear of terrorists being released because they were not properly "Mirandized." If that happens, isn't it an indictment of the acts of government officials - not our justice system? Those officials "played fast and loose" with the rules. That does not mean that our justice system is broken. It means that government officials screwed up. So should we use a military tribunal every time officials spit on the constitution?
It will be interesting to see whether KSM pleads guilty in court as he has stated he will. If he does so, our justice system will live on; if he does not, the government may have difficulty getting much of the evidence admitted, and may have a hard time convicting KSM of his crimes....
Either way, if KSM is tried in a civil court, our justice system will live on. What will be remarkable is whether our government learns a lesson on treatment of prisoners in the process.
Sadly, the attorney general seems to be convening a "kangaroo court," since he has stated that the government will not release KSM no matter the verdict.
No comments:
Post a Comment