The Constitution's input on military tribunals

The last word on whether KSM should be tried in a military tribunal or in civil court is the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The text follows:

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.

Gitmo

This is my first blog post. I hope at least some find it informative and/or thought-provoking.

I am a "conservative" and a libertarian. Can you guess from those identifications how I believe the Gitmo detainees should be tried? I think many would guess incorrectly.

The ONLY way for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to be tried is in a civilian trial. The rationality behind military tribunals is suspect at best. Here are a few reasons:

1. From everywhere on the political spectrum we hear about the ways in which the constitution protects the citizens of the US from the government. But where do we get the idea that the constitution only protects citizens? The Bill of Rights does not mention citizenship as a requirement to be protected. The fifth and sixth amendments apply not only to citizens, but to every person accused of a crime in the United States.

2. Military tribunals are best convened for POWs from the military of a recognized belligerent country. In this way our government can deal with those governments from a stronger position during peace talks and other negotiations.

3. If for no other reason: A terrorist is more likely to receive a death sentence in a criminal jury trial in New York City than in a military trial, in my opinion.