White House Proposal Would Expand Authority of Military Courts

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "John F. McMullen" <observer () westnet com>
Date: August 2, 2006 7:25:49 PM EDT
To: "johnmac's living room" <johnmacsgroup () yahoogroups com>
Cc: Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>, USA Talk List  
<USAtalk () yahoogroups com>, Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>
Subject: White House Proposal Would Expand Authority of Military Courts

(johnmac --I find the following to be extremely troubling -- The  
plan .. would also allow the secretary of defense to add crimes at  
will to those under the military court's jurisdiction." What  
"crimes"? Burning the flag? Spitting on the Sidewalk? This is,  
IMNSHO, a subversion of the cConstitution)

From the Washington Post -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ 
content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101334.html?nav=hcmodule

White House Proposal Would Expand Authority of Military Courts
By R. Jeffrey Smith

A draft Bush administration plan for special military courts seeks to  
expand the reach and authority of such "commissions" to include  
trials, for the first time, of people who are not members of al-Qaeda  
or the Taliban and are not directly involved in acts of international  
terrorism, according to officials familiar with the proposal.

The plan, which would replace a military trial system ruled illegal  
by the Supreme Court in June, would also allow the secretary of  
defense to add crimes at will to those under the military court's  
jurisdiction. The two provisions would be likely to put more  
individuals than previously expected before military juries,  
officials and independent experts said.

The draft proposed legislation, set to be discussed at two Senate  
hearings today, is controversial inside and outside the  
administration because defendants would be denied many protections  
guaranteed by the civilian and traditional military criminal justice  
systems.

Under the proposed procedures, defendants would lack rights to  
confront accusers, exclude hearsay accusations, or bar evidence  
obtained through rough or coercive interrogations. They would not be  
guaranteed a public or speedy trial and would lack the right to  
choose their military counsel, who in turn would not be guaranteed  
equal access to evidence held by prosecutors.

Detainees would also not be guaranteed the right to be present at  
their own trials, if their absence is deemed necessary to protect  
national security or individuals.

An early draft of the new measure prepared by civilian political  
appointees and leaked to the media last week has been modified in  
response to criticism from uniformed military lawyers. But the  
provisions allowing a future expansion of the courts to cover new  
crimes and more prisoners were retained, according to government  
officials familiar with the deliberations.

...

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/