home

Want To End The Criminal Justice Approach To Terrorism? Repeal Federal Laws Criminalizing Terrorism

This snippet from a NYTimes editorial caught my eye:

This is not Mr. Lieberman’s first foray into this dark territory. He is co-author with Mr. McCain of a bill that would require that anyone arrested on any terrorism-related charge, including American citizens, be declared an enemy combatant and tried in a military court.

As I discussed yesterday, the biggest obstacle to the NeoCon approach is the fact that the military tribunals can not be used to try federal crimes, only violations of the laws of war. If Lieberman and McCain are serious about their proposal, the need to move to repeal all federal laws that criminalize terrorism. All of the rest of this is showboating nonsense. Put your money where your mouth is NeoCons, repeal federal laws criminalizing terrorism.

Speaking for me only

< Memo To Jan Brewer: Boycotts Work, Ask Rosa Parks | Thursday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Can we classify Joe as a terrorist? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Farmboy on Thu May 06, 2010 at 09:01:25 AM EST
    I see this idea of stripping a US citizen of her/his citizenship without trial as a politically motivated and violent act. US law defines terrorism as a premeditated, politically motivated act of violence against non-military targets. Therefore, Joe is advocating terrorism.

    Heh (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 06, 2010 at 09:25:45 AM EST
    A politician saying he wants to do anything may be stupid, dumb, wrong, inaccurate, undo able but it can never be a violent act.

    Parent
    But (3.50 / 2) (#4)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 06, 2010 at 08:56:15 AM EST
    But, Mr. Obama is for indefinite detention.  I'm trying very hard to understand why indefinite detention of terrorists is okay, while this is not.

    (And BTW, I believe neither is okay.)

    How were these questions handled in WWII? (none / 0) (#1)
    by observed on Thu May 06, 2010 at 08:07:58 AM EST
    As I understand it, there were a few cases of US citizens aiding the Japanese or Germans on US soil. What happened to them?


    Some of them were executed. (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 06, 2010 at 09:23:16 AM EST
    Others put in jail.

    Learned that in middle school history. Guess they don't teach much anymore.

    Parent

    That's not exactly what I"m asking. (none / 0) (#8)
    by observed on Thu May 06, 2010 at 09:27:17 AM EST
    Were they simply tried for crimes? I assume some were tried for treason.
    IANAL, but I don't see why an attempted attack on US soil by someone acting for a foreign power isn't treason.


    Parent
    If they were tried for treason (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 06, 2010 at 09:31:21 AM EST
    it was in a federal court.

    The more on point comparison was detention camps for Japanese-Americans.

    Korematsu.

    If Lieberman wants to cite a case.

    Parent

    I agree. What I'm getting at is that (none / 0) (#11)
    by observed on Thu May 06, 2010 at 09:40:16 AM EST
    during a much more serious conflict, these cases were handled in Federal Court.
    That's a point which should be made in response to Lieberman, IMO (maybe it has been made).

    Parent
    The Germans who slipped ashore (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 06, 2010 at 09:59:43 AM EST
    from a sub off the coast were tried in a tribunal.

    Parent
    Were never citizens (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 06, 2010 at 10:50:13 AM EST
    and were part of the recognized sovereign military on an aggressive military mission ordered by the leadership of another U.S. recognized sovereign nation.

    Parent
    Actually one was a citizen. (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 06, 2010 at 11:05:15 AM EST
    The fact that one of the men, Haupt, was a U.S. citizen, did not entitle him to different treatment. "Under the original statute authorizing trial of alien spies by military tribunals, the offenders were outside the constitutional guaranty of trial by jury, not because they were aliens but only because they had violated the law of war by committing offenses constitutionally triable by military tribunal."

    snip

    The Supreme Court denied the application, and most of the men were executed the following month. Defense counsel, a Colonel in the U.S. military, successfully persuaded the president to commute Dasch and Burger's sentences based on their cooperation. Both men were freed and sent back to Germany in 1948, where Dasch was treated with contempt for causing the death of his team.

    Link again

    So it appears that Haupt, a US citizen, was tried by the tribunal and hung. Dasch and Burger were finally released because of their cooperation.

    Parent

    hanged, (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu May 06, 2010 at 11:15:23 AM EST
    not hung.
    Hanged, as a past tense and a past participle of hang, is used in the sense of "to put to death by hanging," as in Frontier courts hanged many a prisoner after a summary trial.  

    pictures are hung.

    Not trying to be pedantic here...

    Parent

    Miss Edna Cubberley, (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Peter G on Thu May 06, 2010 at 11:23:12 AM EST
    of sainted memory, my seventh grade English teacher, is smiling down upon you for that, Jeff.

    Parent
    Why does MsCubberley smile? Only the Shadow knows (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Ellie on Thu May 06, 2010 at 11:40:06 AM EST
    (Highwayman) "The Shadow" Blackadder: Stand and Deliver!

    The Duke of Cheapside: Oh no! Oh no no no no no, disaster! It's The Shadow! We're doomed, doomed!

    Blackadder: [Draws up outside the carriage window] Good evening Duke, and the lovely Miss Cheapside. Your cash bags please.

    The Duke of Cheapside: You'll never get away with this, you scoundrel! You'll be caught and damn well hung!

    Sally Cheapside: [to camera] I think he already looks pretty well...

    Blackadder: Madam, please no jests about me looking pretty well hung already. We have no time.

    (From Blackadder The Third, Amy and Amiability)

    Parent

    Well, I said thank you (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 06, 2010 at 12:56:40 PM EST
    and I am always eager to learn.

    The only question I have is...

    Did anyone who read what I wrote not understand what I was saying?

    If so I apologize and in addition to the thank you I add this:

    They were placed on a scaffold and a rope of the required size and knot was placed around their neck. This is often called a "noose." Then the trap door they were standing on was opened and they fell the required distance to break their neck, killing them more or less instantly.

    I do hope this clarifies any confusion my middle school English mistake may have caused. My only defense is that having a secretary all those years allowed whatever small knowledge I had to atrophy through lack of use.

    I will try and do better.


    Parent

    I think you mean, (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Peter G on Thu May 06, 2010 at 01:06:46 PM EST
    "I will try to do better," not "I will try and do better."  ;)

    Parent
    No, I meant what I wrote (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 06, 2010 at 04:33:19 PM EST
    "I will try and do better" is Southern.

    Also, writing like people talk is considered to be good writing, although I don't offer that as an excuse for hung instead of hanged... but down here people are hung until dead...

    We also ask "Howsyourmomandall" and ask people to "pass the biskits."

    And if you are going to become my mentor you should understand that it is a thankless task that carries with little fame.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Thank you (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 06, 2010 at 12:10:30 PM EST
    His actions were preformed (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 06, 2010 at 11:16:05 AM EST
    as a sovereign soldier for another sovereign nation Jim.  He was being tried for those actions.  Come on, you were in the military.  You know that "sovereignty" or the lack thereof means EVERYTHING.  You even agreed with me on the "leaked" heli video, and that was an issue of sovereignty.  Iraq's sovereignty had been established by our standards of what a sovereign nation is (prices my vary), and we were preforming a mission in conjunction with the Iraqi police that day.  Our military didn't just blow into some neighborhood and shoot a bunch of people on the streets up.  And evidence had to be collected as well because we must observe the rule of law in the sovereign nation of Iraq now.....we are not simply an occupying force.

    Parent
    My point was (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 06, 2010 at 12:37:16 PM EST
    before I became hung up ;-)over the hanging was that we must rationalize our laws to match the war we are now in.

    The war is often called asymmetrical because it features (mostly) poorly armed and trained individuals seeking to control and defeat us through acts of terror versus our might forces.

    The question becomes, what must we do to change the situation? Obviously treating the perps as regular criminals is not going to prevent attacks. Civil libertarians go bananas when we intercept data/telcon's from/to overseas, etc., etc. I somewhat agree but recognize that it is possible to cut off your nose to spite your face.

    Our media and political class, not being of faith themselves, are incapable of understanding that this is really a war over religion. As I noted, the radicals believe, God and Allah command them to do what they do. And, sad to say, there is enough support within places within the Muslim world for these acts that the terrorists exist somewhat comfortably in some areas of some countries.

    This argues that Islam must be reformed as the early Christian church was reformed. How do we pressure the Muslim world to reform Islam and how do we pressure the various Muslim countries to change while not destroying our own freedoms?

    I confess I don't know. I just know that what we are doing now is not working.

    My fear is that some terrorist will set off a suitcase nuke or explode a dirty bomb in a major metro center killing thousands.

    At that point all bets are off. This country is not known for forgiveness when it is finally convinced that others are seeking to destroy us.

    So while we show concern over the rights of the "criminal" we  may be setting the stage for the deaths of thousands of "innocent" Christians, Muslims and Jews and all those in between.

     

    Parent

    I think our laws are fine as is (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 06, 2010 at 05:33:09 PM EST
    Islamic extremists aren't our first "difficulty". The laws we have right now work just fine, and actually have not been proven to be defective in any way, shape, or form in this particular area.  Whenever I fix what isn't broken, then for some reason that ends up really breaking it.....it's the Army Way :) Whenever some ego blows into a promotion and inflicts on everyone that solution he/she has kept close to his/her heart since his/her youth that was to solve all the ills that ailed us, he/she always makes one hell of a mess out of everything.

    Parent
    Were you referring to anyone in particular? (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Thu May 06, 2010 at 05:53:36 PM EST
    A couple of someones :) (none / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 06, 2010 at 11:43:25 PM EST
    We are winning because we (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 06, 2010 at 09:28:29 PM EST
    the other side has been inept, at best.

    That doesn't work long term for any situation in life. Particularly in war.

    Parent

    This isn't our first war (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 06, 2010 at 11:47:34 PM EST
    And because others we share this country with are willing to learn from history in general, this certainly isn't the "world's" first war.  There is a history that got us to where our laws are and what they are Jim.  It isn't as if everything up to 2001 was a walk in the park and now we suddenly have our first horrible thing with dimensions of war to deal with.  Our current laws are sufficient for what is at hand at this time.

    Parent
    Make that the current laws (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 07, 2010 at 08:17:52 AM EST
    you like.....

    Parent
    Here tis (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 06, 2010 at 10:42:18 AM EST
    Pedantic nit... (none / 0) (#2)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu May 06, 2010 at 08:15:39 AM EST
    on your title--it's "want", not "wnat".

    Thanks (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 06, 2010 at 08:17:06 AM EST
    That we need to rationalize our laws (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 06, 2010 at 09:37:28 AM EST
    in regards to how we fight the Fourth World War is obvious and I have noted that time and again.

    We don't like preemptive action but playing defense is not going to work long term.

    The media and too many of our congress folks, including Obama, cannot understand that the motive for the attacks is a corrupt belief in Islam.

    It is not money or life style envy. It is a belief that God and Allah demand the radical Muslims act as they do.

    Or maybe (none / 0) (#27)
    by jondee on Thu May 06, 2010 at 06:28:32 PM EST
    for various reasons, they wanted to attack us FIRST and then gravitated to the particular theology most likely to give their desire the heavenly stamp of approval; in which case we would have to look for the reasons for the initial hostility not simply (or over-simply), in an aberrant religious tradition, but would be forced to take into account other possible factors.

    Of course, the "they'd attack us no matter what we did" approach appeals to the tribal narcissism of the Right because of it's assumption of our radical innocence and complete lack of responsibility for  engendering any hostility anywhere..  

    Your lack of knowledge is astounding. (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 06, 2010 at 09:26:18 PM EST
    Accruing genuine knowledge (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jondee on Fri May 07, 2010 at 12:05:45 PM EST
    entails a little more than just imbibing neocon swill the way dogs lap up other's vomit.

    Parent
    Agreed. (none / 0) (#34)
    by diogenes on Fri May 07, 2010 at 12:27:31 PM EST
    Military tribunals for all terrorism charges, based on a law passed by Congress.  It would pass by acclamation at this point.

    Trust (none / 0) (#35)
    by mmc9431 on Fri May 07, 2010 at 12:32:15 PM EST
    I think what tends to get missed by all of these off the wall proposals and new invasive laws is that they will be abused. (Look at the number of illegal wire taps that the FBI admits that it's still doing).

    Right wing advocates of these laws are putting their faith in government to do the right thing. At the same time they're complaining about big government. Where's the logic or reasoning?

    I'm a liberal and an idealist and yet I'm still realistic enough to know that politicians are never to be trusted.