Is military tribunal language legally coherent? (Was: Crime not War)

Kendall Clark kendall at monkeyfist.com
Mon Nov 26 12:27:12 PST 2001



>>>>> "justin" == Justin Schwartz <jkschw at hotmail.com> writes:

justin> Last time I checked, the UN can't resolve to act contrary to

justin> its charter, and more than Congress can legally act

justin> unconstitutionally.

I also lack training in international law, but legal bullshit still smells like bullshit, so...

Did anyone catch this absurd bit from Bush's military tribunals order? (See the full order at http://monkeyfist.com/articles/793)

Sec. 7. Relationship to Other Law and Forums. ... (b) With respect to any individual subject to this order --

(1) military tribunals shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect

to offenses by the individual; and

(2) the individual shall not be privileged to seek any remedy or

maintain any proceeding, directly or indirectly, or to have any

such remedy or proceeding sought on the individual's behalf, in

(i) any court of the United States, or any State thereof, (ii)

any court of any foreign nation, or (iii) any international

tribunal.

I.e., 7(b)(2)(ii) & (iii) is *amazingly* absurd, on its face.

It implies, near as I can tell, that the Administration believes an executive order can do legally accomplish the following:

1. prevent a non-citizen from suing the gov't before any US court (ok,

that's probably possible, more or less)

2. prevent a non-citizen from suing the gov't in *any* other

countrie's court (hello? only if the non-citizen is dead or

detained incommunicado, it seems, but even then if the person has

legal representation before another court...)

3. prevent a non-citizen from suing the gov't in *any* "international

tribunal"

4. prevent anyone else from suing on the non-citizen's behalf,

including presumably US citizens and citizens of other countries,

either in any US court, the court of any other country, or any

international tribunal

(2), (3), and (4) strike me as completely insane... (4) especially is laughable; because Bush says so Amnesty International cannot bring suit before any international tribunal? Does that include WCJ?

How on earth does an executive order have authority to prevent, say, a French national from bringing suit in, say, an international tribunal for what the US does to, say, her father, a non-citizen detained in the US, tried and executed or imprisoned for life?

I actually read this section not as legitimate legal language but as a political threat couched in legal language.

I'd love to hear from lawyers on this list about 7(b)(2)(ii) & (iii).

Best, Kendall Clark



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list