Your analysis is educational. Wasn't there something in this about having the power to execute ? If this is a war, what about the rights of war prisoners under the Geneva Whatever ? All prisoners have to give is name , rank and serial number. To execute prisoners secretly is a war crime from way back. Like you say, "Hello".
Charles Brown
%%%%%%%%%
Is military tribunal language legally coherent? (Was: Crime not War) From: Kendall Clark <kendall at monkeyfist.com> Subject: Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 14:27:12 -0600
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