home

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

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu May 06, 2010 at 08:05:05 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

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:
    Want To End The Criminal Justice Approach To Terrorism? Repeal Federal Laws Criminalizing Terrorism | 35 comments (35 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    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.