Re: [Winona] Civil Rights

[Duane M. Peterson]

Glen & Diane, I have checked your sources.  I find them historically interesting.  The first reference is the actual Executive Order.  In it the President cites the Statute that he relies upon.  Checking on the statute (and its subdivisions) on the internet indicates that the statute regulates the method of conducting and convening General and Special Courts Martial.  When I was in the USMC I was a JAG officer who tried courts martial.  The statute referred to does not grant the President the authority to convene a Military Commission.  There must be some other statute to which he is referring as authority for this action.  I have been searching, but have not yet been able to find a statute that gives the President this authority.  I'll keep looking.  If anyone else finds something, I will appreciate a reference. ----- Original Message ----- From: Glen & Diane Schumann To: Winona Online Democracy Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 5:46 PM Subject: RE: [Winona] Civil Rights I'm neither an attorney nor a legal scholar, but here are links to:   1. The Executive Order for the Military Tribunals:     http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011113-27.html   2. What appears to me to contain precedent for these types of tribunals from WWII:    http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/usmillaw.htm    3. Another site with information including precedents and the legal justifiacation:   http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_milj.html   Enjoy your research.   Glen Schumann Winona, MN   [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   H: 507.454.3056   W: 507.453.3567  W FAX: 507.454.1440   Visit my Family Home Page: <http://www.hbci.com/~gschuman/home.htm> -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Phil Carlson Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 4:59 PM To: Winona Online Democracy Subject: [Winona] Civil Rights The civil rights we take for granted can be easily lost ("inch by inch" as one commentator noted) if we don't rigorously defend the right of ALL accused persons.  Including the most despicable.  Even Osama bin Laden and his henchmen.   The true test of our democracy is not how we rally together as one voice and one people in time of crisis (as exciting as that is) but how we tolerate the very uncomfortable dissenting voices in our midst, or the ambiguous situations we are faced with.    I just finished reading David McCollough's splendid biography of John Adams.  As a young Boston lawyer before the Revolutionary War, Adams took on the onerous task of defending two British soldiers accused of murdering American citizens in a riot.  In a remarkably similar mindset to our current situation, almost everyone in Boston was ready to convict the soldiers and hang them.  But as the truth about that confusing day came to light ("facts are stubborn things," argued Adams) it was plain that the soldiers had been taunted, threatened and stoned, and were simply defending their own lives.  They were acquitted.  Adams was privately proud of his stance and publicly scorned.   Let's not take the easy way out.  Let's bring everyone to trial and let our marvelous system take its course.  Hiding behind a military tribunal is cheap end-run on our Constitutional democracy.   - Phil Carlson, Brooklyn Park