well its a good thing people want to detonate radioactive bombs on the US

Originally posted by DeviousJ:
As was already mentioned, the US was planning attacks on Afghanistan before 9/11 - the removal of the Taliban was not a result of the terrorist attacks.

The U.S. (along with other countries) were planning an attack, not a removal. The removal and all it entailed came as a result of 9/11.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Originally posted by BlueStar:
Legally, it is a war. No formal (unnecessary) declaration of war was issued by Congress, thus, it can be referred to as a "war".

The U.S. views it as a war. The countries that are supporting the U.S. view it as a war.

How can it legally be a war, if no declaration of war was made? If it was legally a war, why were the captured soldiers initially declared 'unlawful combatants' and not prisoners of war?

Originally posted by scouse_dave:
first things first it should bugger off out of Israel and stop supplying one side with arms

Israel is an ally and a friendly democracy in a part of the world with no tradition of democracy. It has always been the position of the US to support democracy around the world. In addition, the Palestinians will never be satisfied until Isreal is destroyed and the Jews are driven from their land. If the US were to "bugger off out of Israel" as you suggest, the Arab world would surely unite to destroy the state of Israel. If you believe otherwise then you are just kidding yourself.

Originally posted by DeviousJ:
How can it legally be a war, if no declaration of war was made? If it was legally a war, why were the captured soldiers initially declared 'unlawful combatants' and not prisoners of war?

Have you just completely not read any of this thread?? The answers to all those questions are contained herein.


------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Once again...

Declarations of war are a custom, and not always adhered to.

There is no need at all for a declaration of war for the laws of war to apply. The Geneva Conventions don’t require it nor does customary international law, so that is simply not a necessary trigger for these laws to apply.

According to Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war. However, Article 2, Section 2 names the president as "Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy." As such, presidents have often bypassed Congress to go to war (whether "declared" or not).

In regards to international law, since the Senate has ratified the Charter of the United Nations, the president of the United States is also bound by the terms of this international charter. However, since many in the international community view the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon as war crimes, the U.S. may retaliate according to Article 51 of the charter: “nothing … shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.”

Since the U.S. Senate has ratified the U.N. Charter, President Bush has to follow international law. So, technically, he cannot retaliate independently.

However, it's generally accepted that, in these situations, nations have the right to respond in self-defence or “anticipatory self-defence” (although what can be classified as self-defence is not always clear).

According to the third Geneva Convention, prisoners of war are members of the armed forces captured during a conflict, or:
Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, … provided that such militias or volunteer corps … fulfil the following conditions:
-That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
-That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
-That of carrying arms openly;
-That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

The Americans argue that captured members of al-Qaeda do not fall into any of these categories. They point out that al-Qaeda members don't wear uniforms ("fixed distinctive sign") or obey the laws of war. Rumsfeld has labeled them "unlawful combatants," and says the rules of the Geneva Convention do not apply.




------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Originally posted by Mark LeDrew:

Israel is an ally and a friendly democracy in a part of the world with no tradition of democracy. It has always been the position of the US to support democracy around the world. In addition, the Palestinians will never be satisfied until Isreal is destroyed and the Jews are driven from their land. If the US were to "bugger off out of Israel" as you suggest, the Arab world would surely unite to destroy the state of Israel. If you believe otherwise then you are just kidding yourself.

if the arab world did indeed unite against israel then i'm sure the UN would step in.

as it is the US, a single country, not a coalition is sticking its nose in a place where it is not required; hence pissing off the whole arab whole.

why is it over there rooting for israel?

oh wait...the jews in the US have a lot of power and influence

oh wait...the arabs/palestinians don't...

surprise surprise

Originally posted by scouse_dave:

The U.S. and Israel... http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1026/p1s1-uspo.html


------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Originally posted by scouse_dave:
yes, you said that before BlueStar

i'm asking you why the US doesn't now try to change the Geneva convention for the new form of prisoners...

geneva convention only applies to countries bound by the geneva convention and only applies to those who hold and carry a geneva convention identification card or are recognized as a known military force.

There is no need or desire to have al qaeda prosecuted under the geneva convention articles. Had they captured a US person and held them prisoner they were not bound to treat us civily as the geneva convention demands.

These rules cannot be changed by the US or any other country.

Even here in America in as whiney of a country we have we are told that if you are held captive as a US prisoner even bound by the geneva convention articles you are only promised drinking water, minimal food, and returned identification to your home country. That is all. Don't get a nice cell with a bed and a phone call home to mom.

just an fyi

------------------
www.mw-dnb.com

Originally posted by BlueStar:
Have you just completely not read any of this thread?? The answers to all those questions are contained herein.

I'm well aware of the government line which you've been quoting throught the thread - what I was asking was do YOU consider it to be a real war? Because the word "war" has been thrown around a lot, both by the government and the media. Likewise, not officially declaring war does not mean a country is not at war, and so the rules can still apply.

Your reference to POWs under the Geneva convention was slightly abridged. Let me give you the entire article:

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

Looks like the Taliban army qualify after all.

Poo-tee-weet?

I find it absolutely incredible that the US population has allowed Bush and his cronies to declare 'war' (and yes, it SHOULD be done by congress, but it hasn't, and so it isn't entirely recognized, Bluestar http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/tongue.gif) on something as obscure as terrorism. Fuck, that's a goddamned blank cheque, and Bush knows it; the sad thing is, the idiot with an IQ of 2 digits managed to blanket the entire population of the most powerful country in the world. Makes you wonder just how bright the average 'patriotic' housewife waving a flag is.

Originally posted by DeviousJ:
Looks like the Taliban army qualify after all.

Not really. And...

Originally posted by PkPhuoko:
Even here in America in as whiney of a country we have we are told that if you are held captive as a US prisoner even bound by the geneva convention articles you are only promised drinking water, minimal food, and returned identification to your home country. That is all. Don't get a nice cell with a bed and a phone call home to mom.

------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Originally posted by slunky_munky:
The fact that it was "sourced" from the Middle East and the US govt gets severe hard-ons about the Middle East.

*sings* "It's all about the oiiiilll...."

Originally posted by DeviousJ:
Likewise, not officially declaring war does not mean a country is not at war

Isn't that what I've been saying all along??

------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Originally posted by BlueStar:
Ummmm...or maybe it was considered an act of war because our country was fucking attacked. It didn't matter who did or what country they were from. You attack the U.S. like that and you will find yourself in the middle of a war.

I disagree. The middle east didn't do this... that would be like declaring war on terrorism because of Timothy McVeigh. Nobody did that, now did they? They just fried him.
HYPOCRACY I TELL YOU.

Originally posted by BlueStar:
Fuck off. The U.S. was "fighting" Al Queda long before 9/11. Yeah, the attacks of 9/11 gave the U.S. the authority to fully go after Al Queda. And yeah, if it had been a terrorist group situated in China that had attacked on 9/11, we would have gone after those terrorists.

Uh... China? the US would have to be REALLY fucking stupid to do that.

Originally posted by kypper:
that's a goddamned blank cheque

Congress hasn't declared since WWII. It is possible to have a war on terrorism. Blah, blah, blah.

And it's hardly a blank check. Bush has to go to Congress to get the funds. Members of Congress have been outspoken about the matter. The whole "axis of evil" thing was pretty much shot down. etc., etc., etc.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Originally posted by BlueStar:
Congress hasn't declared since WWII. It is possible to have a war on terrorism. Blah, blah, blah.

And it's hardly a blank check. Bush has to go to Congress to get the funds. Members of Congress have been outspoken about the matter. The whole "axis of evil" thing was pretty much shot down. etc., etc., etc.

Uh, in case you hadn't noticed, congress was blatantly in favour of bush, and still can be if even one democrat votes awry, cause the vice can decide the vote.

He already has a ton of funds. Bin laden isn't the end; don't fool yourself.

& btw, concerning WW2... Vietnam was NOT an acceptable 'war'. Korea I can't remember, but I do know that Vietnam was stupid as all fucking hell. Fuck your presidents who think they should act as the world's bully.

[This message has been edited by kypper (edited 06-11-2002).]

Originally posted by kypper:
Uh, in case you hadn't noticed, congress was blatantly in favour of bush, & btw, concerning WW2... Vietnam was NOT an acceptable 'war'. Korea I can't remember, but I do know that Vietnam was stupid as all fucking hell. Fuck your presidents who think they should act as the world's bully.

Key word there is was. Congress was wholly in favor of Bush. Shit changes. And its been changing. Many politicians are speaking out against Bush.

So a war is only a war if you deem it acceptable??

Since September 11, President Bush has met with leaders from at least 51 different countries to help build support for the war against terrorism.


136 countries have offered a range of military assistance.


The U.S. has received 46 multilateral declarations of support from organizations.


The U.N. General Assembly and Security Council condemned the attacks on September 12.


NATO, OAS and ANZUS (Australia, New Zealand and the U.S.) quickly invoked their treaty obligations to support the United States. Our NATO allies are assisting directly in the defense of American territory.


142 countries have issued orders freezing the assets of suspected terrorists and organizations.


89 countries have granted over-flight authority for U.S. military aircraft.


76 countries have granted landing rights for U.S. military aircraft.


23 countries have agreed to host U.S. forces involved in offensive operations.

This war isn't a case of the U.S. "putting its nose where it doesn't belong". This has the backing and approval of the international community.




------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Originally posted by BlueStar:
This war isn't a case of the U.S. "putting its nose where it doesn't belong". This has the backing and approval of the international community.

You should do more research into how exactly the 'international community' works. There is a very obvious financial strongarming all over the place. Trust me, I live in a country that receives that shit from the USA all the fucking time.

Originally posted by BlueStar:
Not really.

Yes, really. They qualify under a number of clauses there. Which is why - shock! - they were eventually granted their rights under the Geneva Convention, which Colin Powell had been arguing they were entitled to anyway

Originally posted by PkPhuoko:
Even here in America in as whiney of a country we have we are told that if you are held captive as a US prisoner even bound by the geneva convention articles you are only promised drinking water, minimal food, and returned identification to your home country. That is all. Don't get a nice cell with a bed and a phone call home to mom.

Actually you're guaranteed a number of other things, one of which being an effective 'right to remain silent', being required to give only "his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information." You cannot interrogate prisoners, nor subject them to sensory deprivation. These are the reasons people were complaining about their treatment, remember?

Originally posted by PkPhuoko:
geneva convention only applies to countries bound by the geneva convention and only applies to those who hold and carry a geneva convention identification card or are recognized as a known military force.

Afghanistan ratified the Geneva Conventions on September 26th, 1956.

FYI...

Authorization for Use of Military Force (Enrolled Bill)

--S.J.Res.23--

S.J.Res.23


One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and one

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

Expressing the sense of the Senate and House of Representatives regarding the terrorist attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001. (Enrolled Bill)

--S.J.Res.22--

S.J.Res.22


One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and one

Joint Resolution

Expressing the sense of the Senate and House of Representatives regarding the terrorist attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001.

Whereas on September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked and destroyed four civilian aircraft, crashing two of them into the towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, and a third into the Pentagon outside Washington, D.C.;

Whereas thousands of innocent Americans were killed and injured as a result of these attacks, including the passengers and crew of the four aircraft, workers in the World Trade Center and in the Pentagon, rescue workers, and bystanders;

Whereas these attacks destroyed both towers of the World Trade Center, as well as adjacent buildings, and seriously damaged the Pentagon; and

Whereas these attacks were by far the deadliest terrorist attacks ever launched against the United States, and, by targeting symbols of American strength and success, clearly were intended to intimidate our Nation and weaken its resolve: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress--

(1) condemns in the strongest possible terms the terrorists who planned and carried out the September 11, 2001, attacks against the United States, as well as their sponsors;

(2) extends its deepest condolences to the victims of these heinous and cowardly attacks, as well as to their families, friends, and loved ones;

(3) is certain that the people of the United States will stand united as our Nation begins the process of recovering and rebuilding in the aftermath of these tragic acts;

(4) commends the heroic actions of the rescue workers, volunteers, and State and local officials who responded to these tragic events with courage, determination, and skill;

(5) declares that these premeditated attacks struck not only at the people of America, but also at the symbols and structures of our economic and military strength, and that the United States is entitled to respond under international law;

(6) thanks those foreign leaders and individuals who have expressed solidarity with the United States in the aftermath of the attacks, and asks them to continue to stand with the United States in the war against international terrorism;

(7) commits to support increased resources in the war to eradicate terrorism;

(8) supports the determination of the President, in close consultation with Congress, to bring to justice and punish the perpetrators of these attacks as well as their sponsors; and

(9) declares that September 12, 2001, shall be a National Day of Unity and Mourning, and that when Congress adjourns today, it stands adjourned out of respect to the victims of the terrorist attacks.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

U.S. Department of State
Myths and Facts: The International Strikes on Terrorists and their Supporters
Analysis by the State Department's International Information Programs

Myth: Al-Qaida statements have cast the recent terrorist attacks in the U.S. as an effort by Muslims to punish the U.S.

Fact: The September terrorist attacks in the United States were an attack against people of all faiths and nationalities. Citizens of some 80 countries, including hundreds of Muslims, lost their lives in these attacks. These victims, now thought to number between 5,000 and 6, 000, were innocent people. The World Trade Center is not a symbol of the United States, but of international trade, prosperity and opportunity.

It is this international ideal of global progress that the terrorist sought to destroy. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said, "The United Nations must recognize that just as there are common aims, there are common enemies. To defeat them, all nations must join forces in an effort encompassing every aspect of the open, free, global system so widely exploited by the perpetrators" of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Myth: The campaign against the Taliban and the terrorists in Afghanistan are an attack on the Afghan people.

Fact: The Taliban do not represent the Afghan people. At a time when the Afghan people face starvation and displacement from drought and the Taliban's ongoing fighting with other factions in Afghanistan, the Taliban have opened their country to thousands of non-Afghan terrorists. These foreigners do not share the hardships of ordinary Afghans, and have exploited Afghan resources and manpower for their own interests, which have nothing to do with the Afghan people.

Myth: The international coalition currently attacking targets in Afghanistan will exacerbate the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan.

Fact: While terrorists were killing thousands of innocent people on Sept. 11, the US was funneling food and humanitarian aid to suffering Afghan people. The Taliban have done nothing to address the growing humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, while the US and the international community have. Over the past few years, millions of Afghans have fled their homeland because of widespread misery and starvation brought on by the Taliban's misuse of the country's resources. The US is and has been the largest donor of humanitarian aid to Afghans, both inside Afghanistan and in refugee camps. On October 4, President Bush announced an additional $320 million in food, medicine and other humanitarian aid to Afghans. This amount is in addition to the approximately $184 million the US has already contributed.

Myth: The US cares only about avenging the thousands of citizens from around the world killed by al-Qaida, and does not care about the effect its military actions will have on the Afghan people.

Fact: The US seeks to liberate the Afghan people from the oppression and misery brought on by the Taliban. While US warplanes attacked the terrorist infrastructure in Afghanistan on October 7, US pilots risked their lives to airdrop some 37,000 pre-packaged rations to concentrations of Afghan refugees inside Afghanistan. A similar airdrop of provisions took place on October 8.

Myth: The US-led action against Afghanistan is an example of a large country unjustly attacking a small state.

Fact: The Afghan people are not the target of this international campaign-the targets are the terrorists who have committed mass-murder in the US and Africa, and their clients in the Taliban regime. The US remains committed to the welfare of the Afghan people and is committed to helping them rebuild their country following years of Taliban oppression.

Myth: The US is alone in its efforts to overthrow terrorists and their supporters in Afghanistan.

Fact: Dozens of countries have contributed to the campaign against the terrorists and their supporters in Afghanistan through direct military support, landing and transit rights, basing opportunities and intelligence support. The nineteen members of NATO have agreed to send sophisticated surveillance aircraft to help the US in the battle against terror, and the NATO Secretary-General has stated that other NATO allies have pledged "direct military support as this operation unfolds."

Myth: The U.S. has said it will not do "nation-building." It looks like the U.S. will hand over control to the Northern Alliance, but not all Afghans will agree to this outcome. Is the U.S. engaged in nation-building? Is the US supporting the Northern Alliance?

Fact: The U.S. is not "nation building." We are, however, going to clear the way for Afghans to do their own nation building. Only Afghans can build their nation, and establish a broad-based government. Only Afghans can bring their country back into the community of nations and build their future. Our purpose is to make it possible for them to do that. The U.S. recognizes no faction in Afghanistan. We are currently cooperating with the Northern Alliance in order to destroy the ability of the Taliban and al-Qaida to engage in terrorism.

THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 21, 1995


MEMORANDUM FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT


THE SECRETARY OF STATE

THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY

THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY

ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS

DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE

DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY

CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

DIRECTOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
SUBJECT: U.S. Policy on Counterterrorism (U)

It is the policy of the United States to deter, defeat and respond vigorously to all terrorist attacks on our territory and against our citizens, or facilities, whether they occur domestically, in international waters or airspace or on foreign territory. The United States regards all such terrorism as a potential threat to national security as well as a criminal act and will apply all appropriate means to combat it. In doing so, the U.S. shall pursue vigorously efforts to deter and preempt, apprehend and prosecute, or assist other governments to prosecute, individuals who perpetrate or plan to perpetrate such attacks. (U)

We shall work closely with friendly governments in carrying out our counterterrorism policy and will support Allied and friendly governments in combating terrorist threats against them. (U)

Furthermore, the United States shall seek to identify groups or states that sponsor or support such terrorists, isolate them and extract a heavy price for their actions. (U)

It is the policy of the United States not to make concessions to terrorists. (U)

To ensure that the United States is prepared to combat domestic and international terrorism in all its forms, I direct the following steps be taken. (U)

1. Reducing our Vulnerabilities

The United States shall reduce its vulnerabilities to terrorism, at home and abroad.

It shall be the responsibility of all Department and Agency heads to ensure that their personnel and facilities, and the people and facilities under their jurisdiction, are fully protected against terrorism. With regard to ensuring security:

-- The Attorney General, as the chief law enforcement officer, shall chair a Cabinet Committee to review the vulnerability to terrorism of government facilities in the United States and critical national infrastructure and make recommendations to me and the appropriate Cabinet member or Agency head;

-- The Director, FBI, as head of the investigative agency for terrorism, shall reduce vulnerabilities by an expanded program of counterterrorism;

-- The Secretary of State shall reduce vulnerabilities affecting the security of all personnel and facilities at non-military U.S. Government installations abroad and affecting the general safety of American citizens abroad);

-- The Secretary of Defense shall reduce vulnerabilities affecting the security of all U.S. military personnel (except those assigned to diplomatic missions) and facilities);

-- The Secretary of Transportation shall reduce vulnerabilities affecting the security of all airports in the U.S. and all aircraft and passengers and all maritime shipping under U.S. flag or registration or operating within the territory of the United States and shall coordinate security measures for rail, highway, mass transit and pipeline facilities);

-- The Secretary of State and the Attorney General, in addition to the latter's overall responsibilities as the chief law enforcement official, shall use all legal means available to exclude from the United States persons who pose a terrorist threat and deport or otherwise remove from the United States any such aliens;

-- The Secretary of the Treasury shall reduce vulnerabilities by preventing unlawful traffic in firearms and explosives, by protecting the President and other officials against terrorist attack and through enforcement of laws controlling movement of assets, and export from or import into the United States of goods and services, subject to jurisdiction of the Department of the Treasury;

-- The Director, Central Intelligence shall lead the efforts of the Intelligence Community to reduce U.S. vulnerabilities to international terrorism through an aggressive program of foreign intelligence collection, analysis, counterintelligence and covert action in accordance with the National Security Act of 1947 and E.O. 12333. (U)

2. Deterring Terrorism

The United States shall seek to deter terrorism through a clear public position that our policies will not be affected by terrorist acts and that we will act vigorously to deal with terrorists and their sponsors. Our actions will reduce the capabilities and support available to terrorists. (U)

Within the United States, we shall vigorously apply U.S. laws and seek new legislation to prevent terrorist groups from operating in the United States or using it as a base for recruitment, training, fund raising or other related activities. (U)

o Return of Indicted Terrorists to the U.S. for Prosecution: We shall vigorously apply extraterritorial statutes to counter acts of terrorism and apprehend terrorists outside of the United States. When terrorists wanted for violation of U.S. law are at large overseas, their return for prosecution shall be a matter of the highest priority and shall be a continuing central issue in bilateral relations with any state that harbors or assists them. Where we do not have adequate arrangements, the Departments of State and Justice shall work to resolve the problem, where possible and appropriate, through negotiation and conclusion of new extradition treaties. (U)

If we do not receive adequate cooperation from a state that harbors a terrorist whose extradition we are seeking, we shall take appropriate measures to induce cooperation. Return of suspects by force may be effected without the cooperation of the host government, consistent with the procedures outlined in NSD-77, which shall remain in effect. (S)

o State Support and Sponsorship: Foreign governments assist terrorists in a variety of ways. (U)

C. Enhancing Counterterrorism Capabilities: The Secretaries of State, Defense, Treasury, Energy and Transportation, the Attorney General, the Director of Central Intelligence and the Director, FBI shall ensure that their organizations' counterterrorism capabilities within their present areas of responsibility are well managed, funded and exercised. (U)

3. Responding to Terrorism

We shall have the ability to respond rapidly and decisively to terrorism directed against us wherever it occurs, to protect Americans, arrest or defeat the perpetrators, respond with all appropriate instruments against the sponsoring organizations and governments and provide recovery relief to victims, as permitted by law. (U)

D. Lead Agency Responsibilities: This directive validates and reaffirms existing lead agency responsibilities for all facets of the United States counterterrorism effort. Lead agencies are those that have the most direct role in and responsibility for implementation of U.S. counterterrorism

policy, as set forth in this Directive. Lead agencies will normally be designated as follows: (U)

The Department of State is the lead agency for international terrorist incidents that take place outside of U.S. territory, other than incidents on U.S. flag vessels in international waters. The State Department shall act through U.S. ambassadors as the on-scene coordinators for the U.S. Government. Once military force has been directed, however, the National Command Authority shall exercise control of the U.S. military force. (U)

F. Interagency Support: To ensure that the full range of necessary expertise and capabilities are available to the

on-scene coordinator, there shall be a rapidly deployable interagency Emergency Support Team (EST). The State Department shall be responsible for leading and managing the Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST) in foreign incidents. The FBI shall be responsible for the Domestic Emergency Support Team (DEST) in domestic incidents. The DEST shall consist only of those agencies needed to respond to the specific requirements of the incident. Membership in the two teams shall ******* modules for specific types of incidents such as nuclear, biological or chemical threats. The Defense Department shall provide timely transportation for ESTs. (U)

G. Transportation - related terrorism: The Federal Aviation Administration has exclusive responsibility in instances of air piracy for the coordination of any law enforcement activity affecting the safety of persons aboard aircraft within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the UPS. as defined in public law. The Department of Justice, acting through the FBI, shall establish and maintain procedures, in coordination with the Departments of State, Defense, and Transportation, to ensure the efficient resolution of terrorist hijackings. These procedures shall be based on the principle of lead agency responsibility for command, control and rules of engagement. (U)

H. Consequence Management: The Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall ensure that the Federal Response Plan is adequate to respond to the consequences of terrorism directed against large populations in the United States, including terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction. FEMA shall ensure that States' response plans are adequate and their capabilities are tested. The State Department shall develop a plan with the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance and DOD to Provide assistance to foreign populations so victimized. (U)

K. Costs: Agencies directed to participate in the resolution of terrorist incidents or conduct of counterterrorist operations shall bear the costs of their participation, unless otherwise directed by me. (U)

4. Weapons of Mass Destruction

The United States shall give the highest priority to developing effective capabilities to detect, prevent, defeat and manage the consequences of nuclear, biological or chemical (NBC) materials or weapons use by terrorists. (U)

The acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by a terrorist group, through theft or manufacture, is unacceptable. There is no higher priority than preventing the acquisition of this capability or removing this capability from terrorist groups potentially opposed to the U.S. (U)

Old, but interesting article...

Defense Issues: Volume 11, Number 77-- The Risks If We Would Be Free When terrorists attack our military forces, the worst thing we could do for our national security is withdraw. When terrorists attack our buildings or airliners, the worst thing we can do as a society is withdraw from our daily lives and our commerce.

Volume 11, Number 77
The Risks If We Would Be Free
Remarks as delivered by Secretary of Defense William J. Perry to the American Bar Association, Orlando, Fla., Aug. 6, 1996.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ralph Waldo Emerson once asked, "If there is any period one would desire to be born in, is it not the age of revolution? When the old and the new stand side by side? When the energies of all men are searched by fear and by hope? When the historic glories of the old can be compensated by the rich possibilities of the new?"

Like Emerson, we too live in an age of revolution. In every field -- politics, economics, technology -- we are living in an era of "rich possibilities." Our hopes are symbolized by the emergence of democracy around the globe; by the growth of new global trade relationships; by the expansion of global communications; and by the explosion of information.

But along with these hopes, our energies in this revolutionary era are "searched by fear." One of our darkest fears in this new era is the specter of terrorism. Terrorism hangs like a dark cloud over our hopes.

President Clinton has called it "the enemy of our generation." It is the antithesis of everything America stands for. It is an enemy of the fundamental principles of human rights -- freedom of movement, freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

Its perpetrators reject the rule of law and basic human decency. They are not able to achieve their goals either through conventional diplomatic or military means, so they seek to impose their will on others through acts of violence, almost always aimed at the innocent.

Domestic terrorism is a crime against the order and tranquillity of our nation. International terrorism is an assault on the peace and stability of the world.

And when terrorists aim their attacks at U.S. military forces, something additional is at risk: It is the ability of the United States to protect and defend our vital national interests in the world. That is what was under assault when terrorists attacked our forces in Saudi Arabia last November, and again in June.

I just returned from a trip to Saudi Arabia where I met with my Saudi counterpart, Prince Sultan, to develop a mutual response to the recent bomb attacks on American military forces there. To respond intelligently, we must first understand the nature of the problem.

Why have our forces in Saudi Arabia been subject to terrorist attacks?

To answer this question you need to go back in time about six years, to the Gulf War, which started when Iraq invaded Kuwait. We fought that war because Iraq had not only taken over Kuwait and its oil fields, but also threatened Saudi Arabia and its oil fields.

At that time, we correctly decided that this was a direct threat to our vital national interests and to world peace -- and we formed a military coalition which successfully ejected Iraq from Kuwait.

Today, there are still threats to the region -- threats to the free flow of oil around the world and to the security and stability of the region. The threat from Iraq has been reduced, but is still significant; the threat from Iran has increased since 1990 and is still growing.

To counter these threats we maintain strong military forces forward deployed in the gulf region. This forward presence serves to prevent both Iraq and Iran from expanding their territory or influence in the gulf countries, thereby gaining control over the flow of oil to the world.

Our military presence includes substantial airpower operating out of Saudi and Kuwaiti airbases. This permits us to enforce the U.N.-sponsored "no-fly" zone over Iraq. Our presence also includes naval forces operating continuously in the Arabian Gulf, also enforcing United Nations sanctions. And it includes two brigade sets worth of pre-positioned military equipment -- one in Kuwait and one afloat offshore -- and we are adding a third brigade set in Qatar.

This pre-positioned equipment allows us to insert a substantial deterrent force into the region in a fraction of the time that it took us in 1990. We actually exercised this potential in October of 1994, when Saddam Hussein again sent his forces toward the Kuwaiti border.

That time, however, we were able to respond quickly enough that we were able to deter an attack.

Our forward forces, backed by rapidly deployable U.S.-based reinforcements, are by far the strongest military force in the gulf region. They cannot be successfully engaged by any of the regional military powers. But this very capability, which makes our military forces such a successful deterrent force, also makes them an inviting target for those who oppose our presence and influence in the region.

Our presence, of course, is opposed by Iran and Iraq, but also by home-grown dissidents in some countries of the region. The opposition includes extremist groups who are cold-blooded and fanatical, but also clever. They know that they cannot defeat us militarily, but they may believe that they can defeat us politically -- and they have chosen terror as the weapon to try to achieve this.

They estimate that if they can cause enough casualties or threats of casualties to our force, they can weaken support in the United States for our presence in the region or weaken support in the host nations for a continued U.S. presence. In essence, they seek to drive a wedge between the U.S. and our regional allies.

Terrorists made the attack on U.S. forces in Khobar Towers in June to achieve these objectives.

They did not succeed.

But the public reaction to this bombing may wrongly encourage them to think that such attacks can erode our resolve. So we must be prepared for the frequency and scale of the attacks in the gulf to increase. Future attacks could be with more powerful bombs or standoff weapons or even chemical weapons.

So the question that confronts us is what do we do about the this growing threat to our forces?

One alternative, which is tempting to many, is to say that we should pack up our forces and go home.

That would be a grave mistake.

We could withdraw our forces from the gulf region, but we cannot withdraw our security interests from the region. Allowing the threat of terrorism to drive us out of the gulf would mean surrendering those interests, abandoning our allies and allowing the region to come under the control of Iraq or Iran.

It would give a small group of terrorists with truck bombs a victory that, six years ago, Saddam Hussein could not achieve with 40 divisions. Withdrawal is not an acceptable alternative. Our strategic imperative requires that we maintain our forces in the region.

So the question on my mind when I went to Saudi Arabia last week was not whether to leave our forces in the region, but how to maintain them.

The answer to that question, I believe, is threefold: We need to strengthen our resolve that we will not let terrorists drive us away from protecting our national interests; we need to increase the physical security of our military personnel in the region to reduce their vulnerability to terrorist attacks; and we need to increase our intelligence capabilities so that we can pre-empt and disrupt terrorist attacks before they occur.

My trip to Saudi Arabia was aimed at furthering these objectives. And it was a successful trip.

As a result of our meetings in Jiddah, there is a strengthened resolve by both the Saudi and the American governments that we will not play into terrorist hands by allowing these attacks to drive a wedge between us. The most concrete result of my trip was agreement on a number of actions to strengthen the physical security of our forces in Saudi Arabia and the region.

We currently have 4,000 air crew personnel in Riyadh and Dhahran to enforce the no-fly zone over Iraq. We will redeploy them and their aircraft to the Saudi airbase at Al-Kharj, known as the Prince Sultan Air Base. This will take our forces out of a high-risk urban environment and move them into a remote location in the desert, where we can construct very effective defenses against terrorist attack.

But some of the units we have in Saudi Arabia cannot be relocated without undermining their effectiveness. Our training units, for example, must be in close proximity to their Saudi counterparts in Riyadh. And our Patriot missile battery crews must be located near the urban areas and air bases that they are defending.

While these units must remain near urban areas because of their mission, we are taking steps to give them more protection by consolidating them and moving them to more secure housing facilities, by erecting more barriers, posting more guards, putting more Mylar [plastic laminating film] on windows. All of these to lessen the impact of any future bombings.

The Saudi government is cooperating in all of these moves, making facilities available, building required new infrastructure.

Force protection measures, such as moving the location of our forces and building barriers, cannot eliminate the risk to our forces -- but they can minimize those risks. Indeed, force protection is a key part of every military mission -- it is my top priority whenever I approve a military operation or a training exercise.

That is why our forces in Bosnia are required to wear flak jackets and Kevlar helmets when they are outside of the security compound. It is why one out of every three of them are on guard duty, and it is why we have a no-alcohol policy for our forces in Bosnia. These are burdensome rules, but they do save lives.

To reinforce our emphasis on force protection, I have recently directed the implementation of a stronger force protection initiative worldwide -- with specific instructions for commanders in Southwest Asia and southern Europe to perform force protection reassessments. But while we want to emphasize force protection, we must also balance force protection with our ability to achieve our military missions.

Our forces cannot perform their mission if they are hunkered down in hardened bunkers 24 hours a day. We all know, and certainly our military personnel know, that there are inherent risks in any military operation. In today's environment, one of those risks is the risk of a terrorist attack. Our job is to continually look for ways to minimize that risk while maintaining mission effectiveness.

These force protection measures are always important, but the real key to better, more effective force protection against terrorism is to take active measures against the terrorists. Which brings me to another major action we are taking in Saudi Arabia -- improving our intelligence capabilities.

We do not want to simply sit and wait for terrorists to act. We want to seek them out, find them, identify them and do what we can to disrupt or pre-empt any planned operation. And the key to this is better intelligence.

Better intelligence depends not only on being able to collect information, but being able to use it. We need to sort out the real and useful intelligence from the misinformation and disinformation that is collected every day.

One key to improved analysis is the Counterterrorist Center, formed a few years ago and now receiving higher priority in the face of a higher threat. But even with improved analysis in Washington, we still have to make this intelligence available in a timely way to the forces threatened and to combine national intelligence with the local intelligence being collected.

Among the steps we are taking to improve intelligence in the Gulf region is to set up what we call a "fusion cell." We developed the model for intelligence fusion cells in Bosnia. We are replicating this model not only in the gulf region, but around the world wherever our forces are deployed.

A fusion cell combines, in real time, national strategic intelligence, which we gather around the world, with local or tactical intelligence. This allows us to quickly fuse together the global picture with the regional picture to help us see patterns; to keep information from falling through the cracks; and to focus the United States' and our allies' intelligence services on the same pieces of information, at the same time.

Intelligence is crucial not only for preventing and disrupting terrorists activities, it is also a key to an appropriate response to the terrorists and their sponsors.

As President Clinton said yesterday, "We will not rest in our efforts to track down, prosecute and punish terrorists, and to keep the heat on terrorists and those who support them."

Yesterday, President Clinton signed into law the Iran-Libya Sanction Act, which builds on sanctions already in place. And as he signed this bill, he said, "The United States cannot and will not hesitate to do what we believe is right."

Our response to terrorist attacks on our troops in the gulf is a story that has broader implications. It is a case study that is helpful as we think about the threat of terrorism generally. Just as the very success of our military presence in the gulf makes our troops an inviting target for terrorists in the region, so, too, does America's success around the world make our nation an inviting target for terrorists worldwide.

America is the world's sole remaining superpower. Our economic and political philosophy is ascendant worldwide. Our culture is the world's most influential, and the very openness of our society makes us a relatively easy target for those who do not like these facts or who disagree with what we stand for.

When terrorists attack our military forces in Saudi Arabia or anywhere they are needed in the world, the worst thing we could do for our national security would be to withdraw our forces from where they are needed. Likewise, when terrorists attack our trade centers, federal buildings or airliners, the worst thing we can do as a society is to withdraw from our daily lives and our commerce.

Once we decide there are real reasons for doing something, then we ought to do it, understanding that there may be real risks associated with that decision.

Richard Haas, a former member of the National Security Council in the Bush administration, noted the other day, "We cannot and should not ground our planes, shutter our embassies, hand in our passports, bring all our troops home, close the government or shut down the Olympics. If we stop being who we are and stop living a life worth living, we hand the terrorists their greatest victory."

It was heartening in this regard to see the return of thousands of people to Olympic Park in Atlanta as soon as it was reopened. Those celebrants understood that staying home would have meant giving in.

We must recognize that terrorism -- domestic, international or directed against our military forces -- is like a chronic disease: You must fight it even as you have to live with it. The fight is not and will not be easy, but then defending freedom and liberty never are.

Over 200 years ago, Thomas Paine wrote, "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must undergo the fatigue of supporting it."

In this age, we, too, must be prepared to undergo the fatigue that comes with the burden of supporting freedom if we are to reap freedom's blessings.

I thank you.

------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

[This message has been edited by BlueStar (edited 06-11-2002).]

Originally posted by DeviousJ:
Yes, really. They qualify under a number of clauses there. Which is why - shock! - they were eventually granted their rights under the Geneva Convention, which Colin Powell had been arguing they were entitled to anyway

Only to those fighting for the Taliban...not the captured members of Al-Qaida.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Originally posted by BlueStar:
Only to those fighting for the Taliban...not the captured members of Al-Qaida.

No, not Al-Qaida... but those captured were mostly Taliban (read Afghan) soldiers. Besides, how would you tell them apart, given the lack of uniform etc?

I forgot to mention the right to be tried in a public civil court :/

Originally posted by DeviousJ:
No, not Al-Qaida... but those captured were mostly Taliban (read Afghan) soldiers. Besides, how would you tell them apart, given the lack of uniform etc?

I forgot to mention the right to be tried in a public civil court :/

Many people are far too patriotic in America to see that America holds the rest of the world by the balls.
Rights can go out the window so long as CNN tells Americans they haven't.

FYI...

Article 51
of the Charter of the United Nations

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain inter- national peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Letter dated 7 October 2001 from the Permanent Representative
of the United States of America to the United Nations addressed
to the President of the Security Council

In accordance with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, I wish, on behalf of my Government, to report that the United States of America, together with other States, has initiated actions in the exercise of its inherent right of individual and collective self-defence following the armed attacks that were carried out against the United States on 11 September 2001.

On 11 September 2001, the United States was the victim of massive and brutal attacks in the states of New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia. These attacks were specifically designed to maximize the loss of life; they resulted in the death of more than 5,000 persons, including nationals of 81 countries, as well as the destruction of four civilian aircraft, the World Trade Center towers and a section of the Pentagon. Since 11 September, my Government has obtained clear and compelling information that the Al-Qaeda organization, which is supported by the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, had a central role in the attacks. There is still much we do not know. Our inquiry is in its early stages. We may find that our self-defence requires further actions with respect to other organizations and other States.

The attacks on 11 September 2001 and the ongoing threat to the United States and its nationals posed by the Al-Qaeda organization have been made possible by the decision of the Taliban regime to allow the parts of Afghanistan that it controls to be used by this organization as a base of operation. Despite every effort by the United States and the international community, the Taliban regime has refused to change its policy. From the territory of Afghanistan, the Al-Qaeda organization continues to train and support agents of terror who attack innocent people throughout the world and target United States nationals and interests in the United States and abroad.

In response to these attacks, and in accordance with the inherent right of individual and collective self-defence, United States armed forces have initiated actions designed to prevent and deter further attacks on the United States. These actions ******* measures against Al-Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. In carrying out these actions, the United States is committed to minimizing civilian casualties and damage to civilian property. In addition, the United States will continue its humanitarian efforts to alleviate the suffering of the people of Afghanistan. We are providing them with food, medicine and supplies.

I ask that you circulate the text of the present letter as a document of the Security Council.

(Signed) John D. Negroponte

------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Originally posted by kypper:
Many people are far too patriotic in America to see that America holds the rest of the world by the balls.
Rights can go out the window so long as CNN tells Americans they haven't.

The strange thing is, America is in fact acting in the best interests of its citizens - it's just at the expense of a sizeable proportion of the world. And to make the changes the US supposedly stands for would require its citizens to relinquish a number of benefits... at least until economies were restructured.

Nice thread btw - 6 pages and worthwhile too http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/smile.gif

Originally posted by DeviousJ:
The strange thing is, America is in fact acting in the best interests of its citizens - it's just at the expense of a sizeable proportion of the world. And to make the changes the US supposedly stands for would require its citizens to relinquish a number of benefits... at least until economies were restructured.

Nice thread btw - 6 pages and worthwhile too http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/smile.gif

In some ways. in others, it acts in the interests of its huge corporations and slices off rights for its and other citizens left, right and centre. I am not impressed with the bush administration.

Military Tribunals

What is a military tribunal?
A military tribunal is a special court run by the military, not the civilian judiciary, and convened to adjudicate extraordinary cases, usually involving foreigners and usually during wartime. In November 2001, President Bush issued an executive order authorizing military tribunals for foreigners accused of terrorism.

When these tribunals—which, in their original conception, would have been conducted in private and allowed a two-thirds majority of a jury comprised of military officers to confer a death sentence—were first announced, they had significant bipartisan and public support. But they also drew criticism from some members of Congress from both parties, human rights groups, and foreign governments, including American allies, who said that the tribunals fell short of national and international standards of due process for the accused. In March 2002, after consulting several legal experts, the Defense Department revised its rules for these tribunals.

How are these tribunals different from regular courts?
Military tribunals are not bound by procedures followed in civilian courts, which derive from the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. According to Defense Department guidelines, military tribunals for foreigners suspected of terrorism will use juries of three to seven panelists, all of them military officers, not the 12-member public panels used in federal criminal courts;
will require a two-thirds vote for conviction and sentencing, except in cases where the death penalty is involved, in which case seven panelists must reach a unanimous decision;
will admit evidence—including secondhand evidence and hearsay, which are banned from traditional courts—so long as it would have “probative value to a reasonable person”;
will not require prosecutors to establish the “chain of custody” of evidence—that is, to account for how the evidence was transported from where it was found to the courtroom;
will provide defendants with military lawyers but allow them to hire civilian attorneys at their own expense;
will not allow defendants to appeal decisions in federal courts, but instead petition a panel of review, which may ******* civilians as well as military officers, to review decisions. The president, as commander in chief, will have final review.
These tribunals provide for some protections familiar from civilian courts, among them allowing defendants to review the evidence against them, making most sessions public, and requiring that jurors convict only when the case is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Has the government used civilian courts instead of tribunals to try terrorists?
Yes. The U.S. government prosecuted the perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the conspirators in a failed plot involving New York City tunnels, and those responsible for the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa in civilian courts. And partly in response to the initial outcry over military tribunals, the Justice Department opted to use federal courts to try the first person charged in the September 11 conspiracy: Zacarias Moussaoui, a French citizen and the alleged “20th hijacker.”

Why is the government setting up these military tribunals?
White House officials say that military tribunals will let the government try suspected terrorists quickly, efficiently, and without jeopardizing public safety, classified information, or intelligence-gathering methods and operations. The officials also say that the tribunals would protect American jurors, judges and witnesses from the potential dangers of trying accused terrorists.

Also, according to some Bush officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity, the government is reluctant to try captured terrorists—especially leaders of the Taliban and the al-Qaeda terrorist network—in conventional U.S. courts, where their trials and appeals could take years and turn into spectacles. In December 2001 congressional testimony, Attorney General John Ashcroft asked: “Are we supposed to read [alleged terrorists] their Miranda rights, hire a flamboyant defense lawyer, bring them back to the U.S. to create a new cable network of Osama TV or what have you?” Under the March 2002 guidelines, press coverage of most tribunal proceedings will be permitted, although cameras will be banned from courtrooms.

Bush officials also worry that some terrorists might go free if, say, Osama bin Laden had to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Who would be subject to these tribunals?
Essentially, any non-U.S. citizen who the government alleges is a terrorist or an accomplice to terrorism. According to President Bush’s executive order, the military tribunals would apply to any foreign individual who is a member of al-Qaeda, has engaged in or aided acts of terrorism against the United States, or has “knowingly harbored” such a person.

Are these military tribunals controversial?
Yes. Some prominent Democrats have backed the tribunals from the outset, including Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Al Gore’s running mate in the 2000 presidential race. But when they were first proposed in November 2001, the tribunals generated a storm of protest from some legal scholars, human rights groups, civil libertarians, many members of Congress from both parties, and columnists usually supportive of the Bush administration.

The revised Defense Department guidelines triggered less controversy. Some legal scholars called the new rules judicious, but critics from human-rights advocates to William Safire, the conservative New York Times columnist, have noted that the new guidelines do not resolve all of their concerns about impartiality and due process. Under the revised guidelines, these critics note, appeals in civilian courts are forbidden, and suspects can be detained indefinitely, even if they are not convicted of terrorism-related crimes.

What’s the difference between a military tribunal and a court-martial?
Courts-martial are routinely used by the military to try U.S. soldiers for crimes. The military commissions authorized by President Bush are, says one former Navy lawyer and judge, “a totally different animal.” Courts-martial use rules of evidence similar to those of civilian courts, are almost always open to civilian observers, and allow appeals.

Has the United States used military tribunals before?
Yes. George Washington convened the first U.S. military tribunal in 1780 to try a British spy found behind American lines. Military tribunals were also instituted by President Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, ultimately trying some 4,000 citizens on charges ranging from disloyalty to clearly nonmilitary offenses such as liquor trafficking. The Supreme Court later held that such military tribunals should have no jurisdiction over citizens in cases where civilian courts are still working. The United States last convened a military tribunal during World War II, when it tried and sentenced to death a group of Nazis caught spying in America. The Supreme Court deemed this tribunal constitutional, ruling that foreign combatants charged with war crimes inside the United States do not enjoy constitutional guarantees. The Bush administration has cited the closed World War II tribunal as a precedent for its own proposed tribunals.

Have other countries convened military courts to fight terrorism?
Yes. But the State Department has condemned the use of military tribunals to try terrorists in many of these countries, including China, Colombia, Egypt, Peru, and Turkey, because they violate defendants’ rights, according to Human Rights Watch. In one well-publicized 1996 case, a Peruvian military court convicted a New York woman, Lori Berenson, of treason and sentenced her to life in prison for her ties to a Marxist rebel group known for violent attacks and kidnappings. The State Department and both houses of Congress condemned the ruling and called on Peru to give Berenson a fair and open trial, noting that thousands of Peruvians were unjustly tried and jailed in the military courts of the beleaguered Peruvian government. In June 2001, after years of appeals and U.S. pressure, Berenson was retried in a Peruvian civilian court and sentenced to 20 years in prison for collaborating with Marxist terrorists.

In the 1970s, the British government responded to IRA terrorism by creating what are known as Diplock Courts in Northern Ireland. Although these courts aren’t military tribunals as such, they do eliminate civilian juries (in favor of a single judge, rather than a panel of officers), and they do admit secret evidence. The courts were established to protect jurors from intimidation by paramilitary groups, but they have reportedly been used for cases unrelated to IRA terrorism.

------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg