|
Military Courts And Congress by Mumia Abu-Jamal (Column written 29 December 2001)
In the aftermath of 9/11/01, the Bush Administration has announced plans
to
form, staff and adjudicate military tribunals to try anyone the U.S. deems
a
"terrorist." These courts will be presided over by military officers, as
will any
appeals process, with the final arbiter, either the defense secretary or
the
president, ending the case.
No civil judge, of any division or rank of the federal judiciary, will
ever hear
any syllable of appeal from anyone tried before such a tribunal.
So frenzied is the American mood, so supine the liberal elite, and so
prostrate
the nation's legal community to power, that barely a murmur is heard in
protest to
this gross, naked power grab by the Administration.
It is not enough that the institution of such courts are the very
antithesis to
the grand American claim to "due process." Nor is it sufficient to argue
that such
war measures are inappropriate in the absence of a formal, congressional
declaration
of war (this Congress would have no real trouble doing so). This Congress,
already
jittery in light of reports of anthrax contamination of some offices,
rushed through
in record speed (with little debate, no public hearing, and neither a
committee
report nor a conference) the unprecedented, complex, and radically
repressive USA
Patriot Act.
The presidential decree ordering military tribunals is, on its face,
unconstitutional. Indeed, the very provision which grants the president
Commander In
Chief powers, also limits his powers over judicial matters. Here's what it
says: [Art. II: Sect. 2, Constitution of the U.S.]
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of
the United
States, ... He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the
Senate
...; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the
Senate,
shall appoint ... Judges of the Supreme Court ...
And from Article III; Section 1 of the Constitution:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one
supreme Court,
and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain
and
establish.
There it is. The president, acting in concert with the Senate,
nominates and
appoints Supreme Court judges, and Congress ordains and establishes new
courts.
Congress can't abdicate this duty to the executive.
The president's order establishes a court, one which has all of its
officers
under his direct control and command. This is a classic kangaroo court, of
the very
kind that Americans condemned when the Fujimori regime established them in
Peru
(interestingly, to fight 'terrorism').
Nor is this meant to heap false praise on U.S. civil courts, which are
fundamentally political institutions. Have we all forgotten the trial of
Tim
McVeigh, the domestic terrorist, where it was later learned that the FBI
withheld
thousands of pages of documents, until days before his execution? Civil
courts
merely winked at this violation, as a minor irritance.
And while the government had its way (by executing McVeigh) it was
embarrassed by
reports of their handling of the case. That won't happen now, will it?
Under the Bush Administration, military tribunals serve as an
instrument of
administrative whim. Under the command structure of the military, each
judge, each
jury, each prosecutor, and each court officer is a sworn officer of the
military, in
the sworn service of the Commander in Chief. If they want to further their
career in
the armed services, even if they ever wanted promotion, they follow their
administrative cues. What do you think they would do to a foreign
national, who is
already tagged as "the enemy"?
With either Bush, the Secretary of Defense, or even another military
panel
serving as a Supreme Court of Appeals, what would be the result?
But, after all, the accused are (to use the term of popular
appeal) 'sand
niggers' (the Brits would call them 'wogs'), Arabs, Pakistanis, a few
Afghans - so,
why care?
The same was said in the '20s when Russian Jews were exiled from the
U.S. after
the Palmer Raids, or in the '40s when Japanese were thrown into
concentration camps;
they're just 'commie Jews', or 'slants' - right?
Such events were said to be separate, involving 'others', yet they
tainted the
judicial process and U.S. claims of fair play, up to the present
generation. Let us
fight this madness, or it will return to haunt us all.
_____________
This column may be reprinted and/or distributed by electronic means,
but only for non-commercial use, and only with the inclusion of the
following copyright information: Check www.mumia.org and its links
for
important action alerts. Mumia Abu-Jamal is the author of three books: Live from Death
Row, Death Blossoms, and All Things Censored.
_____________
home
|
subscribe
|
talk
|
help-about
|
back issues
|
resources
|