Political Football or Legal Quagmire [Reader Post]

Loading

The trial of Guantanamo Terrorists has been in legal turmoil for years and will doubtless be milked by the Obama Administration for every political advantage possible; but because of Roosevelt’s heavy handed actions during World War II, the Obama political maneuvering may have unintended consequences.

In 1942 eight Germans, all with extensive time spent previously in the US including George Dasche who became an American citizen after serving in the US Army, were trained for three weeks as saboteurs by the National Socialists, after a two week interval of relaxation they were divided into two teams of four and transported in two different submarines for America. Dasche’s group landed on Long Island, the other group landed in Florida.

The Long Island group was spotted and hailed by a Coast Guard patrolman, they tried to bribe him with several hundred dollars, he refused the bribe and phoned in an alert. The saboteurs buried their explosives and uniforms and left for New York City.

Upon arrival in New York City, Dasche phoned the FBI and tried to turn the group in, the FBI thought his call was a hoax and ignored him.

A short time later, the uniforms and explosives were uncovered on the beach in Long Island; thus a national manhunt ensued for National Socialist saboteurs.

After being rebuffed by the New York FBI office, Dasche drove to Washington DC and turned himself in to the FBI headquarters. Again he was considered a crank until he opened a suit case with eighty thousand dollars in it.

With the assistance of both Dasche and coconspirator Burger, all eight National Socialist saboteurs were arrested. Both Dasche and Burger maintained they were promised immunity by their cooperation with the FBI. In the end, all the conspirators cooperated with authorities and freely admitted that they contracted to disrupt American war production with explosives; although they didn’t actually engage in espionage, they maintained they all agreed to the mission to escape the National Socialists.

Because of the legal situation of the time, it is safe to assume that FDR decided to try the National Socialist saboteurs by military tribunal rather than a civilian court because of two main reasons.

First: At that time, buying a weapon to commit a crime was not a crime. An effort to use the weapon had to be exercised before a crime was committed. Therefore, even though the saboteurs had a huge supply of explosives, they had made no effort to employ them. Thus no crime had been committed.

Second: A military tribunal could prosecute the more serious crime of enemy combatants behind enemy lines in civilian clothes. Under military law this was a capital offence.

FDR decided to use the military tribunal to insure convictions and executions. In twenty days the men were tried, convicted, and executed except for Burger and Dasche, they were given life and thirty years respectively, the tribunal was halted for three days while the Supreme Court heard an argument challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunals.

The Supreme Court issued a per curiant opinion (an unsigned opinion) affirming the tribunal’s jurisdiction.

The defense maintained that the saboteurs had not undertaken the effort to use the explosives and their efforts were merely a ploy to escape the National Socialism of Germany. The eight generals hearing their case were unconvinced and found them all guilty and sentenced the six to death and they were executed in the electric chair within six hours of the verdict being delivered.

Justice Stone began drafting the Supreme Court’s decision after the executions had been carried out. Stone felt that it was imperative that a unanimous decision was necessary because of the gravity of the crimes, not to mention the fact that the executions were almost simultaneous with the convictions.

Known as the Ex Parte Quirin decision it is not regarded as one of the highlights of the Supreme Court’s Legacy, despite being well received publicly. The decision was reached on July 31, 1942, but did not release its decision until October 29, 1942.

Justice Frankfurter asked Frederick Weiner, an expert on military justice, to provide his opinion. Weiner concluded that the court had been “careless and uninformed (in its) handling of the Articles of War.” Of course this is the area that should have been the primary focus of the decision.

FDR thought he was sending a clear message to Hitler and the National Socialists, yet he ended up leaving a murky precedent for the future.

The Quirin decision maintained legislation authorizing military commissions for the types of offences in question; however, in the time line of Quirin there was a declaration of war. On November 13, 2001, the military was ordered to try suspected terrorists by military tribunals.

President Bush relied on a joint resolution of congress to serve as a replacement for a formal declaration of war along with two provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, successor to the Articles of War.

Consequently, prisoners in the War on Terrorism were to denied protection granted by the Geneva Convention, ratified in 1949 and now considered to be a part of United States municipal law in accordance with Article 6 paragraph 2 of the Constitution, (the Supremacy Clause).

In addition the United States Supreme Court in Handan vs. Rumsfeld ruled that common paragraph 2 of the Constitution and Article 3 of the Geneva Convention applies to detainees in the war on Terror and that military tribunals are in violation of United States and International Law.

Because treaties become law in our country, and because of procedural sloppiness in the past, we are trying men who have admitted planning the terrorism of 9/11. Because of the laws of discovery, they will have access to all the secret files of the CIA and FBI that refer to them. Thus our intelligence people throughout the Middle East will be compromised and we will be left with almost no Intelligence sources. The water boarding/torture debate will rage for months or maybe years while these murderers receive millions of dollars of legal aid from us. In the end, there is an excellent chance that they will be found innocent and be free to walk upon American soil as free men.

Of course if this travesty comes to be, the blame will be Obama’s, as a matter of fact, the closing of Guantanamo, an insipid and thoughtless campaign promise has precipitated this miscarriage of justice and no matter how this plays out, Obama will be held responsible.

Burger and Dasch were released in 1949 and deported to Germany. Dasche spent the rest of his life trying to be readmitted to the US without success.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
13 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

If its bad for America and good for her enemies, every thinking person knows which side Brakabama and the vermin around him are going to be on.

This is truly incredible. We have genuine, sworn enemies of our country in the White House.

May they meet the end they deserve…soon.

Patvan and I had a discussion on another thread, and some of my comments there can also be applied here:

“Here is where I see part of the problem: in administering Justice, the process matters greatly. It is all well to convict someone of their guilt in a Murder, and meet out justice, it is not well at all if the process involved sets a precedent that would also allow an innocent person to be convicted under the same investigative and trial procedures. This is why it is imperative that even guilty rotten scum like the Ft. Hood shooter gets his day in court, is defended, and the requirements of the prosecution proving it’s case is upheld. Sad but true, protecting the guilty traitor scum’s rights is required in order to maintain the protections that law abiding citizens need to prevent intrusive government in the future from investigating, detaining or convicting them with less than the legal standard of proof that Humanity is entitled to and our Country stands for.”

“If we allow the enemy to fundamentally change who we are and what we stand for in our efforts to protect our citizens and to defeat them, then they still “win” by default.”

Holding enemy combatants or prisoners for 6 years without trial, without charges, and most importantly without JUSTICE is wrong, un American, and the main reason these enemies of America have not been tried is because some of the methods of extracting information from them reflects poorly on us and was deemed required to be kept from public knowledge. That doesn’t cut it, when you capture the Bast**ds, get the info from them, you make your case to the Tribunal, Court, whatever, convict them and apply justice swiftly and surely. Most of these combatants were and are guilty, a few may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. America does stand for justice for all, the process does matter, and the rule of law should be applied as per the laws and statues of the United States, we should not fear it but embrace it to bring the death penalty to those who conspired to kill 3000 people on that day of 9/11.

Yes moose, and that is why Bush and bi-partisan group of our Reps, under direction from our Supreme Court established the rules to establish and administer that justice. Those rules were then voted on by the full House and Senate, and was passed overwhelmingly. Bush then signed the Bill, and directed the military to carry it out.

Maybe you can explain to all of us how this process, and it’s results are “Un-American.”

Obama and Holder have now usurped that authority without consulting the House or the Senate.
THAT action is the definition of UnAmerican, because of their unilateral action in ignoring the law made by the House, Senate, and signed by a president, and OKed by the court.

As a side-note, hundreds of cases, if not thousands were carried out in a similar manner during and after WW2. Those cases were used as a model for the first version of tribunals, and after small changes, we have established the present version…

Do you not find it in the least bit strange that not all of the illegal combatants are being brought to civil-court?
Ask yourself why only these 4 men?

Ask yourself why military tribunals are still going forward for the others if they are so “UnAmerican?

If under the right scenario or technicality, KSM and friends are found not guilty, will they be set free?

No. They won’t…

Why?

Because Obama has the option of keeping these combatants under lock and key even if they are found not-guilty!

Is that “American” enough for you?

New York becomes the biggest terror target on the planet … How cool is that. Every two bit al Qaeda type will want to join the show, not just in the city, but the ‘burbs as well. Get your name in lights.

Remeber what one al Qaeda wanna be did to WDC?

These trials to be held in New York have nothing to do with the terrorist. These trials are to convict the Bush Administration of what ever crimes Obama and Holder believe they have committed. This is plain old politics rearing it’s ugly head with destruction of our country as it’s real objective. These trials will make a Chinese fire drill look like it’s organized.

While I agree the intent is to embarrass Bush, and America, the terrorist will see the Chinese fire drill trials as a way to get headlines …

Can’t wait until we can put Obama on trial.

Our Dear Reader is sure a BowWow.

Were any of the Gitmo prisoners Mirandized?? If not do they walk in NY?

We get it. Obama is not Bush. Here are nine differences:

Bush had 4% (7% at end of term) unemployment – Obama has 10.2%.

Bush was decisive about sending troops – Obama is not.

Bush increased the debt – and Obama outdid him by 10 times.

Bush was more of a free marketer – and Obama is more of a socialist.

Bush never bowed to a foreign leader – Obama so does regularly.

Bush never apologized for America – Obama so does regularly.

Bush respects the troops – Obama does not.

Bush is a church going Christian – Obama is not.

Bush made errors of judgment – Obama has a well thought out plan of destruction for America.

@ Patvann

You wrote:

“Yes moose, and that is why Bush and bi-partisan group of our Reps, under direction from our Supreme Court established the rules to establish and administer that justice. Those rules were then voted on by the full House and Senate, and was passed overwhelmingly. Bush then signed the Bill, and directed the military to carry it out.”

This is simply false and misleading. False because the Supreme Court did not provide any “direction” on that legislation; that is simply not its role. In addition, you conveniently failed to mention that that same Supreme Court ruled the statute unconstitutional, in part. So why you think it is “better” to try these people under a still-untested military tribunal statute, as opposed to the regular bread and butter federal criminal statute, is beyond me.

I repeat — I do not recall a hue and cry from conservatives when Bush tried the other al Queda members and 9/11 conspirators in federal court.

WHY HAVE YOU CONSERVATIVES CHANGED YOUR MIND ON WHETHER IT IS A GOOD IDEA?

You keep ducking my question, but I am going to keep asking it. Your refusal to answer points out the obvious: it is the right wing that is politicizing this thing, not Obama.

@ Red 73 —

You forgot some other distinctions, too:

Bush’s predecessor left him a balanced budget; Obama’s did not.

Bush expanded entitlements by signing a drug bill that added to the deficit; Obama has not.

Bush’s predecessor left office with an economy that was on the edge of recession; Obama’s predecessor left office with an economy more than a year into recession.

Comparing the hand Bush was dealt to the hand that Obama was is comparing apples to water bottles: sure, they are both solid and contain water. But the comparison ends there.

C’mon — let’s face facts. Bush SUCKED as president. I tend to believe it is because he selected too many “good Republicans” who were loyal governors but incompetent managers. It happens. But he has NO EXCUSES for running the deficits he ran, then handed off to Obama. Add in the fact that he overreacted on Iraq (because 9/11 happened on his watch) and you have an easy explanation for much of what went wrong with his presidency. He is, in effect, the GOP’s Jimmy Carter. No amount of Obama bashing will make Bush look any better.

@ bill-tb —

“New York becomes the biggest terror target on the planet … How cool is that.”

I think you must have been asleep the last 16 years. It already is.

@B-Rob:

Bush’s predecessor left him a balanced budget; Obama’s did not.

That, is a myth.

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

http://www.sbstatesman.com/2.870/the-clinton-surplus-myth-1.35974

B-Rob

I’m not trying to make Bush anything but what he was as president, but the worst president in modern history was Carter, hands down. He is also the worst former president.

I was never a big fan of either Bush, no conservative was, but they were better than the alternative available at the time. Dukakis or Gore – please, give me a break.

What was September 11th? Chopped liver. That did take one or two dollars from the budget and put a couple of bucks in the deficit. That ‘into the future surplus’ budget fantasy is simply liberals’ inability to see the economy as anything but static, and it is, in reality, anything but static.

You are asleep at the wheel or still have your head where the sun does not shine. Have you looked at the deficit lately and who spent all that stimulus money that only stimulated short -term government jobs?

Were you too young to remember the screaming by Republicans and Conservatives about Bush’s drug bill?

Stop rewriting history. I’ll give you this though; there is no comparison between Obama and Bush, but not for the reasons you think.