The potential of having to mete out justice to possibly thousands of alien enemy terrorists, or unlawful combatants, who are openly violating the common law of war makes the use of these military proceedings very appealing.The good news, of course, is that by this logic we'll have a proven and ready means of clearing of the backlog of cases that already exist in the citizen's court system. #2) That guy, in the Civil War, who opposed military tribunals, well he was just wrong:
...Lee's view, however, was quickly challenged and overruled. Indeed, Lee was legislated out of a job by Congress, and President Lincoln...Indeed. #3) Bad council:
Rehnquist seems to suggest that if the government had had better counsel it would have prevailed in Milligan.Because, you know, the customer is always right. I am eagerly awaiting the flood of court decisions that will overturned with this argument. I am told that, in some cases, this is actually a valid argument. In this instance, however, it strikes me as a bit of a strech. #4) Nuremberg:
There were hundreds of these proceedings. Many of them - like those at Nuremberg, to mention the obvious - remain models of fairness and justice.It is interesting that we don't hear mention of this one made more often. It is, perhaps, the closest thing to a compelling argument made to date. But not really. There were still those, at the end of World War Two who had lived through the justice meted out on Germany after the First World War and had seen what the economics and political conditions it engendered had given rise to, namely Hitler. There was a real incentive to prove, pretty much to all the parties involved I think, that the war had been fought and won on principles and that those principles extended both to the victor and the vanquished. And the U.S. was gunning up for the Cold War so it needed to make friends with the Axis, some quick. #5) Franky got cake; why can't I? :
Both Lincoln and FDR had the blessings of Congress.This is supposed to be a compelling argument? Congress has also blessed a whole littany of ill-conceived and ridiculous laws in it's long and storied past. Just because Congress says something doesn't mean it's right; that is why laws are sometimes deemed to be unconstitutional. #6) Someone else agrees with me :
For example, as one federal court noted in the 1972 case of Atlee v. Laird...That's great. People say stuff all the time. What was the outcome of this case? Was it overturned? Was the comment even directly related to the case? Anyway, I can name a few people that agree with me too. What's next, the tyranny of the majority?