Democrats Against Military Tribunals?

Dennis Putnam dap1 at MINDSPRING.COM
Tue Dec 11 17:21:53 MST 2001

Hash: SHA1

At 09:22 AM 12/11/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>Forgive me for not just shutting up (I know I
>indicated that I would), but I find at least part of
>the argument Dennis makes to be disingenuous and
>uninformed, and another part to be personally

I was hoping we could agree to disagree.You called me ineducable (the
insult which I politely ignored) and then have the gall to claim I insulted

>I have only "theory?" Just so Dennis and others of his
>ilk might know, the Uniform Code of Military Justice
>is not theory. It embodies U.S. military law. It was
>drafted in 1949, approved in 1950, and took effect on
>May 31, 1951 in the midst of the Korean War. The UCMJ
>was the most comprehensive change in military law in
>America's history, providing service members with
>legal safeguards and establishing a system of judicial
>review comparable to that enjoyed by civilians.

Non-sequitur. The subject is NOT service members but non-citizens captured
in the course of war. I am doubting your understanding of this thread and
the premise now.

>Those honorable men who served in WW II that Dennis
>for some reason "deems" to be his authorities (just
>because they served and perhaps saw the Nuremberg
>trials?) are to be commended for their service, but
>they in all likelihood hardly know anything at all
>about the UCMJ. Neither does Dennis, and it shows.

Nope. They participated on tribunals and I have no reason to believe they
are lieing. Since you don't even know their names I find it odd that
someone who claims to have been insulted when I suggested you had only
theory has no compunction calling people you don't even know liars.


Bottom line is that in a military tribunal, historically, there is no such
thing as an acquittal on technicalities. Rules of evidence do not apply.
All evidence is admissible no matter how it was obtained even if otherwise
in violation the 4th amendment. There is no Maranda requirement for the
accused, there is no right to a speedy trial. The accused can be held
indefinitely without being charged with a crime. There is no right to bail
or an attorney of their own choosing. There is no right to appeal. The list
goes on.

Unless you can provide a situation where a tribunal was forced to acquit
because of constitutional violations I stand by my original understanding
as related to me by WW II tribunal participants. If you are insulted
because I have a different opinion then too bad. Grow thicker skin.

- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Putnam           Public Key can be obtained from:
Loganville, Ga.         <>
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <>


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list