The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Answer

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Question (see in situ)


I am not a lawyer…yet. But I have heard colleagues in military law and professors confess that the military defendant actual has more protection than does a civilian defendant. For example a soldier is afforded a hearing wherein he is allowed to call witnesses and present evidence and if the judge (a full Colonel) decides there is not enough evidence to try the case the defendant is released. This is not allowed in a civilian grand jury proceeding. Military trials actually do provide the defendant with a jury of his peers because the jurors are all soldiers and sympathetic to the rigors of combat and the decisions that must be made in the heat of close action. In the civilian courts there is no guarantee that a physician or lawyer defendant will have like professionals on his/her jury. The neo-con scare tactic claims of avoiding civilian trials at all costs are absolutely false. If anything, I would have expected them to be arguing the other way! Enemy combatants stand a much better chance of receiving their natural right to Due Process when being judged by their brothers in the Profession of Arms than they ever would in a civilian criminal court which would most likely be out for revenge, have a difficult time untangling criminal action from combat action, and would general be unsympathetic to the mistakes that can be made under the rigors of combat or when under orders from the chain of command. There is every reason to believe that military trials, conducted in accordance with the Constitution and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, would ensure the guilty are punished and the innocent are repatriated once hostilities are ended.

RJ Harris
Constitutional Conservative Republican
US Congressional Candidate
Oklahoma 4th District

RJ Harris
Constitutional Libertarian