AdamSmith Posted July 22, 2014 Posted July 22, 2014 Browsing in Sen. Sam's utterances sent me to Justice Davis's great Ex parte Milligan decision from 1866. The essence is a ringing defense of core Constitutional protections, only too relevant today. ...The controlling question in the case is this: Upon the facts stated in Milligan's petition, and the exhibits filed, had the military commission mentioned in it jurisdiction, legally, to try and sentence him? Milligan, not a resident of one of the rebellious states, or a prisoner of war, but a citizen of Indiana for twenty years past, and never in the military or naval service, is, while at his home, arrested by the military power of the United States, imprisoned, and, on certain criminal charges preferred against him, tried, convicted, and sentenced to be hanged by a military commission, organized under the direction of the military commander of the military district of Indiana. Had this tribunal the legal power and authority to try and punish this man? No graver question was ever considered by this court, nor one which more nearly concerns the rights of the whole [71 U.S. 2, 119] people; for it is the birthright of every American citizen when charged with crime, to be tried and punished according to law. The power of punishment is, alone through the means which the laws have provided for that purpose, and if they are ineffectual, there is an immunity from punishment, no matter how great an offender the individual may be, or how much his crimes may have shocked the sense of justice of the country, or endangered its safety. By the protection of the law human rights are secured; withdraw that protection, and they are at the mercy of wicked rulers. or the clamor of an excited people. If there was law to justify this military trial, it is not our province to interfere; if there was not, it is our duty to declare the nullity of the whole proceedings. The decision of this question does not depend on argument or judicial precedents, numerous and highly illustrative as they are. These precedents inform us of the extent of the struggle to preserve liberty and to relieve those in civil life from military trials. The founders of our government were familiar with the history of that struggle; and secured in a written constitution every right which the people had wrested from power during a contest of ages. By that Constitution and the laws authorized by it this question must be determined. The provisions of that instrument on the administration of criminal justice are too plain and direct, to leave room for misconstruction or doubt of their true meaning. Those applicable to this case are found in that clause of the original Constitution which says, 'That the trial of all crimes, except in case of impeachment, shall be by jury;' and in the fourth, fifth, and sixth articles of the amendments. The fourth proclaims the right to be secure in person and effects against unreasonable search and seizure; and directs that a judicial warrant shall not issue 'without proof of probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.' The fifth declares 'that no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on presentment by a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger, nor be deprived [71 U.S. 2, 120] of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.' And the sixth guarantees the right of trial by jury, in such manner and with such regulations that with upright judges, impartial juries, and an able bar, the innocent will be saved and the guilty punished. It is in these words: 'In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.' These securities for personal liberty thus embodied, were such as wisdom and experience had demonstrated to be necessary for the protection of those accused of crime. And so strong was the sense of the country of their importance, and so jealous were the people that these rights, highly prized, might be denied them by implication, that when the original Constitution was proposed for adoption it encountered severe opposition; and, but for the belief that it would be so amended as to embrace them, it would never have been ratified. Time has proven the discernment of our ancestors; for even these provisions, expressed in such plain English words, that it would seem the ingenuity of man could not evade them, are now, after the lapse of more than seventy years, sought to be avoided. Those great and good men foresaw that troublous times would arise, when rulers and people would become restive under restraint, and seek by sharp and decisive measures to accomplish ends deemed just and proper; and that the principles of constitutional liberty would be in peril, unless established by irrepealable law. The history of the world had taught them that what was done in the past might be attempted in the future. The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, [71 U.S. 2, 121] and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence; as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority... http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=71&invol=2 TotallyOz 1 Quote
Members MsGuy Posted July 22, 2014 Members Posted July 22, 2014 Hito would doubtlessly point out that Leviathan's minions are, after all, working for the common good and we should just have more trust in their judgement and discretion. One of my law school professors used to point out that it's better that somebody, anybody, hang than the public be left upset that a heinous crime has gone unpunished. AdamSmith and TotallyOz 2 Quote
Members RA1 Posted July 22, 2014 Members Posted July 22, 2014 I am all for hanging the guilty or, as you say, those who the public would be upset about if left undisturbed. Not so sure about those who either state or proclaim to be working for the public good. Bes regards, RA1 Quote
Members MsGuy Posted July 22, 2014 Members Posted July 22, 2014 I am all for hanging ... those who the public would be upset about if left undisturbed. ... Still there's something to be said for getting the right guy. See J'accuse. On the other hand, if the French Army had just executed Dryfus right after his conviction, probably everybody would have been happy. Trust the Frenchies to fuck up a perfectly good public hanging. AdamSmith 1 Quote
Members RA1 Posted July 22, 2014 Members Posted July 22, 2014 I have to agree. That whole affair was so "French-like" which resulted in my being totally confused start to finish in the account. From that rendition, I have no idea who was, should have been or was not guilty. However, I would venture that the French were not the only ones to bugger a public hanging. As was well reported during the time of Dickens, pick pockets freely roamed and plied their business among the crowd watching the hanging of a pick pocket. Best regards, RA1 Quote