thedrifter
01-23-07, 02:39 PM
Nathan Hale Died for a Dumb Nation
Written by John Armor
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
A Google News search for terrorist, rules and trials turned up 353 articles on the regulations just established for the trials of terrorists by military tribunals. The leading articles were by the New York Times and the BBC. Interestingly, none of them mentioned Nathan Hale.
The articles get in a high dudgeon because terrorists can be tried “based on hearsay,” and might be “executed.” Most importantly, all of these writers and editors act as if this were a brand-new phenomenon. Apparently both history education and books are in short supply in the mainstream media.
Let's review.
Nathan Hale was hanged by the British in 1776 as a spy. On his first assignment he revealed his mission to a lady who was a British spy. He made a memorable statement just before his execution, “I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country,”
Compare that with the execution of Major John Andre by the Americans in 1780. Andre was captured behind American lines in civilian clothes. Hidden in his boot was the plan for the betrayal of the garrison at West Point by General Benedict Arnold. Arnold got word of Andrea's capture, and fled to the British lines. Andre was convicted as an “illegal combatant,” and hanged.
What relevance do these two trials and execution have to do with the events of this week? They are foursquare examples of the conduct of such trials. They happened under the Law of War, centuries old at the time of the American Revolution and still which applies today.
Under the Law of War, which has been carried forward under all four of the Geneva Conventions, and its predecessors, soldiers captured in uniform were held for the duration and then released when the war ended. However, spies and illegal combatants received different treatment. Illegal combatants were fighters who wore no uniforms, were not in units subject to military discipline, and hid among the civilian population.
Such individuals could be executed on the spot. At best, however, they received “drum head” trials. These were the predecessors of the military tribunals which have been used on occasion in every major war the US has ever fought.
For instance, when General Washington tried Major Andre, the hearing took place at Washington's headquarters, hearsay evidence was received, and after a short hearing, Andre was sentenced to death with no appeal.
Should anyone think this ancient history has no application today, consider what the US did, and the Supreme Court ruled, in 1942. Eight German saboteurs entered the US from two submarines, with money and plans to plant bombs in various US locations. They were tried by a military tribunal. All were found guilty, and two were sentenced to death. (Two argued, unsuccessfully, that as US citizens they were not subject to such tribunals.)
In the Quirin case, the unanimous Court found this constitutional. Congress incorporated the Law of War into the military code of the US in 1789. And try as it might, the current Supreme Court could not abandon the Quirin case in its recent decisions.
Were US citizens, or at least its reporters who are the eyes and ears of the public, had sufficient education in our military history, this week's stories would have been quite different. It seems that Nathan Hale died for a nation that is (becoming) rather dumb.
Ellie
Written by John Armor
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
A Google News search for terrorist, rules and trials turned up 353 articles on the regulations just established for the trials of terrorists by military tribunals. The leading articles were by the New York Times and the BBC. Interestingly, none of them mentioned Nathan Hale.
The articles get in a high dudgeon because terrorists can be tried “based on hearsay,” and might be “executed.” Most importantly, all of these writers and editors act as if this were a brand-new phenomenon. Apparently both history education and books are in short supply in the mainstream media.
Let's review.
Nathan Hale was hanged by the British in 1776 as a spy. On his first assignment he revealed his mission to a lady who was a British spy. He made a memorable statement just before his execution, “I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country,”
Compare that with the execution of Major John Andre by the Americans in 1780. Andre was captured behind American lines in civilian clothes. Hidden in his boot was the plan for the betrayal of the garrison at West Point by General Benedict Arnold. Arnold got word of Andrea's capture, and fled to the British lines. Andre was convicted as an “illegal combatant,” and hanged.
What relevance do these two trials and execution have to do with the events of this week? They are foursquare examples of the conduct of such trials. They happened under the Law of War, centuries old at the time of the American Revolution and still which applies today.
Under the Law of War, which has been carried forward under all four of the Geneva Conventions, and its predecessors, soldiers captured in uniform were held for the duration and then released when the war ended. However, spies and illegal combatants received different treatment. Illegal combatants were fighters who wore no uniforms, were not in units subject to military discipline, and hid among the civilian population.
Such individuals could be executed on the spot. At best, however, they received “drum head” trials. These were the predecessors of the military tribunals which have been used on occasion in every major war the US has ever fought.
For instance, when General Washington tried Major Andre, the hearing took place at Washington's headquarters, hearsay evidence was received, and after a short hearing, Andre was sentenced to death with no appeal.
Should anyone think this ancient history has no application today, consider what the US did, and the Supreme Court ruled, in 1942. Eight German saboteurs entered the US from two submarines, with money and plans to plant bombs in various US locations. They were tried by a military tribunal. All were found guilty, and two were sentenced to death. (Two argued, unsuccessfully, that as US citizens they were not subject to such tribunals.)
In the Quirin case, the unanimous Court found this constitutional. Congress incorporated the Law of War into the military code of the US in 1789. And try as it might, the current Supreme Court could not abandon the Quirin case in its recent decisions.
Were US citizens, or at least its reporters who are the eyes and ears of the public, had sufficient education in our military history, this week's stories would have been quite different. It seems that Nathan Hale died for a nation that is (becoming) rather dumb.
Ellie