PRESIDENT Bush is entirely correct in calling for military trials of suspected terrorists. Although liberals may whine about abuses of civil liberties, the issue is key to national security and fighting the war on terrorism.
Nov. 13, President Bush declared an "extraordinary emergency" that empowered him to order military trials for suspected terrorists. The presidential directive applies only to non-U.S. citizens, and the president himself would decide what defendants would be tried by military tribunals. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld would appoint each panel and set its rules and procedures. The logic of the military tribunals is that suspected terrorists can be brought to justice quickly. According to White House communications director Dan Bartlett, the trials also would protect jurors and other court personnel as well as protect confidential sources needed to build other investigations and prevent future attacks ("Military May Try Terrorism Cases," The Washington Post, Nov. 14).
The Washington Post'sNov. 26 lead editorial articulated many of the fears and complaints of civil libertarians. The editorial says, "If the military commissions Mr. Bush's order contemplates are used widely, innocent people will likely be convicted and punished." The most striking question raised by this argument is why, if the military was conducting trials, would it be more likely than in a normal criminal trial that innocent people will be convicted? This absurd logic that allowing the military to try non-citizens rather than a jury trial will result in worse judicial decisions is ludicrous. American courts are far from perfect, and because of the national security crisis, we need to rethink the way this country does things.
George F. Will notes that according to the Oct. 3 Washington Post, the government of Sudan, home to Osama bin Laden at the time, offered to arrest him in 1996 and place him in Saudi custody for extradition to the United States. But the Saudis could not be persuaded to take him, and the Clinton administration decided that it did not have enough evidence to indict him in U.S. courts.
Will notes, that this "may have been true, given that the rules of the criminal justice system are designed for dealing with burglars, embezzlers, violent individuals and the like." The criminal justice system in this country is not designed to deal with international terrorists ("Trials and Terrorists," The Washington Post, Nov. 22).
The amazing thing is that people would even question Bush's decision because they are worried about civil liberties. Considering the general incompetence of the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency before Sept. 11 in not noticing the biggest terrorist plot in American history, these agencies obviously need all of the help that they can get. Military trials assure a level of security and confidentiality which the American criminal justice system lacks.
One snag in Bush's plan is the reluctance of certain American allies to extradite their terrorist suspects because they are worried about the military tribunals. Spain apparently has decided not to extradite a group of al-Qaeda suspects it has in custody unless the United States promises a non-military court trial and no death penalty. Bush is confident that he will be able to convince the president of Spain that the military tribunals are a good idea. Spain is a country which was a fascist dictatorship for much of the twentieth century, yet the fact that it has the gall to tell the United States about a fair criminal justice system is ridiculous. Hopefully Spain and other European countries will see Bush's logic, that the military trials are intended to be just as fair as normal trials, but allow for more security and confidentiality ("Bush Touts Use of Military Courts," Associated Press, Nov. 26).
The last time the United States was attacked was World War II. Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered a secret military trial for eight Nazi saboteurs who had landed in New York and Florida with explosives in an attempt to commit terrorist acts. The Supreme Court declared the trial constitutional, and six of the eight defendants were executed. Now Bush is in a similar situation. Those people who claim that our present war on terrorism is different than World War II because we have not declared war are missing the point. The United States certainly would have declared war if a specific country had committed the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. Regardless, the American military still is conducting operations in Afghanistan, and one would assume that if someone asked a Taliban commander if the United States was at war with them, he would say yes.
President Bush made the pragmatic decision in calling for military tribunals. If the trials are fair, which there is no reason they should not be, justice will prevail.
(Harris Freier's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at hfreier@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 22 hours agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | YesterdayAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 6 days agoEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
