03 December 2001
Debate on Military Tribunals Intensifies
(Poll reveals most Americans support government initiatives) (590)
By Stephen Kaufman
Washington File Staff Writer
Washington -- The Bush administration, leading U.S. lawmakers and the
U.S. press continue to debate whether President Bush's proposal to try
suspected terrorists in military tribunals violates traditional U.S.
civil liberties.
President Bush affirmed the U.S. is an open society that values
freedom, but cautioned, "we must not let foreign enemies use the
forums of liberty to destroy liberty itself."
"If I determine that it is in the national security interest of our
great land to try by military commission those who make war on
America, then we will do so. We will act with fairness, and we will
deliver justice, which is far more than the terrorists ever grant to
their innocent victims," the president said November 29.
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said any suspects to be tried by a
military tribunal would be chosen by the president on a case-by-case
basis.
"He'll use his judgment about what best protects the national security
for those limited cases, if any develop, where he chooses to exercise
the option of convening a military tribunal," Fleischer said on
November 29.
In a November 30 New York Times op-ed piece, White House Council
Alberto Gonzales outlined the Administration's argument of why the
tribunals would provide important advantages over civilian trials.
"They spare American jurors, judges and courts the grave risks
associated with terrorist trials. They allow the government to use
classified information as evidence without compromising intelligence
or military efforts. They can dispense justice swiftly, close to where
our forces may be fighting, without years of pretrial proceedings or
post-trial appeals," wrote Gonzales.
Criticism has intensified against the proposed military tribunals from
several Congressional leaders from both the Republican and Democratic
parties. Senator Patrick Leahy (Democrat-Vermont), chairman of the
Senate Judiciary Committee, began hearings November 28 on whether the
proposed tribunals and other recent law enforcement measures have
exceeded U.S. legal bounds.
"Secret trials and lack of judicial oversight can breed injustice and
taint the legitimacy of verdicts. Our procedural protections are not
simply inconvenient impediments to convicting and punishing guilty
people. They also promote accurate and just verdicts," said Leahy in a
prepared statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee November 28.
The hearings will resume December 4. Attorney General John Ashcroft is
expected to testify before the Committee December 6.
New York Times writer Anthony Lewis described the president's order
creating the tribunals as "the broadest move in American history to
sweep aside constitutional protections."
"There is the greatest danger of the Bush order. It was an act of
executive fiat, imposed without even consulting Congress. And it seeks
to exclude the courts entirely from a process that may fundamentally
affect life and liberty," wrote Lewis in a November 30 New York Times
column entitled "Wake Up, America."
However, the U.S. public has given its support to the president's
military tribunal plan. A November 29 poll by the Washington Post and
ABC News found that 59 percent of those surveyed thought non-U.S.
citizens charged with terrorism should be tried by military panels,
rather than in the U.S. court system. Seven in 10 also believed the
government was doing enough to protect the civil rights of suspected
terrorists.
The results were not surprising to political scientist George Marcus,
who pointed out to the Washington Post on November 29 that during
periods of crisis and high stress, "support for civil liberties goes
down," when compared to security concerns.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
