http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/30/opinion/30LEWI.html <i>Wake Up, America By ANTHONY LEWIS BOSTON - It is the broadest move in American history to sweep aside constitutional protections. Yet President Bush's order creating military tribunals to try those suspected of links to terrorism has aroused little public uproar. Why? Because, I am convinced, people do not understand the order's dangerous breadth — and its defenders have done their best to conceal its true character. The order is described as if it is aimed only at Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders. A former deputy attorney general, George J. Terwilliger III, said the masterminds of the Sept. 11 attacks "don't deserve constitutional protection." But the Bush order covers all noncitizens, and there are about 20 million of them in the United States — immigrants working toward citizenship, visitors and the like. Not one or 100 or 1,000 but 20 million. And the order is not directed only at those who mastermind or participate in acts of terrorism. In the vaguest terms, it covers such things as "harboring" anyone who has ever aided acts of terrorism that might have had "adverse effects" on the U.S. economy or foreign policy. Many onetime terrorists — Menachem Begin, Nelson Mandela, Gerry Adams — regarded at the time as adverse to U.S. interests, have been "harbored" by Americans. Apologists have also argued that the Bush military tribunals will give defendants enough rights. A State Department spokeswoman, Jo-Anne Prokopowicz, said that they would have rights "similar to those" found in the Hague war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. To the contrary, Hague defendants like Slobodan Milosevic are entitled to public trials before independent judges, and to lawyers of their choice. The Bush military trials are to be in secret, before officers who are subordinate to officials bringing the charges; defendants will not be able to pick their own lawyers. And, unlike the Hague defendants, they may be executed. The Sixth Amendment provides: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury. . . ." That covers citizens and noncitizens in this country alike. On a few occasions, acts of war have been treated as outside Sixth Amendment protection. Roosevelt set up a military tribunal to try Nazi saboteurs landed on our shores in World War II. But that example — a tribunal for a particular occasion, limited in time and scope — shows the very danger of the Bush order. It is unlimited, in a fight against terrorism that could go on for years. "It's worth remembering that the order applies only to noncitizens," a Wall Street Journal editorial said. I hope The Journal's editors, who are usually supportive of immigrants and their role in building this country, will consider the pall of fear this order may put on millions of noncitizens. And the Bush order could easily be extended to citizens, under the administration's legal theory. Since the Sixth Amendment makes no distinction between citizens and aliens, the claim of war exigency could sweep its protections aside for anyone in this country who might fit the vague definitions of aiding terrorism. But George W. Bush would never let his order be abused, one of its defenders said the other day. It was a profoundly un-American comment. From the beginning, Americans have refused to rely on the graciousness of our leaders. We rely on legal rules. That is what John Adams meant when he said we have "a government of laws, and not of men." The Framers of our Constitution thought its great protection against tyranny was the separation of the federal government's powers into three departments: executive, legislative, judicial. Each, they reasoned, would check abuse by the others. 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. The order says that a defendant "shall not be privileged to seek any remedy . . . in any court," domestic or foreign. I do not doubt that leaders of Al Qaeda could properly be tried by a military tribunal. But the Bush order cries out for redrafting in narrower, more careful terms. Under the Constitution, that is the duty of Congress. Its leaders have so far been afraid to challenge anything labeled antiterrorist, however dangerous. It is time they showed some courage, on behalf of our constitutional system.</i>
The old "devious motives" card. Good one. Have you guys heard the one about how gay Boy Scout leaders are only in it because they're pederasts?
like how?.....hmmmmm. I know: <i>Anyone who is not a citizen and is Arab looking (or Indian,,,who can tell the difference?) and is on a crusade against the tyranny of infidels (we'll define that later in a new subcommittee and congressional office--surely there's room in the budget for that) shall lose their Bill of Rights protection against prosecution.</i>
Thanks for posting this Jeff. While I don't really believe that Bush is out to become a tyrant, I think that he fails to see that civil liberties are set up to protect the innocent. I'm not worried about how the terrorists are treated - I'm worried about how those who have been picked up mistakenly are treated. Innocent people are tried and convicted all the time in this country in fair courts. I am not any more optimistic about their chances in these military tribunals. Like Mr. Lewis mentioned, this is a country of laws. We all have our prejudices and biases, but the law helps temper them. Bush may not have totalitarian dreams, but that doesn't mean someone else won't.
I understand the need for secrecy and have no problem with that. I do have a problem with the fact that the suspect can't pick his own lawyer. That just reeks of fraud. I also have a problem with the "rules of evidence" being changed to be far more lenient (such as allowing hearsay). The point of the rules of evidence is to ensure that we don't convict innocent people on suspect evidence. It seems to me we are now saying that its OK to convict innocent people here and there. Law enforcement has shown that it will do shady/suspect things to get convictions. The only protection against this has been that it's illegal and those convictions get overturned. Now, we're basically making it OK. That's really sad and quite scary.
Guilty until proven Guilty Why bother with the trial, might as well execute them as soon as they are suspected.
There are a lot of points that this article fails to mention. First, not one, much less 20 million non-citizens have been put on trial in one of these tribunals. Secondly, non-citizens have no constitutional right to be here, they can leave at any time if they don't like our laws. Thirdly, hearsay is allowed in US military justice. If it's good enough for our military, it's good enough for terrorists. Fourthly, it is a fact that bin Laden received information on our intelligence techniques from prior trials, thus hurting our abilities to track this guy. That is in part why these trials are to be held secretly. Fifthly, if there is such a word as fifthly, the writer fails to realize the security consequences for jurors, judges, court employees etc. if there were to be public trials for members of these groups. Some of the people involved in the first WTC trial STILL require security for their safety and will probably always be at risk from terrorists. And finally, why do people go to the "framers intention" card when they're making an argument like this. If the framers were alive today to live through 9/11, every Muslim in the country would be in jail or deported. Let's be real now.
Timing, I haven't seen anyone argue about the secrecy aspect of the law. That makes some sense. But the rest of what you posted makes no sense. "If they don't like our laws they can leave?" How would you like to be tried, convicted, and executed in a foreign country based on trumped-up charges and faulty or non-existant evidence? Visiting relatives or going to school in a foreign country are not the sort of acts that should subject you to penalty. Foreign does not equal bad. Further, the "it hasn't happened yet" argument doesn't hold much water for me, since the order is brand-new. Sooner or later, someone will be subject to this travesty of a law, and I think that stinks. I don't think the intent behind the order was bad, I just think it was poorly (and overbroadly) drafted.
What makes people think the this Administration has the time or the inclination to go after innocent people to the extent of punishing them with the death penalty? Aren't they busy enough? So much of the public outspokenness against this choice seems like so much stinking public posturing. It makes me sick. There are many, many (overwhelmingly many) reasons to proceed with military tribunals instead of criminal court. The primary reason not to is to protect the rights of those who aren't even citizens. We owe them nothing. The Taliban tried and executed a guy accused of being a Western spy in a single day, I believe. Now there's justice. Quit harping on the U.S. We are the greatest! Patrick Leahy sucks......
What trumped up charges and faulty evidence? Military courts are still courts even if they don't have the rules of civilian courts. We have US military people convicted in military courts every day. Military courts aren't a sham, they simply operate under different rules. The first time a foreigner is put to death for simply attending school here then maybe you'll have a point on that front.
Wrong. By that time we'll have a scandal on our hand, one that will be an international relations disaster. An ounce of prevention is worth a ton of medicine. Rich Rocket, The government isn't going to go after people who they think are innocent. But they might go after an innocent person that they think is guilty. It happens all the time in this country. And by taking away the accused legal rights, there's an even greater risk that this person will be falsely convicted. I realize that there's a danger to due process. But that danger's always been there, and we've faced foes who are far more formidable that the current crop. Yet this country hasn't fallen to terrorists, spies or other anti-American forces. Maybe we should show a little more faith in our legal system before delaring it inadequate to deal with today's terrorists.
You know what I found scary? Bush saying that he won't let them use "the forms of our liberty to destroy our liberty." I actually don't have a problem with military tribunals. We are at war, and that seems appropriate to me. But that statement can be used to justify almost anything. And if Bush really means that, then they've already destroyed our liberty. That's like saying "we're free..." until we have to pay a price for that freedom. Being a more just society than the Taliban isn't exactly saying much. RR: You're smarter than a gerbil. See what I mean?
<B>What makes people think the this Administration has the time or the inclination to go after innocent people to the extent of punishing them with the death penalty? </B> Since the government is so busy, what makes you think the government will take the time to actually make sure these people are guilty when they can now execute them without actually proving it? <B>So much of the public outspokenness against this choice seems like so much stinking public posturing. It makes me sick. </B> Yeah, there's no way people may actually be concerned about their government's actions. It's just posturing. <B>The primary reason not to is to protect the rights of those who aren't even citizens. We owe them nothing. </B> You're kidding, right? These people pay taxes just like you and I. They contribute to the economy just like we do. They interact in society just like the rest of us. They are here legally and openly be the American government. Our laws protect them just like they protect you or me. <B>The Taliban tried and executed a guy accused of being a Western spy in a single day, I believe. Now there's justice. Quit harping on the U.S. We are the greatest! </B> Excellent. We're better than the Taliban!!! Something to be very proud of. Why don't we use this logic for everything? America is the greatest, so everything we do is right. You should be for abortion then too, since that's legal here, and we're the greatest!
<b>haven</b>: As a rat, do you know how smart gerbils are? I'm not saying that critics of the US policy are comparing it to The Taliban. I'm pre-empitng any opportunity for any kind of comparison. Thanks for giving the benefit of the doubt.... again! I feel elevated! <b>shanna</b>: "Since the government is so busy, what makes you think the government will take the time to actually make sure these people are guilty when they can now execute them without actually proving it?" <b>RR</b>: Are you paranoid or what? <b>shanna</b>: "Yeah, there's no way people may actually be concerned about their government's actions. It's just posturing." <b>RR</b>: Does it make you feel good to be distrustful of your own government? As a right-wing "fanatic," I'm the one that's supposed to feel that way! Quit hogging... <b>shanna</b>: "You're kidding, right? These people pay taxes just like you and I. They contribute to the economy just like we do. They interact in society just like the rest of us. They are here legally and openly be the American government. Our laws protect them just like they protect you or me." <b>RR</b>: I don't give a rat's ass about someone who is here "legally and openly" and is conspiring to commit terrorism against American citizens and American targets. If they are innocent, most will walk free. Better to have nominal "collateral damage" in a system of military justice than on the battlefield or Manhattan Island. <b>shanna</b>: "Excellent. We're better than the Taliban!!! Something to be very proud of. Why don't we use this logic for everything? America is the greatest, so everything we do is right. You should be for abortion then too, since that's legal here, and we're the greatest!" <b>RR</b>: Re-read my response to haven. You're being silly! Abortion on demand was once illegal and will again be illegal one day I predict. Those are some more innocents being slaughtered. I never said that everything we do is right-- but most things are. Try not to take my cheerleading too seriously.... just to prove your point, okay?
RR: You're begging the question. The problem with your argument is still that the US having a "superior" human rights record doesn't justify violations of human rights. Comparing us to the Taliban may be ridiculous, but your argument is flawed regardless of WHO you compare us to. Incidentally, I think you're right that abortion may one day be illegal again. But that, too, will be temporary. Society is simply too secular to ban it for long. And I really don't see permanent rennaissance of religion in a post-modern society. The problem is, Anselmian proofs of God are dead. Even intellectuals who believe in God admit they're taking a fundamental leap of faith. Therefore, you still can't escape prespectivalism. post-modernity is here to stay .
<B>Are you paranoid or what? </B> You do realize our government has a history of doing & condoning all sorts of unethical and illegal practices, right? Do you not remember the syphillis tests? McCarthyism? Do you not think there are reasons we have search & seizure laws? Privacy laws? If you think the government is perfect, well, we'll just have to disagree on this topic. The reason we have all these laws is to ensure that the people are protected. Here, we're throwing all of that out to make it easier to get some bad guys (some really really bad guys). <B>Does it make you feel good to be distrustful of your own government? As a right-wing "fanatic," I'm the one that's supposed to feel that way! Quit hogging... </B> That brings up an interesting question. You don't want the government to take away our rights to own guns (to protect us from the government?), but you have no problem with them giving them the power to try & execute people at-will? <B>I don't give a rat's ass about someone who is here "legally and openly" and is conspiring to commit terrorism against American citizens and American targets. If they are innocent, most will walk free. </B> How will we know they are innocent? They don't have a lawyer who speaks for them. None of the evidence is public. The evidence doesn't even have to be accurate -- hearsay or whatnot is sufficient. This law doesn't effect the people we know are terrorists -- we already have valid evidence for those people. It affects the people that might just be terrorists. The problem is that THEY MIGHT NOT BE, yet we can execute them just the same because they could possibly be terrorists. Even using only VALID evidence, our courts convict people to wrongly every day (DNA & other "later-found" evidence proves much of this). Can you imagine if we didn't need to prove that people committed murder to convict them? What kind of terrible success rate would we have then? There's no check on this new power. Congress didn't even approve it. This lets the government basically eliminate anyone they want to, as long as they are not a citizen. Will they do it? We'd assume not, but why the hell are we giving a government the power to even think about it? (Give them a bad lawyer, make up some evidence -- it doesn't have to be proven, and the guy is dead) <B>I never said that everything we do is right-- but most things are. </B> I agree. I think this is one of those things that is very, very wrong.
My concern for and with civil liberties is pretty much summed up in one sentence: Once we give up on some of them, it is VERY difficult if not impossible to get them back. That is always my concern. Once we hand a certain amount of power over to someone, it is hard to wrest that power away from them. Every society has examples of the trials and struggles needed to free themselves from different forms of oppression. My concern here is that someone innocent will suffer. No matter how terrible the crimes were that were committed, if one innocent person suffers and/or dies in the name of bringing criminals to justice, we, as a country and a society, have failed. Just as many screamed that we are a "country of laws" during the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal, we should not be afraid to hold this up to that same level of scrutiny. I might add that liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats have voiced concern over this, so it isn't just one end of the political or socio-political spectrum.
<b>haven</b>; Well I have a problem with trial by military tribunal being equated with a human rights violation. I know that we have used the incidence of that to point fingers at other nations, but isn't it just part of a laundry list of wrong-doings of which they are guilty. In isolation, it doesn't stand up in our nation WHICH IS WHY WE ARE THE GREATEST!!!!! <b>shanna</b>: I never said the government was perfect. I do think it is more likely to be more benevolent than ever, though, because of the sophistication of the press attention and the immediacy of news. Protection from the government is not the only, and maybe not even the primary, reason to own guns. I don't even own a gun but if I did that would be about the furthest thing from my mind. You are attributing the militia mentality to everyone who is pro-gun. Is that fair? Did you not notice that this new "power" didn't arise until we were openly victimized by a brand and scale of terrorism that the world has never seen. New solutions are needed for new problems. What possible interest could the government have in falsely accusing and convicting innocent people? You talk about the government "eliminating people" as if they were Josef Stalin. Big stretch and bad coloration I say. As I said before, I'd rather have "collateral damage" in a military tribunal than at the Sears Tower or the Rose Bowl on New Year''s Day. We'll never know how right this move will have been because we'll never know how many lives and properties it saved. <B>Jeff</b>: It will be interesting to see how this works out over time. When will we know that the threat is passed? It was 8 years between attempts on the WTC.
RichRocket: I don't have a problem with military tribunals, as I indicated above Jeff: Our track record is pretty good about that, actually. Civil liberties have been suspended during several wars in the past, and they've always been reinstated.
<b>As I said before, I'd rather have "collateral damage" in a military tribunal than at the Sears Tower or the Rose Bowl on New Year''s Day. We'll never know how right this move will have been because we'll never know how many lives and properties it saved.</b> That may work for you unless the "collateral damage" is a loved one. I mean, what if people who just happen to espouse different political viewpoints become collateral damage even though they had nothing to do with the attack? We would never even know it happened because none of the information has to be disclosed. <b>Jeff: It will be interesting to see how this works out over time. When will we know that the threat is passed? It was 8 years between attempts on the WTC.</b> Agreed. Frankly, we have had a terrorist threat since the 70's. This threat isn't new. The terrorists were just more effective in hitting a big tartget this time around and it shocked and scared people to such a degree that they were/are willing to give up anything and everything to feel safe. Eliminating every person in the world that hates us is not possible.
