March 23, 2003 7:42 AM

Liberty takes a trip down the rabbit hole

America closer to making military tribunals a reality

Foreign terrorists who commit war crimes against the United States, in my judgment, are not entitled to and do not deserve the protections of the American Constitution.

- Atty. General John Ashcroft

Our government is about to open a pandora's box. The institution of military tribunals creates a boatload of potential questions and issues, none of which appear to have been adequately addressed. I wonder sometimes whether we are going to end up watching our civil liberties disappear down the rabbit hole?

WASHINGTON -- With the recent capture of two high-level al-Qaida operatives in Pakistan, an intensified hunt under way for Osama bin Laden and the United States at war with Iraq, the prospect of U.S. military tribunals appears closer than ever.

The Pentagon is expected this month to formally designate the crimes it will seek to prosecute in tribunals, which officially are known as military commissions. It also is preparing to set up offices, designate prosecutors, appoint defense attorneys and establish a review board.

"It certainly suggests that this is more than a mere head game or a formalistic exercise that people have been going through," said Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice and expert on the matter.

Although a year has passed since the first order establishing what would be the first U.S. military tribunals in decades, the idea still bitterly divides the Bush administration and opponents.

Further, several key questions remain unanswered about the creation of a separate system of justice that, critics argue, circumvents the Constitution.

Some of those questions came into focus following the arrest this month of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, described by President Bush as the mastermind behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Also arrested with Mohammed was an alleged al-Qaida paymaster, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hisawi.

Some administration officials reportedly have suggested that Mohammed is a prime candidate for a military tribunal.

When tribunals were first proposed, officials said they would be limited to non-U.S. citizens and terrorist leaders. They said they wanted to use military courts, instead of the civilian justice system, to protect the sources and methods of U.S. intelligence agencies, fearing sensitive information could be released during public trials.

And proponents said they wanted to avoid producing media circuses reminiscent of the O.J. Simpson prosecution.

Of course, the whole question of military tribunals is a slippery slope. Who will be eligible. How will they be used? What about the right of appeal? What systems will be in place to keep them from being used against US citizens? Opponents of the government? Opponents of the war effort? Yankees fans?

I would agree that those foreign nationals who commit acts of terror against the US may not necessarily be entitled to the protections affored US citizens under the Constitution. My question is this: Where do you draw the line? Better yet, WHO draws those lines?

While this may seem a stretch to some, my concern is making certain that tribunals won't end up being used as an instrument of internal political terror. Given the anti-terror hysteria and the inclinations of the Shrub Adminstration, that fear may not be a far-fetched as you might think.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jack Cluth published on March 23, 2003 7:42 AM.

And these maroons expect to be taken seriously? was the previous entry in this blog.

It's not paranoia if they really ARE out to get you is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Contact Me

Powered by Movable Type 5.12