Military Tribunal Rules Violate the Rule of Law
The government giveth and the government taketh away. Sometimes it does so
simultaneously.
When the Bush administration announced it would hold military tribunals for
captured Taliban and al-Qaeda members, concern about the un-America nature
of the proceedings were so loud the Pentagon was forced to go back to the
drawing board to fine-tune the plan. When the modified rules were released
recently, some critics breathed a sigh of relief. Even congressional
critics were muted.
The Los Angeles Times editorialized that the new rules "moved the
adjudication of the cases closer to this nation's ideals, including the rule
of law." The Wall Street Journal gloated that the critics should have
waited, thus avoiding the egg now on their faces: "With the Pentagon's
release yesterday of the tribunal regulations, the critics look more out of
touch than ever."
Well, not so fast. The same day that the Journal ran that editorial, the
papers were carrying the latest news from the administration. The New York
Times reported that the detainees may be held indefinitely--even if they are
acquitted in a military tribunal. The Times report quotes Pentagon lawyer
William J. Haynes II: "If we had a trial right this minute, it is
conceivable that somebody could be tried and acquitted of that charge but
may not necessarily automatically be released."
Let that sink in: acquittal would not mean release. Why? Because these are
"dangerous" people, Haynes says. How's that a for a commitment to "this
nation's ideals, including the rule of law." It appears the critics of
military tribunals were not premature in voicing their concerns.
All this makes Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld look a little silly when he
says, "If one steps back from examining the procedures provision by
provision and instead drops a plumb line down through the center of them
all, we believe that most people will find that, taken together, they are
fair and balanced and that justice will be served in their application."
Government spokesmen intone about incarcerating violent people for the
"duration of the conflict." The trouble, of course, is that "the conflict"
refers to an open-ended war against a nebulous abstraction: terrorism. The
government is thus claiming the authority to hold acquitted individuals
until they die and therefore no longer dangerous. This not something I
identify with the American Way.
Very little about this war would satisfy the nation's founders. President
Bush exploited the justified anger against the terrorist attacks on the
World Trade Center to get a blank check to use force against anyone he
believes is a threat to the United States. It's either checks and balances
or blank checks. We can't have it both ways.
Ah, but we want it both ways--the ways of empire and the ways of
constitutional republic. Sorry, it can't be done. Bush acknowledged that
implicitly when he refused to ask Congress for a formal declaration of war.
Majority Leader Tom Daschle did the same when he said Bush would not need
congressional authorization to attack Iraq.
And the president left no doubt when he announced in his state of the Union
address that what began as a narrowly defined effort to stop terrorism aimed
at the American people had mutated into a campaign to rid the world of all
evil no matter where. The "axis of evil" figment, ridiculed from so many
quarters, is correctly interpreted as an imperial program pure and simple.
Without evidence that Iraq, Iran, and North Korea had anything to do with
the September 11 attacks, they are now on the list of "next targets." Why?
Because they may be trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. And what
of those nations that already have such weapons--India, Pakistan, China,
Russia, Israel? And those authoritarian allies that oppress their own
people? Morocco, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, ad infinitum? We overlook
that.
By now you might have the impression that foreign policy is cynicism writ
large. You'd be right.
Sheldon Richman is a senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, Va., author of Tethered Citizens: Why We Must Abolish the Welfare State, and editor of Ideas on Liberty magazine.
Also by Sheldon Richman
The Multiracial Activist - Count Me Out
The Multiracial Activist - Elian's Fate: It's Not America's Decision
The Multiracial Activist - Reno's Disgrace
The Multiracial Activist - Of, By, And For The People?
The Multiracial Activist - Preventing Holocausts
The Multiracial Activist - Terrorism and the Drug War
The Multiracial Activist - An Unkeepable Promise
The Multiracial Activist - An Astounding Remark
The Multiracial Activist - Self-Inflicted Violence
The Abolitionist Examiner - The Key To Race: Depoliticize It
Book: Your Money or Your Life
Book: Separating School and State
Copyright © 2002 The Future of Freedom Foundation. All rights reserved.
 Add as favourites (32) |  Quote this article on your site | Views: 1226
Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register. Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.6
AkoComment © Copyright 2004 by Arthur Konze - www.mamboportal.com
All right reserved |
Be first to comment this article
