|
The
Case Against Military Tribunals
by
Andrew
P. Napolitano
by Andrew P. Napolitano
Recently by Andrew P. Napolitano: Kiss
Your Freedoms Goodbye If Health Care Passes
In the uproar
caused by Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr.'s announcement that the
alleged planners of the 9/11 attacks are to be tried in U.S. District
Court in New York City, and the suspects in the attack on the U.S.
destroyer Cole will go on trial before military tribunals at Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba, the public discourse has lost sight of the fundamental
principles that guide the government when it makes such decisions.
Unfortunately, the government has lost sight of the principles as
well.
When President
George W. Bush spoke to Congress shortly after 9/11, he did not
ask for a declaration of war. Instead, Republican leaders offered
and Congress enacted an Authorization for the Use of Military Force.
The authorization was open-ended as to its targets and its conclusion,
and basically told the president and his successors that they could
pursue whomever they wanted, wherever their pursuits took them,
so long as they believed that the people they pursued had engaged
in acts of terrorism against the United States. Thus was born the
"war" on terror.
Tellingly,
and perhaps because we did not know at the time precisely who had
planned the 9/11 attacks, Congress did not declare war. But the
use of the word "war" persisted nonetheless. Even after
he learned what countries had sponsored terrorism against us and
our allies with governmental assistance, Bush did not seek a declaration
of war against them. Since 9/11, American agents have captured and
seized nearly 800 people from all over the globe in connection with
the attacks, and now five have been charged with planning them.
Virtually all
of those seized who survived interrogation have been held at Guantanamo
Bay. Bush initially ordered that no law or treaty applied to these
detainees and that no judge could hear their cases, and thus he
could detain whoever he decided was too risky to release and whoever
he was satisfied had participated in terrorist attacks against the
U.S. He made these extra-constitutional claims based, he said, on
the inherent powers of the commander in chief in wartime. But in
the Supreme Court, he lost all five substantive challenges to his
authority brought by detainees. As a result, some detainees had
to be freed, and he and Congress eventually settled for trying some
before military tribunals under the Uniform Code of Military Justice
and subsequent legislation.
The casual
use of the word "war" has lead to a mentality among the
public and even in the government that the rules of war could apply
to those held at Guantanamo. But the rules of war apply only to
those involved in a lawfully declared war, and not to something
that the government merely calls a war. Only Congress can declare
war and thus trigger the panoply of the government's military
powers that come with that declaration. Among those powers is the
ability to use military tribunals to try those who have caused us
harm by violating the rules of war.
The last time
the government used a military tribunal in this country to try foreigners
who violated the rules of war involved Nazi saboteurs during World
War II. They came ashore in Amagansett, N.Y., and Ponte Vedra Beach,
Fla., and donned civilian clothes, with plans to blow up strategic
U.S. targets. They were tried before a military tribunal, and President
Franklin D. Roosevelt based his order to do so on the existence
of a formal congressional declaration of war against Germany.
In Ex Parte
Quirin, the Supreme Court case that eventually upheld the military
trial of these Germans after they had been tried and after six
of the eight defendants had been executed the court declared
that a formal declaration of war is the legal prerequisite to the
government's use of the tools of war. The federal government adhered
to this principle of law from World War II until Bush's understanding
of the Constitution animated government policy.
Read
the rest of the article
December 1, 2009
Andrew P. Napolitano
[send
him mail], a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey,
is the senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel. His next book
is Lies
the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History,
(Nelson, 2010).
Copyright
© 2009 Los Angeles Times
The
Best of Andrew P. Napolitano
|