Balance of Powers
The January 12 issue of The Weekly Standard carries a welcome cover story conceding that the Bush administration's handling of accused terrorists raises important civil liberties concerns. The title, "Due Process for Terrorists?," suggests another dimwitted screed that assumes the guilt of everyone detained by the government. But the article is refreshingly candid about the administration's failure to address due process complaints that have been raised by conservatives (including former officials of John Ashcroft's Justice Department) as well as left-liberals and libertarians.
The author, Thomas F. Powers, who teaches constitutional law at the University of Minnesota in Duluth, faults "civil libertarian ideologues, partisan opportunists, and a press almost uniformly hostile on these issues" for exaggerating the administration's willingness to trade liberty for security. At the same time, he criticizes the administration for its "haphazard and inconsistent" approach to issues such as the definition of an "enemy combatant," the use of military vs. civilian tribunals, and the processing of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
Powers argues that "the great civil libertarian principle of Ex parte Milligan--the famous Civil War case that retroactively condemned Lincoln's excessive use of military tribunals in the North--should stand: Civilian courts should be preferred wherever possible." His suggestions--including civilian review of Guantanamo cases and a "terrorism court" that would give defendants most of the usual protections while making special provisions for sensitive information and the security of witnesses, judges, and jurors--are worth discussing (although much will hinge on the details). More important is the acknowledgment, by a defender of the Bush administration in a magazine that has enthusiastically supported the War on Terror, that "the American people cannot be expected simply to give the government the benefit of the doubt forever, agreeing that seemingly extralegal measures are justified."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Let's see... If I capture a guy inside a bank who's wearing a mask and waving a gun during the robbery of that bank, I'm supposed to accord him the same rights as though he were pulled off the street and accused of robbing the bank?
DamStrait,
Was the guy pulled off the street charged with an inchoate crime? Was he heading to the bank with a mask, a gun, and floorplans for the bank?
Well DamStrait, if you paid any attention in high school civics class, the Constitution's answer would be a resounding "yes." Of course, don't let the highest law of the land dampen your zeal for a lynch mob any...
I catch somebody robbing a bank, I don't need to give 'em the BOD.
PARIS, Jan 12 (AFP) - Six suspected Islamic extremists, including the imam of a Lyon mosque, were due to appear before anti-terrorist judges here Monday, amid allegations they knew about plans for a chemical attack in France in 2002.
Chellali Benchellali, an imam in the Lyon suburb of Venissieux, his wife Hafsa, his son Hafed and two others were detained last week in a series of raids near the eastern city. The sixth suspect was detained southeast of Paris.
They were taken into custody as part of a 2002 probe ordered by Paris anti-terrorist judges into a so-called "Chechen network" of Islamic radicals with links to al-Qaeda who allegedly underwent terror training at camps in the separatist Russian republic of Chechnya and in Georgia in 2000 and 2001.
French police said that questioning of the suspects since their arrest on January 6 has revealed that another of Benchellali's sons, Menad, was seeking to produce "highly toxic" substances such as ricin or a botulism toxin.
Ricin is a naturally-occurring toxin found in castor beans and is 6,000 times more powerful than cyanide. A speck no larger than a grain of salt is enough to kill an adult.
Menad Benchellali was detained in December 2002 when police smashed a network of suspected Islamic radicals in the northeast Paris suburbs. At the time, investigators were convinced they had thwarted a chemical attack against Russian targets on French soil.
According to statements made by the suspects taken into custody last week, he learned to handle and make poisons in Afghanistan and packaged his toxic products in jars of Nivea face cream or 70 cl flasks, police sources said.
The products were then given to a local pharmacist for safe-keeping, the French newspaper Le Monde reported at the weekend, quoting sources close to the investigation.
Le Monde said that during his interrogation, the imam admitted he knew of his son's plans, while other family members said they had purchased chemicals for Menad Benchellali.
Police said other detainees had admitted to providing Menad Benchellali with logistical support, including false identity papers and funding.
French Justice Minister Dominique Perben on Monday hailed the country's counter-intelligence service DST, saying it had "conducted a probe which, I think, allowed us to keep very dangerous people from doing any harm."
French investigators are now looking into a possible link between the Benchellali family and the discovery of a small amount of ricin in a northeast London apartment in January 2003.
Chellali Benchellali is suspected of screening videotapes at his mosque aimed at recruiting fighters to join Chechen separatists in their war against Moscow. His son Mourad is one of six French nationals being held by US authorities at the military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The six suspects due in court Monday were expected to be placed under investigation. A total of eight people were initially detained in last week's Lyon raids. Benchellali's daughter Anissa and another suspect were released.
? AFP
How difficult would a terrorism court be to establish in the U.S.? We've had terrorism judges for some time now and it has surprised be that the U.S. lacks specific judges for such an area of law.
It would be extremely easy to establish courts specifically to handle terrorism cases. Specialty courts already exist for various other areas of the law, after all.
However, until relatively recently, acts of terrorism were treated exactly the same as other violent crimes. Thus there was no particular need for special courts to deal with them; the law covering a lunatic who butchers five people in Allah's name was basically identical to the law covering a lunatic who butchers five people because he was in a bad mood.
If new concepts -- such as designating US citizens as "enemy combatants" -- actually take root, we may need special courts to handle terrorism cases. Hopefully not, though.
On a side note, I doubt the "civilian review of Guantanamo cases" idea will go anywhere. All fancy word games aside, they're prisoners of war in a war that hasn't ended yet.
And no, they're not entitled to Geneva protection, as their organizations neither signed nor abided by the treaties. If we refrain from mistreating them, it is due to reasons of morality and enlightened self-interest, not because, legally, we must do so.
Ahem. There is no "war". Congress abdicated their responsibility in that area long ago. Simply abiding by our constitution would go a long way toward solving our recent dartboard method of military actions.
Ahem. There is no "war". Congress abdicated their responsibility in that area long ago. Simply abiding by our constitution would go a long way toward solving our recent dartboard method of military actions.
We are, like it or not, in a legally-declared war with al Qaeda and the Taliban. Congress authorized the use of military force; that is a declaration of war under the Constitution.
Congress' authorization extends until such time as al Qaeda and the Taliban, and their allies, have been permanently dealt with. Thus, the war continues. Congress may revoke the authorization, thereby ending the state of war, should it choose to do so; thus, Congress' Constitutional role as gatekeeper of American military power remains fully intact.
Yes, the words "We Declare War" are not contained in the authorization (nor, under the Constitution or international law, are they required to be). As a parallel, the words "You are mistaken" are not contained in the sentence "You don't have the slightest idea what the hell you're talking about". The meaning is, however, clear. 🙂
How difficult would a terrorism court be to establish in the U.S.? We've had terrorism judges for some time now and it has surprised be that the U.S. lacks specific judges for such an area of law.
Jean Bart,
Why on Earth would the US need specialized "terrorism courts"? That would be creating a prosecutorial-judicial complex in search of a mission, since the number of *actual* terrorism-related cases each year can be counted your fingers. (Sorry, but an idiot who forgets to take their licensed, unloaded pistol out of their bag before going to the airport is not a "terrorist", even if Tom Ridge and John Ashcroft like to include those arrests/prosecutions in their War on Terrorism statistics.)
The solution to this dilemma may be two (or more) solutions.
There may need to be one set of rules for American citizens, and another set of rules for citizens of other nations.
That latter group may further splinter. There may need to be one set of rules for citizens of cooperative nations (a British member of Al-Qaeda, for example) and another set of rules for citizens of uncooperative nations (a French or Iranian member of Al-Qaeda, for example).
Of course, few nations are _clear_ on their standing on terrorism -or- their standing on the United States.
Consider the status of combatants in Afghanistan. Arab POW's who travelled to Afghanistan to fight were treated differently (by the Afghanis) than local Afghani POW's. And John Walker Lindh had his own set of rules to deal with.
It's a legal nightmare partially because Al-Qaeda breaks the traditional model under which nation-states have waged war for the last several hundred years. This, I believe, is one of Osama bin Laden's goals. He doesn't approve of the concept of nation-states. Osama believes in rule by Muslim clerics in a world where nationalism has no place.