Military tribunals should apply to all
By Daily Bruin Staff
Jan. 17, 2002 9:00 p.m.
 Cody Cass You’re entitled to your own
opinion. Voice yours by sending it to Cody at [email protected].
The next major target in the War on Terrorism will be Iraq
because of their “evil intentions,” according to
congressman Chris Shays (R-Connecticut). While President Bush may
be able to eliminate Saddam Hussein (which his father should have
done a decade ago), Iraq is just the beginning of a long list of
nations and organizations committed to leveling American society.
But President Bush is up to the challenge.
Bush’s favorite new toy in dealing with terrorist threats
against the U.S. is the military tribunal. Under these
“legal” proceedings, conversations between the
defendant and his attorney may be recorded by the government, a
practice that is strictly forbidden in other courts. Whatever
intelligence the U.S. gains from this technique will probably be
minimal, since much of the evidence that is brought against the
accused will be secret, giving them no chance to prepare a complete
defense. A panel of five or more military officers acts, literally,
as judge, jury and executioner.
A dean at the Catholic University School of Law, in an interview
with CNN, explained why military tribunals are appropriate:
“These are not ordinary criminal defendants, in the sense
that even someone who commits a grievous crime as an isolated
murder does not have as their fundamental purpose bringing down an
entire society.”
With this standard as the qualification of using military
tribunals, consider the appropriateness of using the military
tribunal in each of the following cases.
Case One: a small government has made it law that all of its
citizens own firearms. This archaic law is compounded because the
area has been a hotbed for occupation by extremist militant groups.
An arm of one of these groups has firebombed a recreation center
and beaten many of the Americans there.
Case Two: another United States-hating organization has made it
clear that its goal is to bring down the American government. One
of their numerous plans over the past year was to use over 50
heavily armed men to ambush an American patrol.
 Illustration by Kristen Gillette/Daily Bruin A band of
men out to bring down the United States, patrol by patrol, may not
ever reach their ultimate goal. Countless American lives, though,
certainly are at risk. Plots to kill American citizens certainly
are illegal, and the use of the military tribunal could bring these
thugs to justice before things get out of hand.
Case Three: the bold, defiant and foolish citizens of one nation
are screaming support for Sept. 11.
“Anyone who is willing to drive a plane into a building to
kill Jews is all right by me. I wish our members had half as much
testicular fortitude,” cried a leader of an anti-U.S.
organization in the days following Sept. 11.
“The acts committed against the United States today were
not evil acts ““ they were acts of justice,” another
proclaimed.
These citizens’ government has repeatedly defended their
pro-terror position, going so far as to guarantee that the United
States will not interfere with their right to voice support for
these terrorist perpetrators.
By allowing convictions such as these to go unpunished, the Bush
administration risks the maturation of a new hotbed for militant
activity. Military tribunals could be used to squelch this kindling
of dissents before it rages into another Sept. 11.
Unfortunately, this will never happen.
None of these thugs, rebels and international criminals
terrorizing U.S. lands and voicing support for the tragedy of Sept.
11 will ever have to face the five-man firing squad. They all
claim, and have been granted, immunity from its judgment.
How could Bush have been talked into such madness? What loophole
in our new international justice system has been found and
exploited? Why allow such blatant attacks against American citizens
and interests go unpunished?
It’s quite simple, really. All of the parties involved are
American citizens.
The small government that requires its citizens to own a firearm
is that of Virgin, Utah. The group that firebombed a recreation
center, which happened to be a nightclub, was the Hammerskin
Nation, a skinhead organization bent on U.S. domination. It was a
member of the Southern Oregon Militia that wanted to have 50 of his
peers open fire on federal officials. The men that spoke out about
Sept. 11 were extremists Billy Roper of the Western Alliance and
Bill White of Libertarian Socialist News.
Despite the promise that they will be just, no one seems to want
to subject Americans to military tribunals for hating, beating and
terrorizing each other. Something about the Fifth Amendment and the
rights of the accused.
Evidently, the self-evident truth that “all men are
created equal” doesn’t guarantee that all will be
judged by an impartial standard. Mix a touch of spite with a pinch
of superiority complex, abandon all faith in our legal system, and,
voila! ““ vengeance, served cold, with a side of
injustice.
