I think we need to take a look at just what terrorism and war crimes are. There are many acts that fall under the definition of terrorism. The definition of terrorism under U.S. Code merely calls it any violent or dangerous act that violates a criminal law of the United States with the intention of intimidating the public, influencing government policy, or affects the conduct of the government. In the definition itself, it calls terrorism a criminal matter. Terrorism does not necessarily send a message of hate to the entire nation. It can be directed at one specific group. The Army of God group is a good example. According to information found on the National Abortion Federation’s website, they primarily target abortion clinics and any doctor who is willing to perform an abortion, and have even said that they will do anything necessary to prevent abortions from happening. They have bombed clinics and offices, sent numerous death threats to doctors, and have kidnapped doctors. This certainly is an act of terrorism, but does not necessarily strike fear into the heart of every man, woman, and child in America. However, it would be unnecessary to put these people on trial in front of a military tribunal. They are breaking civilian laws.
War Crimes, however, are only violations of international protocol in occupied territory, according to The Constitution Of The International Military Tribunal. Even the 9/11 Attack cannot be considered a war crime under this definition. The only way terrorism could be looked at, as a war crime would be if the terrorist act was organized and carried out by the military or civilians of a nation occupying another nation in that nation. As far as I am aware, no one is currently occupying the United States. There needs to be some sort of official armed conflict. And while you could argue that there is now armed conflict, our government is still reluctant to call it a war, and it didn’t exist when the 9/11 attack happened. At least not in the capacity it is now. And we are not the occupied nation. In fact, many countries seem to think that what our government is currently doing to the Guantanamo detainees, among many other examples, is a war crime (Clark).
On to the issue about whether civilian courts could really handle terrorist cases, I think civilians would be the best way to deal with terrorists. If the acts were aimed at the entire public, it would make sense to have the public decide on the guilt or innocence of the parties in question. I will agree that our legal system is not even approaching a point where it can look down the road and see perfection, but I think it is functioning well enough to find terrorists guilty. Of course, there would have to be some evidence to prove that the people on trial were responsible for whatever they’re being accused of. A military tribunal, especially with the leniency our government is putting on necessary evidence, may ignore the need for real proof and just condemn anyone who comes across the bench.
Also, there is a prerequisite that, for a US military tribunal to be used in a situation like this, we would need to be under an official declaration of war. We are under no such declaration, and because of that, we would be going against our own Constitution. It does not matter if these people attacked our nation; they still have rights that are guaranteed. The Supreme Court almost always rules that anyone on trial in America, whether they are citizens or not, are entitled to due process. In fact, a military tribunal has not been used to try a terrorist since World War II. (Napolitano). We would be going against the values our country was founded on by denying these people a fair trial in a civilian court. This ties in to the possibility that the U.S. is just as guilty of any war crimes as anyone we are holding for trial in Guantanamo Bay.
In addition to these things, I just do not see how trying terrorists in civilian courts would expose any part of our political system that is not already out in the open. We are not exactly secretive about how our legal system works, and they would not be discussing any changes to our national policies during the actual trial. The safety of our nation is important, but will not be at risk due to one of these trials. Anyone with access to the Internet, which is a pretty big portion of the world’s population, can find oodles of information regarding our country’s legal system and political processes. Just typing “U.S. government” into google yields more than 90 million results. Granted, a lot of those websites are not reliable, but the first result in the official website for the United States Government. I do not think people would learn anything else in a trial.
All the signs seem to suggest that civilian courts would be fully capable of trying terrorists. It is a Constitutional right for anyone being tried in America to have a speedy and fair trial. Terrorism, in and of itself, is not a war crime unless very specific guidelines are met. An official declaration of war is required for a military tribunal to be used to try non-U.S. citizens, and there is no such declaration. We have an established legal system that is fully equipped to deal with the crimes associated with terrorism, even if the scale is larger than your average murder or kidnapping. Exposing a foreign terrorist to a civilian court would not expose any important bits of information about our legal system or political system and would not pose a threat to our national safety. Ultimately, it would just be a gross violation of human rights, and we, as Americans, should not support any act that would violate the rights of any person.
Works Cited:
18 USC CHAPTER 118 - WAR CRIMES. Web. 6 Feb. 2010.
“ANTI-ABORTION EXTREMISTS/The Army Of God and Justifiable Homicide.” National Abortion Federation. Web. 6 Feb 2010.
Clark, Ramsey. “WAR CRIMES: A Report on United States War Crimes Against Iraq to the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal.” Deoxy. Web. 6 Feb. 2010.
“Definition of a War Crime.” War Crimes TV. Web. 6 Feb. 2010.
“How the USA PATRIOT Act redefines ‘Domestic Terrorism.’” ACLU. 6 Dec. 2002. Web. 6 Feb. 2010.
Napolitano, Andrew P. “The case against military tribunals.” Los Angeles Times. Web. 6 Feb. 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment