Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Toward responsible military justice

Members of Congress have responded quickly to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling setting aside the president's military commissions for the prosecution of Guantanamo detainees and other terror suspects. The court said President Bush overstepped his authority and infringed on the power of Congress when he established the commissions through executive order, prompting Republican leaders in Congress to promise imminent consideration of other options.

But before Congress jumps to adopt a new military tribunal process, it should remember that time-tested systems of justice are perfectly capable of prosecuting even the most heinous wrongdoer. The federal courts have brought us satisfactory results in the prosecutions of American Taliban John Walker Lindh, al-Qaida terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui and shoe-bomber Richard Reid. Before then, the criminal justice system readily handled the operatives behind the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, doling out 240-year sentences.

A convincing case has not been made that sending charged detainees through our regular courts is unworkable. Bringing suspected terrorists to trial rather than holding them indefinitely or through a compromised system of justice would help erase the stain that Guantanamo has left on America's reputation as a nation of laws and personal rights.

We also have a military justice system that, while not perfect, has been in place for more than 50 years and is respected for its fairness and outcomes. The rules of due process afforded under the Uniform Code of Military Justice were cited by Justice John Paul Stevens in his Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld opinion as models that were lacking in the president's commissions.

Basic protections such as the accuseds' right to hear the evidence against them, the right to be present at trial and rules that keep rumor and innuendo out of the proceedings are provided in the military justice system, as Stevens noted. But they had been diluted under the president's commission process. The court-martial system also has experience dealing with sensitive information and battlefield evidence.

Members of Congress eager to adopt into law the president's commissions with a few tweaks should reconsider. There is no reason to establish some new, ad hoc system of dispensing justice. We have been down that road, and what was created was a process weighted toward conviction that transparently handicapped the ability of the accused to defend himself. Any convictions under the president's commission system would have been suspect.

Sen. John Warner of Virginia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, is one of the few Republicans counseling restraint. "Everybody says, 'Pass legislation, pass legislation,' but we've got to make certain it's needed, and then do it with careful analysis, to get it right," Warner told the New York Times. His responsible approach should be embraced by his colleagues who are engaging in political pandering.

Congress has a pivotal role in deciding how to proceed with the 450 prisoners who remain at Guantanamo, as well as the continued viability of the prison camp itself. There should be hearings and a fair-minded debate over a new direction. But what is clear is that the military commission process adopted by the Bush administration to prosecute charged detainees conflicts with America's values and commitment to due process. The Supreme Court has buried it, and it should stay buried.

[Last modified July 5, 2006, 00:58:17]