Where I Stand — Mike O’Callaghan: Justice for terrorists

Tuesday, Nov. 20, 2001 | 8:32 a.m.

The latest move by our president, the use of military tribunals to try foreign terrorists, has drawn some heavy fire from people who worry about the loss of due process and the secrecy surrounding the trials. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wants to review the plans for the military tribunals. This review is a must, and a full and open discussion of the tribunal use should be seen and heard by all Americans. Discussions must be had so we all know exactly how the trials will be held. Congress can do little except discuss this executive order, but such discussions are a healthy process. However, federal courts can be used to challenge the president's order, but in the past the courts have chosen not to interfere and have approved the use of military tribunals during other wars.

I find the use of military tribunals to try foreign terrorists a wise move. The trials can be conducted where the suspects are captured and it won't be necessary to transfer them, as security risks, back to this country. Also it won't place in jeopardy confidential and secret information gathered by intelligence units. Several spies in recent years have had their lives spared, or given far less than life sentences, because an open trial would compromise national secrets or intelligence.

Although some critics haven't given much thought to other problems created by open court trials here at home, there have been judges and jurors put in danger. The Wall Street Journal commented, "Someone might want to introduce the ACLU to the judges and jurors who have already had to preside over terror trials. We know two judges who still live with bodyguards years later, and not irrationally, given what we know about al Qaeda's ability to live underground for years. This is war, not a car theft in Chevy Chase."

Allowing a bank robber or burglar to go free on a technicality because of the method evidence was gathered to convict them, can't be compared to releasing a potential mass killer.

The New York Times, in an editorial against the use of secret military trials, laments that they would hurt our credibility in the Islamic world. The writer of that editorial should get real and admit that no matter how the Islamist terrorists are tried, their associates will complain and accuse Americans of being unfair.

Again, let's openly debate and discuss the values and shortcomings of the president's executive order: it's good for our system of government. When all is said and done, the value of this order outweighs the shortcomings now being expressed by some sincere and honest critics. A real shame would be to allow a few critics to put their legal handcuffs on the people trying to protect our society.

Laurence Tribe, law professor at Harvard University, reminds us that, "Civil liberties is not only about protecting us from our government. It is also about protecting our lives from terrorism." Yes, providing freedom from fear is a vital role that government must play during times of both peace and war.