0
WASHINGTON, Nov 15: US President George W. Bush’s decision to create special military tribunals for the Sept 11 attacks drew criticism across the political spectrum on Thursday, with a liberal senator worried about summary executions and a conservative warning of “kangaroo courts”.
The order to bypass the regular court system by allowing the military to set up tribunals for the first time since World War Two to try foreigners accused in the Sept 11 attacks as war criminals also was questioned by some diplomats.
“I am concerned over whether this will be a convincing way to exercise justice,” one Western diplomat said. “Many European countries will be of course concerned about some important legal aspects, in particular about the missing right to appeal and the death penalty.”
Unlike U.S. criminal trials that require that 12-person juries reach a unanimous verdict, the tribunals, with military officers as judge and jury, can convict by a two-thirds vote.
A two-thirds vote also is required for the sentence, which may include the death penalty. Trials may be held in secret. Procedures and composition of the courts are to be determined by the U.S. defense secretary and military commanders.
Unlike normal criminal trials, the military tribunals do not provide for appellate review of its work to the US supreme court, legal experts said.
Conservative columnist William Safire wrote in the New York Times that Bush would “get away with the replacement of the American rule of law with military kangaroo courts”.
A NEW STAR CHAMBER?: “It’s time for conservative iconoclasts and card-carrying hardliners to stand up for American values,” Safire said. “The solution is not to corrupt our judicial tradition by making (Osama) bin Laden the star of a new Star Chamber” — a reference to a secret unfair procedure held under its own rules.
Senator Patrick Leahy, the judiciary committee chairman, said Bush’s order has international implications.
The Vermont Democrat said it “sends a message to the world that it is acceptable to hold secret trials and summary executions, without the possibility of judicial review, at least when the defendant is a foreign national”.
He questioned whether Bush can lawfully authorize military commissions to try persons who have been arrested in the United States.
“There has been no formal declaration of war, and in the meantime, our civilian courts remain open and available to try suspected terrorists,” Leahy said.
House of Representatives Speaker Dennis Hastert, a Republican from Illinois, expressed support for the military tribunals, saying, “We need to try them as war criminals in my opinion.”
Hastert said the hijackers “commandeered four of our passenger planes and turned them into weapons .... I think that is an act of war.”
“Just as we dealt with terrorists and war criminals in World War Two, in Germany and Japan, I think we also ought to treat these people the same way,” Hastert said.
Asked if he had any concerns about due process, Hastert said, “These are people who are sworn enemies of the United States. From my understanding, they are not U.S. citizens.”
Liberal groups denounced the military tribunals.
Ralph Neas, president of the People for the American Way Foundation, called for emergency congressional oversight hearings into what he described as “a relentless assault on civil liberties.”
He criticized Attorney General John Ashcroft for supporting the military courts that fail to provide any of the principles, standards and safeguards of the American legal system.
The New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights said of the military tribunals, “These courts are set up to convict.” It said basic constitutional principles have not been suspended in past national crises.—Reuters
