Many words have persistently echoed through our cultural discourse in the past two months in regard to the events and consequences of Sept. 11. Our leaders told us numerous times to remain vigilant and alert to terror possibilities in the wake of the airplane crashes and anthrax attacks.
But vigilance and attention to one’s surroundings should be attributed to all facets of public life at this time, particularly to our government’s actions and legislation regarding the ongoing pursuit of “justice.”
While our country obviously needs some new legislation to revamp airport security and such, some of the recent actions by Bush’s administration and Congress have encroached, or at least threaten to encroach, upon the individual civil liberties of American citizens and residents of the country who have not yet achieved a citizen status.
Thus, a quandary presents itself to the alert and politically aware individual: we need to trust our government at this time, yet if the government’s actions violate certain individuals’ civil liberties or Constitutional tenets, what should be done?
On Nov. 13, President Bush authorized trials of al Qaeda members by U.S. military tribunals, marking only the most recent step in a series of new laws and rewritten federal regulations.
Even though some of us may be blissfully ignorant of the implications of some of these steps, other countries have paid keen attention to our intentions. Spanish officials said last week that they would not extradite eight men suspected of involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks without assurances that their cases would be kept in civilian court.
Although some federal law-enforcement officials say past Supreme Court rulings have upheld the tribunals, others argue that tribunals are unnecessary, given the government’s success at convicting terrorists in civilian courts.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 18, states that “general courts-martial ? have jurisdiction to try any person who by the law of war is subject to trial by military tribunal and may adjudge any punishment permitted by the law of war.” Furthermore, military tribunals have been recognized by international law as shaped by the Hague Conventions of 1907, the Geneva Conventions of 1929 and 1949 and other international treaties.
However, the idea of military tribunals still seems antithetical to our American sense of justice and fairness and to a basic principle of the American judicial system: the right to trial by jury.
Suspected terrorists will not be tried before a jury but a commission primarily composed of military officers. The evidence of their guilt does not have to meet the standard of “reasonable doubt,” but must only “have probative value to a reasonable person.” Only a two-thirds vote is needed to convict, and there will be no appeals.
Even though some Americans may not be entirely unsettled by the prospect of military tribunals as they apply to noncitizens, the abundance of action targeting noncitizens of a certain ethnic descent only provides another opportunity for unease.
Recently, investigators under the authorization of President Bush have conducted “voluntary” interviews with 5,000 young Middle Eastern men who have entered the United States in the past two years from countries with links to terrorism. While this may not necessarily constitute racial profiling, taken with other actions of law enforcement officials in the search of terrorists, it seems to precariously border upon it.
In addition, under a law titled the U.S.A. Patriot Act (the Uniting and Strengthening of America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act), any foreigner who publicly endorses terrorist activity or belongs to a group that does can be turned away at the border or deported. And it allows the government to detain any foreigners whom the attorney general certifies as dangers to national security.
Even though these provisions may seem harmless enough — after all, no one would advocate that the United States allow known terrorists into the country — they can be abused and may inadvertently target innocent people of Middle Eastern descent.
Ultimately, we have willingly given the Bush administration broad power to find and prosecute terrorists, but at a cost.
Secrecy in wartime is necessary to ensure our national security and military success, but too much can lead to an abuse of power.
So we are left in a difficult situation, and right now we can only remain “vigilant” in our attention to the politics in this country and not only the anthrax scares or military victories overseas.
Sara Machi is a senior majoring in journalism and English.