A recent executive order signed by President Bush on Nov. 14 has many civil liberties groups criticizing U.S. policy in dealing with the trial and punishment of suspected terrorists.
Bush’s executive order stated terrorism suspects would be tried by military tribunal instead of civilian court. Military trials are held in secret and have different courtroom procedures than civilian trials. UW-Madison law professor Gordon Baldwin said restrictions are looser in a military tribunal.
“The standards of proof are different than they are in a courtroom,” he said. “[The government] doesn’t want to try them in civilian courts because they can’t get some forms of evidence in.”
Bush’s plan to try terrorist suspects by military tribunal has drawn fire from both citizens and civil liberty watchdog groups who see the decision as an assault on constitutional liberties.
Baldwin said he is wary of the military tribunals.
“What I think is most disturbing is we’re changing the rules of evidence for foreigners,” Baldwin said. “The constitution says we protect people, not just citizens. Not only is it a blunder, but it’s also a bad message.”
The American Civil Liberties Union is protesting the military tribunals, saying the differing standards could have far-reaching consequences.
“The tribunals would even reach non-citizens in the United States, including lawful permanent residents,” Washington National ACLU Director, Laura W. Murphy said.
UW political science professor Donald Downs said currently the only people affected by Bush’s order are non-citizens.
“[The executive order] gives pretty broad authority to the government, but if you’re a citizen you can’t be brought to a military tribunal,” Downs said. “It could cover the family members of a non-citizen if they are harboring a suspected terrorist, though.”
Mike Diaz, legal director for the Wisconsin ACLU said although the terrorists need to be brought to justice, it must be done fairly.
“Obviously there have been tragic events on Sept. 11,” Diaz said. “But whatever process we use to bring these terrorists to justice should be under the confines of the constitution.”
He also said the ACLU is concerned with the racial profiling that could be used in the investigations.
“There’s a concern that people who are Arab or Muslim are being unduly targeted by these investigations,” Diaz said.
Some disagree with the sentiments of the ACLU and believe military tribunals are necessary in a media-oriented society.
UW political science professor Ken Mayer explained the government’s need to use alternate methods for bringing the al Qaeda leaders to justice.
“The presumption is that [civilian trials] would be a zoo,” Mayer said.
Civilian trials potentially force the government to divulge intelligence information, Mayer said.
“When you’re in a war, you have to apply a different set of tools,” he said.
Murphy disputes this claim.
“There is already a system established to handle classified information in the course of a trial,” she said in a news release. “It is called the Classified Information Procedures Act.”
CIPA is a set of procedures in which a defendant is provided with a summary of the classified information, omitting the parts that would compromise national secrets. This summary must be approved by the court and shown to be as beneficial to the defendant as the classified information.
“The government has made no showing that the CIPA procedures would not be adequate in these circumstances as well,” Murphy said.
