George Bush and Terrorism

Representative Bob Barr, Representative Maxine Waters, Senator Edward Kennedy, and Senator Patrick Leahy say that Bush's plan needs to be changed to be more lawful. They say that without an official declaration of war, the use of military tribunals is unconstitutional. Barr also adds that Congress needs to pass an act for military tribunal to be lawful. They also point out that Bush and the U.S. government has not met any of these standards. "Georgia Representative Bob Barr said, 'Without and official declaration of war or without and act of Congress – the tribunals are unconstitutional' ''. The U.S. government, however, is not breaking international law by trying Al Qaeda and Taliban members in military tribunals, as some international law scholars say they are doing. In order for Bush plan to be unlawful, Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters would have to be legal combatants protested by the Geneva Convention.

In this case, since the Geneva Convention states that legal combatants must be granted POW status, use of military tribunals would be unlawful. However, since Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters don’t follow the rules to be lawful combatants, a soldier must wear a clear military uniform, must carry their arms openly, and both sides must have an organized structure that can take responsibility for their soldiers . Neither the Taliban nor Al Qaeda can meet all these standards, making them totally subject to trial by military tribunals. Other officials that oppose this view base their ideas on false military standards to justify themselves. "The military tribunals established by the president order are required to provide 'full and fair' justice, but they should not be measured by a false standard" .

In order to be lawful combatants, both sides must also respect each other's laws of war. Just how much power are Bush's military tribunals getting? Some say it is too much. Terrorists' or civilians' rights in military tribunals are very limited. The tribunals have the power to do whatever they want to the accused. They can be charged and tried legally without the knowledge of the public, so the only people that have a say in the trial are the people involved in the tribunal. Terrorist or terrorist suspects can also be executed without special permission. As long as there is a unanimous vote for the tribunal, the accused can face the death penalty. This is taking a risk as there is a possibility that the suspect is innocent - there is no jury, so whatever the tribunal decides is final. The suspects are not permitted to get a lawyer or talk to their accusers, so they really don't stand a chance against a court that has already made a decision before the trial. To convict a suspect, there must be a 2/3 vote; otherwise, the suspect cannot be convicted . "

Some tribunals are so concrete-minded in terms of sticking to their decision of whether or not he suspect is guilty or not. "Inflexible advocates of using the criminal courts must be willing to see some terrorists go free if there is insufficient evidence to convict" . President Bush has too mush power and control over military tribunals. From Capitol Hill, people are complaining that Bush is giving himself too much control over the military tribunals . They say that Congress should esta- blish a special panel of judges for the tribunals; the judges would be then chosen by the Supreme Court. Congress should also be able to revise Bush's plan if it is neces- sary, instead of Bush having the final say in all the decisions. However, since the Bush plan for the military tribunals is broad, some say Congress would take advantage of that. With the Congress becoming involved with decision making, it would be possible to decrease the threat of military tribunals. For example, the procedure used to determine guilt can be less threatening.

Also, the trials held by a tribunal should be possible only for a small set of cases, instead of being used for basic military trials. Bush should make use of the power he has and investigate further to find out whether or not a suspect is actually a terrorist qualified for trial in a military tribunal. Bush would need intelligence data that can only be accessed with the amount of power he holds. Without this information, in many cases, it could be impossible to convict a terrorist, the reason being lack of evidence. The main disagreement in the topic of whether or not military tribunals holds too much power is caused by the courts' lack of a judicial review system. Judicial review must be provided, especially since these trials by tribunals are conducted without the knowledge of the public. Although military tribunals will allow an appellate review when trying Al Qaeda members, there should be an officially established judicial review system, which is ran by a designated appeals court. In order for military tribunals to be truly effective, President Bush must reverse his ban on judicial review in military tribunals. Most people in this country seem to be for Bush's plan on military tribunals.

A poll taken by the Washington Post and ABC News.com showed this. The poll, which included 759 adults, shows that 59% of Americans support military tribunals. After people were informed that Bush supported the plan, support went up to 64%. Americans support tribunals because they believe it can help prevent future terrorist attacks by making military courts more formidable. Sixty-three percent of Americans say that there is still room for the government to grow in terms of preventing future attacks. Sixty-two percent say that the U.S. is currently doing all it can to prevent terrorism. Of the people that support Bush's plan, 58% consider themselves moderate, 66% are conservative and 70% of the people are Republican. "It makes no sense to win a trial but lose the war. With this in mind, a majority of the American public favors giving President Bush the option to use military tribunals against the Qaeda terror network". In Afghanistan, most of their citizens support military tribunals and say it is worth casualties in their country for the sake of Bin Laden's capture. Ninety-one percent of Afghans support military tribunals, and 72% support them 'strongly.' "Support for the military action in Afghanistan remains similarly overwhelming;" with both U.S. and Afghanistanian citizens supporting the use of military tribunals, it won't be likely that they will not be used (Langer). There are still, however, those people in both countries that oppose Bush's order to authorize military tribunals .

People are concerned about the protection of the rights of suspects of terrorism. "Seven in 10 said the government was doing enough to protect the civil rights of suspected terrorists". In spite of this, people still say that the U.S. government should further their effort to protect the rights of Muslim citizens and non-citizens. They also say that the rights of Arab non-citizens and Arab Americans should be protected. Most Americans favor letting the president use military tribunals against Al Qaeda members. Despite the concern of the public, 86% of Americans still say that the government's detention of suspects if justified . What is the exact definition of a terrorist? How should they be treated? First of all, there must be a line separating acts of terrorism and mere criminal acts. Criminal acts are usually caused by human nature, feelings such as greed or vengeance. Terrorist acts are done to cause fear and panic by killing large numbers of people.