Appropriate Justice for Terrorists:Using Military Tribunals Rather Than Criminal Courts

President Bush and senior administration officials have repeatedly stated that combating terrorism will call for new thinking. We are in a non-traditional war against an unconventional enemy — an enemy who takes abusive advantage of our Constitutional freedoms, including our criminal justice system.

On September 24, Newsweek reported that, to bring terrorists to justice, Department of Justice lawyers are rethinking traditional methods. "Perhaps the most startling idea under examination would be a new presidential order authorizing secret military tribunals to try accused terrorists," the magazine reports.

Military tribunals were also recommended following the earlier terrorists attacks on the World Trade Center, by Spencer J. Crona and Neal A. Richardson, writing in the 1996 Oklahoma City University Law Review. Crona, a former newspaper editor and attorney in Denver, Colorado, and Richardson, a Deputy District Attorney in the same city, collaborated in presenting a case for such proceedings, which I have highlighted below.

While I have drawn on Crona's and Richardson's scholarly analysis, and considered arguments in this column, I have not been able in this space to do it justice, and it is very much worth reading in its entirety. Indeed, I found the article so helpful that I also passed it on to friend at the Department of Justice, requesting that he pass it on to those currently examining the potential of military tribunals.

President Lincoln made extensive use of military tribunals during the Civil War, and President Roosevelt used them during World War II.

For example, during the Civil War, Confederate army captain Robert C. Kennedy was captured, tried, and convicted by a military commission. Wearing a civilian disguise, he had sought to disrupt the Union war effort by setting fire to New York City.

Kennedy's case was one of several cited by the U.S. Supreme Court when it addressed this issue in Ex Parte Quirin, which was decided in 1942 in the midst of World War II. In Quirin, the Court confirmed the authority of Congress and the President to try Nazi terrorists operating in the United States by military commissions.

Quirin was one of eight Nazi saboteurs who had crossed the Atlantic in a German submarine: four Nazi operatives landed on Long Island, New York and another four at Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. The FBI arrested both groups, and turned them over to the military, which promptly tried them.

The Nazis sought to halt the proceedings with habeas corpus petitions, claiming that since the state and federal criminal courts were available, the military tribunal had no jurisdiction. The Supreme Court rejected the claims, and let the military tribunal's convictions of the men for violating the laws of war, spying and conspiracy stand. The Supreme Court noted:

The … enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed … to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.

In the course of deciding Quirin, the Supreme Court rejected the precedent of Ex Parte Milligan, on which the Nazi saboteurs had relied.

The high Court's landmark ruling in Ex Parte Milligan was issue in 1866, following the Civil War. Milligan had been convicted by a military commission of violating the laws of war by planning to form a secret military organization to seize an arsenal, release Confederate prisoners, arm them, and then join with others to invade, on behalf of the Confederacy, Indiana, Kentucky, and Illinois.

Sentenced to be hanged for his crimes, Milligan appealed. Five justices held that Congress did not have authority to create military commissions when state courts were open and available. They also found that Milligan had been denied his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial when he was tried before the commission.

Four justices concurred with the majority ruling, but on different grounds. They rejected the majority's contentions that Congress did not have the power to create such military tribunals, and that such tribunals were bound to follow the Bill of Rights.

No less an authority than Chief Justice William Rehnquist has addressed the cases of Ex Parte Quirin and Ex Parte Milligan, and the question of military tribunals. The Chief Justice has been prescient before (He wrote a book about impeachment long before he found himself presiding at President Clinton's Senate trial). Now he has turned out to be prescient again: In 1998, he wrote and published All The Laws But One: Civil Liberties in Wartime.

In the book, Rehnquist examines Milligan at some length. Rehnquist notes that the government, which at the time — 1866 — had yet to create the office of Solicitor General, had little experience presenting cases to the Supreme Court. Mr. Milligan, on the other hand, was extremely well represented. In making this contrast, Rehnquist implies that had the government done a better job, it would not have lost the case.

The Chief Justice also reads the ruling in Milligan as limited. He notes that some 75 years later in Quirin "the Court concluded that Milligan … was a non-belligerent, not subject to the law of war."

Finally, if these comments left any doubt about Rehnquist's skepticism about Milligan, Rehnquist resolves it. He writes: "One may fully agree with the rather disparaging but nonetheless insightful argument of Jeremiah Black [attorney for Milligan] in the Milligan case — soldiers are no more occupationally trained to conduct trials than are sailors or sheep drovers — and yet believe that Congress should be able to provide for trial of defendants by a judge without a jury in a carefully limited class of cases dealing with national security in wartime."

In short, if the most recent decision (Quirin) and the views of the Court's Chief Justice are to be our guide, there appears to be no Constitutional prohibition on the use of military tribunals to address terrorism — especially terrorism of the scope of the September 11 attacks, and terrorism described by the President as an act of war. However, creation of such tribunals would require an act of Congress — as Crona and Richardson recognize.

Congress should pass such an act — in part because terrorism is very different from other crime. For one thing, existing international laws prohibit such activities. As Crona and Richardson note, when terrorist acts of aggression target innocent civilians, they are not "legitimate acts of war under international law, but rather must be regarded as war crimes or crimes against humanity." The 1949 Geneva Conventions prohibit attacks on civilians. And the Geneva Protocol II expressly prohibits "acts of terrorism."

Nevertheless, we have so far treated terrorist as ordinary criminals — charging them with common law crimes, and give them all the protections of our criminal justice system. The 1993 World Trade Center attack, for example, led to indictments that were tried before a judge in the Southern District of New York.

Granted, Congress has not declared war in authorizing President Bush "to use all necessary and appropriate force against" those involved with "the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." But it would trivialize what was done to treat it as ordinary crime.

Using military tribunals, rather than the criminal justice system, to bring such terrorists to justice merits serious consideration at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Crona and Richardson point out that for this type of crime, military tribunals, which are composed of a panel of trained military officers who serve as jury and judge, have many practical advantages over our criminal justice system, which was never designed to deal with war crimes or crimes against humanity. Such tribunals are more efficient, less costly, and more likely to provide swift and sure justice.

As examples, they cite the two criminal trials of the terrorists indicted in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. The first trial required five months of testimony, 207 witnesses, and 1,003 exhibits — not to mention many days of legal arguments and four days of jury deliberations. The second trial, involving the remaining defendants, required over eight months, 200 witnesses, and hundreds of exhibits.

Most troublingly, however, such criminal trials placed the lives of the American citizens who serve as jurors, and their families, in jeopardy of harm from other terrorists. While jurors are purportedly anonymous, in fact they could easily end up living in fear, which would not be unfounded. Witnesses in such cases are, if necessary, placed in the federal witness protection program.

None of these problems exist with military tribunals. Trials without juries are always more efficient. And military officers have accepted the risk of personal harm as a concomitant of their work.

Our criminal justice system, which requires a unanimous finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by twelve jurors, Crona and Richardson note, "is designed to err on the side of letting the guilty go free rather than convicting the innocent. However, when this nation is faced with terrorist attacks that inflict mass murder or hundreds of millions of dollars of damage in a single instance, we can no longer afford procedures that err so heavily on the side of freeing the guilty. Protection of society and the lives of thousands of potential victims becomes paramount."

Based on historical evidence, Crona and Richardson argue that using such a military proceeding does not mean stacking the deck against terrorists. To the contrary, they note that the WW II war crimes trials with military tribunals resulted in many acquittals, and point out that for the 177 Nazi officials tried by American military judges, the tribunals issued only 12 death sentences.

In a military tribunal, rules of evidence are not applicable, nor necessary, because trained military jurists can, like other judges, weigh all the evidence. Exclusionary rules, which preclude using evidence improperly obtained (a means for our courts to police the police), have no place in a military proceeding. Thus, before a military tribunal, a known terrorist could not walk because of a legal technicality, such as the arresting officer's failure to give him a Miranda warning.

"The primary purpose of any adjudicative proceeding where a person is accused of a crime," Crona and Richardson write, "is to find the truth as to that person's factual guilt or innocence. The search for the truth in the terrorism arena will be enhanced by the military commission framework." But these authors, and other proponents of military tribunals, are not suggesting that the accused terrorists be denied due process. To the contrary.

Crona and Richardson write: "The pre-eminent question with due process always is, given the circumstances, what is due process?" They believe that military tribunals "provide the process due to those accused of committing terrorist war crimes." They would have the right to counsel, to confront witnesses, dispute evidence, and present evidence in their defense. These authors are merely saying that in times of war, such military proceedings are fair and just.

Those accused of terrorist activities are due no more. If it is necessary to draw a bright line to protect American citizens, the authors suggest (but do not recommend) limiting the jurisdiction of military tribunals to alien terrorists.

The last chapter of Chief Justice Rehnquist's book on civil liberties in wartime is entitled "Inter Arma Silent Leges." According to Black's Law Dictionary, this means, "in times of war the laws are silent." Rehnquist observes that "there remains a sense that there is some truth to [this] maxim." He explains why.

Rehnquist says it is a simple "truism: in time of war the government's authority to restrict civil liberty is greater than in peacetime. … Quite apart from the added authority that the law itself may give the President in time of war, Presidents may act in ways that push their legal authority to its outer limits, if not beyond."

He adds that because judges are often loath to interfere with wartime activities, they often defer decisions until hostilities end. "If the decision is made after hostilities have ceased, it is more likely to favor civil liberty than if made while hostilities continue." To illustrate his point, he contrasts the pro-tribunal Quirin ruling, which was decided at the height of WW II, and the anti-tribunal Milligan holding, which was made after the Civil War had ended.

In short, the Chief Justice tells us that terrorists — like others — will not enjoy the same civil liberties during a war as in peace. Rehnquist concludes that while the laws are not silent in time of war, "they will speak with a somewhat different voice."

In this war, a new law should be passed — a law authorizing the use of military tribunals for suspected terrorists. If many terrorists are involved — as now appears the case — it is difficult to conceive of a more appropriate procedure to bring them to justice.

I would agree with this article, if there was a Declaration of War. There isn't, yet.
The justification for these tribunals needs to come from history--both Lincoln and FDR had obtained such Declarations prior to their restriction on liberties. What a Declaration tends to do is clearly define the belligerents ( and for those saying this is 'a new kind of war', just look at the case of the Barbary Pirates ).

What we have now is opened ended and ill defined, at least from the general public. I am afraid that the time will come when 'terrorists' will come to mean citizens that disagree with their government. We've already seen some attempts to cast them in this light.

Also, how do we know when this will be over? The potential is a perpetual 'state of war', in which the government uses the crisis as a figleaf to run roughshod over citizens.

We need a Declaration of War from Congress.

The Order quickly runs into conflict of the ICCPR's prohibition of ex post facto criminal laws, in addition to the U.S. Constitution.

Why am I not surprised that we have conflicts with the UN approach to justice?

As for tribunals, I am satisfied that congress did in fact authorize Bush in this and other matters related to the acts of terrorism that started on 9-11. This would apply to any of Bin Ladin's organization but it should probably be revisited when the war on terrorism moves into other countries. (It will be difficult to show that all terrorism is connected.) As long as congress acts to authorize, the constitution is in fact providing the guidance. The problem with a formal declaration of war naming all the countries supporting terrorism is that they would all be our enemies (and could be combatants) simultaneously. As Bush is pursuing it, we may take them on one at a time. The problem with naming terrorists by name and adding to the list as more are uncovered is that that is precisely what we are doing, only without the headache of continued resolutions in the congress. The concept of commander in chief is designed to prevent the congress from requiring to be exercised at every decision point in the conduct of a war. This is a reasoned compromise that works for me.

"...and I expect others to say 'show me' when I state my views."

Precisely my point, dear 'Jade; your views. Follow me?
I'll always listen to what you have to say, what's going through your mind? Without the necessity of your having to document each & every thought.
You're confusing me with someone else, apparently; & I mean no disrespect to anyone in so saying that, starting with & including you. OK?
Now then...

"This isn't 'purely' my 'speculation,' Landru. My concern that the jurisdiction of these new 'military courts' COULD BE extended to include US citizens is based on the fact..."

So you see?
It *is* speculation, assumptions, with a *bit* of hyperbole scattered about. Nice writing, sincere concerns & valid points *all*, actually.
However...since you cannot show one instance of this law having been used, maliciously, against a US citizen?
Well...do I have to continue?

"...that these are specifically classified as courts to try 'terrorists.' Under the 'Patriot Act of 2001,' 'terrorists' include US citizens."

Yes 'Jade. That's correct.
US citizens who're of say (for the sake of illustration) Anglo or African decent, practicing fundamentalist Islam, and who'd participated in the past atrocities &/or any & all future acts of terror perpetrated upon our nation & her citizens?
You bet. They will swing from the end of a rope from a military constructed gallows.
Moreover they hang with 101% of my blessings & if need be?
I'll pull the handle, myself.

"Under this act, US citizens who 'appear to be intended' to engage in an act of terrorism are classified as 'terrorists.' The obvious intent of setting up an entirely new 'military court' system is to avoid being bound by the rules that govern presently existing military and civilian courts."

I disagee; having worked in military law enforcement?
I can tell you a subject charged under the UCMJ/MCM is entitled to legal represention at Court Martial represented by a *certified* attorney provided by JAG.
Kangaroo court?
Hardly.

"This 'Homeland Defense' legislation and program is aimed at citizens, as well as non-citizens."

Correcto-mundo, 'Jade. You got it. So terrorists, foriegn OR domestic; BEWARE.
[You're] on notice this nation's people are FINISHED with the kind of bull$hit stunts whereby a criminal commits henious acts against the innocent, then, turns right around & USES the very words of our laws as a weapon against the very people those laws were meant to protect while worming-around the intent.
Yea. That's doneski; *we've* HAD IT.

"The whole concept here of classifying somebody as a 'terrorist' is to get around the normal constitutional procedures and laws that govern criminal cases. If US citizens can be classified as 'terrorists' [FOR committing TERRORIST ACTS...] and denied our constitutional rights on that basis, and an extralegal system is in place specifically to try 'terrorists,' then what would prevent US citizens from being tried in those 'terrorist' courts?"

Ahhhh...they're not committing terrorist act(s)?Do ya think?

"Well, it is clear that these new 'military courts' are designed to be Kangaroo courts, just as the ICTY is, which I mentioned in a previous post. No matter how much money the defendent does or doesn't have, the deck is going to be stacked against him, right from the start."

Stacked deck?
Here, try this out for size then: If it were up to me these people wouldn't even get their choice of execution.
I trust my senses, after the facts have been heard -- privately or otherwise & if an individual brought before a court I was sitting on didn't pass MY smell test?
They could kiss their sweet posteriors goodbye, 'Jade.
Of course, I sit on no such bench but listen, I only told you that because this could be much, much worse than even you think.

This citizen, -me-, has had enough; and FYI, so have each & every single one of my neighbors.
If you know any of these nuts?
Be a good fellow & tell 'em it ain't safe here for 'em anymore.
...& as for my safety?
I'll take my chances with my countrymen, thank you.

Have a nice day, 'Jade.

I would agree with this article, if there was a Declaration of War. There isn't, yet. The justification for these tribunals needs to come from history--both Lincoln and FDR had obtained such Declarations prior to their restriction on liberties. What a Declaration tends to do is clearly define the belligerents

Actually, Abraham Lincoln did not obtain a Declaration of War against the Confederate States of America. Try finding the text of such a declaration of war. You will never find it.

The United States of America never declared war during the Civil War. This was in keeping with its position that the rebel states did not form a new nation, rather they were states in which a rebellion was taking place. Abraham Lincoln issued a Proclamation that an insurrection existed in the states of SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, and TX on 15 Apr 1861 (Messages & Papers of the Presidents, vol. V, p3214). He also proclaimed a blockade of Southern harbors on 19 Apr 1861, and the date of this proclamation was taken by the Supreme Court in several cases to be the official beginning of the insurrection.

In the war against terrorism, a declaration of war is not appropriate when you are fighting what legally amount to saboteurs, filibusters, pirates and terrorists. Wars are declared against sovereign states. These individuals represent no sovereign state.

Congress has passed an authorization to use force against all the organizations linked to the 11 September attack. That is the Constitutional equivalent of a declaration of war when a sovereign nation is not the enemy.

Legally, anyone who attacks the U.S. automatically becomes a belligerant the instant that the attack starts. The U.S. Navy was shooting back at the Japanese on 7 December 1941 although Congress had not yet declared war. Japan clearly defined itself as a belligerent by it's own action. Any foreign group, either known or previously unknown, who attacks or facilitates an attack on the U.S. is likewise an automatic and defined belligerent by it's own action.

In regards to terrorists living within the U.S., Abraham Lincoln has set the historical precedent that the President can declare a certain group of people to be in a state of insurrection against the U.S.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.