Terrorism, Military Tribunals and the Constitution

By Halter, Kristel | Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, January/February 2002 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Terrorism, Military Tribunals and the Constitution

Halter, Kristel, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

Terrorism, Military Tribunals and the Constitution

On Nov. 13, 2001, President George W. Bush signed an executive order, passed overwhelmingly by the House and Senate the following day, authorizing "action against those nations, organizations or persons" who, according to the president, "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The constitutionality of Bush's executive order immediately was debated, with some asking whether it upholds Americans' rights or instead undermines the very rights the Constitution seeks to protect.

The Cato Institute in Washington, DC hosted a Dec. 6 policy forum to discuss the issue. The participants included Michael Nardotti, Joseph R. Barnes, Lee Casey and Timothy Lynch.

Nardotti, a retired U.S. Army major general and former judge advocate general, argued in support of the executive order. The current circumstances, he maintained, render federal courts and their criminal procedures inadequate and warrant the creation of military tribunals.

Nardotti cited as precedent the post-World War II military courts which conducted the Nuremberg trials. The army, under the restrictions and guidance of articles of war, he said, gave the president the authority to modify the rules.

"There has been a dramatic evolution of military justice over the past 50 years," Nardotti said. The manner in which military courts have operated throughout this time will have some bearing upon how today's military tribunals will function, he concluded.

Barnes, a retired Army brigadier general and former assistant judge advocate general, shared Nardotti's view of the constitutionality of Bush's executive order. Looking beyond the black-and-white argument of whether military tribunals are constitutional or unconstitutional, however, he proceded to probe the inevitable "area of gray."

Nardotti posed the question of whether the U.S. is at war as a benchmark for determining the constitutionality of military tribunals, and concluded that they are constitutional, as did Barnes. The latter, however, expanded upon the question to determine the constitutionality of military tribunals as it relates to U.S. foreign policy, and thus the international community.

While agreeing that the country is at war, Barnes proceeded to define the type of military engagement, in light of both provocation and response. In regard to provocation, "It is not clear that the Sept. 11 attacks fall into the category of a war crime," Barnes said. "In my view, they do not."

Although Barnes does not regard the terrorists as war criminals, he does not consider them ordinary criminals either. "They don't fit neatly into either category," he said.

The gray area of the question of whether we are at war, then, is framed by criminality on one side, and war on the other. Barnes sees America fluctuating between these two poles.

"In my opinion," he explained, "we have been and are in a state of international armed conflict. Some international bodies have taken that view, either implicitly or explicitly," he noted. Recent Security Council resolutions and NATO's evocation of Article V attest to the international community's recognition of the current state of armed conflict. More importantly, they reveal that the international community shares a sense of attack as well as of the necessary response, he said.

For this reason, Barnes is in favor of international military tribunals rather than domestic military tribunals. He suggested that the president, in his capacity as commander-in-chief, work in collaboration with foreign policy strategists, thus making the war against terrorism more than solely a U.S. war, but an international war.

Correspondingly, relying on international military tribunals would indicate that it is "not just the U.S. versus al-Qaeda, but the international community versus al-Qaeda," Barnes pointed out.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Terrorism, Military Tribunals and the Constitution


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?