Professors question Bush policy

IU Chancellor Sharon Brehm sponsored a third forum discussion last night in response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The School of Law provided four professors as panelists who offered their knowledge of the U.S. criminal justice system, international law and military tribunals.\nThe panelists discussed the constitutionality of a military order issued by President George W. Bush Nov. 13 endorsing the use of military tribunals to try suspected al Qaeda terrorists captured in Afghanistan. The order was an effort by the Bush Administration to bring justice to the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and thousands of American lives Sept. 11.\n"The terrorist attacks have given President Bush a huge responsibility to prevent further attacks," associate professor of law Dawn Johnsen said. "At the same time, he is responsible for preserving our civil liberties, our government and the central role of the rule of law."\nJohnsen spent five years working in the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department of the Clinton administration. She worked with other lawyers during the time of the Oklahoma City bombings, examining the legality of proposals for bringing justice to the terrorists responsible for the bombings.\nJohnsen said the Bush administration is not effectively using the provision of the separation of powers when making the military order. The Department of Justice -- not only President Bush and the Department of Defense -- has the legal expertise to deal with the constitutionality of military tribunals.\nThe Supreme Court has authorized the use of military tribunals, which have been used during both the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, professor Craig Bradley said. \n"Using military tribunals is not a completely illegitimate notion," Bradley said.\nThe Court based the use of military tribunals on the power of the president during a war declared by Congress, and tribunals were meant to try an enemy combatant out of uniform who destroyed U.S. soil, Bradley said.\nThere is no procedure, however, for distinguishing someone as a current or past member of al Qaeda, Bradley said. Therefore, it is hard to determine whether or not to try them in a military tribunal.\nAlternative ways of trying the suspected terrorists could be used, such as regular military courts, U.S. courts and international tribunals, professor Daniel Conkle said.\nConkle said that whether or not the terrorists are brought to justice through military tribunals, it should be done in a manner that will at least help prevent future terrorism. But Conkle said a punishment for the attacks could have a deterrent effect on the country.\nTrying the terrorists in military tribunals or in the regular U.S. court system could become the basis for retaliation acts of terrorism, Conkle said. They could also cause a "media circus" that would give the terrorists a platform to attract more attention. The effect of the trials depends on the structure of both systems.\nOrdinary U.S. courts have tried and convicted terrorists in the past, Conkle said, adding that the Bush administration doesn't need military tribunals to ensure the safeguard of intelligence they might be seeking when investigating suspected al Qaeda terrorists.\nConkle said the question of where and how the prosecutions should proceed still exists and may continue while the country's current state of emergency keeps the nation fighting the war on terrorism.