>
> So do think about this the next time the right talks about moral relativism.
> Note how it's not being held here. We used military tribunals for Nazis -
> it seems rather surreal to argue that the Constitution prohibits them from
> being used in a similar situation. Not morally relativist at all.
>
For myself, I am most concerned about the secret and the unilateral nature of the
tribunals. Individuals will be detained "tried" and sentenced by individuals chosen by
the administration by rules that are unknown to all but the adminstration. I believe
that this is a bad precedent and bad policy. The administration cannot simply say
"trust us". That is no how our country has worked. We have trusted process and done
things in public. Sometimes this has cost us but there is no getting around this in a
free society. We do need to demonstrate proof of our accusations even if this proof
does compromise some secrets. Let me make an analogy. When we broke the Enigma code
there was great concern that our actions would reveal to the Nazis that we had their
code. But the only real option was to not use the information we obtained to further
our ends. That would of course completely compromise the value of breaking the code in
the first place. In the current situation we gather evidence!
!
via a many sources. If we choos
e not to reveal our sources we protect them but then the information itself is less
valuable. In the end sources will always be revealed so the key is not to try to
perfectly protect our intelligence but to use it prudently as needed. This is where
the administration is failling.
> Some arguments on the case.
>
> By Charles Lane, the Washington Post's writer covering the Supreme Court (no
> conservative he):
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8363-2001Nov24.html
>
> By William P. Barr (former US Attorney General) and Andrew G. McBride
> (former assistand to the Attorney General and former federal prosecutor in
> the Eastern Disctrict):
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac3/ContentServer?articleid=A43719-2001Nov16&p
> agename=article
>
> And, finally, by Robert Bork, whom most of you will recognize, but if you
> don't - Bork was nominated for the Supreme Court by Reagan and voted down (I
> would not have supported him) but he is acknowledged by both left and right
> as one of the best Constitutional scholars in America:
> http://www.nationalreview.com/17dec01/bork121701.shtml
>
> The second of those articles is - imo, by far the best, and I agree with
> just about everything said there. The first and third are interesting, and
> I include them mainly to give some different perspectives.
>
> Gautam
