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.
Me: I'm afraid I don't know who wrote the above. First, the trick of using intelligence while protecting sources is the eternal dilemma facing intelligence agencies and the governments who rely upon them. So you try to use them judiciously, and do everything you can to minimize the risk. Famously, in the case of Enigma, Winston Churchill was willing to allow the bombing of the city of Coventry rather than reveal that Britain had broken the code. It's hard to think of a more appropriate example of just how important protecting sources and methods is. The Administration, so far as I can tell, is _succeeding_. The Clinton Administration failed when it revealed that we were intercepting satellite communications between Bin Laden and members of his organization in its quest to prosecute those responsible for the embassy bombings. In doing so we lost our best source of information on Al Qaeda. That was a failure. Second, Alberto Gonzales, the White House counsel, has written in the New York Times about these tribunals. Gonzales, btw, is rumored to be on the very short list for the next Supreme Court seat. The article is at http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/30/opinion/30GONZ.html?searchpv=past7days. He points out that the tribunals will be open, not closed, and so on. I advise everyone to read it. During the Civil War, Lincoln set up military tribunals all over the country, suspended habeas corpus, and shut down hostile newspapers. Roosevelt imposed censorship on every part of the American media. Both remained subject to elections. But the Constitution recognizes that during wartime the Executive Branch gains a great deal of authority - it was designed with precisely that in mind, and designed also to make sure that once the wartime emergency is over, that authority is again given up. It has worked remarkably well in the past. As long as we stay within the strictures of what the Constitution allows - and we are doing exactly that - then we are fine. Gautam
