BY MALIK MIAH
SAN FRANCISCO — President George Bush's proclaimed "war on terrorism" is not just directed at Osama bin Laden, the al Qaeda network or the Taliban forces in Afghanistan. The war is also targeted at civilians in the US and abroad.
On November 14 Bush signed a sweeping military order allowing special military tribunals to try foreigners charged with terrorism. The dictatorial order means Bush as "commander in chief" will decide who is an accused terrorist and therefore subject to trial by the military tribunal.
According to the White House communications director Dan Bartlett, "We have looked at this war very unconventionally, and the conventional way of bringing people to justice doesn't apply to these times".
The first military tribunals could be held in Pakistan and Afghanistan for captured suspected members of al Qaeda and the Taliban. However, the US doesn't want a trial of Osama bin Laden. Bush said in September that bin Laden should be brought back "dead or alive". Members of Congress have all said "dead" is preferable to any kind of trial. The US never signed on to the concept of an international criminal court and doesn't care for a second long-dragging Milosevic-type charade.
Long-term objective
Once the precedent is set in Afghanistan of swift capital justice and international law be damned, similar secret trials of suspected "terrorists" (and executions) could take place elsewhere in the world when suspected terrorists are caught. This is the long-term political objective of US imperialism's war on terrorism and its brutal carpet bombing slaughter of civilians and resistance fighters in Afghanistan. It is an example the imperialist rulers want the world's working people and oppressed never to forget.
Those charged by the military court will have few rights, if any. The US Bill Of Rights and constitutional guarantees will be excluded and denied. For example, a defendant would not necessarily get his or her choice of a lawyer. Instead of jurors, military officers would render verdicts. And only a two-thirds vote of the panel of offices would be sufficient to convict. The convicted "terrorist" could face the death penalty with no right of appeal.
Such military trials have rarely been used in US history. The last case occurred during World War II. In 1942 a secret 18-day trial by a military commission sentenced to death German marines planning sabotage. The Supreme Court upheld the right of the president to do so.
In 1946 there was a US military trial of the commanding army general of Japan in the Philippines. He was executed.
The other examples of such draconian tribunals occurred in the US civil war of 1861-65, the Mexican war of 1846-48 and the war of independence in 1780.
The Bush "war on terrorism" is unique in that Congress has made no formal declaration of war and there is no country that the United States is at war against except all countries that allegedly "harbour" terrorists.
The government has made clear that the Taliban in Afghanistan is only the first regime that will face destruction if the dictates of Washington are not heeded.
War at home
At the same time that Bush signed this military order, the Justice Department was stepping up its war on "domestic terrorism". US Attorney-General John Ashcroft has directed law enforcement agencies across the country to pick up and question 5000 men, most of them from Middle Eastern countries who entered the US legally in the last two years. Only those with student, business or tourist visas between the ages of 18 and 32 are on the list so far.
This new attack on civil liberties and use of racial profiling occurs after some 1200 people have already been held in custody, many without access to lawyers, by the Justice Department since September 11.
In October, Congress adopted legislation allowing those suspected of being involved in terrorism to be held for up to seven days for questioning without being charged.
The police can obtain from a special intelligence court the authority for roving wiretaps on a person suspected of involvement in terrorism so that any telephone used by that person could be monitored. Previously, the police needed separate authorisation for each phone used by the person. Special warrants can also be received to get access to computers and email without a person's knowledge.
The Justice Department is also allowing the police to monitor private conversations between people in federal custody and their lawyers.
While civil libertarians have denounced many of these draconian measures, the general sentiment of support to the "war on terrorism" has made most liberals defensive in attacking a "popular" president. The director of the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) in Washington, Laura Murphy, described the military order setting up tribunals as "deeply disturbing and further evidence that the administration is totally unwilling to abide by the checks and balances that are so central to our democracy".
Critics of the rulers' "war on terrorism" are blasted in the media as "soft-on-terror" or more concerned about civil liberties and due process than getting "justice" for the 5000 civilians who died in the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.
The strongest mainstream denunciation of the Bush military tribunals — not surprisingly in this climate — is coming from some extreme conservatives. New York Times columnist William Safire (a right-wing Republican who continues to call on the Pentagon to immediately destroy Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq) referred to the military order as "Bush's first historic mistake".
In November 15 Times column entitled, "Seizing dictatorial powers", Safire argued that claims that "extraordinary security measures [are] needed to save citizens' lives" are "arguments of the phony-tough".
Bush's "kangaroo court", Safire explained, "can conceal evidence by citing national security, make up its own rules, find a defendant guilty even if a third of the officials disagree, and execute the alien with no review by any civilian court."
Safire concluded that: "In an Orwellian twist, Bush's order calls this Soviet-style abomination 'a full and fair trial'."
Safire's best solution, of course, is dropping a bomb on bin Laden so no trial is necessary.
The next day the editors of the Times called the Bush court "a travesty of justice". "Using secretive military tribunals", they wrote, "would ultimately undermined American interests in the Islamic world by casting doubt on the credibility of a verdict against Osama bin Laden and his aides. No amount of spinning by Mr. Bush's public relations team could overcome the impression that the verdict had been dictated before the trial began. Reliance on tribunals would also signal a lack of confidence in the case against the terrorists and in the nation's democratic institutions."
Sections of the ruling elite are clearly uneasy at Bush's seizing of dictatorial powers. They want the world and Americans to regard the "war on terrorism" as just and defensible.
The murderous carpet bombing in Afghanistan may have scored a "victory" because the "enemy" had no popular support, but will the response be the same when the same terror is used by the US in Lebanon or Syria? And will Muslims and others accept a Western show trial of the Taliban religious leaders and even bin Laden?
From Green Left Weekly, November 28, 2001.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.