Pick a
classification,
any classification
Perhaps
the first requisite of any justice system is fairness. And for a system
to be fair, it, at least, has to be consistent, not subject to excessive
interpretation by individuals.
Are we in
a war, or are we not in a war? Who exactly is the enemy? Is it a group,
several groups, an idea? How, in fact, do we define a war in the era of
terrorism? Can the Congress pass a declaration of war against something
as vague as people who commit terrorism?
Given our
current situation, these are more than esoteric philosophical questions.
Our entire concept of civil rights hangs in the balance, because in the
answers to these difficult questions lies a road map through the murky
criminal justice quagmire we are finding ourselves in.
To date,
our government has dodged the details, seemingly making up legal
policies as it goes so as to maintain as much flexibility in eliminating
the threat to its citizens. While this is a laudable goal on one level,
this flexible approach may threaten something as equally important: a
system of justice that will protect our citizens and an entire way of
life long after we are all dead.
Consider
just the first few cases we have faced. John Walker Lindh provides the
simplest case, in a way. Lindh, an American, was captured in
Afghanistan. He has been charged in federal court with 10 counts,
including conspiring to kill Americans and supporting terrorist
organizations. Lindh has counsel representing him—reportedly a
high-powered team at that.
Another
American citizen, Yasser Esam Hamdi, was also picked up in Afghanistan
in November. He was originally sent to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, then, when
it was learned that he is an American, he was transferred to a military
brig in Virginia. Presumably he is a bad guy who was to be afforded more
rights than the bad guys held in Cuba, specifically those guaranteed by
the Sixth Amendment: the right to a speedy and public trial, to be
informed of the charges against him, to be confronted by the witnesses
against him, to be able to obtain his own witnesses in his favor and to
have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
But now
the president has waved his invisible scepter and dubbed Hamdi an
"enemy combatant." With that classification, Hamdi enters into
the ether of the justice system. He can be held indefinitely, without
being charged with a crime. He has been denied access to a lawyer. The
government has contended that he is being held for the protection of the
country, not for prosecution purposes
A third,
yet distinct case, is that of American Jose Padilla. He was arrested in
Chicago and sent to a brig in South Carolina, because it is believed he
was planning to build and detonate a "dirty bomb." Padilla,
too, is in the legal ether, having no access to counsel and no charges
filed against him.
And then
there are people who qualify for military tribunals, but exactly who
they are and why they qualify remains a mystery except to a few in the
executive branch of government.
There are
some 100 foreign nationals being held in connection to the
"war" on terrorism. It is unclear where they fall in the
judicial scheme of things. The Supreme Court has ruled that their
hearings will be held in secret.
Perhaps
the first requisite of any justice system is fairness. And for a system
to be fair, it, at least, has to be consistent, not subject to excessive
interpretation by individuals. Further, the subjects of that system need
to know what the rules are ahead of time.
If Hamdi
was considered an enemy combatant, why wasn’t Lindh? For that matter,
if Lindh can be charged and given the usual rights associated with due
process, why wasn’t Padilla treated the same way? I suspect the answer
has to do with the relative strengths of the cases the government has.
Or perhaps it has to do with their willingness to use the evidence it
has for fear of compromising other intelligence operations.
It is
tempting to take the stance: Who cares about these bad eggs and their
rights, anyway? I would agree if we knew with certainty that these guys
were, in fact, the bad guys who had done bad things. Right now all we
have to go on is the government’s determination that they are bad, a
determination based on information no one is allowed to see. It may be
reliable information; it may not be.
This is
precisely why we have an adversarial system of justice. We let two
sides, the prosecution and the defense, do their best to tear apart each
other’s case. In the aftermath, what is left standing amid all the
rubble in a courtroom is a reasonable approximation of the truth.
Ironically,
the two non-citizens deemed to be terrorists have somehow escaped the
nebulous fate Hamdi and Padilla face. Richard Reid and Zacarias
Moussaoui are both run-of-the-mill defendants working their way through
the legal system.
Taken in
perspective, this doesn’t seem to be a big deal; we’re talking a
limited number of cases. But I suspect the issue will broaden. There
will be more people caught up in the system. With this inconsistent and
seemingly extemporaneous approach to terrorist cases, innocent people
are bound to find themselves in legal jeopardy.
Back to
definitions. If we are truly at war, there is no reason we can’t hold
and interrogate prisoners until the war is over. This has been done
since the dawn of wars. But are we at war? Congress is supposed to
determine that. It’s not something to be inferred from a president’s
speech. If we are at war, against whom is it being waged? And how do we
know when it is over? How is what we are doing now different from the
covert operations the CIA and the 12 other secret government
organizations have been carrying out for years?
Given our
situation, these are very difficult questions to answer. But the
Congress and the Administration need to face the messy details of a
"war" on terrorism. We need some clarity and commitment to a
position balancing national security with civil rights. It will involve
compromising on both ends. But spending the time and energy to find that
fine point of balance brings us closer to the ever-illusive ideal of
democracy. Without the effort, we are doomed to get gummed up in a
totally elastic system of justice.