File 911: Enemy Captives and Military Tribunals
Note: The World Wide Web is, like the web of a spider, ephemeral. Links shown below may have blown away, but, before giving up on them, be sure to check whether the articles can be located elsewhere via Google or have been preserved in the amber of the Internet Wayback Machine.
Rush Limbaugh, "Bush's FDR Example" (11/27/01). Before complaining that George W. Bush doesn't respect civil liberties, liberals should ponder the darker deeds of one of their great heroes.
Charles Krauthammer, "The Jackals are Wrong" (1/25/02). Why U.S. treatment of Taliban prisoners promotes international law and human rights.
Stephen F. Hayes, "Let Them Starve" (3/4/02). Making concessions to al-Qaeda hunger strikers sends the wrong message to their not-yet-captured comrades.
The Wall Street Journal, "Due Process for Terrorists" (3/22/02). Military tribunals are far more just than the legal codes that the defendants advocate.
Rich Lowry, "When to Hold Them" (3/26/02). Enemy combatants have no "right" to go free before the war is over.
Jonathan Turley, "Terrorism Trial Taking Suicidal Turn" (4/26/02). Thought the author doesn't say so, his account of the farcical start of the trial of the "20th hijacker" demonstrates how military tribunals can be better instruments of justice (for the defendant as well as the government) than civilian courts.
Rich Lowry, "Throw Away the Key" (6/20/02). Our constitutional rights are not endangered by the detention without trial of men identified as enemy soldiers.
| home
