Military commissions: a success for democracy Commentary
Military commissions: a success for democracy
Edited by:

Dr. James Jay Carafano [Senior Research Fellow, Heritage Foundation]: "When Congress passed the law that will govern how terrorist suspects can be tried in military tribunals, they acted just like the Founding Fathers would have wished. They stuck fast to principles, the bedrock of values and beliefs that this nation stands for — and they compromised on particulars.

Three principles were at stake in the debate — ones that should be used to grade the compromise. Any suitable legislation would have to 1) respect the rule of law, 2) guarantee the basic human rights to the defendants and 3) respect the legitimate national security interests of the United States. By any fair measure of the legislation, Congress did all three.

In stipulating the procedures that will be used to interrogate defendants, Congress fulfilled the Supreme Court's mandate of specifically authorizing the rules for trials. It was Congress's job to ensure that all the equitable elements of due process, such as the right counsel, were included. Congress did this.

Congress also stipulated that these procedures were compliant with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. This measure was designed to reassure the rest of the world that the United States takes seriously its responsibility to respect the basic human rights of all persons, on and off the battlefield.

Finally, Congress ensured that adequate measures were taken to protect legitimate secrets and the "sources and methods" used to obtain them. Some complain that other war crimes trials, such the Nazi Nuremberg trials and the prosecutions of Bosnian war criminals at the Hague, did not allow for "secret" evidence. But there is a significant difference. Those trials didn't take place during a war when enemies on the battlefield might use the information to their advantage. Under the congressional rules for military commissions, defendants will still be able to know about and challenge evidence — they just won't be able to give away America's secrets.

This is a rare example of democracy at its best."

Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.