Having Their Day in (a Military) Court

THE debate over the president’s order creating military tribunals to try suspected terrorists consists largely of warring slogans and overripe rhetoric: “shredding our Constitution,” “seizing dictatorial power,” etc., on the one hand, and some version of “the bastards don’t deserve any better” on the other. Analysis is in short supply. The issue of the balance between security and civil liberties will be with us, in various guises, for a long time to come. The reality we face means that no resolution of such issues will be wholly satisfactory.

When the issue is trying terrorists, there appear to be only four options: trial in a federal court; trial before an international tribunal; trial before a military tribunal; or setting the captives free. Nobody this side of a psychiatric ward will choose the last option. But the first and second don’t win any prizes either.

About the Author

Robert H. Bork

The late Mr. Bork was a distinguished fellow at the Hudson Institute.

Featured Tags

THE debate over the president’s order creating military tribunals to try suspected terrorists consists largely of warring slogans and overripe rhetoric: “shredding our Constitution,” “seizing dictatorial power,” etc., on the one hand, and some version of “the bastards don’t deserve any better” on the other. Analysis is in short supply. The issue of the balance between security and civil liberties will be with us, in various guises, for a long time to come. The reality we face means that no resolution of such issues will be wholly satisfactory.

When the issue is trying terrorists, there appear to be only four options: trial in a federal court; trial before an international tribunal; trial before a military tribunal; or setting the captives free. Nobody this side of a psychiatric ward will choose the last option. But the first and second don’t win any prizes either.