APA Women Flex Muscles (Feature) President's Advisory Commission on AAPI (in National News) Community Fears Loss of Chinese Language Programming (in Bay Area News) AsiaWeek Magazine Closes (in Business) The Next Big Thing (in Sports) Death Becomes Him (in A&E) Emil Amok: Mineta Minutes (in Opinion)

Suspected Terrorists To Be Tried in Military Tribunals

By Ji Hyun Lim

In another step toward winning the ‘War on Terrorism,’ the Bush administration issued a Military Order to try suspected terrorists in military tribunals on Nov. 14. President Bush maintained that as the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed forces of the United States, he would appoint three officers to conduct non-public trials for suspected terrorists.

Said Bush: “Having fully considered the magnitude of the potential deaths, injuries and property destruction that would result from potential acts of terrorism against the United States, and the probability that such acts will occur, I have determined that an extraordinary emergency exists for national defense purposes, that this emergency constitutes an urgent and compelling government interest, and that issuance of this order is necessary to meet the emergency.”

According to the Bush administration, a military tribunal would help expedite trials of suspected terrorists quickly and efficiently. This decision, however, was made unilaterally without the consultation of Congress. As the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces, President Bush initiated this method and set aside the option to try suspects in a civilian court The process, though it can be lengthy, has been used by the American government for over 200 years.

Without a congressional declaration of war, the president can only issue a Military Order and not an Executive Order, which is the normal precedent for the use of military tribunals; however, such loopholes have allowed the government authority to issue law.

Civil rights groups like the Alliance of South Asians Taking Action (ASATA) expressed opposition to military tribunals. Arthi Varma of ASATA said that such actions violate civil liberties and perpetuate systematic racial profiling that has been happening since Sept. 11.

Said Varma: “There is no particular excuse for [these] racist policies. Aren’t South Asians and Middle Easterners Americans as well? We need to ask the question ‘which Americans are being protected and how is the administration using its power to domestically wage war against communities of color.’”

The Japanese American Citizens League (JACL) agrees that “checks and balances” in the American system is a necessary democratic right. John Tateishi, executive director of JACL points out that in 1942, the government gave authority to the military to determine the fate of one segment of the nation’s population, creating the exclusion and imprisonment of Japanese Americans, resulting in one of America’s most severe infringments on human rights.

“Our whole mission is to ensure that the constitutional rights of the individuals are maintained,” Tateishi said. “We’re concerned about the process and any attempt to go around the process that ensures the civil rights of anyone in the country. We saw this happen with our whole community. We didn’t see any trials, hearings. The issei were rounded up and put in to federal prisons and held there without any form of due process.”

Tateishi voiced concern that secret hearings might impede the rights of individuals. In a tribunal, suspected terrorists are detained while the government conducts secret hearings. Three individuals determine the outcome by trial, conviction and possibly even a sentence of death. There is no trial by jury and there are no appeals. Rules of evidence are not as in civil courts and there is a much greater possibility of being wrongly tried; the safeguards against exploiting the truth in some way in order to get someone convicted are not foolproof, Tateishi argued.

Said Tateishi: “Once you go down that road, this nation is headed for serious trouble. If we allow it to happen now, then who’s next? Those of us who are concerned about maintaining civil rights in the United States — especially in times of crisis, if we don’t stand up and raise our concerns and voice our protests to this kind of action, then I don’t think we’re fulfilling our obligations. It’s our responsibility to speak out against things like this.”