Volume CXXXIII, Number 12 December 7, 2001 f

A toast to Sir Winston Churchill: Still pertinent today
TODD BUELL

Lost among the coverage of George Harrison's death was another milestone from the United Kingdom. Last Friday was Winston Churchill's birthday. I was alerted to this anniversary by one of my government professors who wittily exhorted her class to find a record player and imbibe both in Winston's wisdom and in his "medicinal" brandy. Recognizing both the school's ban on hard alcohol and my own dearth of a record player, I was forced to peruse the internet and find a site appropriately named WinstonChurchill.org. It was here where I read in full text the great rhetorician's unforgettable "we shall fight on the beaches" speech and realized the need for our current president and his administration to seek the sagacity of Britain's leader in our time of war.

Although most people have heard Winston's raspy and determined voice utter the proclamation of Britain's resiliency through the war, an earlier part of the speech carries perhaps greater importance today. It guides us as we debate the appropriate powers of the attorney general and the president to hold military tribunals. It is here where Churchill explains the appropriateness of adopting "measures of increasing stringency" against those who harm Great Britain. At this point Great Britain, was not only suffering under the peril of the Nazi blitzkrieg but also bracing for what appeared to be an inevitable axis invasion.

The same is true in this country as America seeks not only to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan but also resolve to eliminate terrorism both here and abroad. In that spirit, President Bush announced military tribunals would be used to try criminals connected to the terrorist attacks. This proclamation by the President has received much criticism. Ralph Neas of the liberal interest group "People for the American Way" conjectured that military tribunals are a "relentless assault on constitutional rights and civil liberties." He and other critics argue that by removing these trials from civilian courts, we are denying the defendants adequate legal counsel and soiling the sacred principles of the constitution.

In an excellent New York Times editorial published on November 30th, President Bush's chief counsel, Alberto Gonzalez, explains the necessity of tribunals and answers the accusations of critics.

In military courts, the defendants are adequately protected. Historically military lawyers successfully acquitted German soldiers during World War II. Contrary to the popular whim, President Bush did not order that all tribunal proceedings be held in secret. Rather the doors are shut only when classified information is being entered as evidence. As Morton Kondracke points out in his November 29th article in Roll Call magazine, it was this releasing of evidence during the trial of those accused of bombing the World Trade Center in 1993 that allowed Osama Bin Laden to discover that our government was monitoring his phone calls. Consequently, Bin Laden ended his telephone communication and we lost a key intelligence advantage. Therefore, it is imperative that this sort of sensitive information not be released to the general public and military tribunals are the best way to assure this protection.

The Supreme Court has ruled military tribunals to be constitutional. It did so during World War II when President Roosevelt employed tribunals to try eight Nazi saboteurs who had invaded our shores.

The attacks on the World Trade Center were an act of war, and our president commensurately has declared "War on Terrorism." Therefore it is imperative that our government exercise all necessary options in bringing the individuals responsible for terrorist attacks to justice without compromising our national security. It is equally necessary that the rights of those accused be protected. Military tribunals offer the safety of a closed proceeding if necessary, but also the competence of military lawyers protecting the rights of those accused.

Therefore President Bush is justified in allowing military tribunals. They expedite a challenge that Churchill recognized during the Second World War: the imperative of knowing that "we are going to govern the country and fight the war." In our language, that means expanding judicial authority in extraordinary times while remaining within the bounds of the constitution. Despite critics, President Bush is prudently doing just that.

May we all raise a glass in celebration.