June 30, 2006
Let's just forget for a moment that the recent Supreme Court ruling on military tribunals was wrong. Citing the Geneva Conventions presupposes we're dealing with conventional soldiers in a conventional war. We're not. These terrorists wore no uniform nor did they answer directly to any legitimate government. In fact, the particular terrorist in question before the court, a former body guard and driver for Osama bin Laden, worked for a man with no country; a nomad who had drifted from one terrorist sponsor to another.
The high court said this terrorist, and, others like him, must be tried before a civil court or face court-martial. The latter is particularly odd since most courts-martial apply to persons in uniform under the same flag. When I pointed out on the radio how we handled things after World War II, a caller took issue with me, noting how “times have changed.” Times may have changed but the basic rule of law has not.
American officials began setting up post-war criminal proceedings as early as August 1944, prior to the fall of Germany . Treasure Secretary Henry Morgenthau submitted recommendations to President Roosevelt. Morgenthau proposed shooting many German leaders upon capture and using the rest to rebuild the Europe . Colonel Murray Bernays, who worked in the War Department's Special Project Branch, suggested treating the Nazi regime as a criminal plot. After wrangling by the Allies, an International Military Tribunal was convened and began the trial of twenty-one defendants on November 20, 1945. On October 1 of the following year, the verdicts were handed down. Eleven of the twenty-one were sentenced to death. Two weeks later, all were hanged; with the exception of the notorious butcher Hermann Goering, who committed suicide prior to his execution.
No one whined that their human rights were being abused. No one took their cases to the Supreme Court. No one insisted that the Americans were the real bad guys and the Nazis were simply victims of their terror. The newspapers didn't line up to thwart the administration in carrying out justice. War criminals were tried and justice was served.
Now flash forward 60 years. Times indeed have changed, but justice is unremitting. We have in our possession an assortment of enemy combatants collected from the battlefield in the war on terror. Some are low-level thugs while others are notorious terrorists with valuable information and undeniable culpability in crimes against humanity. Why some in this country are hell-bent on helping them is beyond me. I guess in the liberal mindset there can only be one bad guy and George Bush is it. By their reckoning, everyone else must be innocent. We are the evil empire. We are the imperialist, capitalist pigs who march across the planet leaving nothing but destitution and destruction in our wake. Everyone else is wholesome and good and peaceful and loving and we're out to destroy them at the behest of Big Oil.
Okay, fine. Let's abide by the Supreme Court. Let's put these terrorists on trial in a civil court. Let's put them on trial in, say, Killeen , Texas . In the shadow of Fort Hood . By comparison, when all's said and done, the Nuremberg Trials will look like traffic court. These slimy pieces of human feculence will be begging for the cozy confines of Gitmo, where they can eat their specially prepared meals and flush their Korans down the toilet and blame it on the guards. Or, perhaps, they'll choose the Goering way out. In that case, let us know so we can all look the other way. We wouldn't want to trample on your rights.