About AEI My AEI Support AEI Contact AEI
Home Events Books Short Publications Research Areas Scholars & Fellows


Search


FindAdvanced Search

Browse all short publications by:
- Date
- Subject
- Author
- Type
- Title

SHORT PUBLICATIONS
AEI Newsletter
AEI.org Exclusives
The American
Press Releases
Outlook Series
On the Issues
Papers and Studies
AEI Working Paper Series
Government Testimony
Speeches
Book Reviews
AEI Policy Series
The War on Terror

E-NEWSLETTERS
Enter e-mail:
 

Home >  Short Publications >  Five Wrong Justices
Five Wrong Justices
Print Mail
By John Yoo
Posted: Friday, June 30, 2006
ARTICLES
USA Today  
Publication Date: June 30, 2006

By putting on hold military commissions to try terrorists for war crimes, five Supreme Court justices have made the legal system part of the problem, rather than part of the solution to the challenges of the war on terrorism. They tossed aside centuries of American history, judicial decisions of long standing, and a December 2005 law ordering them not to interfere with the military trials.

Visiting Fellow John Yoo  
Visiting Scholar John Yoo
 
As commander in chief, President Bush has the authority to decide on wartime tactics and strategies. Presidents Washington, Jackson, Lincoln and FDR settled on military commissions, sometimes with congressional approval and sometimes without, as the best tool to punish and deter enemy war crimes. Bush used them to solve a difficult tension: how to try terrorists fairly without blowing intelligence sources and methods.

The circus that was the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui shows the dangers in trying to use normal courtroom rules to prosecute terrorists intent on harming the USA. Bush's decision was supported by Congress, which authorized the president to use force in response to the Sept. 11 attacks. Earlier, Congress had recognized commissions in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and last year it created an appeals process for them.

What the justices did would have been unthinkable in prior military conflicts: Judicial intervention in the decisions of the president and Congress on how best to wage war. They replaced his wartime judgment and Congress' support with their own speculation that open trials would not run intelligence risks. Their decision to impose specific rules and override political judgments about military necessity mistakes war--inherently unpredictable, and where our government must act quickly and sometimes secretly to protect national security--for the familiarity of the criminal justice system.

Two years ago, the same justices declared they would review the military's detention of terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. Congress and the president expended time and energy to overrule them. Hamdan will force our elected leaders to go through the same exercise again, effort better spent preventing the next terrorist attack.

John Yoo is a visiting scholar at AEI.

Related Links
In Favor of Military Tribunals
The Supreme Court Goes to War
Wartime, Constitution Empower Presidents
AEI Print Index No. 20311


Also by John Yoo
Recent Articles
Who Will Be a Good President?
Supreme Court Grabbed More Power in Recent Term
The Supreme Court Goes to War
Latest Book
War by Other Means
An Insider's Account of the War on Terror
Economic Outlook

Economic Outlook

In the December issue of Economic Outlook, John H. Makin says that printing money and cutting the payroll tax are the best available measures for avoiding a deflationary spiral that leads to a global depression.


Making a Killing
Making a Killing

In Making a Killing: The Deadly Implications of the Counterfeit Drug Trade, AEI resident fellow Roger Bate analyzes the burgeoning international trade in counterfeit drugs and recommends steps that governments and law enforcement agencies could take to stop it.