Cato Daily Dispatch for November 20, 2001
Bush Defends Military Tribunals OrderPowell Announces New Mideast Peace Initiative
Senators May Compromise On Bush Faith-Based Program
Bush Defends Military Tribunals Order
President Bush said yesterday that his order allowing foreign terrorism suspects to be tried in military tribunals is "the absolute right thing to do," despite fears expressed by many that long-cherished principles of American justice could be compromised, according to The Washington Post.
Bush signed an executive order last week allowing military trials of non-citizens who are members of the Al Qaeda terrorist network or who are charged with aiding or committing acts of terrorism, or harboring terrorists. Such tribunals could be held in secret and could require a lower burden of proof for the government than a normal criminal proceeding. Civilians have not been subject to such trials since World War II.
"I need to have that extraordinary option at my fingertips," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting yesterday. "I ought to be able to have that option available should we ever bring one of these Al Qaeda members in alive. It's our national interests, it's our national security interests that we have a military tribunal available. It is in the interests of the safety of potential jurors that we have a military tribunal."
In today's Wall Street Journal, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies Robert A. Levy critiques Bush's military tribunal order. He writes that the order is tantamount to a suspension of habeas corpus and would not pass constitutional muster. "The Bush executive order takes a perilous step toward eviscerating the time-honored doctrine of the separation of powers, a centerpiece of our Constitution," Levy writes, "The president and his secretary of defense -- if not this administration, then a successor with fewer constitutional scruples -- can run roughshod over the Bill of Rights."
Powell Announces New Mideast Peace Initiative
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said today that the Bush administration -- after 10 months of hesitation -- would send high-level envoys immediately to the Middle East to seek a cease-fire, restart negotiations and help set the terms for the creation of a "viable" Palestinian state and a more secure Israel, according to The New York Times.
His long-awaited speech represented the administration's first significant foray into the Middle East peace process. It did not lay out a specific framework for a peace settlement, but it did make clear that the United States now intends to exercise leadership in the area.
In "U.S. Should Stay Out of Arab-Israeli Conflict," Research Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies Leon Hadar argues that the conflict does not threaten any significant national interests and that the United States would be best served by staying out of the ongoing hostilities in Israel. In "Time for 'Constructive Disengagement' from the Middle East," Hadar explores Syrian-Israeli relations and writes that "while the United States should be ready to play the role of honest mediator in the talks, it should not provide pay-offs to the two sides, in the form of either financial aid or military commitments."
Senators May Compromise On Bush Faith-Based Program
Senators have begun to circulate a draft of a compromise version of President Bush's "faith-based" initiative in hopes of passing the legislation, which would encourage charitable giving, according to The Washington Post.
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) have largely agreed on the language of the proposal, which would allow those who do not itemize their taxes to deduct charitable donations. The White House has agreed to drop for now the more controversial part of the legislation, which addresses the church-state balance. The full version has already passed the House, and the senators hope for passage of the revised version this year.
In "Corrupting Charity: Why Government Should Not Fund Faith-Based Charities," Michael Tanner explains that subsidizing church social services may free up money for proselytizing, thus indirectly funding religious activity. Recently, the Cato Institute hosted the policy forum "Government Funding of Faith-Based Initiatives: Compassionate Conservatism or Corrupting Charity," featuring Marvin Olasky, author of "Tragedy of American Compassion," and other experts. Video and a transcript of the event are available online.
/div>