In the Dec. 3 editorial, the Emerald editorial board laments President Bush’s position “that military tribunals can be used instead of full-fledged public trials” (“Special tribunals, evidence must be made public,” ODE, 12/03). They argue, “We have the right to know who these suspects are, what charges are being brought against them and further details of their individual cases.”
More correctly, we “usually” have this right. It’s often challenged by circumstance. This is always the basic formula for constitutional arguments: Do we limit freedom in case X or let ourselves be totally unhindered? Take, for example, our right to free expression. I can’t stand up in the middle of a class and start talking about my childhood, can I? If I do, I’ll be physically removed by police. Society decides this type of restriction is okay in this case. Should I be allowed to carry on, Emerald editorial board? Or should my right to free expression be taken away in this instance?
The case for secret tribunals is that the survival of the state that brought us all these constitutional rights depends on it. Let the press into the picture when it comes to those like the Taliban, and you’ll be assured the terrorists will learn many things, like how our intelligence operates in trying to stop them, what we know, and so on. With that information, they’ll become harder to find and defend against. The likelihood that thousands of people will die in more terrorist incidents will rise.
The Emerald editorial board knows this. Yet they decide not to make any mention of this side of the discussion. They seem to want to speak only in platitudes, content to turn away from the glare of certain harsh realities. Is that journalism?
To insist that the press should be allowed to be front and center in “all” criminal cases is an argument based on childish delusion, one probably fueled by tenured professors at the department of journalism, as well as all those big-bucks, mainstream press icons whose job is to make sure the public is entertained more than truly informed.
Whether the Emerald realizes it yet, or is even prepared to admit to this, the press’s only real interest is in trying to provide copy people will “consume,” so they can sell ads and make money. Too often, this attitude takes priority over their so-called interest in journalistic fairness. It seems likely that certain ambitious journalists would be more than happy to divulge a national secret or two if it looked like it might lead to career advancement.
We all want as much freedom of the press as possible. To that end, society is willing to put up with a lot from the press, as we are in many areas of life where our freedoms are at stake. But there are times when the potential for journalistic abuse has to be accounted for, in order to ensure that certain rare individuals and their associates are restricted as much as possible.
President Bush is right. Secret tribunals are a necessary evil begotten by evil persons like Osama bin Laden and his fellow murderers. If you’re not willing to face that reality, you should move out of the world of journalism and off to Fantasy Island.