Well-reasoned rejoinder to Rush Limbaugh’s defense of military tribunals, from rc3. Here’s an excerpt. Read the whole thing.

Limbaugh: In 1942 the Supreme Court ruled that Roosevelt’s military commissions were constitutional when used to try eight Nazi saboteurs for violating the laws of war, spying and conspiracy. The lawyers who drafted Bush’s order no doubt relied on FDR’s court victory in that case — an irony obviously lost on Bush’s critics.

rc3: I don’t need to tell readers of this site that this decision was widely seen as regrettable, and was reached under different circumstances than Bush’s executive order. As a refresher, the tribunals for the eight Nazi saboteurs were held during a state of declared war, and the order was written specifically for the 8 saboteurs in question, not for any old saboteur we might possibly catch in the future.

Furthermore, the military tribunals ordered by FDR are nothing to look back on with pride. It’s widely understood now that the tribunals were held in order to avoid embarrassment for Hoover’s FBI. The saboteurs were caught because one of the eight turned them in as soon as he arrived in the United States. The embarrassment stemmed from the fact that the first time the saboteur attempted to turn himself (and the others) in, he was dismissed as a crank. Only on his second contact with the FBI did they actually investigate the case and apprehend the saboteurs.

After making specious arguments that the military tribunals do not violate the Bill of Rights, he goes into the problems with trying terrorists in criminal courts, ignoring the fact that we successfully tried the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center the first time, the terrorists who blew up the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland, and the terrorists who blew up US embasses in Africa in 1998 in civil courts without issue.