Research Paper on Military Tribunals

On September 11, 2001 the USA was rocked by terrorist attacks on New York City and the Pentagon. The attacks where carried out by group known as al Qaida, who is based in Afghanistan. As a result the USA went to war once again. This was not a normal war against a country but a war against small groups of people that have been funded by several different countries. The war on terrorism has produced many prisoners. The question comes up what to do with them. They are not citizens of the United States for them most part. They are not representing a specific country in a war, so they are not prisoners of war. The US government decided that they actually where prisoners of war and can be prosecuted using a military tribunal.

We can write a research paper on Military for you!

A military tribunal has a lot of differences from a traditional court. Military tribunals use a panel three to seven military officers as opposed to a 12 member public jury. In a regular trial the jury most be unanimous in its decision in the tribunal. It takes a two-thirds majority vote for conviction and punishment, except when the death penalty is the punishment in which case it has to be unanimous. The rules regarding evidence are a little more lax. Second hand evidence and hearsay are aloud in military tribunals they are not in a traditional trial. Prosecutors also do not need to prove the chain of evidence since that could mean exposing valuable intelligence resources. The defendants are provided with counsel from military lawyers and the can hire their own lawyer at their own cost. The biggest difference between military tribunals and traditional courts is in the appeals process. In a traditional court case the case could be reviewed by court of appeals. In a military tribunal the appeals process goes to a board of review and final review is made by the commander in chief. 1 So, why does President Bush want to use military tribunals? The answer is simple they are more efficient and there is a better chance of a conviction. There is a better chance of conviction because it only takes a two-thirds majority for conviction.

People have been arguing since it was announced that military tribunals would be used that the order was vague and would take away the rights of U.S. citizens. In the Presidential order signed by President Bush there are guidelines about who would and would not be tried before a military tribunal. Section two of the order states that A?a‚¬A“The term "individual subject to this order" shall mean any individual who is not a United States citizen with respect to whom I determine from time to time in writing that there is reason to believe that such individual, at the relevant times, is or was a member of the organization known as al QaidaA?a‚¬A?. This means that if you are a citizen of The United States of America and have not renounced your citizenship that you could not be tried under a military tribunal. You must be a citizen of another country and a member of a terrorist group ,such as al Qaida. Dick Chenney has also went on record and said "And the individuals that will be considered for that are, first of all, not American citizens -- they have to be non-citizens -- secondly, believed to have engaged in or be participating in terrorist attacks designed to kill Americans, or have provided sanctuary to those who are conducting terrorist operations against Americans." That means that a military tribunal could try people that harbor a terrorist or assist them in any manner.

The Question then turns to how can the United States of America try them if they did not actually commit a crime in the United States of America and they are not citizens of the United States of America? The Answer is a simple one. The acts of terrorism committed where an act of war against the United States, there for the terrorist, just like the Nazis, can be tried by a military tribunal for crimes committed against the citizens of the United States of America. Attorney General John Ashcroft said at a news conference "I think it's important to understand that we are at war now. And it's pretty clear that the acts of the terrorists on the United States soil against innocent individuals in the United States -- acts which have subsequently been endorsed by the terrorists in their statements about how they say the United States' innocent people deserve this kind of treatment -- these are acts of war". So by declaring war they set themselves up to be tried for war crimes committed against innocent people.

So, what is a war crime? A war crime is a crime committed against humanity during war. Some would say that war in itself is a crime against humanity. That may be the case. During war innocent civilians are hurt. They are not targeted on purpose. The terrorist of September 11, targeted civilians on purpose, yes they targeted military, but their main target was civilian. Now, the argument could be made that the people being tried by the military tribunals where not the ones that carried out the attacks. That is true, but they are the ones that protected them, provide them money and documents, and planned the attacks for them. So just because they did not fly the plane or take hostages they should not be tried? NO, they should be tried for their crimes. They are just as guilty as the people that where on the planes, and evidence can be gathered about them and their activities with terrorist groups.

What you argue that evidence that would not normally be emitted into a normal court is going to be used and it should not be used? The evidence in question is gathered from secret intelligence source. If the prosecutor had to reveal these sources then it would be even harder to stop terrorist in the future. Peter J. Wallison wrote "Even in revealing secret intelligence, it may not be possible to meet the standards of a US criminal court for convicting Mr. bin Laden or his co-conspirators. When the criminal justice system deals with organized crime, it is frequently unable to gain convictions without the testimony of someone who has direct knowledge of the culpability of the Mafia boss." Do you want a terrorist treated like a Mafia boss and thrown in jail for a conviction of tax evasion? They would be free to build bombs and terrorize people in no time. All for the sake of them knowing exactly where the evidence came from. Which they pass on to their friends who then use the information to ether kill the informants or feed them false information to make their work easier. Imagine the Federal Bureau of Investigation gets word that terrorists are going to blow up the Washington Monument. Resources are shifted to hunt down the terrorist in Washington and to protect the Washington Monument. In the mean time terrorists are in Seattle, Washington. They are building a bomb made from fertilizer and fuel oil. They put it in a truck and drive to downtown Seattle. They set a timer and walk away. An hour later BOOM the bomb blows up. It was parked out side the Space Needle. The bomb takes out the supports on side of the building. It starts to fall over into the building next to it, that build collapse into the building next to it and so on. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is then flooded with demands to know why they did not stop the attack when they have those secret intelligence resources. All because you wanted to see where the evidence came from in a trial for some one that would rather kill you then have you give him a buck.

What about appeals? Do you really care if they get to appeal a decision or are you just yelling about it because that is what citizens of the United States get. Face it the terrorist are not citizens of the United States, for the most part. Should the United States of America really have to provide them with an appeal? Don't worry rest easy, if they do not like the decision handed down by the military tribunal, let's face it if they are convicted they will not like the decision, they can appeal. The appeals go to a review board that that reviews the case and decides to overturn the decision or keep it. After the review board there is still another step for appeals. The Commander-in-Chief, or the President of the United States, reviews the case and makes the final decision. He is trusted to run the country so it makes sense that he would be trusted to make a decision on an appeal for a terrorist.

The terrorists that have been captured took up arms against the United States. Should they not be tried for trying to kill United States soldiers? The answer to that question has to be answered by every one. It's a personal decision. But, keep this in mind if these terrorist are not tried and convicted and are allowed to go free when will we see them again? Most likely it will be at the other end of a gun or building a bomb. Or worse yet running into a building, that you are in, with a bomb strapped to their chest to blow the building up.

• CAUTION! Free research paper samples & examples of research papers on Military Tribunals topics are 100% plagiarized!!!

At EssayLib.com - professional research writing service - you can buy custom research papers on Military Tribunals, 100% written from scratch. EssayLib.com employs top-rated Ph.D. and Master's experts only to write superior-quality custom research papers, term papers, essays, research proposals, thesis papers & dissertations at affordable rates. EssayLib.com knows HOW effectively to help high school, college & university students with writing the highest grade custom papers online.

Enjoy our Professional Research Paper Writing Service!