The case against military tribunals

[Kevin_Kennedy]

In the uproar caused by Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr.'s announcement that the alleged planners of the 9/11 attacks are to be tried in U.S. District Court in New York City, and the suspects in the attack on the U.S. destroyer Cole will go on trial before military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the public discourse has lost sight of the fundamental principles that guide the government when it makes such decisions. Unfortunately, the government has lost sight of the principles as well.

When President George W. Bush spoke to Congress shortly after 9/11, he did not ask for a declaration of war. Instead, Republican leaders offered and Congress enacted an Authorization for the Use of Military Force. The authorization was open-ended as to its targets and its conclusion, and basically told the president and his successors that they could pursue whomever they wanted, wherever their pursuits took them, so long as they believed that the people they pursued had engaged in acts of terrorism against the United States. Thus was born the "war" on terror.

The case against military tribunals -- latimes.com

 

[JW Frogen]

War criminals have traditionally been tried out of the established legal system, see Nuremberg.

Al Qaeda declared, officially, war on the US, and attacked the US.

Military tribunals work for me.

 

[germanguy]

War criminals have traditionally been tried out of the established legal system, see Nuremberg.

Al Qaeda declared, officially, war on the US, and attacked the US.

Military tribunals work for me.

To be correct, the concept of War Crimes is rather new to International Law.
Before the Hague Convention and later the Genevea Convention, it was neither regulated or an existing concept.
Also, as wars before 1945 ended conditionally, any war crime was persecuted according to the rules and regulations of each participating army. The ones held as prisoners of war were, if accused of war crimes, persecuted by the army who held them in captivity.

So the Nuremberg Tribunal was installed which was a precedence in International Law, as it had no foundation in existing regulations. But, as Germany´s armed forces surrendered unconditionally, the political power went over to the Allies.
The Trials held there were therefore in accordance with International Law.

Today there is the International Criminal Court, direct responsible for War Crimes.
But this court can excercise jurisdiction only in cases, when states are involved and acts as a complement to the national courts.

In case of Al Qaeda there are now two very important questions:

- does Al Quaeda qualify as a belligerent
- what consquences does this have

If Al Quaeda is recognized a belligerent, than it´s fighters have, if captured, the status of POWs as well. This then has the consequence, that any crime they have committed can be persecuted by Military Tribunals.

So far the US holds numerous individuals in captivity as "unlawful combatants" which therefore do not fall under the Geneva Convention. So what does that say about the status of War ? Is there one ? Then there must be some POWs at least.

If the US are at war, the other side is a belligerent. If not, the status of the ones held in captivity is rather insecure.

As I see it, bringing the ones accused of 09/11 in NY to court is sound, as the crime was done there.
In case of the USS Cole, either the government of Jemen or the US Military are the ones who should make the process, as it happened on a Military Installation.

regards
ze germanguy

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

War criminals have traditionally been tried out of the established legal system, see Nuremberg.

Al Qaeda declared, officially, war on the US, and attacked the US.

Military tribunals work for me.

Except, as the Judge points out, no war has been declared by the U.S.