Talk:Military tribunals in the United States

Untitled

It's not correct that the German defendants in Operation Pastorius/Ex Parte Quirin were "executed by firing squad." All were executed in the electric chair.

This article is biased, “informing” on how much “unfair” and “unjust” military tribunals are, that’s POV, a section of critics to military tribunals can be added, but both sides must be tell, this article right now is a “military tribunal bashing”, little informative piece of text...

Why don't you make some specific sections, if you find the wording biased?

I predict that neither you, or anyone else, will not be able to find anything to say in favor of military tribunals, other than that they can be expedient.

If no-one makes any contributions with points in favor of military tribunals, within a certain period of time, I suggest we remove the {POV} tag. I suggest two weeks. Fair enough?

Oh yeah. It is considered polite to sign, and date stamp, your submissions on talk pages, by appending four tildes ~~~~ -- Geo Swan 15:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

A military tribunal is made to judge crimes perpetrated by enemy forces during wartime, terrorism, war crimes and pretty much any other crime, charges are not “generalities”..

The article is an opinion on how much military tribunals or commissions (they are court-martials anyway) are unfair, unjust and used and a tool to “judge and hang” enemy forces… that’s an opinion not a fact…

I do not fully support military tribunals against enemy forces, since concerns about impartiality of one army judging the enemy army do exist, but this article goes far beyond explaining the concerns and criticisms, and it becomes an article-opinion-fact that is biased, however, major problem is that, no one gives a damn about it.

I maybe write some new stuff trying to make it more “impartial”, but not sure, when an article of real interest, like in the George Bush one.. there is talks about even how economical data is reported, but later there is many articles like this one, extremely biased, but no one cares about...

The POV tag should stay, because saying, in 2 weeks no one has come with anything to defend military tribunals is NOT a reason to leave a clearly biased article free... LightofGlow 21:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

You think this article is biased because "military commissions" are "courts martial"? Well I think that is your problem right there. I think you are simply misinformed. I read about the military tribunals the Bush administration wants to use in Guantanamo Bay. One of the criticisms I read said (paraphrasing) -- the USA already has two existing, well-respected justice systems, the civilian justice system and the military justice system, with established bodies of rules, and precedents. The intention to use military commissions to judge the Guantanamo suspects was an attempt to set up a third system, one with practically no protections for the suspects.

Have you actually looked into the proposed rules of evidence?

1. The tribunal can use classified evidence against the suspect -- evidence he isn't allowed to see, and thus cannot possibly rebut.
2. The general in overall charge of the commissions has the authority to shut it down -- without explanation.
3. Rumsfeld says that even if the commissions find the suspects innocent that wouldn't mean he would authorize their release.

You are correct, this is one of the politically charged articles. Will you agree that if the military commissions the Bush administration wants to use to convict the Guantanamo detainees are not courts martial, using the rules of evidence and the precedents of the ordinary military justice system, that your {POV} tag should be removed? -- Geo Swan 00:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Did you read this editorial from the 2005/9/7 Washington Post? -- Geo Swan 04:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

A military tribunal is a court-martial for enemy forces, and is not a third system anyway, since is part of military justice system.

I do have read about military tribunals, and as I say I have my doubts, but this article is wrong, since it doesn’t leave a single doubt about how bad tribunals are, it is giving a personal opinion, maybe shared by a lot of people, but that doesn’t make it true, this article is an editorial just like the Washington Post one, its telling an opinion, not even how the system works since it only tells the most superficial details.

The article can and should have a section for criticisms, like for example to evidence rules etc, and should have a section with rebuttals or favorable opinions if there is..

An article that ends like this: “but considering all the factors mentioned, the trial conditions are far from impartial.” Is not only biased, but already making conclusions, like if this were a general opinion article, like a blog or an editorial…

The article is POV and it should stay like that until it is revised. LightofGlow 05:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I have added several links that say President Bush's military tribunals are not courts martial.

I have removed the one specific sentence that you thought was evidence of bias. Personally, I disagree with you about that sentence. Personally, I think it is a fair summry. I have added some details about the tribunals, and we will let the reader decide if they are fair, OK?

Are you aware that several of the officers who were tapped to serve as prosecutors in the commissions declined that service because they could not stomach the basic unfairness of the rules? Are you aware that they accused their boss of telling them that the presiding officers had been chosen specifically because they were trusted to bring down convictions, no matter what? I am going to assume that you are unaware of these facts, or you couldn't possibly have placed that {POV} tag. -- Geo Swan 09:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The article is POV no matter what, because its not even a encyclopedia entry, is a personal opinion, there is ways and ways of writing about a particular theme.

If the rules are unfair, then first must be decided so, and must officially recognized as that way so it may became part of an encyclopedia, and that’s a bit hard to do so.

Even if many people think that military tribunals are unfair, that doesn’t make it true de-facto, in past centuries everyone believed earth was flat…

This article should inform about what is, how it works, why can it be called on etc.. a military tribunal, then it can be a section dedicated to criticisms of the system, and accusations of unfairness based on certain rules of the procedure can be tell about etc..

The article doesn’t even comply with a minimum of quality..

Abortion nurses also some times refuse to work because they cannot stomach the procedure, however abortion article does not draw the conclusion of: “considering all the factors abortion is a brutal procedure” etc.. (even if many people regard it as that), however it does have “The debate” section that is how this article should have.

I am going to rewrite the article, once I get it, in about a day, we can continue the debate of whatever what I writed is correct or not... LightofGlow 10:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Concerning your first two paragraphs above -- yes, the encyclopedia entries should not be built around our personal opinions -- yours and mine -- but, my understanding is that encyclopedia entries can and should summarize opinions published in widely published, respected sources. I added links to the BBC and the Washington Post. I believe that they are exactly the kind of widely published, well respected sources wikipedia articles should summarize. If you think that my personal views have colored my summary I would welcome hearing about it -- in specifics though please. Don't just say "doesn't even comply with a minimum of quality." That isn't helpful. That doesn't help your fellow wikipedians to try to reach a compromise with you. It doesn't help your fellow wikipedians to see how their summaries might be incorrect.

About your "earth is flat" analogy... Sorry. Even during the depths of dark ages there remained educated men who were aware of the experiments of the pre-BC scientist, whose name escapes me, who proved the Earth was round(*) over 2000 years ago. If the wikipedia was being written in "past centuries" an article on the shape of the world should have included that experiment, and the views of those who contended that the earth was round.

Although you haven't said so, I am going to assume that you are quietly acknowledging that the military commission are not, in fact, courts martial, within the US military justice system? I would like you to acknowledge that in print please -- as a courtesy for those who may read our discussion in future.

Ah. You plan to rewrite the article, with a "how it works" section, followed by a "criticism" section? Sorry, I didn't see your offer. I completed my own rewrite after I woke up. It doesn't follow your suggested structure. I hope that is okay with you. Yes, I know I haven't yet supplied sources for the info about the prosecutor memos retrieved through FOIA. They are in my notes somewhere. I will add them when I can. Or, you should feel free to google for them yourself.

(*) How did the ancient scientist prove that the Earth was round? He noticed, one day, that at high noon, when he looked down a well, the sun was directly overhead. He arranged for a confederate, whose city was directly north of his, to measure the angle the Sun subtended, at high noon, exactly one year later. Then he used trigonometry to calculate an estimate for the Earth's diameter. His value came within a few hundred miles of the correct figure. Many well educated ancient people knew the Earth was round. It is a popular misconception that everyone used to believe the Earth was flat. -- Geo Swan 15:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Check my adds and changes, I dint touch the Guantanamo text, I think they are pretty much NPOV, but still includes all the criticisms and added a couple more.

I hope we can come up with an agreement.

I still maintain military tribunals are court-martials against enemy forces, since they do are, they are different from normal courts, but they do are court-martials, name differently and operated against enemy forces with certain differences from normal courts, but many things are the same or similar.

They are not a court-martial, that just a name given to a military court, I just used it as a way to refer them.

I know how the ancients found that earth is round, actually is one of my favorite science experiments ever, just was using it as an example of how easy anyone can believe in highly implausible facts. LightofGlow 22:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Court martials are based on due process, thus military personnel benefit from constitutional protections. Tribunals totally lack that element and are more akin to kangaroo courts. Even enemy combatants have a right to fair justice. --Fahrenheit451 20:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Military trials can't be kanagaroo courts, because they aren't courts, and aren't designed to be. [1]. In fact the supreme court has upheld the right of the military tribunals, and that they are just. I hope you aren't telling me that the Nuremburg trials weren't. And putting prisoners in criminal courts takes a long time, a lot of money, looses valuable information, and could potentially put the lives of the jurors at stake, or at least make them uneccesarilly be put under the protection system. These points among others should be better addressed in the article. 12.220.47.145 23:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• I changed the reference of Lincoln using military tribunals after the civil war since he was killed days before it ended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.73.23.5 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 2006 July 12

military commissions are not courts martial

military commissions are not courts martial. They are not courts, at all, although they may superficially resemble them. But they lack established rules of evidence, precedents. One of the weaknesses of the Guantanamo military commissions that were recently struck down was that most of the charges against the ten weren't actually crimes. -- Geo Swan 12:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Rewrites needed

I haven't paid attention to what has been happening in this article until today.

There is an article Guantanamo military commissions. In recent months 70-80 percent of this article is about the Guantanamo military commissions. When, IMO, this article should be about military tribunals in general, not just US proceedings, and not just recent proceedings.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 12:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is biased against President Bush. As much of an idiot as I think he is we have to be fair. Please revise. (added in the article by User:Monkeymind90)

The procedural discussion of military tribunals was seriously flawed, so I removed it and placed it below in italics. The problem is that this discussion does not identify which countries military's tribunals at what point of time, under what authority, are being discussed, and does not provide a source the rules discussed or describe them as typical with appropriate references. There has not been a single rigid formula through all time and for all nations for military commissions or tribunals. Most, indeed, have been relatively ad hoc. I suspect, but don't know, that these rules are for the Guantanamo Bay proceedings, and if so, the best solution would be for people to look at an article specific to those rules (where sources are important as the rules are frequently changing or being written at this point in time). Ohwilleke 18:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Court system

Military tribunals are led by a Presiding Officer designated by the Appointing Authority (which is the Secretary of Defense or other designated authority); the Presiding Officer does not take part in the final court decision.

Charges are brought by the chief prosecutor from the Office of Military Commissions (OMC). Charges that may be brought to a military tribunal range from murder, rape, and other typical crimes, to war-specific crimes, like attacking civilians, using human shields, terrorism, and war crimes in general.

The Military Tribunal Panel is composed of three to seven judging officers, depending on the charges raised against the accused. They act as judges and jurors.

While civilian juries require a unanimity to convict, tribunals require only two-thirds majority when no death penalty is involved. For death penalty convictable tribunals, the seven judging officers are required to have a unanimous decision.

The accused is represented by the Office of the Chief Defense Counsel from the Office of Military Commissions (OMC). Defendants may choose an available civilian defense attorney.

Civilian attorneys must be qualified by the Office of Military Commissions before being eligible to be selected by a defendant.

After the end of trial, the tribunal goes onto review by the secretary of defense, who will forward the record of the trial and all recommendations to the president for final decision.

Needs Work

I didn't get past the first sentence of the second paragraph: "Historicaly [sic] Gustavus Adolphus is often hailed as one of the father [sic] of modern warfare". "Often" -- by whom? Needs references. How is 'modern' used here (e.g., how different than Sun Tzu)? Is he really on a par with Clausewitz? Etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DBrnstn (talk • contribs) 18:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Reboot discussion and work on this article

Looking for feedback and help on reworking this article. I've cleaned up some redirects and links from Military Commissions and military commission and military justice and military tribunal etc. My vision is that this article represent the history of this subject and Guantanamo military commission take over that specific article. I propose to only include the current version of the GTMO commissions in this article. Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Changes proposed / saved sections

Suggest deleting sidebar section Warfare-Military History. I'll wait until a concurrence occurs for this one.

Deleted Further Reading. 1800's books on courts-martial and martial law.

Added out of date template to GTMO section. A list of trials and the current version of the commissions should be here.

Moved Controversy section here - it's outdated, lacks citations and should be in Guantanamo military commission article. Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Old Gitmo commission section

President George W. Bush ordered that certain detainees imprisoned at the Naval base at Guantanamo Bay were to be tried by military commissions. This decision sparked controversy and litigation. On June 29, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the power of the Bush administration to conduct military tribunals to suspected terrorists at Guantánamo Bay.

In December 2006, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was passed and authorized the establishment of military commissions subject to certain requirements and with a designated system of appealing those decisions. A military commission system addressing objections identified by the U.S. Supreme Court was then established by the Department of Defense. Litigation concerning the establishment of this system is ongoing.

Three cases had been commenced in the new system, as of June 13, 2007. One detainee, David Matthew Hicks plea bargained and was sent to Australia to serve a nine-month sentence. Two cases were dismissed without prejudice because the tribunal believed that the men charged had not been properly determined to be persons within the commission's jurisdiction on June 4, 2007, and the military prosecutors asked the commission to reconsider that decision on June 8, 2007. One of the dismissed cases involved Omar Ahmed Khadr, who was captured at age 15 in Afghanistan after having allegedly killed a U.S. soldier with a grenade. The other dismissed case involved Salim Ahmed Hamdan who is alleged to have been Osama bin Laden's driver and is the lead plaintiff in a key series of cases challenging the military commission system.

Controversy

While tribunals can provide for quick trials under the conditions of war, many critics such as Harold Hongju Koh, Professor of international law at Yale Law School and former assistant secretary of democracy, human rights, and labor from 1998 to 2001, say this occurs at the expense of justice.

Time constraints and the inability to obtain evidence can greatly hamper a case for the defense. Others have tried to use this argument in favor of commissions, as issues such as chain of evidence and hearsay, which are applied in civilian and criminal trials, could preclude conviction if such rules were applied (e.g., how to claim a bomb was in proper custody from a battlefield to a courtroom?) Civilian trials must be open to the public, while military tribunals can be held in secret. Because conviction usually relies on some sort of majority quota, the separability problem can easily cause the verdict to be displeasing not only to the defendant but also to the tribunal.

Decisions made by a military tribunal cannot be appealed to federal courts. The only way to appeal is a petition for a panel of review (which may or may not include civilians as well as military officers) to review decisions, however the President, as commander-in-chief, has final review of all appeals.

Although such tribunals do not satisfy most protections and guarantees provided by the United States Bill of Rights, that has not stopped Presidents from using them, nor the U.S. Congress from authorizing them, as in the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Deleted links

• Terrorism and the Laws of War: Trying Terrorists as War Criminals before Military Commissions (.pdf), Congressional Research Office - Library of Congress, December 11, 2001
• Analysis: Military Tribunals, BBC, March 4, 2003
• Prosecutor doubts over Guantánamo trials, The Age, September 17, 2004
• Executive Power, Gonzales Style, CBS News, November 23, 2004
• Leaked emails claim Guantánamo trials rigged, The Age, August 1, 2005
• Third prosecutor critical of Guantánamo trials, The Age, August 3, 2005
• The Guantánamo Trials, Washington Post, September 7, 2005
• Guantánamo Process as a Public Danger, JURIST, October 11, 2005

Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

References