Are Military Tribunals Fair?

What is a tribunal?

Right here is an interpretation from http://www.answers.com/tribunal&r=67:.

1. A seat or court of justice.

2. The bench on which a court or other presiding policeman sits in court.

3. A committee or board selected to adjudicate in a particular matter.

4. Something that has the power to figure out or evaluate: the tribunal of public opinion.

Occasionally a jury test, particularly a renowned trial like the O. J. Simpson farce, is called a tribunal. That is not what we are talking about right here. We are talking about an army tribunal such as the one that evaluated the Nazi battle bad guys at Nuremberg.

Army tribunals are not developed to be fair, although, depending on the participants, they may be more efficient and also based upon even more truths than a court trial. They are made use of under special problems such as the Lincoln assassination. President Bush started them to judge terrorist.

The typical defenses of a jury system are not component of an army tribunal. Below are a few of the problems that I assume tribunals (as well as I haven’t contacted my attorney boy) are utilized rather than the routine court system:

Military Trials.

There is a Uniform Code of Military Justice to be complied with in such tribunals. They are tough but generally fair from my experience in the military.

Emergency Situation and Urgent Situations.

Such as was the case with the Lincoln assassination. The federal government intended to round up all the accomplices to stop more acts of terrorism. The public wanted the criminals punished.

Situations Where Evidence May be Sparse:

Such as with our current circumstance with terrorist.

A team of terrorist was gathered up in Afghanistan by the armed force. They were most likely held due to their associations with each other, actual or thought of.

To collect evidence versus every one of these personalities would be very challenging.

There would certainly not be proof to convict them of a certain terrorist act.

That is the key, isn’t it?

An armed forces tribunal can decide which participants belonged to a specific unfavorable team and mete out penalty appropriately, something perhaps that can never ever be attained in a court test. Sense of guilt by association is not excused by a lot of people I understand.

Background continues to review tribunals. spetsnaz uniform that treated John Wilkes Booth after the Lincoln organization is one held by historians to be a person that was evaluated as well roughly. The medical professional seemingly recognized nothing of the assassination when he treated the killer, Booth.

I assume a tribunal formed in rush, which is not provided the time needed to collect proof and make good judgments, is a large threat to those being prosecuted.

Let’s rejoice that the current management has not been rash concerning putting judgment on those taken as terrorist. With due procedure a few of the “terrorist” have actually been launched. Others should wait their destiny.

Well, perhaps that is reasonable.

I believe the Supreme Court stated the existing process is suitable for the existing scenario.

Occasionally a court trial, specifically a well-known trial like the O. J. Simpson blunder, is called a tribunal. We are talking about a military tribunal such as the one that judged the Nazi battle crooks at Nuremberg.


Military tribunals are not created to be fair, although, depending on the individuals, they may be extra efficient as well as based on even more facts than a jury test. There is a Uniform Code of Military Justice to be followed in such tribunals. Background continues to look back on tribunals.

About the author

giles

View all posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *