Tribunals Essay -- essays research papers

chairperson Bushs decision to consider establishing military tribunals to prosecute charge terrorists has find off a major debate on civil liberties in the United States. Supporters signal that such a measure is a primitive necessity to address terrorism of an unprecedented scope. Opponents claim that the tribunals would undermine the ascertain of law and deprive defendants of the protection provided for in the American system of referee. My look and personnel experience on the subject has found the tribunals to be in direct accordance of what the President of the United States his charged to do. Its the employment of the President to ensure the safety of all citizens. The tide of war has changed dramatically within the past twenty years with our enemies becoming more(prenominal) and more invisible. As the country as changed through break through history, this latest change on how we deal with our enemies is just another positive step in the the right way direction. The t ribunal rules do not violate formal criminal arbitrator procedures because it does not target crimes usually prosecuted by the civil criminal justice system. A military tribunal or military commission is a court-like forum that is created within the military to try a person accused of crimes. It is authorized by the U.S. Constitution and the Uniform Code of Military umpire (UCMJ), which is a federal law (Title 10, United States Code, Chapter 47) passed by Congress. The great majority of the UCMJ is devoted to the rules concerning the trial of U.S. service personnel by court-martial. Article 21, UCMJ, however, provides agency to convene other military tribunals. Some individuals in the military could argue that members are held to a different criminal justice system than civils. close to crimes not prosecuted by civil systems like adultery are prosecuted in the military and can lead to jail time. You will never present complainants because members of the military understand t hey are held to a higher standard than their civilian counterparts. With higher standards there is always a higher cost to conciliate when you violate them. A military tribunal is essentially a court-martial, or a military trial, during a time of war. The rules of evidence that are in the civilian criminal trials do not apply. The tribunal ordered by Bush would target non-U.S. citizens suspected by the White House to be terrorists. The issue most people hav... .... The decision President Bush nauseous is the correct one and is proven with the response by Americans. More than litre percent of American support tribunals and the war on terrorism. We have to assume that these people want to kill us not steal out televisions. This is a war and in war sometime we have to change when our enemies throw curve balls at us. In effect, what the critics of military tribunals would have the President do is turn enemy belligerents over to civilian law enforcement governing for prosecution. T o do so, however, would not only be unprecedented, but would set a horrifically bad precedent. I support the tribunals and believe it does not violate established criminal justice procedures in place in the United States. We as a country have to accept the necessary changes to ensure the survival of the fittest of our culture and way of life. REFERANCEDraft of Tribunal Rules Would Require Public Trials, Death-Penalty accordanceBy Jess Bravin. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y. Dec 28, 2001. pg. A.18http//archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/12/06/inv.tribunals.explainer/index.htmlhttp//writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20011123.html