Controversy on Bush's Military Tribunal Plan

A detailed Summary of Controversy on Bush's Military Tribunal Plan

Ever since the September 11th attack, the U.S. has been trying to find ways to deal with terrorists. We have increased our security, and become more alert to details that may have seemed trivial prior to the attack. We have also found ways to search for and kill terrorists. We have not yet, however, decided on a way to try the terrorists once they have been caught. President Bush has proposed a plan to try terrorists in military tribunals. However, there is some opposition to his plan, as some people say his plan is unlawful, or just too broad and unclear.

The Geneva Convention is an international policy that specifies the required treatment of a prisoner of war. Some critics in the Congress say that Bush's plan for a military tribunal goes against Geneva Convention standards. In 1949, both the U.S. and Afghanistan ratified the policy, but enforcement of the treaty has not been strict (Wedgwood A11). According to the Geneva Convention, legal combatants must follow the Uniform Military Code of Justice (Ford 1). However, Al Qaeda soldiers do not follow the code, and therefore are illegal combatants. President Bush stated that anyone who fought for the Taliban could not be eli- gible for POW status, making them subject to trial by

What is the exact definition of a terrorist? How should they be treated? First of all, there must be a line separating acts of terrorism and mere criminal acts. Crim- inal acts are usually caused by human nature, feelings such as greed or vengeance. Terrorist acts are done to cause fear and panic by killing large numbers of people (Wallison 9). "Non-U.S. citizens who plan and/or commit mass murder are more than criminal suspects. They are unlawful combatants who seek to destroy our way of life," said President Bush (Gerstenzang A1). Bush's military order is not clear about whether military tribunal can try terr- orists that are in America. John Ashcroft believes that Bush's military order was written in a rush and that it is not clear and specific (Shapiro A4). Will military tri- bunals be used for terrorists caught here? Representative Bob Barr also agrees that Bush needs to clarify the issue of tribunal use for terrorists at home. According to Bush, foreigners that commit mass murder can be tried as a terrorist in a military tribunal (Allen A28). "It was also unclear whether Mr. Bush's invitation to foreigners would tamp down the concerns of diplomats here that the United States is sweeping up foreigners simply because they fit a terrorist profile" (Sanger A1). President Bush stated that terrorism suspects are considered legal combatants, there- fore protecting them under the Geneva Convention. However, he said that the U.S. should try major terrorists in mili- tary tribunal if they are caught here (Savage A1). Bush's military tribunal order also applies to non-U.S. citizens legally in the U.S.; crimes committed by these people are not considered acts of terrorism. There are some questions on how to convict and try terrorists. John Ashcroft said that military tribunals are needed because people that have committed war crimes do not deserve to be tried in the same court with the same rules as a civilian or a prisoner of war. According to the Third Geneva Convention, POWs must be tried in the same court with the same rules as regular soldiers ("Ashcroft...Panel" A8). Once military tribunals have a terrorist on trial, they must decide whether to automatically convict them because they are part of a terrorist group or to convict them by proving a specific crime committed by the terrorist (Allen A28). If the mili- tary tribunal ends up not convicting them, they should not acquit them only because they have insufficient evi- dence. It may hurt more people if a dangerous terrorist is released for this reason (Wallison 9). "And if some indiv- iduals were found to be a continual danger, the U.S. authorities would be reluctant to release them" (Ford 1).

a military tribunal (Bravin A20). Representative Bob Barr, Representative Maxine Waters, Senator Edward Kennedy, and Senator Patrick Leahy say that Bush's plan needs to be changed to be more lawful. They say that without an off- icial declaration of war, the use of military tribunals is unconstitutional. Barr also adds that Congress needs to pass an act for military tribunal to be lawful. They also point out that Bush and the U.S. government has not met any of these standards. "Georgia Representative Bob Barr said, 'Without and official declaration of war or without and act of Congress - the tribunals are unconstitutional' " (Eversley A4). The U.S. government, however, is not break- ing international law by trying Al Qaeda and Taliban members in military tribunals, as some international law scholars say they are doing. In order for Bush plan to be unlawful, Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters would have to be legal combatants protested by the Geneva Convention. In this case, since the Geneva Convention states that legal combatants must be granted POW status, use of military tribunals would be unlawful. However, since Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters don't follow the rules to be lawful combatants, a soldier must wear a clear military uniform, must carry their arms openly, and both sides mus

Some common words found in the essay are:
President Bush, Wedgwood A11, Peru A10, Al Qaeda, A11 Despite, A39 Bush, Bin Laden's, Geneva Convention, Allen A28, Despite Yorkers', military tribunals, military tribunal, president bush, bush's plan, al qaeda, geneva convention, mili- tary, bush's military, tri- bunals, wedgwood a11, military tri- bunals, mili- tary tribunal, al qaeda taliban, representative bob barr, military tribunals people,

Approximate Word count = 2948
Approximate Pages = 12 (250 words per page double spaced)

Category: History