Tribunals Essay -- essays research papers

death chair Bushs decision to take c ar establishing soldiers court of justices to prosecute accused terrorists has set off a study debate on civilian liberties in the United States. Supporters argue that much(prenominal) a measure is a constitutional necessity to address terrorism of an unprecedented scope. Opponents claim that the tribunals would undermine the rule of virtue and deprive defendants of the breastplate provided for in the American system of justice. My research 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 duty of the President to ensure the rubber of all citizens. The tide of war has changed dramatically within the past twenty years with our enemies becoming more and more invisible. As the country as changed throughout history, this latest change on how we deal with our enemies is just a nonher(prenominal) positive step in the right direction . The tribunal rules do not violate established criminal justice procedures because it does not target crimes normally prosecuted by the civil criminal justice system. A force tribunal or legions 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. war paint and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (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. servicing personnel by court-martial. Article 21, UCMJ, however, provides authority to convene other military tribunals. Some individuals in the military could argue that members are held to a contrasting criminal justice system than civilians. Most crimes not prosecuted by civil systems like adultery are prosecuted in the military and can channelize to jail time. You will never here complainants because members of the military u nderstand they are held to a higher standard than their civilian counterparts. With higher standards there is incessantly a higher cost to pay 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 surmise by the White House to be terrorists. The issue most passel hav... .... The decision President Bush mad is the correct one and is turn up with the response by Americans. More than fifty percent of American harbor tribunals and the war on terrorism. We feel to learn that these people want to blot out us not steal out televisions. This is a war and in war sometime we have to adjust when our enemies throw curve balls at us. In effect, what the critics of military tribunals would have the President do is turn foe belligerents over to civilian law enforcement authorities for prosec ution. To do so, however, would not whole be unprecedented, but would set a horrifically bad precedent. I aliment 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 our culture and way of life. REFERANCE draft copy of Tribunal Rules Would Require Public Trials, Death-Penalty UnanimityBy Jess Bravin. Wall pass 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