Geneva Convention on Military Tribunals for Terrorists

The trying of suspected terrorists via military tribunals is the most wise and prudent path that the federal government can follow. The world is now beginning to realize the frightening new era in which we live: a day in which acts of war are not committed solely by nation-states and their respective armed forces; but instead war is raged by disgruntled individuals and radical idealists against governments and civilian masses. Although these modern belligerents do not hail from official militias; they must be tried by military courts for violation of the laws of war. Judicial precedent, the tradition of international law, and the acts of international bodies have affirmed the seriousness of this present crisis, as well as the seriousness of the means needed to punish and prevent future outbreaks of terror.

Military tribunals are a kind of military court that is established to try enemies during war time and combat. The judge is a military officer, the attorneys are military officers, and sentencing is carried out by military officers.[1] The tribunal panel is made up of three to seven judging officers; the number largely depends on the seriousness of the offense. The rules of evidence are far more lax in military tribunals, which is actually important in prosecuting these types of cases and obtaining a successful conviction without having to sacrifice sensitive intelligence. The defendant can be convicted on secret evidence and most hearsay is also admissible. [2] A conviction can be obtained by a two-thirds majority vote of judges on the panel, instead of the unanimous vote required of a civilian jury. A unanimous vote is required for a death penalty conviction.[3]