Civilian v. Military Courts 911 Terrorist Trials
Here is a look at some key differences between civilian courts and military tribunals.
Proponents of military tribunals argue that prosecuting 911 terrorists in civilian court is unduly risky because:
For their part, advocates for a civilian trial argue that the U.S. justice system has shown that it is fit for handling major terrorism cases, thanks in part to federal laws that prohibit national security secrets from being revealed during legal proceedings. And they point out that many more terrorists have been successfully prosecuted in U.S. courts than in military commissions.
Military commissions go back a long time. But they received renewed interest on November 13, 2001, when President George Bush announced that certain non-U.S. citizens would be subject to detention and trial by authorities at the U.S. military's detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
On June 29, 2006, the Supreme Court ruled that the president does not have the sole authority to hold tribunals unless Congress gives it to him. Three months later, Congress provided that authority by passing the Military Commissions Act of 2006, allowing the President to designate certain people as "unlawful enemy combatants" and subject them to commissions.
Proponents of military tribunals argue that prosecuting 911 terrorists in civilian court is unduly risky because:
- There is a greater chance of acquittal
- Rules of evidence could expose state secrets
- The trial would present unacceptable security risks
- The focus could shift from the 9-11 crimes to the controversial interrogation techniques used on the defendants while in custody
For their part, advocates for a civilian trial argue that the U.S. justice system has shown that it is fit for handling major terrorism cases, thanks in part to federal laws that prohibit national security secrets from being revealed during legal proceedings. And they point out that many more terrorists have been successfully prosecuted in U.S. courts than in military commissions.
How Things Started
Military commissions go back a long time. But they received renewed interest on November 13, 2001, when President George Bush announced that certain non-U.S. citizens would be subject to detention and trial by authorities at the U.S. military's detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
On June 29, 2006, the Supreme Court ruled that the president does not have the sole authority to hold tribunals unless Congress gives it to him. Three months later, Congress provided that authority by passing the Military Commissions Act of 2006, allowing the President to designate certain people as "unlawful enemy combatants" and subject them to commissions.
