More impactful to the current situation in Libya is that of these fighters, 3.4% come from Misratah (aka Misrata), 23.9% from Benghazi and 60.2% from Darnah, all being current strongholds in the anti-Gadhafi rebellion.

As reported, Gadhafi himself has recognized the dangers of the city of Darnah as being a hotbed for Al-Qaida and has tried to convince the world AQ is the reason for the uprisings against him.  The international community has rightly disregarded his assertion.  However, the facts derived from the Sinjar reports and West Point’s analysis are important to keep in mind as U.S., NATO and UN military operations continue and possibly grow in scope.

Dissimilar to the Egyptian rebellion, where Al-Qaida was absent in the movement and had little to no foothold in the country, the United States and NATO allies must be cautious in the progression of their involvement in Libya with a known radical foothold.   With Gadhafi vowing a long, drawn out fight to the death, there will be significant differences in the ideology of the people fighting, and the longer fighting continues, the higher the possibility that AQ and other extremists with resources and weapons will gain influence when Gadhafi is out of power.

As the debate unfolds on whether or not to arm a large Islamic faction, about whom we know very little, the United State and her allies would do well to recall the lessons learned from arming rebels in a 1980’s Afghanistan.  Nothing is more important than foresight during operations like these.

This commentary and analysis was written by Michael Hopfersperger, Global Security Intern at PAI, and Drew Davis, Executive Director, PAI.  Reach the authors at global.security.intern@paxamericanainstitute.org and execdirector@paxamericanainstitute.org.

This interview features the USA Director of the Confederation of Iranian Students, Amir Golalipour. Amir’s history and credentials as a grassroots reform activist in Iran are showcased throughout. Mr. Golalipour has been jailed and beaten for his work in Iran. The interview was conducted by a PAI Commentary Associate, Ken Van Doren, who can be reached at commentary.associate3@paxamericanainstitute.org.

Listen to Part 2.

This special report identifies 55 clear violations of international law by the Islamic Republic of Iran:

hh

Nuclear Program/Proliferation Violations: 18

8 IAEA Resolutions,

6 UNSC Resolutions,

4 Treaties/Agreements;

hh
Crimes Against Humanity: 30

21 UNSC Resolutions,

3 Treaties,

6 G.A. Resolutions;

hh
Human Rights: 7

7 All Treaties/Agreements;

Each of the below cited conventions, treaties, resolutions, statutes, and agreements was examined individually, assuring reviewers that the sources and information are accurate and were not derived from corrupt or inaccurate online, print or television reports.  It should be noted this report does not evidence every violation of the cited conventions, treaties, resolutions, statutes, and agreements between 1948 and 2011, as entire books have been written on the collusion between the Islamic Republic of Iran and its terrorist proxies Hezbollah and Hamas. This report is intended to provide reviewers with a comprehensive framework with which to judge the actions and declarations of the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

hh

Download SPECIAL REPORT: Iran’s Violations of International Law 03-2011

hh

Executive Summary

Since the Iranian Revolution of 1979, the relationship between the United States and Iran has transformed from staunch allies to intractable opponents.  Today, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, support of terrorism and blatant violations of human rights constitute some of the most complex and pressing challenges facing the United States.  This problem is exacerbated by growing pessimism about whether the international community’s diplomatic efforts can compel Iran to comply with its obligations under international law.

This report draws on diverse branches of substantive international law and shows that Iran is in violation of over 50 international laws.  While diplomacy has failed to gain traction, Iran continues to blatantly violate the rights of its citizens, support international terrorism, and advance its nuclear program to the point where it is now well within striking distance of having a nuclear weapon.  Clearly, Iran’s violations of international law pose a grave and pressing threat to the United States and the international community as a whole.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation

As a non-nuclear state party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran owes a legal duty to the international community to refrain from manufacturing and acquiring nuclear weapons.  These obligations are interpreted by the NPT’s enforcement agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to also require states to provide credible assurance regarding non-diversion of nuclear material and the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities.

Iran’s systematic violations of the NPT are well documented.  Despite Iran’s insistence that its nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes, the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that Iran’s nuclear work is not consistent with any other application than the development of a nuclear weapon.  Iran continues to conceal its nuclear program and conduct enrichment-related activities, in violation of the NPT, the IAEA Safeguards Agreement, all subsequent IAEA Safeguards Resolutions, and numerous United Nations Security Council Resolutions.

Crimes Against Humanity

Iran’s incitements to commit genocide are not only preludes to tragedy, but are crimes in themselves under international law.  Pursuant to the United Nations Charter, the Genocide Convention, and the Rome Statute of the ICC, Iran has a legal duty to refrain from the threat of genocide or force against members of a group or the political integrity of any other state.  Iran’s public call for Israel to “wiped off the map” is a state-sanctioned call to genocide that threatens the territorial integrity of Israel and contravenes its obligations under international law.

Iran has also violated numerous United Nations Security Council Resolutions relating to the state-sponsorship of terrorism.  At least thirteen Resolutions have reaffirmed the obligation of Member States to deny all forms of support to terrorists and those supporting terrorism.  As this report will detail, there is compelling evidence that Iran provides training, financial support, and arms shipments to terrorist organizations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.  This is in clear violation of the Security Council resolutions and poses a serious threat to international security.

Human Rights

As a party to several human rights treaties and as a Member State of the United Nations, Iran is legally obligated to protect the civil, political and religious rights of its citizens.  Since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, Iran has been involved in large-scale abuses of human rights, including systematic persecution of religious minorities and severe restrictions on the freedoms of expression and assembly.  This report will detail the failure of Iran to comply with numerous international covenants to which it is a signatory.

Iran in Iraq

Iran’s Qods Force, a wing of the Revolutionary Guard Corps, provides funding, training, weapons and other lethal support to Iraqi militant groups that target Coalition and Iraqi forces.  Despite President Ahmadinejad’s pledge to cut off such support, the United States Department of Defense continues to assert that there has been no identified decrease in Iranian training and funding of illegal militias in Iraq.

Iran’s support of Iraqi militant groups is contrary to six United Nations General Assembly Declarations and thirteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions which prohibit all Member States from using force against the political independence of any other state and impose the duty upon all Member States to refrain from supporting terrorist activities.  Iran’s failure to comply with these obligations remains a significant impediment to stabilizing Iraq.

-The Policy Division of The Pax Americana Institute

DADT reflected one priority: minimizing the risk to our nation’s military capabilities.  The underpinnings of the law were carefully studied by Congress and reflect the informed reasoning of those to whom the Constitution gives the sole right to “raise armies, provide and maintain a navy and make the rules for the government thereof.”  In terms of combat effectiveness, American armed forces are the gold standard.  Repealing DADT has posed a serious threat to this effectiveness by weakening our military’s high standard of morale and unit cohesion, which are the quintessence of military capability. 

Distinction Between an “Act” and a “Belief.”  On March 11, 1778, General George Washington discharged Lt. Gotthold F. Enslin, who became the first soldier to be dismissed from the U.S. military for engaging in homosexual conduct.[1]  Prosecuted under charges of “conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline,” the purposes for eliminating such behavior from the military remained the same throughout the history of our nation.   

In 1993, the Clinton administration sought to lift the military’s ban on homosexual conduct.  After negotiations failed to conform to President Clinton’s agenda, a compromise entitled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was reached.  This policy prohibits military officials from asking servicemembers about their sexual orientation, and further restricts the way in which servicemembers can communicate their sexual orientation to others.  The policy also provides that sexual orientation is not a bar to military service unless it is manifested by a servicemember’s propensity to engage in homosexual conduct.  Even if a servicemember has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, the servicemember will not be discharged if it is found that he or she is not a person who has the propensity to engage in homosexual acts.  This propensity provision is critical to the interpretation of DADT and undercuts the arguments of DADT opponents.

DADT is criticized by many, including President Barack Obama, for promoting “lies” among servicemembers who must suppress the expression of their true sexual identity.  This general argument avoids the real issue—the distinction between sexual identity and physical acts in furtherance of that identity.  The plain language of DADT states that homosexuality, by itself, is not automatic grounds for discharge.  The military does not punish a state of mind or a sexual orientation, but rather punishes conduct that threatens the morale and cohesion of the military as a whole.

Unlike a belief, which need not be expressed and arguably cannot be controlled, a sexual advance is a matter entirely of volition.  Prohibitions on homosexual banter and solicitations to engage in homosexual acts have an independent basis for restriction, despite one’s sexual identity.  Attacking DADT on the erroneous assumption that it suppresses one’s identity fails to recognize the critical distinction between a belief and a volitional act.    

Even Christian servicemembers face restrictions as to when and how they may act on their beliefs.  For example, a soldier may not proselytize persons of other faiths.  A Christian servicemember’s faith or belief in God is not punished, but it is acknowledged that forcing faith upon unwilling servicemembers could have a detrimental effect upon unit cohesion.  The military’s prohibition of sexual harassment follows the same logic.  Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the act of sexual harassment is grounds for discharge, which is defined as “influencing . . . another person in exchange for sexual behaviors, or deliberate and offensive comments or gestures of a sexual nature.”  Prohibiting servicemembers from engaging in such behavior is consistent with the military’s overall goal of providing our soldiers with an optimal environment that will contribute to our overall success on the battlefield.

The purposes of DADT were exactly the same—preserving unit cohesion and the military’s high standard of morale.  Just as our servicemembers have the ability to control his or her expression and refrain from proselytizing other servicemembers and engaging in sexually harassing conduct, regardless of their beliefs or desires, homosexual servicemembers have the ability to refrain from engaging in homosexual conduct and behavior that suggests intent to engage in homosexual conduct.

Homosexual servicemembers are not living “lies,” nor are their beliefs suppressed, as President Obama has deceptively suggested.  There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.  Heterosexuals and homosexuals alike must conform to the standards that were created to preserve morale and combat effectiveness.  The repeal efforts became the product of misinterpretation of DADT and uninformed social experimentation.  This is risky, especially during a time of global war against terrorism, when the United States is asking its military to perform some of the most complicated and diverse operations it has ever attempted. 

Consequences of Repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  Previous Congressional findings supporting DADT reflect the common-sense observation that military effectiveness would be compromised if homosexual conduct were to be allowed:

 “One of the most crucial elements in combat capability is unit cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members. . . .  The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.[2]

These findings are corroborated with various studies and polls that suggest the damaging effect that homosexual conduct would have on unit cohesion.  The Center for Strategic and International Studies conducted 125 focus groups to understand military culture and concluded that “the vast majority of military personnel believe that homosexual men and women serving openly in the military would undermine cohesion.”[3]  Retention of soldiers is also threatened by a repeal of DADT and is often overlooked.  A 2008 Military Times survey indicated that almost 10 percent of soldiers would leave if the law is repealed, and 14 percent would consider leaving.

DADT enjoyed strong support among long-serving members of the armed service who have been charged with ensuring military readiness.  More than 1,000 retired flag and general officers personally signed a statement addressed to the president and Congress urging continuing support for DADT.  This represents the largest number of American senior officers to jointly convey their recommendations on a single issue in the history of our nation.  Since only one fourth of all Congressional members have any military service experience of their own, the advice of our military’s high-ranking and long-serving members should not have been ignored.

Conclusion.  The glue of our military’s effectiveness is what the ancient Greeks called philia—friendship, comradeship and brotherly love, which the military defines as “unit cohesion.”  A premium is placed on unit cohesion because it has been shown to be critical to battlefield success.  The DADT debate—still not dead, as the Pentagon still has substantial power in determining how to interpret and implement the measure’s repeal—should not focus on philosophical discussions about homosexuality in American society, but should focus on military effectiveness and the grave problem that the repeal of DADT could pose to the security of the American people.

The American nation depends on its military and elected leadership to make the best decisions for the armed forces as a whole—not just a limited group, and not simply to fulfill campaign promises and be politically correct.  Congress, as charged by the Constitution of the United States, must exercise its duty to preserve our military’s high standard of readiness, effectiveness, and unit cohesion by providing the men and women of our armed forces with an optimal environment to do their job of defending our great nation.

This National Security section of the Weekly Political Forecast is authored by PAI’s Correspondent for Legal Studies.

[2] 10 U.S.C. § 654 (6), (14), (15).

[3] Edwin Dorn and Howard Graves, “American Military Culture in the Twenty-First Century,” CSIS Report, The CSIS Press, February 2000.

To view PAI’s Illegal Immigration Fact Sheet, click here.

Attention in Afghanistan has been consistently focused on the next military move or political strategy to be tried next. To outsiders, it is difficult to translate what something like that would mean in American cities and towns. Fighting is happening in areas no different than towns around the world. There are people, jobs, houses, parks, and whole livelihoods in which this fighting is occurring, and it is all too easy to get caught up in the military aspect of war and disregard the human factors.

More and more villagers seek refuge in areas outside of the fighting. These villagers are told they will be compensated for damages, but the process and outcomes can be complicated. Afghani citizens have to apply for compensation through their local boroughs, which have to contact the coalition countries whose armies damaged property. Sometimes the request never makes it, or the request goes unheard. Other times, the Taliban terrorize anyone who tries to reach out to ask for foreign aid. Citizens who come from areas where fighting is still going on are often left unheard. Jobless and barely making ends meet, these families have nowhere to go. Without knowing when the fighting will end, these families are left unheard.

One important purpose of the American-led coalition’s presence in Afghanistan and ousting the Taliban is to make the lives of the locals better. Coalition forces stand to gain valuable allies in the local citizenry for their counterinsurgency campaign if they value the Afghan people’s partnership, but they risk long-term failure if they fail to recognize the locals’ importance.  NATO and U.S. forces need to remember that in order to do something different, you have to make something different and that a hostile local population would certainly make both the tactical and strategic situations even worse.

Jessica Hredzak is PAI’s Intern in Middle Eastern Affairs.

The two bombs were concealed inside printer cartridges and contained the explosive Pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN), an explosive that al-Qaeda has used in earlier terrorist attempts.  About fourteen ounces of PETN is the equivalent of five pounds of TNT; only one pound of TNT has the capability to destroy a house.  The terrorist branch in Yemen has increased its use of PETN plastic explosives since last year, which has heightened the risk of detection problems.

The United States is currently taking greater security measures with cargo shipments while both Yemeni and American intelligence officials have intensified their search for al-Asiri.

Upon receiving the tip from Saudi intelligence officials about the bombs, American intelligence officials were able to respond promptly.  However, it is particularly alarming that the cargo bombs were detected due to a tip from Saudi intelligence sources rather than by security scanners.  The technology to detect traces of chemical explosives exists, but the production and set-up costs are so high that it is taking a long time to implement this technology at cargo depots.  In light of AQAP’s modus operandi, security technology must be improved and expeditiously installed at our ports of entry while the intelligence community continues to adapt.

Though national security has lately been relegated behind burgeoning economic issues, the United States must continue its efforts to be on the offense to counter terrorist attacks.  The threats Americans face have not diminished, and al-Qaeda is continually looking for weaknesses in U.S. defenses.

The incidents that occurred last week reinforce the importance of ensuring that the President not punish the intelligence community or force premature deadlines for the withdrawal of American troops overseas.  Artificial deadlines for troop withdrawal make Taliban and al-Qaeda victory merely a matter of time and fail to accomplish the strategic American objective of denying safe havens to these forces.

Additionally, the current administration’s threat to prosecute intelligence officials and the “Wikileaks” situation are very dangerous because American credibility is undermined abroad.  The main reason why the cargo was intercepted in this most recent attack was because of the Saudi intelligence tip.  If other countries and intelligence agencies are unsure whether the information they share with the United States will risk their own well-being or that of their agents, the ability to thwart terrorist attacks is severely diminished.  It is essential that the United States remain on the offensive and sustain its alliance in order to counter terrorist attempts in the future.

Archana Vuyyuru is PAI’s Intern in Homeland Security Affairs.

Download Military Tribunals: Justice for The al-Qaeda Terrorist and American Citizen

Military Tribunals: Justice for The al-Qaeda Terrorist and American Citizen
By Archana Vuyyuru, Intern, Homeland Security Division.

** This essay took second place in the Bradley Foundation’s Freedom Prize Essay Contest in 2010.

“The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation.  To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.” – Thomas Jefferson

Today’s rapidly changing world demands flexibility from citizens, State governments, and judicial systems alike.  In order to thrive while simultaneously sustaining the ideals that have made the United States an extraordinary country, the written laws and judicial systems must be interpreted with care and greater flexibility.  This will allow them to be applied with wider latitude without forfeiting justice or efficiency.  Thomas Jefferson’s entreaty to Americans and government to adopt a disposition to read written laws in a more flexible manner has never been more necessary in today’s rapidly converging global community.  This adaptability is especially needed when judging agents of terrorist networks who seek to undermine American liberties through acts of terror against innocent Americans.  These terrorists are a particular challenge to the judicial system because they are individuals who are committing acts of terror equivalent to warfare in a time when Congress has not formally declared war.  The American judicial system is capable of adjusting to accommodate the judgment of these terrorists.  The agents of al-Qaeda attempting acts of terror within the boundaries of the United States should be tried by a military tribunal, rather than in a civilian trial, to ensure pronouncement of a just verdict and the security of Americans.

Agents of al-Qaeda attempting terrorism within the United States are engaging in warfare against the U.S.  The definitions of war and warfare should not be ideologically limited by past American experiences with war.  To be engaged in war or commit acts of warfare was more easily identified in the past because the “enemies” were part of a State-military force and the conflict had a distinguishable beginning and end.  Conflict is much more difficult to clearly identify now due to the simultaneous rise and contraction of numerous insurgent groups who are engaged in asymmetrical conflict with States.  In this case, though al-Qaeda is not directly fighting on behalf of a State or within a uniformed military army, they are part of an organization that is attempting to use acts of terror to intentionally harm the fabric of the United States and the rights to which American citizens are entitled.

A narrow reading of war would obstruct the United States from engaging in successful anti-terrorist techniques and prevent the U.S. judicial system from appropriately judging the agents of al-Qaeda.  A narrow reading of warfare in Vietnam prevented the United States from developing and engaging in successful anti-insurgency techniques.  It ultimately cost the United States the lives of thousands of American soldiers as well as billions of dollars.  The definition of what constitutes warfare must be broadened in order to prevent further terrorism upon the American people and to ensure that terrorists are tried in the appropriate judicial system.  The terrorists who were involved in the World Trade Center (WTC) bomb plot case in 1993 were accused, by the federal grand jury, of planning to “levy a war of urban terrorism against the United States.”[1] The indictment given by within a civilian trial demonstrates that terrorist acts are equivalent in gravity and nature to levying war.  Unfortunately, those participating in the 1993 WTC bomb plot case were tried in a civilian court, which prevented the appropriate punishment from being dispensed for that act of levying war.  Using a civilian tribunal to try agents who are engaging in acts of war against the United States severely disadvantages American citizens and undermines the rights that the U.S. judicial system is meant to protect.

Agents of al-Qaeda who are attempting terrorist acts must be tried in a military tribunal because they are unlawful enemy combatants.  An unlawful enemy combatant is a “person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al-Qaida, or associated forces).”[2] The Military Commissions Act of 2009 authorizes the use of military tribunals to try unlawful enemy combatants.  Agents of al-Qaeda who are engaging in or attempting terrorist acts within the United States would be “purposefully and materially” supporting hostilities against the U.S.[3] Because these agents are levying acts of warfare against the United States and are defined as unlawful enemy combatants under the Military Commissions Act of 2009,  only a trial by a military tribunal can provide an adequate measure of justice.

Terrorism can only be adequately judged within the structure of a military tribunal.  The entire purpose of judicial proceedings is to determine truth in order to judge the accused of innocence or guilt.  In a civilian trial, the civilian jurors must unanimously agree upon a conviction of guilt.  If they believe the accused is guilty, they must believe this notion beyond a reasonable doubt.  This is the highest burden of proof within the legal system and is designed so that the error falls upon letting the convicted go free.  A military tribunal is designed so the military jurors must vote upon a decision with two-thirds majority for the accused to be convicted.  The people of the United States cannot bear the potential costs of trying agents of al-Qaeda in a judicial process that errs so heavily on letting the guilty go free.  Trying a terrorist within a civilian trial would place a greater emphasis on the security of the convicted terrorist rather than the safety of innocent Americans.

The rules that govern the admissibility of evidence within a military tribunal allow for a larger body of evidence to be reviewed by the jury and judge.  The rules increases the ability for the jury to find truth when trying al-Qaeda terrorists.  Military tribunals do not involve all of the exclusionary rules that are used in a civilian trial.  For example, statements that are obtained from the accused before Miranda rights are read to them are allowed to become part of the evidentiary body in a military tribunal.  This information can potentially prevent terrorist attacks upon the American people.  When Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was captured in 2003, the statements that he made before he acquired a lawyer and was read his Miranda rights “disrupted plots and saved lives” in the United States.[4] If Mohammad was treated like a regular criminal and read his Miranda rights, it would not have been possible to ensure the safety of the American people and broaden the body of evidence used to find truth.  However, Mohammad and his co-conspirators will be tried in a civilian trial where there are stricter rules governing the admissibility of evidence.  In a military tribunal, the statements that the agents of al-Qaeda make are more likely to be included into the body of evidence that is presented to the military jurors.  The structure of a military tribunal allows for the greatest effectiveness when judging the agents of al-Qaeda who are attempting terrorist acts.

Military tribunals provide a more efficient and swifter appropriation of justice than civilian trials.  Trials presented to the court are at least “one half” times shorter than jury trials.[5] The terrorists who were charged with the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center were given two criminal trials.  The first trial alone required 207 witnesses and took over five months.[6] General Yamashita was a Japanese general from WWII who was tried for his war crimes by a military tribunal.  His trial required 286 witnesses and took a little over five weeks to complete.[7] Civilian trials are a much more consuming process that prevents the appropriate judgment to pass in the most efficient manner.  A civilian trial is an inappropriate judicial process in which to try a terrorist and it would consume an unnecessary amount of time.  This problem is greatly alleviated in a military tribunal.

Civilian trials force a greater risk upon the American people.  Civilian trials require a civilian jury panel as well as greater transparency of information that is processed through the trial.  A civilian jury panel is potentially subject to intimidation by either the defendants or by terrorist agents outside the trial.  During the 1993 WTC bombing trial, the civilian jurors faced “an outburst of insults and threatening gestures from the defendants as marshals dragged them from the courtroom immediately after their verdict was returned.”[8] In a military tribunal, military officers would have the physical and psychological experience to understand and accept the risk that a jury must assume when trying agents of a terrorist group.  It is unjust to have civilian jurors put themselves and their families at risk to any terrorist reprisal.

Civilian trials require all evidence to be open to the public, which can compromise the safety of information sources and lead to non-cooperation.  During a civilian trial, all incriminating evidence, the techniques used to acquire the evidence, and the sources from which the evidence was procured is open to the public.[9] The sources providing the information are in potentially danger and might not cooperate in order to ensure their own security.  This transparency that a civilian trial requires would also prevent future informants from coming forward with any useful information.  This undermines the ability of a trial to adequately try an accused terrorist and does nothing to safeguard the security of the American public.  This system contrasts with the military tribunal, which prevents a broader body of evidence to a panel of military jurists who are secured from potential terrorist reprisals.  The sources are also protected from public view so their own security is not compromised.  Military tribunals provide security for the American civilian population without compromising civil liberties.

Trying the agents of al-Qaeda within a military tribunal provides a due process that is appropriate and just for those accused of terrorism.  Though the al-Qaeda agents are classified as unlawful enemy combatants before their trial begins, they still receive a fair trial that does not assume guilt as a premise.  The even-handedness with which a military tribunal renders punishment is exemplified by the post-WWII Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders.  The military tribunal at Nuremberg “acquitted three of the twenty-two major defendants, sentenced four others to twenty years in prison or less, and sentenced three to life in prison.”[10] These trials spared “nearly half of those accused” of the death penalty.[11] The military jurors weigh the case with as much fairness with presented with truth as a civilian jury might.  The nature of a terrorist act carries greater weight than a criminal act and should be judged according to a due process that only a military tribunal can provide.  Only a military tribunal can administer justice to the al-Qaeda agents while securing the lives of the American people.

The changing nature of conflict in today’s rapidly converging global community requires laws to be interpreted more flexibly.  The United States must adjust the implementation of law and the judicial system in order to preserve the liberties that the laws were originally created to protect.  Military tribunals must judge al-Qaeda terrorists to ensure that they are prosecuted swiftly, effectively, and justly.  Many believe that the lack of transparency within military tribunals give room for assaults on the civil liberties of terrorists.  With greater regulation, the potential assault on the civil liberties of terrorists can be greatly alleviated.  However, the issue of terrorists’ civil rights is not an intrinsic problem within the military tribunal system but within the American justice and correctional system as a whole.  Avoiding a military tribunal in the name of defending the civil rights of terrorists who are attempting to destroy the ideological and moral foundations of the United States undermines the security of Americans.  Avoiding a military tribunal in order to adhere to a strict and anachronistic interpretation of written law would, as Jefferson warned, sacrifice the end to the means.

[2] Military Commissions Act of 2006, Chapter 47A—Military commission: Subchapter 1—General provisions: Sec. 948a. Definitions

[3] Ibid 2

[4] Hayes, Stephen F. “Miranda Rights for Terrorists.” Weekly Standard (2009): n. pag. Web. 30 Apr 2010. <http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/06/miranda_rights_for_terrorists.asp>.

[5] Ibid 1

[6] Dean, John. “APPROPRIATE JUSTICE FOR TERRORISTS: Using Military Tribunals Rather Than Criminal Courts.” FindLaw’s Writ. Thomson Reuters, 28 Sept 2001. Web. 30 Apr 2010. <http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20010928.html>.

[7] Ibid 5

[8] Ibid 1

[9] Perazzo, John. “Why Civilian Trials for Terrorists are a Bad Idea.” Frontpage Magazine (2007): n. pag. Web. 30 Apr 2010. <http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=336>.

[10] Ibid 9

[11] Ibid 9