Keith Allred: In Defense of Military Tribunals
[Capt. Allred is a retired Navy judge who presided over the military commission trial of Salem Hamdan, the first American war crimes trial since Nuremberg. He was associate dean of the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies from 2003-2005.]
The Obama administration announced Monday that it would try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other 9/11 conspirators in military commissions at Guantanamo Bay. This is heartening news. Presidents from both parties have signed bipartisan bills authorizing these tribunals, and the Supreme Court has confirmed their constitutional authority to do so. Yet there continue to be lingering criticisms of their fairness and competence. These should be put to rest.
The argument that any trial not held in a federal court is unfair to the accused is easily rebutted: Every year thousands of American citizens who serve in the military are tried for serious crimes in military courts. American military law, with its system of courts-martial, dates to the Articles of War of 1775, adopted 14 years before the Constitution and the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789, which created federal trial courts.
Although military law has been amended many times since 1775, members of our armed forces are still tried for the full range of common felony crimes—and may be sentenced to life in prison without parole—without the right to a randomly selected jury of their peers. Rather, the commanding officer of the accused chooses a panel of court-martial "members" superior in rank to the accused...
Read entire article at WSJ
The Obama administration announced Monday that it would try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other 9/11 conspirators in military commissions at Guantanamo Bay. This is heartening news. Presidents from both parties have signed bipartisan bills authorizing these tribunals, and the Supreme Court has confirmed their constitutional authority to do so. Yet there continue to be lingering criticisms of their fairness and competence. These should be put to rest.
The argument that any trial not held in a federal court is unfair to the accused is easily rebutted: Every year thousands of American citizens who serve in the military are tried for serious crimes in military courts. American military law, with its system of courts-martial, dates to the Articles of War of 1775, adopted 14 years before the Constitution and the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789, which created federal trial courts.
Although military law has been amended many times since 1775, members of our armed forces are still tried for the full range of common felony crimes—and may be sentenced to life in prison without parole—without the right to a randomly selected jury of their peers. Rather, the commanding officer of the accused chooses a panel of court-martial "members" superior in rank to the accused...