What is a military tribunal? Has the U.S. used military tribunals in the past? Is the U.S. currently using military tribunals and, if so, what is their status?
A military tribunal is an inquisitorial system where the charges are brought on by military authorities, as well as prosecuted by military authority, then judged by military officers, the sentencing is also by military officer. It is different from a civilian criminal court in that military officers act as both judge and jury. Guilt is determined by a vote of the commissioners, and the decision does not have to be unanimous. The United States have used military tribunals during times of declared war or rebellion throughout history. George Washington used military tribunals during the Revolutionary War, when he ordered a military tribunal for Major John Andre, a British officer cont. ar. II sec. 2) and Congress is also granted the power to define and punish offenses against the law of nations (U.S. Cont. Ar. I sec. 8 cl. 10). These powers were first used by the United States during in the U.S. Mexican War between 1846-48, when the U.S. first used military tribunals. Guerilla fighters from Mexico and resisters were tried by tribunal. President Abraham Lincoln used military tribunals extensively during the Civil War. Any “rebels” that were arrested were subjected to military law, and tribunal by Lincoln. There were an estimated 4,000 military tribunals at that time. There were many U.S. civilians subjected to military tribunals just because they would not fight on the side of the North (Neely 1991). The ability to try anyone in a military tribunal changed after the case of Ex Parte Milligan. Lambidin P. Milligan, an Indiana lawyer and politician, was arrested for being a “southern sympathizer” who was involved in a failed conspiracy against the North. He was tried in a military tribunal and found guilty, and was sentenced to hang to death. Milligan filed a petition with the federal district court
George Atzerodt did not have a fair trial. Some people might say that the trial was fair. Consequently his trial was not fair was because it was a time of war so the trial had military officer. The military officer were from the union and George Atzerodt was from the confederate. This made the trial unjust because the military officer were union biased and they wanted George Atzerodt to lose. Another reason why the trial is unfair was because the trial conducted by the said Judge Advocate General as recorder aided by Assistant and Special Judge Advocate as he made designate. The
Under the Constitution, war powers are divided. Congress has the power to declare war and raise and support the armed forces (Article I, Section 8), while the president is the Commander in Chief (Article II, Section 2) (War Powers Resolution, Wikimedia). It is generally agreed that the Commander in Chief role gives the president power to repel attacks against the United States and makes him responsible for leading the armed forces. During the Korean and Vietnam wars, the United States found itself involved for many years in undeclared wars (War Powers Resolution, Wikimedia). Many members of Congress became concerned with the erosion of congressional authority to decide when the United States should become involved in a war or the use of armed forces that might lead to war. The Senate and the House of Representatives achieved the 2/3 majority required to pass this joint resolution over President Nixon¡¯s veto on November 7, 1973. (War Powers Resolution, Wikimedia).
In both wars, “Presidents have often engaged in military operations without express Congressional consent. These operations include the Korean War, the Vietnam War,” (War Powers 2008). The result of the action to go to war in Vietnam led to the passing of the the War Powers Resolution in 1973. Since World War II, the presidency seemed to have control over Congress, which did change after the Vietnam War. The wars, though, were meant to protect the ideals of democracy in other parts of the world. However, to their claim, they say that, “since the Constitution was adopted there have been at least 125 instances in which the President has ordered the armed forces to take action or maintain positions abroad without obtaining prior congressional authorization, starting with the ‘undeclared war’ with France,” (Woods). However, they include several things that were very small, and not very large scale attacks, not even against other federal
In order to fulfill these obligations, Congress uses a number of techniques to check the executive branch. One technique is the usage of committee hearings and investigations. In the mid to late 1960s, for example, Senator J. William Fulbright organized Senate hearings which mobilized opposition to the Vietnam War. Consequently, the Gulf Tonkin Resolution, which gave the president the power to authorize usage of “conv...
They weigh the evidence and apply the law. In the court system, criminal law is interpreted by a jury who are seen as expressing the sense of justice of ordinary men and women. Juries date back to the Middle Ages in England, and while membership, role, and importance have changed throughout the ages, they were part of the system of England’s Common Law. The purpose of the jury system was to ensure the civil rights of the ordinary citizen. It is important to remember that at the time, ordinary people had few rights.
In the new country of the U.S. it is the supreme court if someone has been "accused of committing a federal crime has the right to a trial by jury". The Iroquois council called the Onondaga lords who are do not see a question until it has been unanimously voted through several courts. Finally a specific set of rules are in place for a foreign power to be able to join the nation. The colonists had special "rules for admitting new states to the union". The Iroquois rules are very strict about accepting foreign countries that "admission is only a temporary one should the person or
To the American people, a trial by jury was viewed as a fundamental right. To take away the right to a fair trial was an offense they did not take lightly. A trial by jury gave, “…raw power to determine facts and law insulated the people from oppression by the king, judges, and even legislature” (Blinka, 57). For the British government to threaten to diminish that power, was an act that colonists viewed as a threat against their civil rights, and freedoms. In enacting the Administration of Justice Act in 1774, the British government was directly aggravating the American’s views on a right to a fair trial. The disagreements between the colonists, and Great Britain would lead to the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and a charge against a King and government they declared unfit to rule.
...nt and Congress shared power as an Executive and Legislative. As an Executive, President can command to take an action in military force. Meanwhile, as a Legislative, Congress has power to declare the war. There are a few controversies regarding to some parts in the War Power Act. Yet, the War Power Act does not violate the constitution.
The question in this case was whether or not the president had the power to order a trial by military for a group of German Nazi saboteurs, and whether or not that violated their fifth and sixth amendment rights. The agents attempted to sabotage various US targets, but failed. They were arrested and ordered by President Franklin Roosevelt to stand trial by military commission. They were all found guilty and sentenced to death. Seven of the eight agents filed a writ of habeas corpus directly to the Supreme Court, who decided to hear the
The modern US version of a jury derived from ancient English law. It is said in the early 11th century, William the Conqueror brought a form of a jury system from Normandy that became the basis for early England’s juries. It was constructed of men who were sworn by oath to tell the king what they knew. King Henry II then expanded on the idea by using a group of white men with good morals to not only judge the accused, but also to investigate crimes. King Henry II had panels of 12 everyday, law abiding men; this aspect of it is much like modern juries. The difference is that these early jurors were “self-informing”. This means that they were expected to already have knowledge of the facts that would be presented in court prior to the trial. King Henry II’s first jurors were assigned the job of resolving the land disputes that were occurring in England. ...
The judicial branch will continue to play a vital role in the ‘struggle’ for power in foreign affairs and the use of armed forces. We will surely see public debate and congressional involvement over a recent decision by President Obama that authorized the ‘targeted killing’ of a US citizen abroad without due process under the pretext combating terrorism.
"I shall show you what happens to people who defy the laws of the land! In the tribunal everybody is equal, here there is no regard for rank or position. The great torture shall be applied to you!" (194)
The just war theory is described by Thomas Massaro in his book Living Justice as the “principle that warfare might be justified under certain conditions” (108). The complexities involved with international relations makes determining a just war very difficult. Even though historically pacifism hasn’t gained much traction within Catholic circles, it currently is gaining popularity with many mainstream Catholics. With so many differing views on military action, one might ask, “What determines a just war? How can we balance the need for peace with self-defense?” An examination of criteria for a just war and critiques written on this topic might shed light on these two questions.
All but three defendants were found guilty. Twelve were sentenced to death (the men that were hung), and the rest were put in prison. Twelve additional trials including well-known cases such as the Doctors Trial and the Judges Trial, were held soon after the Trial of Major War Criminals. This lasted from December of 1946 to April of 1949 (History Channel, 2010)
A war crime is an unjust act of violence in which a military personnel violates the laws and acceptable behaviors of a war. Despite all the violence in a war, a soldier shooting another is not considered a war crime because it is not a violation to the laws and practices of a war, and it is considered just. A war crime is defined as a “violations [violation] of the laws and customs of war” (“War Crimes”), and are attacks “against civilian populations, prisoners of war, or in some cases enemy soldiers in the field” (Friedman). War crimes are typically committed with weapons or by uncommon, cruel, devastating military methods and are “…Committed primarily by military personnel” (Friedman). There are many different types of war crimes one can commit, including “murder, ill treatment…murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages or devastation not justified by military necessity” (Friedman). Originally constructed as international law by the London Charter on August 8th, 1945 and further developed by the Hague Conventions of 1899, 1907 and the Nuremberg trials, war crimes are aggressive, unacceptable and unjust actions performed by military workforce that occur during a war.