Sir Isaac Newton FRS (4 January 1643 – 31 March 1727 [OS: 25 December 1642 – 20 March 1726])
was an
English physicist,
mathematician,
astronomer,
natural philosopher,
alchemist,
and
theologian
who is
considered by many scholars and members
of the
general public to be one of the most influential people in human history.
His 1687 publication of the Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica
(usually called the Principia)
is considered to be among the most influential books in the history of science, laying the groundwork for most of classical mechanics.
In this work, Newton described universal gravitation and the three laws of motion which dominated the scientific view of the physical universe for the next three centuries.
Newton showed that the motions of objects on Earth and of celestial bodies are governed by the same set of natural laws by demonstrating the consistency between Kepler's laws of planetary motion and his theory of gravitation,
thus removing the last doubts about heliocentrism and advancing the scientific revolution.
Newton built the first practical reflecting telescope and developed a theory of colour based on the observation that a prism decomposes white light into the many colours that form the visible spectrum.
He also formulated an empirical law of cooling and studied the speed of sound.
In mathematics, Newton shares the credit with Gottfried Leibniz for the development of the differential and integral calculus.
He also demonstrated the generalised binomial theorem, developed Newton's method for approximating the roots of a function, and contributed to the study of power series.
Newton remains uniquely influential to scientists, as demonstrated by a 2005 survey of members of Britain's Royal Society asking who had the greater effect on the history of science and had the greater contribution to humankind, Newton or Albert Einstein. Royal Society scientists deemed Newton to have made the greater overall contribution on both.Newton was also highly religious, though an unorthodox Christian, writing more on Biblical hermeneutics and occult studies than the natural science for which he is remembered today.
The 100 by astrophysicist Michael H. Hart ranks Newton as the second most influential person in history
(below Muhammad and above Jesus).
The Convention was manifestly adopted for humanitarian and civilizing purposes.
Its objectives are to safeguard the very existence of certain human groups and to affirm and emphasize the most elementary principles of humanity and morality. In view of the rights involved, the legal obligations to refrain from genocide are recognized as erga omnes.
When the Convention was drafted, it was already envisaged that it would apply not only to then existing forms of genocide, but also
"to any method that might be evolved in the future with a view to destroying the physical existence of a group".
As emphasized in the preamble to the Convention,
genocide has marred all periods of history, and it is this very tragic recognition that gives the concept its historical evolutionary nature.
The Convention must be interpreted in good faith, in accordance with the ordinary meaning of its terms, in their context,
and in the light of its object and purpose.
Moreover, the text of the Convention should be interpreted in such a way that a reason and a meaning can be attributed to every word.
No word or provision may be disregarded or treated as superfluous, unless this is absolutely necessary to give effect to the terms read as a whole.
Genocide is a crime under international law regardless of
"whether committed in time of peace or in time of war"
(art. I).
Thus, irrespective of the context in which it occurs
(for example, peace time, internal strife, international armed conflict or whatever the general overall situation)
genocide is a punishable international crime.
– UN Commission of Experts
that examined violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia.
For genocide to happen, there must be certain preconditions.
Foremost among them is a national culture that does not place a high value on human life.
A totalitarian society, with its assumed superior ideology, is also a precondition for genocidal acts.
In addition, members of the dominant society must perceive their potential victims as less than fully human: as “pagans,” “savages,” “uncouth barbarians,” “unbelievers,” “effete degenerates,”
“ritual outlaws,” “racial inferiors,”
“class antagonists,”
“counterrevolutionaries,”
and so on.
In themselves,
these conditions are not enough
for the
perpetrators to commit genocide.
To do that—that is,
to commit genocide—the perpetrators need a strong,
centralized authority and bureaucratic organization as well as pathological individuals and criminals.
Also required is a campaign of vilification and dehumanization of the victims by the perpetrators, who are usually new states or new regimes attempting to impose conformity to a new ideology and its model of society.
– M. Hassan Kakar
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c.33)
is an
Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It introduced a number of changes to the existing law, most notably in the restriction and reduction of existing rights and in greater penalties for certain
"anti-social"
behaviours.
The Bill was introduced by Michael Howard, home secretary of Prime Minister John Major's Conservative government, and attracted widespread opposition.
Martial law is the imposition of military rule by military authorities over designated regions on an emergency basis
—usually only temporary—
when the civilian government or civilian authorities fail to function effectively
(e.g., maintain order and security, and provide essential services),
when there are extensive riots and protests, or when the disobedience of the law becomes widespread.
In most cases, military forces are deployed to quiet the crowds, to secure government buildings and key or sensitive locations, and to maintain order.
Generally, military personnel replace civil authorities and perform some or all of their functions.
The constitution could be suspended, and in full-scale martial law, the highest ranking military General would take over, or be installed, as the military governor or as head of the government, thus removing all power from the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government.
Martial law can be used by governments to enforce their rule over the public. Such incidents may occur after a coup d'état
(Thailand 2006);
when threatened by popular protest
(China, Tiananmen Square protests of 1989);
to suppress political opposition
(Poland in 1981);
to stabilize insurrections or perceived insurrections
(Canada, The October Crisis of 1970).
Martial law may be declared in cases of major natural disasters, however most countries use a different legal construct, such as a
"state of emergency".
Martial law has also been imposed during conflicts and in cases of occupations, where the absence of any other civil government provides for an unstable population. Examples of this form of military rule include post World War II reconstruction in Germany and Japan as well as the southern reconstruction following the U.S. Civil War.
Typically, the imposition of martial law accompanies curfews,
the suspension of civil law, civil rights, habeas corpus, and the application or extension of military law or military justice to civilians.
Civilians defying martial law may be subjected to military tribunal
(court-martial).
Military tribunal
"Military commission"
redirects here.
For the commissioning of an officer,
see Officer
(armed forces).
"Military court"
redirects here.
For courts with jurisdiction over military personnel, see Court-martial.
For other uses, see Military law.
‹ The template below (Globalize/USA)
is being considered for deletion. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus.›
‹ The template below (Globalize) is being considered for deletion. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus.›
Globe icon.
The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page.
(February 2009)
Warfare
Ramses II at Kadesh.
jpg
Gustavus Adolphus at the Battle at Breitenfeld.jpgM1A1 abrams front.
Military history
Eras
Prehistoric
Ancient
Medieval
Gunpowder
Industrial
Modern
Battlespace
Air
Information
Land
Sea
Space
Weapons
Armor
Artillery
Biological
Cavalry
Chemical
Electronic
Infantry
Nuclear
Psychological
Tactics
Attrition warfare
Guerrilla warfare
Maneuver warfare
Siege
Total war
Trench warfare
Conventional warfare
Unconventional warfare
Asymmetric warfare
Counter-insurgency
Network-centric warfare
Cold war
Proxy war
Strategy
Economic
Grand
Operational
Organization
Ranks
Command and control
Staff
Intelligence
Education and training
Logistics
Technology and equipment
Materiel
Supply chain management
Lists
Battles
Commanders
Operations
Sieges
Writers
Wars
War crimes
Weapons
Portal
was an
English physicist,
mathematician,
astronomer,
natural philosopher,
alchemist,
and
theologian
who is
considered by many scholars and members
of the
general public to be one of the most influential people in human history.
His 1687 publication of the Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica
(usually called the Principia)
is considered to be among the most influential books in the history of science, laying the groundwork for most of classical mechanics.
In this work, Newton described universal gravitation and the three laws of motion which dominated the scientific view of the physical universe for the next three centuries.
Newton showed that the motions of objects on Earth and of celestial bodies are governed by the same set of natural laws by demonstrating the consistency between Kepler's laws of planetary motion and his theory of gravitation,
thus removing the last doubts about heliocentrism and advancing the scientific revolution.
Newton built the first practical reflecting telescope and developed a theory of colour based on the observation that a prism decomposes white light into the many colours that form the visible spectrum.
He also formulated an empirical law of cooling and studied the speed of sound.
In mathematics, Newton shares the credit with Gottfried Leibniz for the development of the differential and integral calculus.
He also demonstrated the generalised binomial theorem, developed Newton's method for approximating the roots of a function, and contributed to the study of power series.
Newton remains uniquely influential to scientists, as demonstrated by a 2005 survey of members of Britain's Royal Society asking who had the greater effect on the history of science and had the greater contribution to humankind, Newton or Albert Einstein. Royal Society scientists deemed Newton to have made the greater overall contribution on both.Newton was also highly religious, though an unorthodox Christian, writing more on Biblical hermeneutics and occult studies than the natural science for which he is remembered today.
The 100 by astrophysicist Michael H. Hart ranks Newton as the second most influential person in history
(below Muhammad and above Jesus).
The Convention was manifestly adopted for humanitarian and civilizing purposes.Its objectives are to safeguard the very existence of certain human groups and to affirm and emphasize the most elementary principles of humanity and morality. In view of the rights involved, the legal obligations to refrain from genocide are recognized as erga omnes.
When the Convention was drafted, it was already envisaged that it would apply not only to then existing forms of genocide, but also
"to any method that might be evolved in the future with a view to destroying the physical existence of a group".
As emphasized in the preamble to the Convention,
genocide has marred all periods of history, and it is this very tragic recognition that gives the concept its historical evolutionary nature.
The Convention must be interpreted in good faith, in accordance with the ordinary meaning of its terms, in their context,
and in the light of its object and purpose.
Moreover, the text of the Convention should be interpreted in such a way that a reason and a meaning can be attributed to every word.
No word or provision may be disregarded or treated as superfluous, unless this is absolutely necessary to give effect to the terms read as a whole.
Genocide is a crime under international law regardless of
"whether committed in time of peace or in time of war"
(art. I).
Thus, irrespective of the context in which it occurs
(for example, peace time, internal strife, international armed conflict or whatever the general overall situation)
genocide is a punishable international crime.
– UN Commission of Experts
that examined violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia.
For genocide to happen, there must be certain preconditions.
Foremost among them is a national culture that does not place a high value on human life.
A totalitarian society, with its assumed superior ideology, is also a precondition for genocidal acts.
In addition, members of the dominant society must perceive their potential victims as less than fully human: as “pagans,” “savages,” “uncouth barbarians,” “unbelievers,” “effete degenerates,”
“ritual outlaws,” “racial inferiors,”
“class antagonists,”
“counterrevolutionaries,”
and so on.
In themselves,
these conditions are not enough
for the
perpetrators to commit genocide.
To do that—that is,
to commit genocide—the perpetrators need a strong,
centralized authority and bureaucratic organization as well as pathological individuals and criminals.
Also required is a campaign of vilification and dehumanization of the victims by the perpetrators, who are usually new states or new regimes attempting to impose conformity to a new ideology and its model of society.
– M. Hassan Kakar
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c.33)
is an
Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It introduced a number of changes to the existing law, most notably in the restriction and reduction of existing rights and in greater penalties for certain
"anti-social"
behaviours.
The Bill was introduced by Michael Howard, home secretary of Prime Minister John Major's Conservative government, and attracted widespread opposition.
Martial law is the imposition of military rule by military authorities over designated regions on an emergency basis
—usually only temporary—
when the civilian government or civilian authorities fail to function effectively
(e.g., maintain order and security, and provide essential services),
when there are extensive riots and protests, or when the disobedience of the law becomes widespread.
In most cases, military forces are deployed to quiet the crowds, to secure government buildings and key or sensitive locations, and to maintain order.
Generally, military personnel replace civil authorities and perform some or all of their functions.
The constitution could be suspended, and in full-scale martial law, the highest ranking military General would take over, or be installed, as the military governor or as head of the government, thus removing all power from the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government.
Martial law can be used by governments to enforce their rule over the public. Such incidents may occur after a coup d'état
(Thailand 2006);
when threatened by popular protest
(China, Tiananmen Square protests of 1989);
to suppress political opposition
(Poland in 1981);
to stabilize insurrections or perceived insurrections
(Canada, The October Crisis of 1970).
Martial law may be declared in cases of major natural disasters, however most countries use a different legal construct, such as a
"state of emergency".
Martial law has also been imposed during conflicts and in cases of occupations, where the absence of any other civil government provides for an unstable population. Examples of this form of military rule include post World War II reconstruction in Germany and Japan as well as the southern reconstruction following the U.S. Civil War.
Typically, the imposition of martial law accompanies curfews,
the suspension of civil law, civil rights, habeas corpus, and the application or extension of military law or military justice to civilians.
Civilians defying martial law may be subjected to military tribunal
(court-martial).
Military tribunal
"Military commission"
redirects here.
For the commissioning of an officer,
see Officer
(armed forces).
"Military court"
redirects here.
For courts with jurisdiction over military personnel, see Court-martial.
For other uses, see Military law.
‹ The template below (Globalize/USA)
is being considered for deletion. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus.›
‹ The template below (Globalize) is being considered for deletion. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus.›
Globe icon.
The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page.
(February 2009)
Warfare
Ramses II at Kadesh.
jpg
Gustavus Adolphus at the Battle at Breitenfeld.jpgM1A1 abrams front.
Military history
Eras
Prehistoric
Ancient
Medieval
Gunpowder
Industrial
Modern
Battlespace
Air
Information
Land
Sea
Space
Weapons
Armor
Artillery
Biological
Cavalry
Chemical
Electronic
Infantry
Nuclear
Psychological
Tactics
Attrition warfare
Guerrilla warfare
Maneuver warfare
Siege
Total war
Trench warfare
Conventional warfare
Unconventional warfare
Asymmetric warfare
Counter-insurgency
Network-centric warfare
Cold war
Proxy war
Strategy
Economic
Grand
Operational
Organization
Ranks
Command and control
Staff
Intelligence
Education and training
Logistics
Technology and equipment
Materiel
Supply chain management
Lists
Battles
Commanders
Operations
Sieges
Writers
Wars
War crimes
Weapons
Portal
A military tribunal is a kind of military court designed to try members of enemy forces during wartime, operating outside the scope of conventional criminal and civil proceedings.
The judges are military officers and fulfill the role of jurors. Military tribunals are distinct from courts-martial.
A military tribunal is an inquisitorial system based on charges brought by a military authorities, prosecuted by a military authority, judged by military officers, and sentenced by military officers against a member of an adversarial force.
Military tribunals in the United States
The United States has made use of military tribunals or commissions, rather than rely on a court-martial, within the military justice system, during times of declared war or rebellion.
General George Washington used military tribunals during the American Revolution. Commissions were also used by General
(and later President)
Andrew Jackson during the War of 1812 to try a British spy; commissions, labeled
"Councils of War,"
were also used in the Mexican-American War.
The Union used military tribunals during and in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War.
Military tribunals were used to try Native Americans who fought the United States during the Indian Wars which occurred during the Civil War;
the thirty-eight people who were executed after the Dakota War of 1862 were sentenced by a military tribunal.
The so-called Lincoln conspirators were also tried by military commission in the spring and summer of 1865.
The most prominent civilians tried in this way were Democratic politicians Clement L. Vallandigham, Lambdin P. Milligan, and Benjamin Gwynn Harris.
All were convicted,
and Harris was expelled from the Congress as a result.
It must be noted that all of these tribunals were concluded prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Milligan.
The use of military tribunals in cases of civilians was often controversial, as tribunals represented a form of justice alien to the common law, which governs criminal justice in the United States, and provides for trial by jury, the presumption of innocence, forbids secret evidence, and provides for public proceedings.
Critics of the Civil War military tribunals charged that they had become a political weapon,
for which the accused had no legal recourse to the regularly constituted courts, and no recourse whatsoever except through an appeal to the President.
The U. S. Supreme Court
agreed,
and
unanimously ruled that military tribunals used to try civilians in any jurisdiction where
the civil courts were functioning were unconstitutional,
with its decision in
Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866).
Military commissions were also used in the Philippines in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War; as these were used in an active war zone as an expedient of war, they did not fall afoul of Milligan.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered military tribunals for eight German prisoners accused of planning sabotage in the United States as part of Operation Pastorius.
Roosevelt's decision was challenged, but upheld, in Ex parte Quirin.
All eight of the accused were convicted and sentenced to death. Six were executed by electric chair at the District of Columbia jail on August 8, 1942.
Two who had given evidence against the others had their sentences reduced by Roosevelt to prison terms.
In 1948, they were released and deported to the American Zone of occupied Germany.
Most recently, as discussed below, the administration of George W. Bush has sought to use military tribunals to try
"unlawful enemy combatants",
mostly individuals captured abroad and held at a prison camp at a military base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
Jurisdiction
Courts-martial generally take jurisdiction only over members of their own military and sometimes, civilians present with them.
Even when court-martial procedures are used to try enemies, the body convened is often instead called a military tribunal or military commission.
A military tribunal or military commission,
in contrast,
is generally used to refer to bodies who assert jurisdiction over persons who are held in military custody and stand accused of being enemies in a conflict in which the military is engaged who a combatants who have violated a law of war.
Military tribunals convened to impose punishment
(as opposed to tribunals established solely to classify persons in military custody as combatants or non-combatants),
generally limit themselves to accusations that an individual violated the laws of war. Military tribunals generally do not consider cases where an individual is merely being accused of being a combatant on behalf of the enemy.
Military tribunals
also,
generally speaking, do not assert jurisdiction over people who are acknowledged to be non-combatants who have committed ordinary civil crimes.
But,
military tribunals are sometimes used to try individuals not affiliated with a national military who are nonetheless accused of being combatants acting in violation of the laws of war.
Controversy
While tribunals can provide for quick trials under the conditions of war, many critics
[who?]
say this occurs at the expense of justice.
Time constraints and the inability
to obtain
evidence can greatly hamper a case for the defense.
Others
[who?]
have tried to use this argument in favor of commissions, as issues such as chain of evidence and hearsay, which are applied in civilian and criminal trials, could preclude conviction if such rules were applied
(e.g., how to claim a bomb was in proper custody from a battlefield to a courtroom?)
Civilian trials must be open to the public, while military tribunals can be held in secret.
Because conviction usually relies on some sort of majority quota, the separability problem can easily cause the verdict to be displeasing not only to the defendant but also to the tribunal.
Decisions made by a military tribunal cannot be appealed to federal courts. The only way to appeal is a petition for a panel of review
(which may or may not include civilians as well as military officers)
to review decisions,
however the President,
as commander-in-chief, has final review of all appeals.
Although such tribunals do not satisfy most protections and guarantees provided by the United States Bill of Rights, that has not stopped Presidents from using them, nor the U.S. Congress from authorizing them, as in the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
Trial by military commission of the Guantanamo detainees
Main article:
Guantanamo military commission
President George W. Bush ordered that certain detainees imprisoned at the Naval base at Guantanamo Bay were to be tried by military commissions.
This decision sparked controversy and litigation.
On June 29, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the power of the Bush administration to conduct military tribunals to suspected terrorists at Guantánamo Bay.
In December 2006, the Military Commissions Act of 2006
was
passed and authorized the establishment of military commissions subject to certain requirements
and
with a designated system of appealing those decisions.
A military commission system addressing objections identified by the U.S. Supreme Court was then established by the Department of Defense. Litigation concerning the establishment of this system is ongoing.
As of June 13, 2007, the appellate body in this military commission system had not yet been constituted.
Three cases had been commenced in the new system, as of June 13, 2007.
One detainee,
David Matthew Hicks plea bargained and was sent to Australia to serve a nine-month sentence.
Two cases were dismissed without prejudice because the tribunal believed that the men charged had not been properly determined to be persons within the commission's jurisdiction on June 4, 2007,
and the military prosecutors asked the commission to reconsider that decision on June 8, 2007.
One of the dismissed cases involved Omar Ahmed Khadr, who was captured at age 15 in Afghanistan after having allegedly killed a U.S. soldier with a grenade.
The other dismissed case involved Salim Ahmed Hamdan who is alleged to have been
Osama bin Laden's
driver and is the lead plaintiff in a key series of cases challenging the military commission system.
The system is in limbo until the jurisdictional issues addressed in the early cases are resolved
The judges are military officers and fulfill the role of jurors. Military tribunals are distinct from courts-martial.
A military tribunal is an inquisitorial system based on charges brought by a military authorities, prosecuted by a military authority, judged by military officers, and sentenced by military officers against a member of an adversarial force.
Military tribunals in the United States
The United States has made use of military tribunals or commissions, rather than rely on a court-martial, within the military justice system, during times of declared war or rebellion.
General George Washington used military tribunals during the American Revolution. Commissions were also used by General
(and later President)
Andrew Jackson during the War of 1812 to try a British spy; commissions, labeled
"Councils of War,"
were also used in the Mexican-American War.
The Union used military tribunals during and in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War.
Military tribunals were used to try Native Americans who fought the United States during the Indian Wars which occurred during the Civil War;
the thirty-eight people who were executed after the Dakota War of 1862 were sentenced by a military tribunal.
The so-called Lincoln conspirators were also tried by military commission in the spring and summer of 1865.
The most prominent civilians tried in this way were Democratic politicians Clement L. Vallandigham, Lambdin P. Milligan, and Benjamin Gwynn Harris.
All were convicted,
and Harris was expelled from the Congress as a result.
It must be noted that all of these tribunals were concluded prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Milligan.
The use of military tribunals in cases of civilians was often controversial, as tribunals represented a form of justice alien to the common law, which governs criminal justice in the United States, and provides for trial by jury, the presumption of innocence, forbids secret evidence, and provides for public proceedings.
Critics of the Civil War military tribunals charged that they had become a political weapon,
for which the accused had no legal recourse to the regularly constituted courts, and no recourse whatsoever except through an appeal to the President.
The U. S. Supreme Court
agreed,
and
unanimously ruled that military tribunals used to try civilians in any jurisdiction where
the civil courts were functioning were unconstitutional,
with its decision in
Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866).
Military commissions were also used in the Philippines in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War; as these were used in an active war zone as an expedient of war, they did not fall afoul of Milligan.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered military tribunals for eight German prisoners accused of planning sabotage in the United States as part of Operation Pastorius.
Roosevelt's decision was challenged, but upheld, in Ex parte Quirin.
All eight of the accused were convicted and sentenced to death. Six were executed by electric chair at the District of Columbia jail on August 8, 1942.
Two who had given evidence against the others had their sentences reduced by Roosevelt to prison terms.
In 1948, they were released and deported to the American Zone of occupied Germany.
Most recently, as discussed below, the administration of George W. Bush has sought to use military tribunals to try
"unlawful enemy combatants",
mostly individuals captured abroad and held at a prison camp at a military base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
Jurisdiction
Courts-martial generally take jurisdiction only over members of their own military and sometimes, civilians present with them.
Even when court-martial procedures are used to try enemies, the body convened is often instead called a military tribunal or military commission.
A military tribunal or military commission,
in contrast,
is generally used to refer to bodies who assert jurisdiction over persons who are held in military custody and stand accused of being enemies in a conflict in which the military is engaged who a combatants who have violated a law of war.
Military tribunals convened to impose punishment
(as opposed to tribunals established solely to classify persons in military custody as combatants or non-combatants),
generally limit themselves to accusations that an individual violated the laws of war. Military tribunals generally do not consider cases where an individual is merely being accused of being a combatant on behalf of the enemy.
Military tribunals
also,
generally speaking, do not assert jurisdiction over people who are acknowledged to be non-combatants who have committed ordinary civil crimes.
But,
military tribunals are sometimes used to try individuals not affiliated with a national military who are nonetheless accused of being combatants acting in violation of the laws of war.
Controversy
While tribunals can provide for quick trials under the conditions of war, many critics
[who?]
say this occurs at the expense of justice.
Time constraints and the inabilityto obtain
evidence can greatly hamper a case for the defense.
Others
[who?]
have tried to use this argument in favor of commissions, as issues such as chain of evidence and hearsay, which are applied in civilian and criminal trials, could preclude conviction if such rules were applied
(e.g., how to claim a bomb was in proper custody from a battlefield to a courtroom?)
Civilian trials must be open to the public, while military tribunals can be held in secret.
Because conviction usually relies on some sort of majority quota, the separability problem can easily cause the verdict to be displeasing not only to the defendant but also to the tribunal.
Decisions made by a military tribunal cannot be appealed to federal courts. The only way to appeal is a petition for a panel of review
(which may or may not include civilians as well as military officers)
to review decisions,
however the President,
as commander-in-chief, has final review of all appeals.
Although such tribunals do not satisfy most protections and guarantees provided by the United States Bill of Rights, that has not stopped Presidents from using them, nor the U.S. Congress from authorizing them, as in the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
Trial by military commission of the Guantanamo detainees
Main article:
Guantanamo military commission
President George W. Bush ordered that certain detainees imprisoned at the Naval base at Guantanamo Bay were to be tried by military commissions.
This decision sparked controversy and litigation.
On June 29, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the power of the Bush administration to conduct military tribunals to suspected terrorists at Guantánamo Bay.
In December 2006, the Military Commissions Act of 2006
was
passed and authorized the establishment of military commissions subject to certain requirements
and
with a designated system of appealing those decisions.
A military commission system addressing objections identified by the U.S. Supreme Court was then established by the Department of Defense. Litigation concerning the establishment of this system is ongoing.
As of June 13, 2007, the appellate body in this military commission system had not yet been constituted.
Three cases had been commenced in the new system, as of June 13, 2007.
One detainee,
David Matthew Hicks plea bargained and was sent to Australia to serve a nine-month sentence.
Two cases were dismissed without prejudice because the tribunal believed that the men charged had not been properly determined to be persons within the commission's jurisdiction on June 4, 2007,
and the military prosecutors asked the commission to reconsider that decision on June 8, 2007.
One of the dismissed cases involved Omar Ahmed Khadr, who was captured at age 15 in Afghanistan after having allegedly killed a U.S. soldier with a grenade.
The other dismissed case involved Salim Ahmed Hamdan who is alleged to have been
Osama bin Laden's
driver and is the lead plaintiff in a key series of cases challenging the military commission system.
The system is in limbo until the jurisdictional issues addressed in the early cases are resolved
No comments:
Post a Comment