Tribunals Essays

The advantage of choosing the tribunal system is that it is not strictly bound by the restrictions of rules of evidence and precedent. Although, tribunals are to some degree bound by the decisions of other tribunals they have a greater degree of flexibility in their decision-making powers. This in itself means that tribunals can give the appellant a greater chance of success especially since tribunals can admit evidence that a court might perhaps refuse to listen to, for example hearsay evidence.

Many times in history the Supreme Court has been faced with deciding how to treat civil liberties during war time. This raises the question, what restrictions if any should the court allow during wartime. The court is faced with making the decision on civil liberties during wartime for security reasons, and to protect the rights of the individual. While some may say that the no exception stance may put our national security at risk during war time, No exception is the only stance that is constitutionally acceptable as proven through the analysis of the different stances by examining related cases, text, and the constitution.

Was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that the application of military tribunals to citizens when civilian courts are still operating is unconstitutional. It was also

In order to understand rights and liberties during wartime situations, some background information needs to be addressed and explained. This paper will explain the definition of habeas corpus and the role of the Judicial, Legislative and Executive Branches of government during wartime and conflicts, how the President will sometimes take matter into his own hands.

In Padilla v. Rumsfeld, an American citizen was arrested in Chicago as he stepped off an airplane. Federal authorities received a tip that he was planning on conducting a terrorist attack using a dirty bomb. However, they did not have enough evidence to arrest him on the charge of terrorism and was subsequently held as a material witness. He was transferred to military custody and was sent to a prison in South Carolina. Over the next several years, his attorney's sued to the federal government alleging that he was being held without due process of law. In 2012, the Supreme Court denied to hear the case. They referred the matter back to US Court of Appeals. They dismissed the case, based upon the fact that the plaintiff's attorneys named Rumsfeld as the defendant. Instead, they should have named the military commander of the prison as the defendant. This means that the government can still hold onto Padilla and that his attorneys will have to re file using the proper procedures. ("Padilla v. Rumsfeld," 2012)

POL 201 Week 5 Final Paper Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror

It’s very easy to just simply state that the ones housed in this military facility should be tried in a court of law, but finding a place to actually do this is not possible without causing extreme amounts of turmoil and

The case is about detention of a citizen from the United States of America unlawfully without being charged or tried. The issue in the case is whether the military officials violate the law through such conducting such a detention unless the Congress authorizes them to do so. Jose Padilla, an American, returned from Pakistan in 2002 when he was later arrested in O’Hare International Airport in Chicago (Ann, 2004). At first, he was detained as a witness during the investigation that the government conducted in the al Qaeda network. However, his detention was followed by a declaration that he was an ‘enemy combatant.’ The Defense Department of Chicago, by declaring him so implied that he could now be taken to prison without accessing an attorney or even the courts. The main reason why he was arrested was that the FBI suspected that his return to the United States of America was to continue carrying out criminal acts in the country.

A paradox has always exists between the issue of civil liberties and national security. Democracy creates civil liberties that allow the freedom of association, expression, as well as movement, but there are some people use such liberal democracy to plan and execute violence, to destabilize State structures. It illustrates the delicate balance existing between reducing civil liberties to enhance security in a state. States have detained suspects for years and have also conducted extensive privacy incursions as strategies to combat terror, however it risks violation of civil liberties. This essay discusses the extent to which a state should be allowed to restrict civil liberties for the enhancement of national security and not abandon democratic values. It looks at aspects of the legal response to terrorism in the United States after the 9/11 attack.

Matthew Lippman provides that the Lai Massacre violated the international humanitarian law of war. The Lai Massacre and the Vietnam War raises critical questions about how America conduct war and its military leadership in Vietnam. The massacre of innocent unarmed civilians illustrates the horrendous war crime committed by American soldiers. Lippman discusses how the United States tried to keep the events of My Lai Massacre from the public. The My Lai Massacre makes me wonder if this was only one of the many massacres in Vietnam War and if the higher US officials managed to cover-up the other massacres. The trials for the crimes committed in My Lai were held separately from the Nuremberg trails because officials wanted to avoid creating parallels between the two events. However, parallels can be drawn with American conduct in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. Troops who were in violation of international law and committed war crimes in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay were not held accountable for their action to their full extent. In fact, those who were convicted were not necessarily charged with war crimes. This leads us to question whether the events of my Lai and Nuremberg could ever be reconciled. Allan Ryan makes the argument that the Nuremberg Tribunals was the most significant development of international human rights law. I agree with Ryan as many tribunals following the events of World War II have been modeled after the Nuremberg Tribunals. For instance, this is true in

The detention of petitioners for trial by military commission does not violate the Constitution of the United States. Congress and President, under the Articles of War and Executive Orders, may constitutionally place unlawful combatants on trial before a military commission for offenses against the law of war. Unlawful combatants have traditionally been recognized as individuals who act as secret spies or enemy combatants without uniform who infiltrate behind military lines for the purpose of gaining secret information or conducting “sabotage” against a nation’s military forces. The saboteurs are properly characterized as unlawful combatants because, while they are members of a sovereign nation’s military force, they acted secretly and removed their uniforms for the purpose of infiltrating and sabotaging the United States military. While lawful enemy combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces, unlawful combatants are additionally subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for violations of the law of war. The Articles of War specifically provide for the trial of unlawful combatants by military commission for offenses against the law of war. Additionally, the Constitution gives the President the power to wage war declared by Congress, carry into effect all laws passed by Congress for the conduct of war and for the government and regulation of the armed forces, as well as all laws that

The two basic types of courts in the United States are trial courts and appellate courts. These two types of courts have two entirely different functions. The job of a trial courts is to determine questions of fact. Appeals courts, on the other hand, must determine questions of law. Appellate courts have the right to overrule jury verdicts and judges decisions due to the fact that an appellate court typically concerns itself solely with issues of law. An appeal is not the time to retry the case or to reargue the facts. In civil matters, either party can appeal the decision of the trial court. Usually in criminal matters, however, only the defendant may appeal a criminal conviction and the state is not

"Employment tribunals were established under the Industrial Training Act 1964. They were previously referred to as Industrial Tribunals, but their name was changed by s1 of the Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Act 1998, which took effect on 1 August 1998"(J.Nairns,2011,p.6). Now, HM Courts & Tribunals Service which is an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice, supervise employment tribunals. Employment tribunals are constituted on the basis of region. In England and Wales, there are 11 regional offices of the Employment Tribunals(ROETs). There is Regional Office in each region

In the United States, one of the major methods in obtaining crucial information has been through the use of Guantanamo Bay. While many have condemned of the torture that is believed to occur there, not only does Guantanamo Bay comply with national and international standards, but it also complies with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (Meese 1) which states

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is originally a naval base that was once used to house detention facilities for Haitian and Cuban refugees fleeing to the United States. It was also used as a refueling station for Navy ships. It was then converted into a high level detention facility to house enemy troops captured in the War on Terror campaign by Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfield. It has three main camps that house the prisoners. These prisoners of war were later referred to as enemy combatants. They were excluded from the prisoner of war statutes of the Geneva Convention because of their involvement in a foreign terrorist organization and therefore earning themselves the title of terrorists. The Guantanamo Bay Detention Center served as the perfect location to send these terrorists. It allowed the United States to strip them of any due process or protection that is provided by US law. Due to its location, being in foreign territory they are only subjected to military law. They are close enough for them to be monitored without interference of intentional agencies or international oversight. Furthermore, the US Government is holding these men without due process because they are deemed too dangerous to be released into the public because of their associations with terrorist organizations and possession of valuable information relating to National Security such as location of key members of a terrorist groups, whereabouts. However, the United States cannot release those