In Guantanamo Bay there are several detainees who have been there for over year nearly two years now. These are members of al-Qaeda, Taliban, or those suspected of being or supporting other terrorists. Recently a few have been released on that there innocent, and many others delivered to their own country to be tried by them because of political pressures. All of these events are happening because of Bush's Military Order to create military tribunals to convict war criminals. This paper will look at the advantages and failings of these military commissions. It will also take a look at a case tried in the civil court that many supporters of the military tribunals thought should be held within them. Then conclude by giving the opinions of this writer on arguments given.
             Proponents of Bush's Military Order for military tribunals argue that the tribunals are better to try the terrorists than our criminal justice system. They argue that military tribunals "can dispense justice swiftly, close to where our forces may be fighting, without years of pretrial proceedings or post-trial appeals" (Gonzales). They also give example of how the terrorists' trials for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center took "five months of testimony, 207 witnesses, and 1,003 exhibits – not to mention many days of legal arguments and four days of jury deliberations" (Dean1, 2). That was for the first trial the second one, involving the remaining defendants, took over eight months to complete. These examples show how that a large amount of time would take to prosecute terrorists in our criminal justice system. That it could take a long while for justice to be dispensed and that it would be costly to us. Also proponents argue that American citizens placed as jurors risk their lives and their families from other terrorists. They also speak of the problem of a unanimous finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doub...