Military Tribunals: The Historical Guide to Constitutionality
             On November 13, 2001, President George W. Bush issued an executive order as part of the war against terrorism by authorizing the use of military tribunals to try international terrorists. These military tribunals apply specifically to non-citizens who are members of Qaeda or have "engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit, acts of international terrorism, or acts in preparations therefore, that have caused, threaten to cause, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States, its citizens, nations security, foreign policy, or economy, or has knowingly harbored... (such) individuals..." This executive order has raised concern for some in the country who are weary of the dangers to civil rights. In order to properly determine the constitutionality of military tribunals, it is important to understand exactly what a military tribunal is. Even armed with this knowledge, however, it is still necessary to determine if the use of military tribunals to try international terrorists violates the constitution? When faced with such an uncertainty, it is helpful to consider the historical uses of military tribunals. The lessons of times past can be applied to the present situation and act as a guide to the constitutionality of the proposed use of military tribunals.
             Military tribunals, or commissions, are different from a regular civilian criminal court. The Department of Defense Military Commission Order No. 1 details the rules and procedures. In a tribunal, the judge is a military officer who is a judge advocate of any United States armed force. The commission members, or jury, consist of three to seven military officers of any branch appointed by the Secretary of Defense. Both the Chief Prosecutor and the Chief Defense Counselor must be judge advocates on any United States armed force. Both are allowed to appoin...