t in our criminal justice system. Propionates say that "this nation is faced with terrorist attacks that inflict mass murder or hundreds of millions of dollars of damage in a single instance, we can no longer afford procedures that err so heavily on the side of freeing the guilty. Protection of society and the lives of thousands of potential victims becomes paramount" (Dean1, 2). They say our criminal justice system is designed to let the guilty go free rather than convict the innocent.
             Their defense of having military tribunals is that they are not biased nor have unfair proceedings. They mention how in WW II war crime trials with military tribunals there were "many acquittals, and point out that for the 177 Nazi officials tried by American military judges, the tribunals issued only twelve death sentences" (Dean1, 3). Also an advantage is that "the rules of evidence are not applicable, nor necessary, because trained military jurists can, like other judges, weigh all the evidence" (Dean1, 3). The reason the rules of evidence does not need be applied to military tribunals because they were designed for the courts to police the police. This is to prevent a terrorist to walk away because of a legal technicality, "such as the arresting officer's failure to give him a Miranda warning" (Dean1, 3). Also proponents state that "circumstances in a war zone often make it impossible to meet the authentication requirements for documents in a civilian court" (Gonzales). Proponents also defend against the idea that military tribunals are nothing but kangaroo courts by saying the forming of courts is taking its time to set the rules and procedures for the military tribunals. "The order specifically directs that all trials before military commissions will be "full and fair." Everyone tried before a military commission will know the charges against him, be represented by ...