not break- ing international law by trying Al Qaeda and Taliban members in military tribunals, as some international law scholars say they are doing. In order for Bush plan to be unlawful, Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters would have to be legal combatants protested by the Geneva Convention. In this case, since the Geneva Convention states that legal combatants must be granted POW status, use of military tribunals would be unlawful. However, since Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters don't follow the rules to be lawful combatants, a soldier must wear a clear military uniform, must carry their arms openly, and both sides must have an organized structure that can take responsibility for their soldiers (Wedgwood A11). Neither the Taliban nor Al Qaeda can meet all these standards, making them totally subject to trial by military tribunals. Other officials that oppose this view base their ideas on false military standards to justify themselves. "The military tribunals established by the president order are required to provide 'full and fair' justice, but they should not be measured by a false stan- dard" (Wedgwood A11). In order to be lawful combatants, both sides must also respect each other's laws of war.
             Just how much power are Bush's military tribunals getting? Some say it is too much. Terrorists' or civilians' rights in military tribunals are very limited. The tri- bunals have the power to do whatever they want to the accused. They can be charged and tried legally without the knowledge of the public, so the only people that have a say in the trial are the people involved in the tribunal. Terrorist or terrorist suspects can also be executed with- out special permission. As long as there is a unanimous vote for the tribunal, the accused can face the death penalty. This is taking a risk as there is a possibility that the suspect is innocent – there is no jury, so whatever the tribunal decides i...