Closing Guantanamo
Guantanamo Bay is a US detention and prison camp that is based in Cuba. Established in 2000, by President Bush, the prison has faced several criticisms from human rights activists worldwide (Fisher, 2006). President Obama promised to close down the facility and embrace a new justice system for terrorism suspects during his campaign. Two days into office, Obama ordered the closure of the facility by signing an executive order. However, despite making this signing and appeal, the facility remains open, long after his term ended (Jost, 2009). The military tribunals try the prisoners in the facility for their terrorist activities against the US (Council on Foreign Relations, 2011). Guantanamo bay presents a perfect example of understanding the differences between military tribunals and federal civil courts. Connectedly, this paper contrasts the military tribunals for the Guantanamo prisoners and the US civil federal courts.
The first difference between these two court systems is their organizations. In understanding the contrast between these two justice systems, it is critical to understand military tribunals' functioning. The tribunals are courts established within the military for the trial of enemy forces during wars. The courts operate outside conventional civil and criminal proceedings (Jeralyn, 2003). Military tribunals are presided over by military officers who act as judges and are distinct from courts-martial functioning. The charges are brought to the tribunal by military personnel, follows military authority's prosecution, judges process of the military personnel, and sentencing of military officers (Jeralyn, 2003). Civil federal courts, on the contrary, involve legal disputes between several parties. The court's civil actions begin when one or more parties file complaints by paying a filing fee. In this case, the prosecution is carried out by federal personnel against citizens. Civilians can file cases against other civilians, corporations, the federal and state governments, and agencies.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The nature of suspects dealt by the military tribunals in Guantanamo differs significantly from civilian federal courts. The Guantanamo Bay deals with criminal suspects captured in the American fight against terrorism. The detainees in the camp are commonly international figures with a history of sponsoring, helping or participating in organized terrorism (Fisher, 2006). The military tribunal, therefore, deals with international criminals who present a threat to world peace. The US civilian federal courts, on the other hand, deal with American citizens. Participants in the civilian federal courts are people willing to gain justice over acts of violence or injustice.
In the Guantanamo bay military tribunals, the US government's military organ arrests key suspects to terrorism and world peace and detain them in the camp. During the prosecution and the court proceedings, the suspects are restricted from moving from the base. Allowing the suspects to leave the Guantanamo could lead to significant losses whereby the terrorists return to their origin countries. Contrarily, in the civilian federal courts, suspects can be given bonds whereby they are free to present themselves in courts during hearings (United States Courts, 2020). Therefore, the suspects in the civilian federal courts are free to perform several activities during the investigation and prosecution process.
The process of the two bodies also differs significantly. In civilian federal courts, plaintiffs must file their complaints and serve the defendants with a copy of the complaint (United States Courts, 2020). In this complaint, the plaintiff must describe the nature of damages caused by the defendant. The next step involves a case presentation whereby the case court hears the case from the warring parties. Judges may propose settling the differences through arbitration or mediation, and when the settling phase fails, the court proceeds to the trial process. In the Guantanamo military trials, the cases involve charges of murder, terrorism, and attempted murder, whereby individuals cannot be arbitrated but are tried by military commission.
Several contrasts can be made from the policies and regulations that run the Guantanamo military trials and the US civilian courts. In the Guantanamo military tribunals, a suspect's conviction requires an agreement of two-thirds of the jury. The military commission regulations only require a minimum of two-thirds of the jury for a criminal to be convicted (United States Courts, 2020). Contrarily, the civilian federal courts require unanimous agreement among the jury for suspects to be convicted.
In the civilian federal courts, the suspects are allowed to access all the evidence staged against them. The plaintiff has to inform the defendant of all the charges against them, enabling the defendant's attorneys to stage an effective defense. On the contrary, the Guantanamo military trials allow the presiding officers to conceal secret information from the suspects. The presiding officers hide information that could help the suspects refute the charges. The Guantanamo military tribunals could allow evidence extracted using coercive interrogation (Fisher, 2006). However, this provision is limited to some cases whereby coercion is necessary. The civilian federal courts, on the contrary, do not use any information extracted from suspects using coercive mechanisms.
Civilian federal courts allow suspects to choose attorneys for their cases. The US Constitution allows all citizens to choose lawyers who can best increase their chances of winning cases. In Guantanamo military trials, suspects can only use the provided lawyers, which implies that they cannot choose their lawyers (Fisher, 2006). Finally, the acquittal of all charges implies that one is released from prison in civilian federal courts, which contrasts the Guantanamo military tribunals, whereby acquittal does not imply release from the prisons.
References
Council on Foreign Relations. (2011). Closing Guantanamo? https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/closing-guantanamo
Fisher, L. (2006). Detention and Military Trial of Suspected Terrorists: Stretching Presidential Power. Library of Congress. https://www.loc.gov/law/help/usconlaw/pdf/Detention_JNSL&P.pdf
Jeralyn, J. (2003). Military Tribunals vs. Federal Courts. Talk Left. http://www.talkleft.com/story/2003/03/16/868/22969/terrortrials/Military-Tribunals-vs-Federal-Courts
Jost, K. (2009). Closing Guantanamo: Can Obama close the detention camp within one year? CQ Research. http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2009022700
United States Courts. (2020). Civil Cases. https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/types-cases/civil-cases
