Please respond thoughtfully and promote discussion on the following post, must be 250 words or more. You will need to write as if you are responding to what the person wrote below. Asking questions, discussion, etc.What is the significance of Military Tribunals in today’s environment?Military tribunals are still significant in today’s environment for trying members of enemy forces during wartime. “Tribunals only try members of enemy armies, not civilians who have allegedly broken the law (though sometimes civilians accused of being combatants are tried in a tribunal). Military officers, fulfilling the role of jurors, act as judges and impose the sentence.” (Gapasin 2019) Military tribunals can be used today for trying terrorists in the Middle East and any other area where war is happening. Military tribunals can be used to try members of terrorist organizations and have been a part of the majority of wars. Recently the majority of military tribunals have been terror suspects mostly Taliban and Al-Qaeda members. Military Tribunals are significant in today’s environment because it gives the military the opportunity to try enemies that may threaten the United States especially members of terrorist organizations at a time when terrorism is the majority of what the United States and allied forces are fighting against.How do you rationalize the finding in Johnson v Eisentrager, 339 US 763(1950)?The case of Johnson v Eisentrag in 1950 was interesting to me because the nonresident enemy aliens were captured in another country which is acceptable but then they were tried in China and committed in China prior to their capture. When they arrived in Germany they were imprisoned and in the custody of the Army when there was no jurisdiction of American civil court. “Claiming that their trial, conviction, and imprisonment violated Articles I and III, the Fifth Amendment, and other provisions of our Constitution, laws of the United States, and provisions of the Geneva Convention, they petitioned the District Court for the District of Columbia for a writ of habeas corpus directed to the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, and several officers of the Army having directive power over their custodian.” () The findings of the US supreme court were that the US courts had no jurisdiction over German war criminals. I think that this case is tough. The criminals were enemy aliens that were captured in another country. “The petition, in this case, alleges no fact showing lack of jurisdiction in the military authorities to accuse, try, and condemn these prisoners, or that they acted in excess of their lawful powers. Pp. 339 U. S. 785-790.” (Justia) But, the United States Army did not transfer them to the United States they were kept in Germany whereas previously stated the US did not have jurisdiction.Could the analysis in Eisentrager scrutiny withstand today’s war on terror?The case of Johnson v. Eisentrager could withstand today’s war on terror since the United States now has jurisdiction on enemies around the world. If the acts of terror were against the United States in any way then I think there would be less scrutiny with today’s war on terror.ReferencesGapasin, E. (2019, February 4). Difference Between Court-Martial and Military Tribunal. Retrieved from https://www.militarylawyer-defense.com/difference-between-court-martial-and-military-tribunal/.Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950). (n.d.). Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/339/763/.
