Terrorism - Research Paper Example

He enrolled at North Carolina A& T University and graduated in 1986 (US Department of Defense, 2006). Mohammed was charged in America for his attempt to blow up planes across the Pacific. However, Mohammed got away from the FBI and later joined Al Qaeda. Mohammed was captured in Pakistan, in 2003, and held in various secret locations. In 2006, together with other “high value” captives, they were moved to Guantanamo bay in Cuba. Mohammed’s alleged offenses included destruction of property, conspiracy, attacking civilians causing bodily harm intentionally and murder in violation of the law, hijacking a vessel and aircraft, and lastly providing material support for terrorism.

In the Bush Administration era, the case provided motivation for pursuing Mohammed as a commitment to the War on Terror. In Obama’s 2008 election pledge, there were promises to close Guantanamo Bay. However, this has been difficult due to security fears and opposition from his opponents. Evidence against Mohammed mainly stems from information stored in computer drives. The computer drives allegedly held incriminating evidence about detailed plans on how to hijack and attack planes. Additionally, they obtained photographs of the nineteen conspirators of the 9/11 attacks, letters from Osama bin Laden and other documents pointing to his direct role in organizing the attacks.

In a Combatant Status Review, he confessed of his involvement. Military commissions were stopped temporarily so that detainees could be prosecuted in federal courts (Elsea, 2009). Military commissions would still be allowed to deal with various terrorism cases; nevertheless, the administration favored federal criminal courts. The procedure governing criminal cases is defined in Title 18 of the U.S code. Judgment under federal courts follows clearly laid down guidelines. Federal courts are independent of the other arms of government; military tribunal can be influenced by executive orders.

Their decisions are less influenced by politics; President Obama instituted a board to oversee terrorism cases while suspects were held indefinitely (Lizner, 2009). The review of these cases occurs outside the court with no self-regulating evaluation. Pros of Utilizing Military Tribunal Military commissions do not have to give Miranda warnings; for federal courts, Miranda rights should be mentioned for the admissibility of confessions. Normally, military tribunals and federal court have open proceedings.

However, the military tribunals have more closed proceedings than federal courts. Equally, military tribunals can forbid the transmission of sensitive information especially with issues to do with national security. Military tribunals have the authorization to establish their own jurisdiction for offenses punishable under the Military Commissions Act MCA or the law of war for alien, enemy combatants (Elsea, 2009). Pros of Using Federal Courts in Trying Terrorism Suspects Federal courts use long established rules, as opposed to military commissions.

This avoids litigation risks and promotes cooperation among suspects. In addition, the scope covered by federal courts is much wider than under Military Tribunals; in case of American citizens, the possibility of trial in Military Tribunals diminishes. Similarly, lone wolf terrorists can be tried in federal