Answer

The Military Commissions at Guantanamo was first authorized through Military Commissions Act of 2006 to subject aliens who engages in unlawful enemy combatant, or who engages in war activities which expose civilians and their property to insecurity, danger, and loss. The Act was amended in 2009, in attempt to define the persons who are subject to the military commission[1]. This assignment argues whether, Ulysses S. Citizen (United State citizen) who became a terrorist can be tried by the military commission.

Upon the amendment, Sec. 948c under the title; Persons subject to military commissions read as follows, “Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter”. Under this provision, it is illegal to tri a US citizen by the Military Commissions regardless of the nature and magnitude of the offense[2]. Thus, by the authority of the federal law, the trial of Ulysses S. Citizen by military commission at Guantanamo Bay would be illegal. Nevertheless the Congress has the authority to lift this statutory prohibition. However, the constitutional law complicates the situation. There is never a clearly standing constitutional jurisprudence which out rightly and beyond any reasonable doubt, expressly prohibit the military commission from trying an American citizen.

It has been observed in the US that the Supreme court for instance has held both that the trial of a non-combatant U.S. citizen be the military commission is unconstitutional but only when civilian courts are still available and functional (in Ex parte Milligan) and that the trial of a U.S. citizen, who becomes unlawful enemy combatant by the military commission is constitutional (Ex parte Quirin)[3]. The legality or illegality of trial of a U.S citizen depends on whether there is or there is no civilian court. In the absence of a civilian court, it would be constitutionally fair to try Ulysses S. Citizen by the military commission. However, the question is whether there are functional civilian courts in the US or not.

The ultimate role of law is providing justice within the scope of the law. There is sufficient evidence that Ulysses S. Citizen committed war offence by colluding by terrorist to plan and execute a criminal act which lead to loss of 500 lives and damaged one ship.  The government was able to acquire evidence through Google searchers and recorded phone conversation with AI Qaeda. It is therefore justifiable that Ulysses S. Citizen committed a war crime against the 500 people who died, to the owner of the ship which was damaged, and to the American government by killing its innocent citizens to please the enemy. Ulysses S. Citizen’s action, qualifies him to be an enemy belligerents within the provision of the Hague Convention and the law of war.P.37.12 [4]. It is therefore justifiable to try him by the military commissions. The Supreme Court is on record of upholding the legitimacy of military commission trying a citizen who is unlawfully an enemy combatant.

In conclusion, the ultimate goal of the law is justice through a legitimate means. The Military commission (Martial Court) has been fully recognized and mandated to try, investigate, pass judgment and sentence war offenders for decades. The Primary question would thus be whether a court would serve justice rather than to whom the justice will be served.

[1] Military Commissions Act of 2009

[2] Ibid pg. 2

[3] U.S. Supreme Court, Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 4 Wall. 2 2 (1866) Ex parte Milligan 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2

[4] Quita Jurecic (2016). The Legality of Donald Trump’s Proposal to Try US Citizens by Military Commission. LAWFARE, Friday, August 12, 2016, 11:25 AM. Accessed on June 24, 2020, from https://www.lawfareblog.com/legality-donald-trumps-proposal-try-us-citizens-military-commission