Should alleged "terrorists" be tried in civilian courts with full protection of their civil liberties, or should they be tried by military tribunals...

The word "terrorists" is placed in
quotation marks with good reason, since it is a vague term and has been subjected to frequent
redefinition and modification over the last few years. The American Civil Liberties Union has
expressed concerns that "terrorism" as defined by Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act
could include the activities of such protestors as Greenpeace or the Environmental Liberation
Front.

Not everyone labelled a terrorist should, therefore, be treated in the
same way. A terrorist who is an enemy combatant ought clearly to be treated as a prisoner of
war. If s/he is accused of war crimes, a trial by military tribunal would be entirely
appropriate.

Anyone who is not a combatant and has been accused of crimes
against civilians should normally be tried in a civilian court. The conviction rates of civilian
courts are in fact significantly higher than those in military tribunals in any case. The chief
difficulty lies in cases where the government argues that military intelligence or other
legitimately secret information could be compromised by a trial.

This,
however, does not mean that a military tribunal is the answer. A judge in chambers can hear the
arguments in favor of secrecy and may subsequently order all or part of the proceedings to be
conducted in a closed courtroom, excluding everyone who is not an officer of the court. A judge
will only close a criminal trial to the public when s/he is satisfied that the are no other
options available but will generally do so if a reasonable case can be made that there is a
legitimate security risk in a public hearing.