Military tribunals are dedicated to the same standards of justice and law that civil courts maintain. They have to prove or disprove cases in the same manner. Those who are on a military tribunal do their best at all times to make sure that they are being honest and carrying out justice.
I think that military tribunals have done a fantastic job of providing fair trials to detainees. The military has access to any and all information it could need or want, thanks to media coverage or eyewitness accounts. When detainees are put on trial, most of the time, the military already has the evidence it needs to either prove or disprove that this person is guilty or innocent. I think that military tribunals are more effective, due to the amount of information they have access to over regular trials.
I do believe that the military tribunals do provide a fair trial. The military stands for honor and integrity. And, those who do serve the country are proud to do so. That is why I also believe that a military tribunal is fair and just, and especially honest. They will do everything in their power to maintain the integrity of the military.
Military tribunals operate under strict rules, ensuring a fair trial. Rules of evidence may differ from civilian courts, but the rules are clearly set down. If the detainees don't want to be tried by a military tribunal, they shouldn't commit acts of war against the United States.
If we were to accept the belief that the rights of our own citizens extend to the international community, the rules related to military tribunals pale in comparison to the American legal system's protections, including habeus corpus. Detainees are unlikely to have access to their own lawyers, character witnesses, or even understand the military tribunal system.
America is in a war, and as such any detainees acquired from such a war, deserve some sort of trial. They do not deserve any rights as an American, because they are not one. We are not a barbaric nation, and just kill the person without some process. These tribunals follow international law and the Hague convention, and are there for more than fair, and a lot more than the countries they come from would offer them.
The current justice system is the best way to provide a fair trial. Military tribunals exist for the purpose of circumventing the traditional justice procedures to ensure an easier conviction. Therefore, they are the definition of an unfair trial, because they ignore the standards that exist in the civilian world to make sure trials are fair.
Military tribunals are fine for military personnel, but presumed terrorists are not formal members of organized armed forces. Anyone suspected of terrorism can be labeled an "enemy combatant", rounded up and locked up. If their only recourse is military tribunals, do they honestly have all the rights and options that someone in the civilian justice system has?
The reason that people are tried in military tribunals is to avoid providing them the protections they would otherwise be afforded by law, if they were tried in the normal criminal justice system. As a country that ostensibly champions human rights, this unfair treatment is not something we should engage in.
If 5 people are present at any event, not to mention extremely tense situations when one views a crime, all five people will give different accounts of the event. Some of it is accounted for by the fact that some people noticed certain parts more that others, a great deal of the cause is from people being mistaken on what they saw, therefore a trial can't ever be fair.
If you are picked up by the military and accused of being a terrorist, you can look forward to a harsh interrogation, perhaps more, where the military can do whatever it likes to prove that you are a criminal. Whatever form of defense your case has is provided by the same military trying to railroad you with a conviction, and the person judging your case is a high-ranking military officer. There is nothing fair, impartial or just about a military tribunal. In the worst case, no one outside of the military who arrested you would ever know you have been arrested.
Based on the media, military tribunals are not fair, and in some cases are actually criminal. This I believe stems from those in high ranking military positions being often given too much "unmonitored" power, where they create "their own laws" in a sense, and feel they are an island all to themselves. I have read too many stories where many high ranking military officials not only abuse their position with their foreign soldiers, but with their own military men and women as well.
Under the United States constitution, the rights to due process and fundamental protections are absolute. While suspects of military crimes are not usually US citizens, these same protections are necessary regardless of the nationality of the criminal. These fundamental rights are part of what establishes the United States as a pinnacle of justice, and these protections cannot be selectively applied. Military tribunals lower the standards, and fail to provide the protections the United States holds fundamentally necessary.
Military tribunals were meant to be used in traditional war situations when one army is opposing another. That is not the case now and many detainees are just citizens, some of them were actually children at the time of their capture and incarceration. We are in a different situation now, this is not a conventional war and in order to comply with international law, non-combatants should not be tried in military tribunals.
Secret trials are a step towards destroying our free society. If there is no way of knowing whether the trial is fair or a mere kangaroo court, there is nothing stopping innocent people from being set up to take a fall. If we throw away our society's values in one instance, we erode our moral standing - and it becomes easier to throw away our values in other areas.
Suspected terrorists have the right to a trial. Secret courts are not a fair trial, as anything done in secrecy is not subject to public oversight and public opinion. In the U.S., we fully are against secrecy and the rule of law should always be executed in a transparent manner. If the suspects are truly guilty, there is no reason a prosecution team can not find them guilty. The suspect is a human being and deserves a chance to prove his or her innocence, and this can only be done fairly in a court of law. That is a public court, not a secret court.