America has always prided themselves as a nation of laws and justice. Those concepts have been put to the test in recent years since the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 and subsequent terrorist attempts on American targets within the borders of the United States. A major controversy has arisen as to how the individuals accused of being involved in terrorist attacks should be handled in terms of determining their guilt.

Should they be tried in the civilian criminal trial courts or tried by military tribunal? The controversy has reached as high as the halls of Congress in which legislators have argued that even if the acts were attempted within US borders they should be tried by military tribunal and not in a civilian trial court because of the trial advocacy system in the civilian system which allows for the application of constitutional rights for defendants. Others have argued for a civilian trial to prove to the world that America is a nation of laws and justice and we should show the world that our system works for everyone. While this issue is a passionate issue for some, those in the justice system should have an objective view of the situation since they may be the ones to deal with the cases

Defined the ethical issues and philosophies involved in the argument.

Interpreted and explained whether this case should be treated as a civilian criminal matter or as a matter for a military tribunal and why.

Discussed the appropriate venue and court jurisdiction of the trial.

Whats the difference from a terrorism case from a similar criminal case.