Military Tribunals or Federal Court--Continued

I am just hung up on the rationale (such as it is) being used to decide the court in which to try terrorists. My thinking goes like this: A military tribunal should have jurisdiction over military people and their superiors or non-military entities who have allegedly committed war crimes or crimes against humanity. So, those who would be under the jurisdiction of a military tribunal would not actually be tried by the tribunal just because they are captured on the "battlefield" or are POW, they would have had to be charged with committing war crimes or crimes against humanity.

The International Military Tribunal (IMT) holds that crimes against humanity can be tried by a military tribunal (The IMT used the category of crimes against humanity as the basis for convicting war criminals). The IMT defines the perpetrators of crimes against humanity as "murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecution on political, racial, or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated." Also, crimes against humanity, as opposed to war crimes, were also defined as criminal acts committed against a population at any time---during times of war, and during times of peace. Well, the perpetrators, including planners, of 9/11 certainly seem to fit in the category of crimes against humanity.

However, every so-called terrorist picked up on the "battlefield" does not warrant being tried as a war criminal or for crimes against humanity; association with a so-called militant entity or being a soldier for a sovereign nation at war does not a war criminal make--crimes must be shown to have actually been committed.

Definitions of war crimes (From US CODE: Title 18, para. 2441):

(A) Torture.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.

(B) Cruel or inhuman treatment.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions), including serious physical abuse, upon another within his custody or control.

(C) Performing biological experiments.— The act of a person who subjects, or conspires or attempts to subject, one or more persons within his custody or physical control to biological experiments without a legitimate medical or dental purpose and in so doing endangers the body or health of such person or persons.

(D) Murder.— The act of a person who intentionally kills, or conspires or attempts to kill, or kills whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause.

(E) Mutilation or maiming.— The act of a person who intentionally injures, or conspires or attempts to injure, or injures whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, by disfiguring the person or persons by any mutilation thereof or by permanently disabling any member, limb, or organ of his body, without any legitimate medical or dental purpose.

(F) Intentionally causing serious bodily injury.— The act of a person who intentionally causes, or conspires or attempts to cause, serious bodily injury to one or more persons, including lawful combatants, in violation of the law of war.

(G) Rape.— The act of a person who forcibly or with coercion or threat of force wrongfully invades, or conspires or attempts to invade, the body of a person by penetrating, however slightly, the anal or genital opening of the victim with any part of the body of the accused, or with any foreign object.

(H) Sexual assault or abuse.— The act of a person who forcibly or with coercion or threat of force engages, or conspires or attempts to engage, in sexual contact with one or more persons, or causes, or conspires or attempts to cause, one or more persons to engage in sexual contact.

(I) Taking hostages.— The act of a person who, having knowingly seized or detained one or more persons, threatens to kill, injure, or continue to detain such person or persons with the intent of compelling any nation, person other than the hostage, or group of persons to act or refrain from acting as an explicit or implicit condition for the safety or release of such person or persons.

Military Tribunals or Federal Court

Act of War I am having trouble getting a good grip on this question: Who should have jurisdiction over perpetrators of violence against the United States, a Military Tribunal or a Federal Court? Perhaps a corollary question might be, what is an "Act of war?" I have no problem with a military tribunal having jurisdiction over the perpetrator of violence against the United States when the violence is an act of war. The crux then becomes, what is an "act of war?" And, must the U.S. actually declare war against the perpetrator(s) in order to try the perpetrator(s) in a military tribunal? So, if that be true, then if the violence is not determined to be an act of war it must just be a criminal act and hence be tried in a Federal Court. Now, if only Congress can pass a Declaration of War, does it also follow that it must be Congress who decides if the violence is or is not an "act of war?" In that, I believe so. So, just what constitutes an act of war? Was the bombing of the Murrah building (Oklahoma City) by an American citizen an act of war? I'd think not. It was an individual committing a criminal act--wasn't it? Was there ever any conjecture over it not being a criminal act? Don't think so. And of course McVeigh was tried in a Federal Court. But, was flying airplanes into the Twin Towers in New York City, also by individuals, albeit not U.S. citizens, but individuals who were citizens(?) of a foreign country (They were Arabs but did not attack the U.S. under auspices of Saudi Arabia), a criminal act or an act of war? Now, they were associated with a cohesive group, a named entity not specifically identified with or representing any country. Can an individual(s) not acting under the auspices of an autonomous, sovereign country commit a bonafide "act of war" against a sovereign nation? Now, the bombing of Pearl Harbor most certainly was an act of war, Congress said so--it was a heinous act by one nation against another--and it led to a Declaration of War. So, say this, was 9/11 an act of war or just another criminal act; a heinous act of terror either way? Hmmm, did the U.S. declare "war" on Al Qaeda? Or just terrorists, or terrorism? Can you actually declare war on an individual or a group of individuals? Just how would you be able to tell a terrorist (or a "terrorism"?) from someone else? How can you tell the difference between one who is "in" Al Qaeda from some nondescript muslim (Arab) bricklayer? Or can we, as a nation, just dance along the yellow brick road making decisions this way, that way, as we feel the wont at any time? I think we should first qualify an act of violence as the first order of business. Is it an act of war or is it a criminal act? Let Congress pass judgement and the rest is easy. You then define, deleniate the parameters of the enemy and then go get him, it. Comments would be appreciated.