Terrorism is a huge issue that we are facing in the United States.

Terrorism Trial Proceeding
Your Name
Department, University
Course number: Course name, Section
Professor’s Name
Date
Terrorism Trial Proceeding
* Trial Proceedings: US civilian court and Military commission
There multiple trial proceedings on how an individual suspected of terrorism goes through when he/she is caught. In the US states, there are different courts that are considered when trying acts of terrorism, including the US civilian courts and military commission (Cole, 2013).In the civilian justice system of the US, the prosecutor will follow the conventional criminality prosecution system, including all the benefits of the US's constitutional rights under due process (Wagstaff, 2014). Usually, civilian courts detain the alleged terrorist for 30 days after the arrest, then the federal law will call for an arraignment for the indictment of the suspected terrorist (Vagts, 2003). However, there are problems arising from the civilian justice systems when there are trials of terrorism concerning extraterritorial crimes or terror acts that happened outside the US, which include conspiracy charges and providing material support for terrorism like visa fraud, money-laundering and other acts to support a terrorist. The US constitution limits the ability of the government to criminalize anyone without guilty knowledge and intent, so the US government cannot easily prosecute terrorist acts (Vagts, 2003).
After the attacks on September 11, 2001, the demand for justice raised questions about which court should handle cases involving the acts and suspected acts of terrorist crimes (Vagts, 2003). The Bush administration pushed the implementation of the USA Patriot Act and the Military Commission act that authorizes the investigation, detainment, prosecution, and conviction of suspected terrorist, inside or outside the United States, at military tribunals, specifically at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (Shields, 2012). The military commissions court is convened before a military judge rather than state or federal judge on the trial proceeding of individuals accused of war crimes (Frohock, 2013). The initial implementation of these military commissions by the Bush administration are perceived as illegitimate form of trial proceedings since most of the testimonies of the alleged terrorist are devoid of due process and the suspects experienced extreme violations of human rights through military coercion and torture where the cases had no judicial review (Cole, 2013). Additionally, trials in military commissions are permitted even if the defendants are absent during the court proceedings (Cole, 2013). Even President Barrack Obama did not dissolve military tribunals, instead justified the use of these military commissions as appropriate in the trying of terrorist crime, better protection of classified information, better security for the prosecutors and sensitive resources, and more efficient evidences gathering (Cole, 2013). Although, Obama amended the Military Commissions Act to give the detainees full rights to access the US Federal courts with compliance with the habeas corpus procedures of the Fifth and Sixth amendments of the U.S. constitution if the defendant feels that his/her rights are not respected (Wagstaff, 2014)....