It is fascinating to explore the history of the trials of civilians in military courts in the USA, Europe, and other countries. The US legal system maintains a clear distinction between military and civilian jurisdictions. However, in specific situations, military courts may have jurisdiction over civilians, especially when national security is at risk or when civilian crimes occur within a military context. This overlap between military and civilian legal systems can be complex but is crucial for ensuring justice in cases involving both military and civilian elements.
One of the most notable examples of a civilian tried by a US military court occurred after World War II. “Tokyo Rose” refers to several English-speaking female broadcasters who spread Japanese propaganda during the war, with Iva Ikuko Toguri being the most well-known. Toguri, an American citizen, was in Japan during the war and was accused of being one of the broadcasters helping to spread Japanese propaganda over the radio. After the war, she was arrested and tried by a US military tribunal in 1949. Despite her claims that she had been coerced and did not support the views she broadcasted, she was convicted of treason and sentenced to 10 years in prison. Her trial highlighted the post-war use of military courts to prosecute civilians accused of aiding enemy powers.
A more contemporary example emerged in the context of the War on Terror, especially after the 9/11 attacks. In their aftermath, the US government aimed to prosecute individuals connected to terrorism, including suspected al-Qaeda members and Taliban fighters, often in military tribunals rather than civilian courts. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 authorized the establishment of military commissions at Guantanamo Bay to try foreign nationals accused of involvement in terrorism or war crimes.
Israel has also shown a particular interest in Imran Khan, viewing him as more aligned with their strategic interests. This shared interest from the USA, the West, and Israel in Imran Khan and his party is not without reason, and the Pakistani people are well aware of these underlying motives. There is a widespread belief in Pakistan that the country may be more inclined to establish relations with Israel and consider halting its nuclear and missile programmes only if Imran returns to power
A prominent case was that of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a former driver for Osama bin Laden, accused of supporting terrorism. Hamdan was detained at Guantanamo Bay and charged with conspiracy and providing material support to terrorism. His trial was by the first US military commission under the new framework of the Military Commissions Act. In 2008, the US Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that the military commissions established by the Act violated US law and the Geneva Conventions because they did not offer sufficient legal protections for the accused. Congress passed new legislation to make military commission procedures better align with U.S. legal and international human rights standards. The Hamdan case is a significant example of non-US civilians being tried in US military courts.
Another notable case involving a civilian trial by military tribunal was that of Jose Padilla, a US citizen arrested in 2002. Padilla was accused of plotting a “dirty bomb” attack in the USA. After being detained for several years without formal charges, he was classified as an enemy combatant by the Bush Administration. In more recent cases, U.S. civilian contractors operating in conflict zones like Afghanistan have sometimes been subject to military courts when accused of crimes impacting military operations or involving national security.
In the UK, military courts primarily adjudicate matters involving armed forces personnel, but civilians may be tried in military tribunals. The idea of civilians being subject to military jurisdiction is complex, given the fundamental differences between civilian and military justice systems. However, in certain circumstances— especially concerning national security or wartime situations— UK military courts have been tasked with prosecuting civilians.
During World War II, the UK government was highly concerned about the risks of espionage, sabotage, and collaboration with the Axis powers. In the face of a national emergency, military tribunals were sometimes used to prosecute civilians accused of treason or aiding the enemy.
While most were tried in civilian courts, some particularly sensitive or politically significant cases were handled by military tribunals. A notable example is the trial of William Joyce, infamous for his broadcasts as “Lord Haw-Haw,” a Nazi propagandist. Joyce, an American-born British citizen, used the airwaves to spread Nazi propaganda aimed at demoralizing the British public. After the war, he was arrested and tried for treason. Although the UK had civilian courts capable of handling such cases, his trial took place in a military court, partly due to the wartime circumstances and the perceived need to swiftly address individuals seen as threats to national security. Joyce was convicted and executed in 1946. Another significant case involved John Amery, a British fascist and Nazi collaborator. He was tried for treason in a civilian court. However, like William Joyce, he was viewed by the government as a major threat to national security during the war. While his trial was held in a civilian court, the broader wartime context and the use of military tribunals for similar cases illustrate how civilians could be subjected to military justice in times of national crisis.
Violence, violent protests, and attacks on military installations are considered forms of terrorism in many countries. Violent protests, especially those led by internal civilian groups at military installations, pose a significant threat to national security. Such acts are classified as terrorism due to their use of violence and targeting of military or government infrastructure.
In both the USA and Europe, civilian-led protests have escalated into violence, resulting in attacks on military installations. These actions were viewed not only as direct challenges to state authority but also as efforts to intimidate, destabilize, or force political change, aligning with broader definitions of terrorism. While not a direct attack on a military installation, the 1971 Attica Prison Riots in New York serve as a significant example of violent protests involving civilian participants, which led to military involvement and were regarded as acts of domestic terrorism. The riot was triggered by grievances over the treatment of inmates and the harsh conditions at the prison. However, the response to the violence escalated into an armed standoff with state forces. The incident was regarded as terrorism due to the use of force, particularly the storming of the facility, which turned the protest into a violent confrontation with military and state authorities.
The Irish Republican Army (IRA), a paramilitary group seeking to end British rule in Northern Ireland, engaged in violent protests and attacks on British military installations throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Their goal was to destabilize the British government and force the withdrawal of British forces from Northern Ireland. These actions were widely viewed as terrorism by the UK government.
In 2014, the Cliven Bundy standoff in Nevada brought attention to tensions between armed civilian militias and federal authorities, particularly the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), responsible for managing federal lands. The situation escalated when Bundy, a rancher, led an armed protest against the government’s attempt to enforce grazing fees on public lands, culminating in a direct confrontation with federal agents, including US military personnel. The standoff, driven by the use of violence and intimidation to force the government to relent, was classified as terrorism.
The Blockupy movement in Germany, part of a broader series of anti-austerity protests, saw multiple violent demonstrations, some targeting military-related institutions. While the movement’s primary focus was opposition to EU-imposed economic policies, it also opposed military spending and the military’s role in governance, leading to violent clashes with law enforcement and military-linked targets. The protesters’ use of violent tactics, particularly against military-associated police forces, contributed to the characterization of the protests as terrorism.
In the context of Pakistan, the PTI attacks on military installations in 2023 are significant. On 9 May 2023, Pakistan experienced one of its darkest days as PTI supporters launched coordinated, violent assaults on military installations countrywide. A protest over the arrest of PTI chairman Imran Khan quickly escalated into a full-scale attack on Pakistan’s military infrastructure. The violence shocked the nation, marking a critical moment in Pakistan’s politics.
The desecration of military memorials, the storming of the GHQ, and the widespread destruction of government property marked an unprecedented challenge to the military’s authority. These acts targeted not only buildings and infrastructure but also the very symbols of the state.
In response to those riots, the Pakistani government decided to address the violence under the Army Act and through military courts, as done by many other nations. These military courts, which had been temporarily suspended but were recently restored by the Supreme Court, were authorized to handle cases involving civilians convicted for their roles in the attacks. The decisions of these courts can still be appealed in superior civilian courts. The trials were conducted in accordance with all legal procedures, with sufficient evidence and proof supporting the convictions.
However, the US and Western response suffers from double standards. While they have employed military courts to deal with civilians themselves, they objected to Pakistan doing so for the May 9 riots. The West had previously expressed no concerns about Pakistan’s military courts but only voiced objections in Imran’s case. This selective outrage speaks volumes about the significance of Khan and his party in advancing certain geopolitical agendas.
Israel has also shown a particular interest in Imran Khan, viewing him as more aligned with their strategic interests. This shared interest from the USA, the West, and Israel in Imran Khan and his party is not without reason, and the Pakistani people are well aware of these underlying motives. There is a widespread belief in Pakistan that the country may be more inclined to establish relations with Israel and consider halting its nuclear and missile programmes only if Imran returns to power.
