[BabylonXXX]

It's not really a question of "civilians". It's a question of "foreign enemy." The tribunal decides if the individual is quilty of participation in/ or conspiracy to commit acts of war.

But who decides whether the individual is tried before the tribunal?

And, to whom does the individual appeal this decision?

How does one know if the individual is a "foreign enemy"?

[GVnana]

But who decides whether the individual is tried before the tribunal? And, to whom does the individual appeal this decision? How does one know if the individual is a "foreign enemy"?

Those are good questions. I presume, without any other reference, that the ultimate decision to use a tribunal would rest with the President of the United States as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Bush has already indicated his approval of the process by issuing the EO and directing the Sec. of Defense to select a convening authority. As tribunals would not be used for US citizens, anyone tried by this system would be a foreigner. Whether they are an enemy or not would be decided by the tribunal. A matter that would be fairly obvious in most cases involving the capture of a combatant/saboteur/conspirator during a time of war. It is my understanding that there is no appeals process, although I'm sure someone would launch a Supreme Court protest upon the first use of these tribunals.

[Iwo Jima]

"But who decides whether the individual is tried before the tribunal?

And, to whom does the individual appeal this decision?

How does one know if the individual is a "foreign enemy"?

Exactly! In fact, how will we even know that any particular person was charged, convicted, or even executed? Maybe your mother-in-law will just come up "missing." (O.K., no jokes, guys.)