WASHINGTON: Some day, the military tribunals of Guam or Guantanamo could ring with as much historical resonance as the Nuremberg trials. That assumes, of course, that Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders are captured - rather than killed - and brought before a military court for trial.

Until last week, conventional wisdom held that the US was less interested in the “capture” option and that the 5,000-pound “bunkerbuster” bombs the US is dropping on suspected Al Qaeda hideouts were intended to produce casualties of war among the group’s leadership, thereby making a trial of any sort a moot issue.

But Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made clear last week that trial in military court is still an option for Osama, some of his lieutenants, and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar. The US “unambiguously” told commanders of anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan that it wants any high-ranking prisoners to be turned over to US authorities, Rumsfeld said on Friday.

President Bush’s order authorizing the establishment of military tribunals, many worry, is overboard. As crafted, it would apply not only to Osama and top Al Qaeda members, but could also be applied to noncitizen foreigners living in the US, they say. So far, the Bush administration’s response to such criticism seems to be: “Trust us, the regulations of any tribunals will allay your fears when they are written.” That answer, though, has not quelled the debate ignited by Bush’s Nov 13 order.

Many legal analysts and civil libertarians are waiting for the Defence Department to publish the specific rules that would describe how a military tribunal would operate. Some critics of the White House are unhappy with any use of a military justice system. They say military commissions lack the standards of evidence and other safeguards that defendants in civilian criminal courts enjoy. An Osama civil trial conjures the possibility of divulged intelligence and a global megaphone for international terrorists. Ordering military tribunals is telling Osama, “You’re not going to tie us up in knots,” says Ruth Wedgewood, a professor of international law and diplomacy at Johns Hopkins University. —Dawn/LATS Service (c) Christian Science Monitor.