Abstract
Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush responded by declaring a global war on terrorism (GWOT). As part of the GWOT, the United States launched two military invasions against Afghanistan and Iraq, which have inevitably led to the capture of terrorists. President George W. Bush selected to have these terrorists prosecuted in military tribunals rather than federal criminal courts. The selection of military tribunals has been controversial, and recently been denounced by newly elected President Barrack Obama. President Obama and his administration have publicly expressed the desire to end military tribunals and instead use federal criminal courts. The purpose of this study is to use evaluative criteria that analyze the consequences for the transition from military tribunals to federal criminal courts for terrorist prosecution. Both judicial systems will be evaluated for pros and cons, and a recommendation will be made for which system the United States should use to prosecute GWOT prisoners. It is critical for the United States to select the most sensible solution for the prosecution of terrorists if it is to be successful in the GWOT.