Lebanon's military courts

L'Orient | Le Jour explains the background of Lebanon's use of military courts to try civilians. Excerpt:

After the incidents in 1958 between supporters of the UAS and those of Lebanese power represented by President Camille Chamoun, Parliament passed an anti-terrorism law, long before the subject became fashionable in the Western world. It was therefore a question of finding a legal framework for espionage, terrorism and everything related to the Lebanese army. This structure is criticized by human rights organizations, which reject, as a matter of principle, exceptional courts. But in the opinion of one party, military justice has proved itself and proved its usefulness in terrorism cases in particular, because the military court has a fast procedure, which indispensable in cases that affect the security of the country, the State and the country in general. It is sometimes accused of being expeditious. In fact, it is accelerated in the interest of stability. Indeed, most Western democracies today are introducing specialized courts for terrorism cases, because ordinary courts are not empowered to rule on those cases. In France, there are, for example, anti-terrorist judges. For [military prosecutor] Peter Germanos, the great judicial change took place in Lebanon with the amendment of the law in 2001 that allowed the military prosecutor to be placed under the authority of the Prosecutor General at the Court of Cassation, which is in principle totally independent. Administratively, however, the military prosecutor reports to the Ministry of Defense.

Notwithstanding these comments, human rights continues to strongly disfavor the use of military courts to try civilians. Lebanon's system, like those of Uganda, Pakistan, Cameroon, and a few other countries, disregards that principle.