THE United States and its transatlantic partner European Union have raised objections on military trials of civilians in Pakistan. This led me to explore the `fascinating` history of military courts, and the trials of civilians in military courts in the US and Europe. The US legal system typically maintains a clear distinction between military and civilian jurisdictions. However, in specific situations, military courts have jurisdiction over civilians, especially when national security is at risk, or when civilian crimes occur within a military context.

One of the notable examples of a civilian being tried by a US military court occurred after World War II. Iva Ikuko Toguri, an American citizen, had been in Japan during the war as a broadcaster, and was accused of spreading 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 into participating, and did not support the views she relayed on air, she was convicted of treason and sentenced to 10 years in prison. A more contemporary example of civilians being tried in US military courts is that of a number of Al Qaeda members and Taliban fighters.

They were tried often in military tribunals rather than civilian courts. In the United Kingdom, a notable example is the trial of William Joyce, infamous for his broadcasts as a Nazi propagandist.

Although the UK had civilian courts capable of handling such cases, his trial took place in a military court. Joyce was convicted and executed in 1946.

It is also important to recognise that violence, violent protests and attacks on military installations are considered forms of terrorism in many countries, including those in the West. Both in the US and Europe, there have been instances where civilian-led protests escalated into violence, resulting in attacks on military installations.

While not a direct attack on a military installation, the 1971 Attica Prison riots in New York serve as a significantexample of violent protests involving civilian participants, which led to military involvement and were regarded as acts of domestic terrorism. The attacks by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) were also widely viewed as terrorism by the UK government.

In Pakistan, the May 9 violence severely impacted national security, political stability, and the integrity of the country`s democratic institutions. The reaction from the US and the West has been marked by double standards.

While they employed military courts to deal with civilians in their own countries, they have raised objections to the episode in Pakistan. Ironically, the West had previously expressed no concerns about Pakistan`s military courts when the current opposition was in power. This selective outrage speaks for itself. The issue of dealing with terrorism is entirely Pakistan`s internal matter, and the world, including the US, should refrain from interfering in our domestic affairs.

Abdul Basit Alvi Muzaffarabad