Tribunal v. Court-Martial: Matter of Perception
Former military lawyers say they are angered by public perception, fed most recently by top White House lawyer, that military tribunals authorized by Pres Bush are merely wartime versions of American courts-martial, routine part of military life with longstanding reputation for openness and procedural fairness; lawyers say proposed tribunals are significantly different from courts-martial, adding that confusion between two has distorted debate over tribunals and unfairly denigrated military justice; Ronald W Meister, former Navy lawyer and judge, says tribunals 'are a totally different animal' than courts-martial; John S Cooke, retired Army judge who is chairman of American Bar Association's committee on armed forces law, says military courts have been tainted by association with tribunals, which many commentators, politicians and civil libertarians criticized as effort to find foolproof shortcut to guilty verdict; White House counsel Alberto R Gonzales, in New York Times Op-Ed article on Nov 30, defended commissions, saying they will be fair; photos (M)