It is puzzling that some people persist in labelling every military court trial as an affront to justice, even though these courts afford far more due process than critics seem willing to concede. Every such argument that is hell-bent on branding these defendants as only and only “political workers,” ignores the fundamental reality that the events of May 9, 2023, involved violent attacks on military installations. Which political workers will attack GHQ or military headquarters in Lahore, target the house of a senior military officer, unleash their fury on military intelligence offence, pelt stones on their own soldiers and military vehicles, ransack much-cherished Shuhada monuments, set ablaze symbols celebrating national heroes, attack air bases only to then resort to disinformation campaign, go in denial mode, call it “false flag,” launch the tirade on victims of May 9 only to hope to be treated as merely”political workers”? Whichever label one uses, attacks on the very pillars of security justifiably trigger the jurisdiction of a military court, especially when civilian courts have historically struggled with timely resolution and are vulnerable to intimidation. Moreover, the fact that verdicts arrived more than a year later decisively contradicts accusations of hasty trials; if anything, it underscores that due legal diligence was observed instead of a rushed, kangaroo court process. Any accused individual in a military court has the undeniable right to choose a defence counsel, without whom the trial simply cannot commence. This should dismiss the notion of secret or locked-door proceedings. Crucially, any conviction is subject to multiple tiers of appeal, up to and including the Supreme Court. Even within the civilian courts, the Peshawar High Court (PHC) has in the past opened, reviewed, and in numerous instances overturned cases that were decided by military courts. If any judicial mechanism can reopen cases for individuals accused of terrorism, it can similarly do so for so-called “political workers.” If these people seriously believe that serving officers cannot render impartial judgments, would they also proclaim that a military doctor cannot be objective in treating a civilian patient? Where national security is undermined through coordinated violence, it is hardly unreasonable to employ specialized tribunals with their own checks and balances. Selective condemnations offer no meaningful alternative to address the persistent failings of the civilian system in high-stakes security cases. Instead, it serves up recycled criticisms that ignore judicial precedent that sits at the bedrock of judicial independence. *