Prosecuting Terrorism Cases in the Federal Courts

As the Obama Administration takes steps to shut down the Guantanamo Bay facility, the heated debate over when and how to prosecute suspected terrorists continues. But there is really no need for debate. Federal criminal courts can handle terrorism cases and have for years. In fact, they are our best line of judicial defense against terrorism.

In the meantime, the Supreme Court has ruled that Guantanamo prisoners can challenge their detention in federal courts. Certain commentators have argued that we need a "legislative fix" to provide procedural guidelines—and authorize indefinite detention. In fact, the courts are the ones who can and should decide when military detention is legal, and they have.

Why create new, inherently flawed, systems to replace one that works? Our federal court system can handle these cases.

Making the Case:
Two Reports on Federal Prosecution of Terrorist Suspects

In Pursuit of Justice: Prosecuting Terrorism Cases in the Federal Courts is a series of reports that examines terrorism cases prosecuted in the existing criminal justice system. The first report looks at cases since the early 1990s, ranging from epic mega-trials for completed acts of terrorism to pre-emptive prosecutions focused on prevention. The update focuses on criminal cases arising from terrorism associated with self-described "jihadist" or Islamist extremist groups like al Qaeda.

The reports analyze the legal and practical issues around terrorism-related crimes and show that the criminal justice system has successfully prosecuted terrorism cases.

2008 Report [PDF]  Purchase on Amazon.com

Overview
Executive Summary – PDF | HTML

2009 Update [PDF] Purchase on Amazon.com

The Question of Detention: Courts and Habeas Corpus

Habeas Works: Federal Courts' Proven Capacity to Handle Guantanamo Cases examines the capacity of federal courts to handle habeas corpus cases of Guantanamo detainees. The Supreme Court, in its landmark Boumediene v. Bush decision, upheld detainees' rights to challenge their detention in U.S. federal courts. The report analyzes how the federal court system has handled complex evidence, determined the lawfulness of detention, and established consistent procedural guidelines.

The report concludes—with the backing of 16 of the nation's most respected former federal judges—that courts can and has set a framework for wartime detention, and there is no need for legislation, as certain commentators and legislators have argued.

The report, published by Human Rights First and the Constitution Project [PDF]

Press Release

Advocating for our Courts: Blueprints for the Administration

How to Close Guantanamo provides a step-by-step plan for how to close the prison and handle the cases. – PDF

The Case Against a Special Terrorism Court provides arguments against systems of prolonged detention without charge or national security courts. – PDF