Prosecuting Terrorism Cases
As the U.S. government has detained increasing numbers of suspected terrorists, it has grappled with how to bring these individuals to justice. Many terrorism prosecutions have been brought, and successfully handled, in our traditional federal civilian courts. Nonetheless, both the Bush and Obama administrations and many Members of Congress have continued to press for the use of military commissions in at least some cases. Others have supported the creation of specialized national security courts to oversee prosecutions of terrorist suspects, review and supervise a system of indefinite detention for terrorist suspects, or both. Constitutional rights have also been threatened by some of the statutes under which such prosecutions are conducted, which sweep very broadly.
The Constitution Project has released a variety of reports and recommendations, filed amicus briefs, and conducted policy advocacy to promote reliance on our traditional federal courts and prosecutions of suspected terrorists that respect the rule of law and our constitution. This work has included:
- Promoting reliance on our traditional federal courts as the most appropriate and effective forums for conducting terrorism prosecutions;
- Opposing the use of indefinite detention without charge;
- Demonstrating flaws with the system of military commissions originally authorized by Executive Order in 2001, and with subsequent legislation on military commissions;
- Challenging the overbroad application of laws prohibiting material support for designated terrorist organizations; and
- Contesting proposals that detract from the ability of terrorism suspects to obtain a fair trial, such as a bill to strip citizenship and attacks on lawyers who provide legal representation in these cases.
|
