Switch to Desktop Site
 
 

U.S. courts best venue to try terror cases, study says

Next Previous

Page 2 of 4

About these ads

Officials at Human Rights First say the report is intended to spark wider debate over potential alternatives to military commissions.

The report's authors stress that they are not suggesting complete reliance on US courts to wage the war on terror. "The criminal justice system by itself can't be the only answer," Benjamin says.

But the two former prosecutors said that their research showed that the justice system is strong and flexible enough to handle many cases that some thought could never be tried in open court.

"The system has grown and adapted to handle cases that years ago it couldn't handle," says Mr. Zabel.

"In our view, before any dramatic changes are imposed ... it is important to take a step back and evaluate the capability of the existing federal courts and the existing body of federal law to handle criminal cases arising from international terrorism," Zabel and Benjamin write in their 171-page report.

More than 250 defendants were named in the 107 post-9/11 cases examined by Zabel and Benjamin. Of those, 145 either pleaded guilty or were convicted at trial. Fifteen defendants were acquitted.

The report notes that five defendants have been sentenced to life in prison, including confessed Al Qaeda member Zacarias Moussaoui and confessed shoe bomber Richard Reid. The average prison sentence for the remaining convicted defendants is more than eight years.

Federal judges were faced with the challenge of conducting a fair trial against concerns that disclosures in open court might harm national security. The report says that many trials have been conducted with the aid of the Classified Information Procedures Act. The law establishes a mechanism to allow a judge to assess the importance of sensitive evidence before it is disclosed in open court and, if necessary, create a nonclassified substitute for use at trial.

Next Previous

Page 2 of 4

Share