More on Domestic Terror Courts
Continuing the discussion on the establishment of a domestic national security court, be sure to check out Amos Guiora’s post over at National Security Advisors law blog outlining his recent article forthcoming in the Catholic University Law Review on a “domestic terror court.”
The article is very useful because it takes a comparative approach that examines the practices of holding detainees in the United States, Russia, Israel, India, and Spain. Here is a key quote from the conclusion of the article:
The United States, post 9/11, clearly represents the extreme end of the spectrum–terrorists are enemy combatants to be detained in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib or so-called “black sites.”… Unlike Israel, Russia, India and Spain, which regularly try terrorists, the Bush Administration’s intial handling of the fundamental issue … has resulted in a clear policy failure. By over-reaching, by establishing a judicial paradigm inconsistent both with Article III requirements and international law guarantees, the Administration opened the door to wide-spread criticism, which was not long in coming. While the U.S. continues to hold hundreds of detainees for trial, terrorist defendants held by the other nation’s surveyed in this article have been brought to trial in accordance with the traditional criminal law paradigm or detained in accordance with an administrative law process subject to independent judicial review.