Ambinder Interviews Glenn Sulmasy on the National Security Courts

Marc Ambinder over at the Atlantic has posted his interview with Professor Glenn Sulmasy, whose new book The National Security Court System: A Natural Evolution of Justice in an Age of Terror has just been published by OUP.

Ambinder summarizes the central arguments and proposals of Sulmasy’s book:

Sulmasy expands on what he calls a “hybrid” approach to the quandary of prosecuting terrorists.  He would create a national security court, run by civilians, that exists outside the federal court system envisioned in Article III of the Constitution. The standards of evidence would be changed to reflect the realities of counterterrorism, but every detainee would be presumed triable. They’d have to be tried within a year of being captured. Three-judge panels would use a “reasonable doubt” standard for convictions, and two of them must agree before a detainee could be found guilty. Those detainees found not guilty would be detained until a suitable place for them to go can be found. Detainees would be housed on U.S. soil in prisons built on military bases. The death penalty would only be applicable if the detainee’s home country has legalized the practice. The President would retain some thin authority to detain those found not guilty under extreme circumstances, but there would be strict safeguards on the exercise of this power, and its exercise would be public. In recent weeks, Sulmasy has added a new provision: he believes that the legislation establishing the courts should sunset after five years, which would add a measure of review to the process and give Congress and the President the ability to see what has worked and what hasn’t.

There is much to be unpacked, discussed and critiqued here, but it is worth checking out the q and a with Sulmasy, someone who has spent a lot time thinking deeply about these issues.