posted by Kaimipono D. Wenger
PENNumbra’s featured works are now available at the NEW AND IMPROVED www.pennumbra.com.
The Pentagon’s recent decision to try six Guantanamo detainees for capital crimes such as “terrorism and support of terrorism” made national headlines. William Glaberson, “U.S. Charges 6 With Key Roles in 9/11 Attacks,” N.Y. Times, Feb. 11, 2008, at A1. In this latest PENNumbra Debate, Professors Amos N. Guiora, of the University of Utah, and John T. Parry, of Lewis & Clark Law School, attempt to settle the question of what sort of forum is most appropriate to try the thousands of individuals in U.S. custody who are suspected of terrorism (Light at the End of the Pipeline?: Choosing a Forum for Suspected Terrorists).
Professor Guiora considers three forum options: treaty-based international terror courts, traditional Article III courts, and a “hybrid” option he calls domestic terror courts. Ultimately, Professor Guiora argues in favor of domestic terror courts, which he describes as being able to “balance[] the legitimate rights of the individual with the equally legitimate national security rights of the state.” He considers this option to be the most practical and expedient policy solution, necessitated by an untenable tension between the understanding “that some of the detainees present a genuine threat to American national security,” and an awareness “that indefinite detention violates constitutional principles and fundamental concepts of morality.”
Professor Parry agrees that current U.S. policy toward detainees has been “misguided,” but does not believe that innovations of the sort proposed by Professor Guiora are necessary. Rather, he suggests “that policymakers should choose Article III courts rather than hybrid courts for trials of suspected terrorists, with military courts as a fall-back option.” Professor Parry points to research that shows that “the federal government is often able to prosecute suspected terrorists in federal court,” and therefore considers alternative proposals to Article III courts to be “solution[s] in search of a problem.” Professor Parry realizes that “trial in federal court will not be possible for every suspected terrorist,” and concludes that, “[f]or people who pose a risk but whose conduct may not violate federal criminal law, prolonged preventive detention is the best choice.”
As always, please click on the PENNumbra link to read previous
Responses and Debates, or to check out pdfs of the Penn Law Review’s print edition articles.
February 28, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Posted in: Law Rev (Penn), Law School (Law Reviews)
Print This Post
Responses (1)
poetryman69 - February 29, 2008 at 6:44 am
Stop funding the terrorists!
No more Oil Wars!
Energy Independence Now!
Drill in Anwar.
Build more nuclear power plants
Use More coal.
Use more natural gas
Turn trash into energy
Double the efficiency of windmills and solar cells.
If France can do nuclear power so can we.
If Brazil can do biomass/ethanol power so can we.
If Australia can do LNG power so can we.
Domestically produced energy will end the recession and spur the economy.
Stop paying oil dollars to those who worship daily at the alter of our destruction.
Preserve our Civil Rights and defend our Freedom by ending dependence on foreign oil.
Leave a Reply