The Question Looms: What Role Should the Federal Courts Play in Terrorism Prosecutions?

An article in the American Lawyer this week comments that the question of what role the U.S. criminal justice system should play in handling terrorism prosecutions has been largely ignored. The author of the piece, David Bario, discusses the government’s tendency since 9/11 to be over-inclusive in arresting and charging terrorism suspects. And he raises several tough questions facing the criminal justice system: Can the courts succeed in getting convictions? What happens when fair trial standards conflict with classified information concerns?

Baron concludes that "prosecutors have shown that it's possible to provide terrorism suspects with fair trials. And most importantly, they achieved results . . ." To support his point, Baron cites HRF’s recent report In Pursuit of Justice: Prosecuting Terrorism Cases in the Federal Courts, which finds that more than 90% of the terrorism cases prosecuted since September 11 have ended in a conviction. Courts have adapted and proved capable of handling even the most complex issues that arise.

The debate over the appropriate forum for trying terrorism cases is likely to continue in the upcoming months. HRF’s view: If the system we already have is working well, why create something new? If it ain’t broke, why fix it?