Save the Date: HRF Panel Discussion on the First 100 Days - U.S. Leadership on Human Rights & National Security

Reestablishing U.S. Leadership on Human Rights & National Security: Accomplishments of the First 100 Days and Next Steps for the Obama Administration

Presented by Human Rights First

Tuesday, April 21, 2009, 8:30 AM – 1:00 PM
The Freedom Forum at the Newseum
555 Pennsylvania Ave., 8th Floor, N.W., Washington, DC
(Please use 6th street entrance)

8:30 AM: Breakfast. The Honorable Chuck Hagel, U.S. Senator 1997-2009

9:30 AM: Panel Discussion: Realigning Human Rights and National Security
Kevin DiGregory, Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General;
Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn, USN (Ret.);
Torin Nelson, interrogator and human intelligence specialist.

10:45 AM: Panel Discussion: The International View
Sonni Efron, Contributing Editor, LA Times, Senior Fellow, GlobalSecurity.org, and Editor, Sit Rep;
Bahey Eddin Hassan, Director, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies;
Steven Kull, Director, Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA);
Ludmilla Alexeyeva, Chair, Moscow Helsinki Group

12:00 PM: Lunch: A Discussion with the Honorable Madeleine K. Albright, U.S. Secretary of State 1997-2001 and Elisa Massimino, Human Rights First CEO and Executive Director

1:00 PM: Book signing with the Honorable Madeleine K. Albright
Speakers:


RSVP: DiBelloS@humanrightsfirst.org

HRF Policy Paper Makes "The Case Against A Special Terrorism Court"

Human Rights First has released a timely policy paper rejecting recent proposals to create systems of indefinite detention without criminal charge and special courts to try terrorism detainees, and describing the danger of such proposals to both U.S. counterinsurgency strategy and the American justice system. "The Case Against A Special Terrorism Court" recommends that terrorism detainees be tried in the time-tested federal court system, which the HRF report, In Pursuit of Justice, revealed to have successfully prosecuted over 100 terrorism cases since September 11. The policy paper's release follows the Obama Administration's recent decision to uphold the policy of indefinite detention at Guantanamo Bay using its own rationale, which HRF analyzed in a recent Jurist posting.

SUMMARY

Terrorist suspects should be prosecuted in the federal criminal courts

• The federal criminal justice system has a proven track record of success in international terrorism cases: More than 100 terrorism cases have been prosecuted in the federal courts since September 11, 2001.
• The federal criminal justice system is capable of handling complex terrorism cases without compromising national security or sacrificing standards of fairness and due process: Based on the public record, none of the international terrorism cases brought since September 11, 2001 has been dismissed on grounds related to classified information, and there have been no important security breaches in any terrorism cases in which the Classified Information Procedures Act has been invoked.
• Criminal prosecutions often assist rather than inhibit intelligence gathering: Historically, criminal prosecutions have assisted intelligence gathering. Defendants have the incentive to cooperate with government prosecutors and interrogators because successful cooperation may result in shorter prison sentences.

Proposals for a special terrorism court should be rejected

• A special terrorism court is unnecessary and impractical: Among the many lessons learned from the misguided Guantánamo episode are the practical difficulties of trying to create new, ad hoc justice systems. Just like the military commissions at Guantánamo, a new court inevitably would be bogged down in litigation and delay.
• Our procedural safeguards and evidentiary standards comprise the bedrock of American justice: A new court would undermine the integrity of the justice system and perpetuate the damage to America’s reputation for fairness and transparency done by unjust military commissions and prolonged detention without charge at Guantánamo.
• Special courts and detention without trial undermine U.S. counterterrorism strategy: Creating a state-side replica of the Guantánamo legal regime would impair counterterrorism cooperation with our allies and fuel terrorist recruitment.

Proposals for a system of detention without charge should be rejected

• Detention without charge is inconsistent with core concepts of liberty and due process: The Supreme Court has repeatedly condemned detention without charge based solely on a perceived risk of future dangerousness.
• A system of detention without charge would be prone to error, and it inevitably would be exploited to pursue those with little, if any, connections to terrorist activities: Without proven mechanisms for predicting future dangerousness, decision makers would likely resort to racial profiling and stereotypes. Errors would be made, innocent people would be detained, and scarce resources would be wasted, further eroding U.S. counterterrorism efforts.

Read "The Case Against A Special Terrorism Court"

Human Rights First Hosts Panel Debate on National Security Court Proposals

On March 20, Human Rights First and the Constitution Project jointly hosted a panel discussion on national security court proposals and "Bringing Detainees to Justice and Justice To Detainees" at Georgetown Law School. Panelists included HRF International Legal Director Gabor Rona, former terrorism prosecutor David Laufman, national security expert Deborah Pearlstein, former Defense Department official for Detainee Affairs Matthew Waxman, and moderator Stephen Vladeck.

From left to right: Laufman, Waxman, Rona, Vladeck, Pearlstein.

See more photos: 1 2 3
Watch video

Moussaoui judge says federal courts capable of handling Guantanamo cases

U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema told a University of Virginia Law School audience that federal courts are capable of handling the Guantanamo cases and have the tools to deal with classified information. She pointed to the trial and conviction of Zacarias Moussaoui, which she presided over, as an example of federal courts successfully handling terrorism cases fraught with complications and classified information.

Read Associated Press article "Fed. judge says courts can handle Gitmo cases"