Prosecuting Terrorism Cases in the Federal Courts

Ever since the first detainees began arriving at Guantanamo Bay in 2002, there has been debate about the proper forum in which to prosecute suspected terrorists. 

Human Rights First holds that the federal criminal courts offer the United States its best line of judicial defense against Islamist extremist terrorism.  Our new report, written by two former federal prosecutors, shows how existing laws provide an effective basis for detaining, monitoring, and prosecuting terrorist suspects. These laws are the basis for over 100 international terrorism prosecutions over the past 15 years.

Some critics have argued that federal criminal courts are simply not equipped to handle the challenges posed by international terrorism cases. These critics either endorse the use of the military commission system or propose creating “national security courts”. Some argue for the power to detain without criminal charges or trials. Such alternative systems include ad hoc rules and procedures that depart in critical respects from American standards of justice.

In addition, detention without charge and the military commission system at Guantanamo have led to abundant litigation and internal dissension within the military command structure, and has not resulted in a single trial having advanced beyond the preliminary stages.  Federal courts, meanwhile, have a proven track record in this area.  Federal courts are the most effective way of prosecuting terrorism cases - without compromising fairness.

Press Release

New Report: In Pursuit of Justice

In Pursuit of Justice: Prosecuting Terrorism Cases in the Federal Court, written for Human Rights First by Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP partners Richard B. Zabel and James J. Benjamin Jr., constitutes the most comprehensive and thorough examination to date of the federal prosecution of terrorism cases. 

In Pursuit of Justice examines more than 100 international terrorism cases prosecuted in the existing criminal justice system over the past fifteen years, ranging from epic mega-trials for completed acts of terrorism to individual, pre-emptive prosecutions focused on prevention. It draws on the personal perspectives of judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers with firsthand terrorism litigation experience, as well as the views of security experts and academics.

The focus of this examination is on the legal and practical issues that confront courts, law enforcement, and Congress regarding terrorism-related crimes. In Pursuit of Justice concludes that the federal system has capably handled important and challenging terrorism cases without compromising national security or sacrificing rigorous standards of fairness and due process. 

Full Report - PDF (1.81 MB) 

Executive Summary - PDF | HTML

Overview