Law Profs Propose New Federal Court for Gitmo Detainees
As the countdown continues toward controversial military trials starting next month for terrorism suspects being detained by the U.S. at Guantanamo Bay, two prominent law professors at major universities are proposing another approach to the problem of providing a fair tribunal yet at the same time protecting national security.
In an upcoming New Yorker article, a magazine legal correspondent interviews Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law School and Neal Katyal of Georgetown University Law Center. They suggest that a new federal court should be established specifically for this purpose, in which suspects would be represented by counsel but apparently could be tried based at least in part on hearsay evidence and evidence obtained without Miranda warnings would be admissible.
“According to their proposal, a so-called national security court—in which sitting federal judges would preside over proceedings in which prosecutors would make the case that a person should be detained—would be a superior alternative to both military commissions and ordinary criminal prosecutions, which they believe are impractical for detainees captured on distant battlefields,” explains the Wall Street Journal Law Blog.
Not everyone, of course, agrees with this suggestion. “The real problem is that there is an emerging consensus that we need to have some legal authority to detain people without trial,” staff attorney Ben Wizner of the American Civil Liberties Union tells the WSJ Law Blog, “and that’s wrong. The government has proved it can criminally prosecute people in terrorism cases—in the African embassy-bombing cases, in the John Walker Lindh case, and others. That’s what the government should do—prosecute them, or release them.”
Earlier coverage:
ABAJournal.com: “ABA President Expresses ‘Grave Concerns’ About Guantanamo Trials”
ABAJournal.com: “ABA Offers Gitmo Tribunal Help, UK Bar Groups Voice Fairness Concerns”
