New Law Blogs

Bush DOJ Officials Back Terrorism Prosecutions in Civilian Court

By Andrew Ramonas

NEW YORK — Two former Justice Department officials from the George W. Bush administration on Friday said both military commissions and civilian courts should be on the table as venues for the prosecution of terrorism suspects.

David Iglesias (photo by Andrew Ramonas / Main Justice)

Former Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Wainstein of the National Security Division said as a prosecutor he would take a pragmatic approach to deciding the proper location for terrorism prosecutions, weighing each case individually. Former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias, a military prosecutor who is handling cases at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, said the Obama administration does not have a ?silver bullet? that would eliminate either military tribunals or civilian courts from use in all terrorism cases.

?Article III is a great tool, but it?s not the panacea,? said Iglesias, who was speaking at a panel discussion in New York. ?Military commissions [are] another great option for the administration [but] it?s not the panacea.?

Iglesias, who was fired during the 2006 U.S. Attorney purge, said military tribunals are not in competition with civilian courts. He said military prosecutors are only looking to handle cases involving terrorism suspects who are captured close to U.S. military operations. There about 50 Guantanamo Bay detainees, who fit that profile, he said.

Attorney General Eric Holder has said he is in favor of having both options for terrorism cases at the Obama administration?s disposable. But his position has faced stiff criticism on Capitol Hill.

Holder came under fire last year from members of Congress when he announced his plan to try self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his alleged co-conspirators in a Manhattan federal court as part of the Obama administration?s efforts to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center. The cost of security for a trial in downtown New York, the possibility that the defendants might be able to use the courtroom as a public venue to spread propaganda and the prospect that the defendants might be found not guilty are among the chief concerns of critics.

The White House has since put the possibility of using military commissions back on the table and is reviewing other locations for a civilian trial.

This week, the Obama administration has seen the successes and challenges of terrorism prosecutions in civilian court.

Faisal Shahzad on Tuesday was sentenced in a Manhattan federal court to life in prison for attempting to bomb Times Square. But on Wednesday a federal judge did not allow prosecutors to use a star witness in a case involving the 1998 bombing of a U.S. embassy in Africa because the government employed harsh interrogation techniques against the defendant to learn the name of the key individual. Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, the defendant, is the first detainee from Guantanamo Bay to be prosecuted in civilian court.

Holder said after the ruling in the Ghailani case that the DOJ was not deterred by the ruling, and would proceed with the trial in civilian court.

Ken Wainstein (photo by Andrew Ramonas / Main Justice)

Republicans have said the ruling in the Ghailani case shows that federal courts are not the proper venue for trying terrorism suspects. Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, on Wednesday told Reuters that prosecuting terrorism suspects in civilian court is ?contrary to all law, logic, and the will of the people.?

Wainstein said the positions in the debate over the venue for terrorism cases are valid, but added ?principles only go so far.?

?I?m not going to stand on principle because I think if you stand on principle in this situation, you might end up standing in a corner … because you denied yourself the advantages of one system by solely adopting the other,” Wainstein said.

Full post as published by Main Justice on October 09, 2010 (boomark / email).