The Volokh Conspiracy - Domestic Terror Courts?

Where should suspect terrorists be tried? In treaty-based international courts? Traditional Article III courts? Or, as my colleague Amos Guiora argues, in special domestic terror courts?

The on-line version of Penn Law Review (called cleverly PENNumbra) has this interesting on-line debate between Guiora from Utah and John Parry from Lewis and Clark.

Parry points to the fact that the federal courts have been able to try a few terror suspects, so he contends that Guiora's proposal is "a problem in search of a solution." [Oops, should have written "solution in search of a problem" -- thanks readers.] But we have really been able to try only a handful of the most high-profile suspects. Moreover, Parry concedes that not every suspect can be tried in federal court, leaving him to recommend "prolonged preventive detention" as the best fallback option. Between that and Guiora's proposal, it seems to me that Guiora's has a lot going for it.

	[Paul Cassell, March 4, 2008 at 10:00am] Trackbacks Domestic Terror Courts? Where should suspect terrorists be tried? In treaty-based international courts? Traditional Article III courts? Or, as my colleague Amos Guiora argues, in special domestic terror courts? The on-line version of Penn Law Review (called cleverly PENNumbra) has this interesting on-line debate between Guiora from Utah and John Parry from Lewis and Clark. Parry points to the fact that the federal courts have been able to try a few terror suspects, so he contends that Guiora's proposal is "a problem in search of a solution." [Oops, should have written "solution in search of a problem" -- thanks readers.] But we have really been able to try only a handful of the most high-profile suspects. Moreover, Parry concedes that not every suspect can be tried in federal court, leaving him to recommend "prolonged preventive detention" as the best fallback option. Between that and Guiora's proposal, it seems to me that Guiora's has a lot going for it.