Federal Prosecution of Foreign Terrorists - Case Study Example

? Federal Prosecution of Foreign Terrorists Federal Prosecution of Foreign Terrorists In the recent years, terrorism has posed a major threat to many countries in the world. In trying to fight terrorism, countries face many challenges especially in how to best deal with the terrorism suspects. In the United States, some suspects have been detained to prevent them from carrying out their terrorist activities and this raises questions as to whether they should be tried in federal courts or military tribunals. Given the complexity of the international terrorism, the government should take a multifaceted approach to deal with terrorism threat and therefore, the government should require flexibility and creativity. The justice system should be cautious when dealing with terrorism cases because most of them pose legal and practical challenges because they have no precedents. In some instances, the criminal justice system has been criticized because it is susceptible to errors such as being too fast or too slow or sometimes providing harsh or lenient punishments. The evolution of statues and courtroom procedures has exhibited a flexible justice system that can be able to deal with the rising unique case of terrorism. The rising cases of terrorism have given rise to the ethical and legal dilemma of whether to use federal courts or military tribunals. In the United States, jurisdiction of military commissions is limited to time of war and only offenses recognized under the law of war are tried. This poses challenges while using the commissions because given the complexity of terrorist activities, some offenses are not recognized under the law of war. Additionally, only aliens are permitted to be tried in accordance to the Military Commissions Act. The federal judiciary on the other hand, is a separate branch of the federal government, which is autonomous from the executive and legislative branches charged with the responsibility of interpreting law and deciding disputes that arise under it. Using the federal court has many advantages. Using the United States federal courts shows that United States takes its obligations seriously regarding the anti-terrorism conventions since it has always been at the forefront advocating for implementation of anti-terrorism conventions that requires states to prosecute terrorists in national courts. Using the federal courts guarantees use of the due process rights thus ensuring a fair trial. However, there are disadvantages of using the federal courts. Federal criminal trial of foreigners especially the Islamic terrorist could turn political leading to demonstrations against the United States which could cause security risk for the trial itself. The burden of proof in a terrorist trial is usually high and may hinder efforts to bring suspects to justice and this means that a suspect may get freedom more easily in a federal courtroom than in a foreign or international courtroom (Zabel & Benjamin, 2008). Incarceration of terrorist suspects has also raised a heated debate in the United States. Incarceration, which is mainly used as a punishment for a crime serves several purposes that include isolating criminals to prevent further crimes, punishing criminals, deterring others from committing the same crimes and rehabilitating the criminals. However, when suspects are incarcerated for long, it raises questions whether the rule of law is being applied effectively. This further puts doubt in delivery of justice because of the delays in delivering since access to justice is a mutually reinforcing component of the rule of law. States strive to implement the rule of law and therefore, more attention should be given towards achieving the rule of law. A poorly functioning justice system allows crime thus demeaning the essence of the rule of law. Progress in security, governance, economic development, and social well being are dependent on a good rule of law system, which is the foundation for economic and political success. The legal dilemma, which encompasses incarceration, is overcome by the advantages of incarceration. The court systems may not be in a position to deliver judgement in a short time due to the complexity of the matter. Therefore, the justice system may require more time to look into the matter and at the same time provides punishment to the culprit for the wrong done. Some cases require more time so that fair judgements may be passed and this reduces chances of unfair trials to suspects of different crimes as shown in the al-Marri case. In the al-Marri case, Ali Saleh al-Marri, a citizen of Qatar, lawfully entered the United States with his family to pursue a master’s degree at Bradley University in Peoria, Illinois. On December 12, 2001, Federal Bureau Investigation (FBI) agents arrested him at his home and a material witness warrant issued in Southern District of New York. Al-Marri was transported to New York and was indicted on counterfeit credit card charges. In January 2003, the government filed a superseding indictment charging him of giving false statements to the bank and to the FBI. In May 2003, the charges were dismissed by a court for lack of venue and al-Marri was transferred to Peoria and the government indicted him in the Central District of Illinois of the same charges. The Illinois court set a date for trial and scheduled a hearing in late June on al-Marri’s pre-trial motions, including a motion to suppress statements allegedly obtained by torture. On June 23, 2003, al-Marri was transferred into military custody where he was detained. The government affirmed that al-Marri would be detained until further notice without charge as an “enemy combatant.” Al-Marri had no access to his family or his attorneys for sixteen months and in a subsequent lawsuit, he alleged that he had been subjected to mistreatment during his military confinement. Al-Marri filed a petition for habeas corpus in Illinois but it was dismissed. He then refilled his petition in South Carolina and in response, the government asserted that al-Marri was associated with al-Qaida and he came to the United States to serve as an agent in terrorist attacks. Al-Marri denied the allegations and as a result, his habeas corpus action was dismissed. On appeal, after a lengthy analysis of the law of war and relevant statutes, a panel of the Fourth Circuit ruled that the government lacked legal authority to detain al-Marri under the law of war. However, the government was free to prosecute al-Marri in the criminal justice system, initiate deportation proceedings against him, detain him as a material witness in connection with a grand jury investigation, or detain him for a limited time under the United States Patriot Act’s detention provisions (Zabel & Benjamin, 2008). Sometimes incarceration poses questions as to whether the suspects will receive a fair and impartial trial putting into consideration that the suspects have been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. In federal criminal system, the judge possesses discretion that is guided by some legal provisions. For many terrorism defendants, severe sentences have been imposed and this serves as a way to discourage terrorism. However, defendants who cooperate with the government get lenient sentences because they assist in investigation of terrorism activities. Another ethical dilemma is that public trials will attract terrorist attacks. This may be in form of risk to the country and the prosecutions present risk for judges, witnesses, guards and others present during the trial. This happened in the Embassy Bombing case where a prison guard was attacked. Certainly, some defendants may be violent and are likely to cause harm whenever they get an opportunity. In the past, the United States has experienced several terrorism attacks and this indicates the fact that it is risky to try terrorist suspects in a country. This is because they operate in groups and so when one is prosecuted they might revenge by extending the terrorism activities. In order to manage the challenge of dealing with classified or sensitive evidence that implicates national security effectively, several statutes are applied. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is used and it permits government to conduct electronic surveillance and physical searches lawfully. From its inception, it has provided a framework for evidence used in criminal cases. Another Act that is useful is the Classified Information Procedures Act, which establishes pre-trial, trial and appellate procedures intended to protect national security information from improper or unnecessary disclosure while ensuring the defendant’s rights are protected. In the case of Brady v. Maryland, the Supreme Court established the rule that “the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to the accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution” (Zabel & Benjamin, 2008, p. 91). The rule shows that the government does not necessarily win when it secures a conviction but rather it wins whenever justice is done to the United States citizens. Another rule that is frequently used in the United States legal system is the warning expressed in Miranda v. Arizona, which says “you have the right to remain silent” (Zabel & Benjamin, 2008, p. 101) The law enforcement agents are required to administer the Miranda warnings when questioning suspects held in custody. When all this rules are put in consideration trial of terrorists may be made easier and this helps citizens believe in their justice system. Trial of terrorists has proved to be a major challenge in the world but with time, establishment of a common criminal court like the International Criminal Court has made it much easier to try terrorists. Due to the rising violence directed at jurors and others in the courtroom, measures have to be taken to prevent such occurrences. For instance, after the attack on the prison guard in the Embassy Bombings case, a second metal detector was installed directly outside the courtroom entrance to ensure there was enough security. In conclusion, handling terrorist cases has not been easy especially regarding the many challenges the courts have faced. That notwithstanding, credit should be given to the courts for their good work in fighting terrorism. However, more improvements need to be made to enhance their efficiency. Reference Zabel & Benjamin, R. (2008). In Pursuit of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Alumni_Affairs/USLS-pursuit-justice.pdf Read More