Counter-Terrorism 11 - Where to Try Suspected Terrorists; Terrorist Status

Summary

The discussion focuses on whether suspected terrorists should be tried in regular courts or through an alternative judicial system. It examines three main questions: 1) Should an alternative system be created for suspected terrorists? 2) What rights should be extended to them? 3) What are the dangers of such a system? The video explores historical examples, including military tribunals, and the pros and cons of such alternatives. The key issue is balancing national security with protecting individual rights, while considering the legal, moral, and international implications.

Takeaways

• 🔍 Should an alternative judicial system be established for suspected terrorists? The script explores whether regular courts are sufficient.
• ⚖️ One critical question is whether suspected terrorists should be treated differently from criminals, given that terrorism is seen as a unique crime.
• 🧠 Terrorists are motivated by ideologies or causes, unlike traditional criminals who are typically driven by financial gain or personal revenge.
• 🏛️ The discussion includes the potential denial of certain rights, such as the right to confront accusers, in an alternative judicial system for suspected terrorists.
• 🛡️ Protecting intelligence sources is a major reason for establishing a system that may limit defendants' rights, like withholding accusers' identities.
• 💡 Historical context is provided, including the Bush administration's post-9/11 creation of military tribunals, which largely failed to bring many suspects to trial.
• 🇮🇱 The script compares Israel’s system of military courts and administrative detention for terrorists, where intelligence is protected, and defense attorneys have limited access to evidence.
• 🚨 Administrative detention in Israel allows the detention of suspected terrorists based on intelligence, with judges reviewing evidence that defense attorneys cannot fully access.
• ❌ The speaker argues that both military tribunals and administrative detention, while controversial, are preferable to indefinite detention without trial.
• 📝 The conclusion stresses the need for a balance between protecting national security and ensuring the rights of suspected terrorists, with limited use of alternative systems.

Q & A

What is the primary question the session seeks to address regarding suspected terrorists?

The session seeks to address whether suspected terrorists should be tried in the regular judicial system or if an alternative judicial system should be established for them.

What are the three main objectives discussed in the session?

The three objectives are: 1) Should an alternative judicial system be established for suspected terrorists? 2) What rights should be extended to terrorists in an alternative legal system? 3) What are the dangers of creating an alternative judicial system?

What is meant by an 'alternative judicial system' in the context of this session?

An 'alternative judicial system' refers to a legal system separate from the regularly constituted U.S. federal courts (Article III courts) that might be created specifically to try suspected terrorists.

How are terrorists viewed differently from criminals, according to the session?

Terrorists are seen as fundamentally different from criminals because their motivations are not driven by financial gain or personal revenge but are often ideologically or politically motivated, making terrorism distinct from traditional crime.

What are some of the proposed features of an alternative judicial system for terrorists?

In an alternative system, suspected terrorists may not have the right to confront their accuser to protect intelligence sources, which contrasts with the right provided under the Eighth Amendment in the traditional U.S. court system.

What was the Bush administration’s approach to trying suspected terrorists after 9/11?

The Bush administration established military tribunals for suspected terrorists, where trials were conducted by military officers without a jury, and defense attorneys were typically military lawyers. However, this system faced criticism and proved to be largely ineffective.

What are the key differences between the Israeli and American approaches to trying suspected terrorists, as discussed in the session?

In Israel, suspected terrorists can be tried either in civilian or military courts, with the same rights as defendants in civilian trials. They also use 'administrative detention' based on intelligence information, allowing limited judicial review, unlike the U.S. military tribunal system used in Guantanamo.

What is 'administrative detention,' and how does it function in Israel?

Administrative detention allows the detention of suspected terrorists without a full trial, based on intelligence information. A military judge reviews the evidence, but the defense attorney only sees what the intelligence community allows, limiting their ability to confront the accuser.

What are the main criticisms of the military tribunal system established at Guantanamo Bay?

The military tribunal system at Guantanamo has been criticized for failing to protect the rights of defendants, having no independent appeals process, and leading to indefinite detention without trials for most detainees.

What are the potential dangers of creating an alternative judicial system for suspected terrorists?

The dangers include undermining the rights of the accused, creating a 'rights minus' system where suspects are denied essential legal protections, and facing international criticism for violating human rights and the rule of law.