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.

Outlines

00:00

🧑‍⚖️ Should There Be an Alternative Judicial System for Terrorists?

The paragraph introduces the discussion about how suspected terrorists should be tried, proposing the possibility of establishing an alternative judicial system outside of the traditional federal courts. The speaker outlines three key objectives: 1) whether an alternative system is necessary, 2) what rights should be granted to suspected terrorists, and 3) the potential dangers of creating such a system. The speaker suggests that traditional courts may not be suitable for handling terrorist cases, as terrorists could be different from regular criminals in motivation and behavior.

05:01

⚖️ The Right to Confront Your Accuser in an Alternative Court

This paragraph discusses one significant difference between traditional courts and an alternative system for suspected terrorists: the right to confront the accuser. Protecting intelligence sources may necessitate denying the terrorist the right to cross-examine their accuser, a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution. The speaker compares this to the dilemma of indefinite detention without trial, asking whether a limited trial in an alternative court is better than indefinite detention. The paragraph also recalls the creation of military tribunals in Guantanamo after 9/11, highlighting their limitations and failures.

10:01

🏛️ Lessons from Guantanamo and the Failure of Military Tribunals

This section reflects on the establishment of military tribunals post-9/11, focusing on their inefficiencies and ultimate failure to bring many detainees to trial. The speaker mentions the Bush administration's decision to use military tribunals in Guantanamo and the lack of full legal protections, including no independent appeals process. Many detainees were held indefinitely without trial, leading to widespread criticism and the eventual release of most detainees. The speaker contrasts this with Israel's system, where terrorists have the same rights in both civilian and military courts, with the exception of administrative detention.

15:02

🔒 The Administrative Detention Process in Israel

Here, the speaker describes Israel's system of administrative detention, where suspected terrorists are detained based on intelligence but not guaranteed a trial. The information provided to the defense is limited to protect intelligence sources, and the detainee's lawyer often has little to no access to the evidence. However, a military judge reviews the detention decision, and appeals can go as high as the Israeli Supreme Court. The speaker acknowledges the discomfort of serving as both a prosecutor and judge in this system, balancing the need to protect intelligence sources with the rights of the detainee.

20:04

⚖️ Comparing the Options: Full Trial, No Trial, or Administrative Detention

The speaker compares three legal options: 1) a full trial in a regularly constituted judicial system, 2) indefinite detention without trial, and 3) administrative detention with limited rights. While acknowledging the criticisms of administrative detention, the speaker argues that it is better than indefinite detention without any legal process. The paragraph emphasizes the importance of protecting intelligence sources but recognizes the need for a legal mechanism that at least allows detainees to have their case reviewed by a judge.

💡 Key Lessons on Rights and Alternative Judicial Systems

The speaker revisits the three objectives discussed earlier: 1) whether an alternative judicial system is necessary, 2) what rights should be given to terrorists in such a system, and 3) the risks of creating it. Reflecting on lessons from the Bush administration's military tribunals, the speaker concludes that such systems often fail to protect individual rights and result in indefinite detention, which is highly criticized internationally. Any alternative system must still allow for legal reviews and appeals to safeguard the rights of individuals.

🤔 The Dilemma: Security vs. Rights in Counterterrorism

The final paragraph addresses the core dilemma: whether to prioritize national security by creating an alternative judicial system that limits the rights of suspected terrorists, or to adhere to the full protections of the regularly constituted courts. The speaker recommends that if an alternative system is established, it should be limited in scope, include an appeals process, and involve the Supreme Court to ensure accountability. The paragraph concludes by stressing that a system without proper legal protections, like the military tribunals, is likely to fail legally, morally, and in the eyes of the international community.

Keywords

💡Alternative Judicial System

An alternative judicial system refers to a legal framework outside the regular federal courts (Article III courts) for trying suspected terrorists. This concept is proposed to address the unique nature of terrorism cases, where national security concerns, like protecting intelligence sources, may complicate traditional legal processes. In the video, the speaker discusses whether this system is necessary and explores its pros and cons, including potential limitations on defendants' rights.

💡Rights of Suspected Terrorists

This term refers to the legal protections and guarantees that should be extended to individuals accused of terrorism. The video raises the question of whether suspected terrorists should have the same rights as regular criminals or if they should be subject to different rules in an alternative judicial system. The debate centers around the balance between national security and individual rights, such as the right to confront one’s accuser.

💡Confronting the Accuser

In the American legal system, the right to confront one's accuser is a fundamental aspect of the Sixth Amendment, allowing defendants to challenge the evidence and witnesses against them. The video explores how this right may be limited in an alternative judicial system for suspected terrorists to protect intelligence sources. The speaker highlights this as a major point of contention in the debate over alternative legal frameworks.

💡Military Tribunals

Military tribunals are courts used to try individuals, particularly in cases of terrorism or wartime offenses, outside the civilian judicial system. The video references the Bush administration’s creation of military tribunals in Guantanamo Bay post-9/11 as an example of an alternative judicial system. These tribunals, however, were criticized for failing to protect defendants’ rights and ultimately did not succeed in effectively prosecuting many cases.

💡Intelligence Source Protection

The protection of intelligence sources is a key argument for establishing alternative judicial systems for terrorism cases. Revealing intelligence in a traditional court could compromise national security by exposing how sensitive information is gathered. The video explains how alternative systems, like administrative detention, might prevent defendants from accessing critical evidence in their case to protect such sources, leading to concerns about fairness.

💡Administrative Detention

Administrative detention is a process where individuals, especially suspected terrorists, can be held without trial based on intelligence reports. The video discusses this practice in the context of Israel, where suspected terrorists can be detained without a full trial, though their cases are reviewed by military judges. This system contrasts with a regular trial and raises ethical and legal concerns about the limitations it places on the defendant’s ability to challenge their detention.

💡Guantanamo Bay

Guantanamo Bay is a U.S. military facility in Cuba used to detain suspected terrorists, particularly after the 9/11 attacks. The video highlights Guantanamo as an example of an alternative judicial system where detainees were held indefinitely, often without trial. The failure of this system, both legally and morally, is cited as a cautionary tale for creating similar systems in the future.

💡Miranda Rights

Miranda rights refer to the rights of suspects to be informed of their right to remain silent and to have an attorney. The video discusses whether suspected terrorists should be afforded full Miranda rights, as are given to criminals in the U.S. criminal justice system, or if their rights should be limited in the context of national security. The inclusion or exclusion of these rights is central to the debate on how to treat suspected terrorists.

💡Appeals Process

An appeals process allows defendants to challenge the decisions made in their cases in higher courts. The video stresses the importance of ensuring an appeals process in any alternative judicial system, particularly for suspected terrorists, to safeguard against potential abuses of power. It suggests that without an independent appeals process, any alternative system would be deeply flawed and subject to international criticism.

💡Rule of Law

The rule of law is the principle that all individuals, including the government, are subject to the law. The video underscores that any system, whether regular courts or an alternative system for trying suspected terrorists, must adhere to the rule of law to maintain legitimacy. Failing to protect the rights of individuals, including suspected terrorists, undermines the legal and moral standing of a nation, particularly one that values democratic principles.

Highlights

Discussion on the establishment of an alternative judicial system for suspected terrorists and its implications.

The need to question whether terrorists should be treated differently from criminals due to their distinct motivations and acts.

Terrorists are motivated by ideological or political goals, making them different from criminals motivated by personal gain or revenge.

In an alternative judicial system, suspected terrorists may not have the right to confront their accuser, which conflicts with the U.S. Constitution's Sixth Amendment.

The Bush administration's creation of military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay after 9/11 proved ineffective in bringing terrorists to trial.

The failure of the military tribunal system to protect the rights of the detainees and the inefficiency of the process.

Israel’s administrative detention process allows for detention without trial but with judicial review, presenting a different model.

Administrative detention in Israel is criticized internationally for limiting defendants' rights to confront evidence and intelligence sources.

Administrative detention is considered better than indefinite detention without trial, though it still poses significant legal challenges.

The trade-off between protecting intelligence sources and ensuring the right to a fair trial is a central dilemma in counterterrorism legal processes.

The U.S. must consider whether to hold closed trials, waive jury trials, or use different standards of proof for suspected terrorists.

Military tribunals have historically been inconsistent in their application and criticized for rights violations.

The establishment of an alternative judicial system raises moral, legal, and international concerns, especially regarding the violation of individual rights.

An alternative system might be justified in limited cases where national security is at risk, but it must include an appeals process, ideally with the Supreme Court.

Ultimately, the ideal system would provide suspected terrorists with full rights, similar to those granted to criminal defendants, while balancing national security.

Transcripts

in this session we're going to discuss

where to try suspected terrorists and

what is the status of suspected

terrorists

for this discussion there are three

objectives that you need to keep in mind

one should an alternative judicial

system

be established for suspected terrorists

two

what are the rights that should be

extended to terrorists in an

alternative legal system and three

you need to identify the dangers of

creating an alternative judicial system

when i use the term alternative judicial

system

what that means is rather than the

regularly constituted

federal courts in the united states

article three courts

i am proposing suggesting that it may be

as some have argued that in order to

enable bringing terrorists to trial

that they can't be brought to court in

the regular constitution constitute a

judicial system

and there's a need for what is referred

to an alternative judicial system

there are pros and cons to the argument

in the next few minutes we will discuss

both

one of the important questions when we

have this discussion

is what rights do we extend to suspected

terrorists

but you need to go back even one step

beyond further to that

and ask yourself whether suspected

terrorists are to be treated differently

from

criminals meaning is an act of terrorism

so different from an act of a

traditional crime

that we need to view terrorists as

different from criminals

and if they are so different from

criminals is it appropriate to establish

again using the term an alternative

judicial system

a number of years ago i was invited to

testify in this question

before the senate judiciary committee

there the question was very interesting

are

regularly constituted federal courts

appropriate

applicable relevant effective for

suspected terrorists

i was asked to discuss the other side or

the other perspective

which argues the following no they are

not

and what if not then what are the

alternatives

my testimony was based on my experience

in israel while serving in the israel

defense forces

because there we do indeed have an

alternative system

which can be tweaked to to make it

applicable to the american system

but before getting into the details the

fundamental question is

whether or not indeed it is appropriate

to establish

this alternative judicial system or do

we simply view

terrorists as criminals

when i use the when i form the question

or base the question of

are terrorist rights the same as

criminal rights and are terrorists the

same

as as criminals that is the core

question so let's ask ourselves is a

terrorist

nothing more than a criminal just

wearing a different hat

or is a terrorist so different i would

suggest that an act of terrorism as

we've discussed in previous sessions

is a world onto its own it's very

different from a criminal act

the motivations are very different what

drives the terrorist is very different

from what drives the criminal

criminals are largely motivated by

either pecuniary gain

or from some kind of personal revenge

for something that has happened in their

personal lives

or again as i said a second ago

financial gain

terrorists are motivated from by very

very different motivations

they are now motivated by financial gain

they are not motivated by this idea of

revenge for instance a crime of passion

a terrorist is very different from a

criminal and what motivates a terrorist

is very different than from what

motivates a criminal sorry but motivates

a terrorist

is very different from what motivates a

criminal

but the question is again whether that

justifies

creating an alternative judicial system

creating a judicial system there's

somewhat of a euphemism

to that because it suggests that

suspected

terrorists in this alternative judicial

system

will have different rights than

suspected criminals in the traditional

criminal court system

the fundamental difference between the

in this alternative judicial system

between a suspected terrorist and an

alternative court

and a suspected criminal in the

traditional court is the following

in order to protect the intelligence

source

and remember from our previous

discussion the extraordinary emphasis

placed on protecting the source

the intelligence source the alternative

judicial system

will potentially say the following to

the terrorist

you will have a regular court system

with one critical exception

and that is that you will not have the

right to confront your accuser

i remind all of you in the context of

the eighth amendment of the constitution

the right to confront your accuser is an

essential integral part of

the of the adversarial system the

prosecutor

prosecutes the defense attorney the

defendant

has the right to uh cross-examine the

the state's witness that is the essence

of confronting your accuser

in the alternative judicial system if we

say that protecting intelligence sources

is so vital we would then so gross the

argument

deny the terrorist the right to

cross-examine or the right to confront

the accuser

that in the american legal system is

enormously important in terms of

distinguishing delineating

between two distinct systems

on the other hand is it not better from

the

terrorist defendant's perspective to

have a

trial even if it's less than full trial

as compared to indefinite detention not

being brought before a judge

being held in guantanamo endlessly

without seeing a judge without having

the case brought before a trial

even if it's not a full trial as we

generally know it

so how does this play out and what are

the alternatives

i remind all of us that in the aftermath

of 9 11

the bush administration established what

were called military tribunals

that were to be held in guantanamo

the system was reflected an executive

decision

to bring detainees from iraq virtually

initially from iraq but subsequently

also from afghanistan

bring them to guantanamo bay located

physically

in cuba but not really part of cuba

hold them there and then bring them to

trial

before military judges note it was not a

court martial where

soldiers are tried but it was a military

tribunal

the judges were military officers

there was no jury the prosecuting

attorneys

were jag officers judge advocate general

officers from the military

defense council were primarily defense

attorney were

primarily but not exclusively jag

officers only though you could hire if

you knew how to

uh private attorney and the idea was to

create this alternative system

over the past almost 15 years since the

military tribunals have been established

one can count on a on one hand the

number of defendants

from iraq afghanistan and elsewhere held

in guantanamo

who've actually been brought to trial

the

alternative system proved itself

ultimately to be a failure

it did not properly protect the rights

of of the defendant

there was no independent appeal process

there was no full full rights to the

suspects the defendants

were not guaranteed and at the end of

the day what guantanamo really became

was nothing more

than i'm exaggerating a bit nothing more

than indefinite detention

most of the detainees who were held

there over the course of the years

have been released while former

secretary of defense donald rumsfeld

referred to them as the worst of the

worst

truth be told 99 of them were never

tried

overwhelming majority of them have been

returned released or rather returned

to where they were the country from

where they came the system

ultimately proved itself to be an utter

and total failure

that's option number one option number

two i will take you back to my israeli

experience

in israel suspected terrorists are

brought to trial either in a civilian

court

or a military court but the military

court where suspected terrorists are

tried

have the exact same rights as uh

defendants brought to trial before a

civilian court

but there's an alternative system and

that is what is referred to as

administrative detention in

administrative detention

an individual palestinian terrorist or a

jewish terrorist

is detained based on intelligence

information

not guaranteed a trial but rather

brought before

a a judge in the military context

who has the right to review all the

intelligence information

that defense attorney can only see the

information that the security the

intelligence community

allows him to see even though the judge

makes enormous efforts to

to release information so the defense

attorney can see the information

in the overwhelming majority of cases

the defense attorney who represents the

detainee

engages in what is best referred to as a

phishing expedition

trying to glean evidence from the

prosecuting attorney

but again note it is not a trial the

role of the judge who reviews is what to

determine

whether or not the information that was

available to the commander

when he ordered the administrative

detention whether that

information justifies administrative

detention

if yes the detention order is honored

if no the individual may be released

there is

an appeal to a second level of a

military judge

while ultimately an appeal may be

brought before the israeli supreme court

sitting as the high court of justice the

difference between the administrative

detention process

and a full trial is the following the

defendant individual and the defense

attorney

do not see all the information available

they do not see all the intelligence

and therefore the right to confront the

accuser is severely minimized

the pros and the cons the justification

is source protection

from the perspective of the state that's

a pro from the perspective of the

detainee defendant and defense counsel

that's an enormous negative because it

absolutely denies them the right to

again confront the accuser on the other

hand on the other hand it does

enable the defense attorney to bring the

individual's case before

a judge with the hope that the judge who

has the right to review

all of the intelligence information will

come to the conclusion that the

information does not justify detention

and will order the release of that

individual

during the course of the 20 years that i

served in israel defense forces

i served both as a prosecutor in these

hearings

and also as a judge in full candor i can

tell you in both positions

there was enormous discomfort because

while i

had i was privy to the intelligence

information again in both cap

in both capacities prosecutor and judge

the defense attorney was privy to very

very very little information and

therefore when i served as a judge in

many ways

in an informal basis i was not helping

the defense attorney

but almost serving as a defense attorney

because i was able to ask the

prosecuting attorney

and or the representative of the

intelligence community

as to the validity of the intelligence

information its viability

sort of the reliability of the source

because i had the intelligence

information

unlike the defense attorney i could ask

those kinds of questions he

could not but again i want to emphasize

that

administrative detention is better than

in communication detention

it is far less preferable than a full

trial

but in the context of terrorism

counterterrorism

always be sensitive as i've mentioned

previously the requirement to protect

the intelligence source

and then you have to ask yourself

whether or not that indeed

justifies establishment and

implementation of the administrative

detention process

it is an open secret that the

international

legal community is highly critical of

the administrative detention process

as someone who was involved in that i

well understand

the criticism it does make sense

on the other hand on the other hand

always ask yourselves the following

what is preferable from the perspective

of the detainee individual

three options the regularly constituted

judicial system

no hearing in income in communicative

detention

or the third is some kind of a

mid-tiered

as in administrative detention

a number of years ago i was at an

academic conference in which i presented

these three models there a

representative of the human rights

community was very very critical of

the two options no trial which i very

much agreed with her

and also very critical of the of the

administrative detention alternative

process

while i agreed with the criticism i will

understand it

but i noted and suggested that she also

pursue

analyze it from the perspective of the

individual

and i suggested that as problematic yes

controversial

and um perhaps legally

very problematic i would suggest that

it's better

than no process so what does that then

mean in terms of

the the questions we're asking the the

three objectives

an alternative judicial system is

obviously

less preferable than having a full

trial available to the defendant

terrorists

however given those number of cases

where there is a need to protect the

source

it is in that instance that we need to

ask ourselves

whether that justifies establishment of

the alternative system

there are other questions that we also

need to consider

do we for instance even if it's a

regularly constitute the constituted

court

do we close the the the doors quote

unquote close the doors

that it's closed court the public is not

made cannot be invited cannot

participate cannot cannot see it

that's question number one question

number two do we not have jury trials

is it really possible for the defendant

to have a trial by jury of his peers

remember

that a jury trial is predicated on a

jury of his peers

can a suspected terrorist from wherever

he

is from can he really have a a trial by

a jury of his peers here in the united

states

three what would be the applicable

standards of of um

of evidence what would be deemed

acceptable admissible not admissible

what are the standards of proof

if we really think about it 15 years

after 9 11

i think it's very clear that the bush

administration

was quick to rush into the military

tribunal process

it's not important to note not the first

time in american history

that military tribunals have been

established the supreme court

has been inconsistent in how it viewed

military tribunals highly problematic

because at the end of the day

the system is predicated on a rights

minus paradigm whereby the suspected

individual the suspected terrorist the

defendant

does not have full rights in accordance

with a regularly constituted court

so the first question is is it necessary

that's going to depend on your analysis

and will require you

to ask yourselves is this alternative

a positive way to go is it necessary

is it justified or can we stay with the

system as

is two you need to ask yourself

what are the rights do we have the full

rights as i've mentioned

particularly the right to confront the

accuser you have

full miranda rights as we've discussed

that at the end of the day that a

terrorist is

absolutely the same as a criminal and

three and perhaps most importantly

what are the dangers so in the context

of looking

both backwards and forwards i think it's

very clear that

in terms of lessons learned though it's

easy to say

that the primary or one of the primary

mistakes the bush administration made

when it established the military

tribunals is a guy caught up in its own

rhetoric

and firmly believed that that would be

possible to bring detainees to

guantanamo

to have the military tribunal prosecute

those

who the military felt were prosecutable

and that the system would be effective

efficient

and at the end of the day the system was

neither effective nor efficient

it became the source of not only great

controversy

heavily criticized and again as i say at

the end of the day

from my perspective clearly failed to

protect the rights of the individual

so positive and negative if we

to summarize where we are if we say

that a regularly constituted court works

that will require the state to make

to enable the defendant to confront the

accuser

even at the risk of endangering a source

that

is something that needs to be very very

carefully considered the flip side

is to establish an alternative which is

rights minus

with the problem with the problematic uh

possibility

that at the end of the day nobody will

be brought to trial a huge negative

will result in endless detention also a

huge negative

and that in the court of international

opinion there will be enormous

and justified criticism of the united

states

so what do we learn from all this one it

requires us

articulating the rights that a defendant

terrorist has there are as i've

mentioned a number of

alternatives here we can we say full

rights as if criminal

do we say rights minus because it's a

terrorist with the with the

inherent problematicness of that or do

we say because the individual is a

terrorist

no rights whatsoever so the third model

of no rights whatsoever from my

perspective

is quote unquote a no-go the ideal of

course is to say

terrorist equals criminal full rights

including miranda rights

including the right to confront the

accuser but reality is reality and

perhaps we need to say to ourselves

and this is something that you will need

to resolve that in certain

instances where the state comes to the

conclusion or reaches the conclusion

that enabling the individual to confront

the accuser

poses such an enormous risk to national

security

that the regularly constituted courts

are not appropriate for that

and in those very limited circumstances

it will be considered

reasonable to establish a

alternative um judicial system but and

the butt here is very important

if that's the route that we go then i

would recommend

that appeal be before this ultimately

before the supreme court

ensuring that there be at all times a

review process

an appeals process and that the

individual is granted rights

even if we've established for that very

specific person

for a very limited specific purpose this

alternative court

with the understanding that if we're

going to go to this

alternative system that would be limited

for a very

limited reason and in a very limited

basis

because otherwise as we've learned in

the course of the past 15 years

to open the door to a military tribunal

system

at the end of the day absolutely fails

to protect the rights of the individual

and for a nation whose values reflect

liberal democracy small

l small d establishing a system

that does not reflect correct

application of the rule of law

that results in significant violations

of individual rights

and at the and at the end of the day

does not bring any of these individuals

to trial

as a system that fails legally

morally and without a doubt as i've said

earlier

in the court of international opinion

the three objectives that i've brought

to your attention

you must be able to address them you

must be able to

to resolve them in order to truly

determine the two fundamental questions

that are brought to your attention

in the past few minutes one what are the

rights of suspected terrorists slash

are suspected terrorists akin to

suspected criminals

and if there are differences in rights

and difference in

differences between suspected terrorists

and suspected criminals

does that justify establishing an

alternative legal system

you need to resolve that and you must

also resolve

how to apply the alternative system what

are its ramifications

what are its positives whatever are its

negatives

both domestically internationally

and most importantly of all both legally

and

morally

you