Practical to Keep Two Options for Terror Trials: New York Times writers Charlie Savage and Scott Shane report on the idea to retain two separate systems for trying foreign terrorism suspects: military commission and civilian courts. While politicians argue for one over another, former counter-terrorism officials are warning that the political debate has lost touch with the pragmatic advantages of keeping both the civilian and military systems available. There are problems with a commissions-only policy: some nations will not extradite terrorism suspects or provide evidence to the United States except for civilian trials; federal courts offer a greater variety of charges for use in pressuring a defendant to cooperate; military commission rules do not authorize a judge to accept a guilty plea from a defendant in a capital case; and the military system is legally untested, so any guilty verdict is vulnerable to being overturned on appeal. Those in favor of military commissions argue that critics are exaggerating any problems with commissions and overlooking their advantages. Congress overhauled military commissions last year to increase defendant's rights, and the United States may be able to persuade foreign countries to extradite suspects to military tribunals. There might be value to keeping both systems. Juan C. Zuarte, former deputy national security adviser for combating terrorism stated, "We shouldn't inadvertently handcuff ourselves by taking [civilian terrorism trials] completely out of our tool kit."
Getting the Last Word: New York Times writer Adam Liptak reports on the growing frequency of oral dissents being delivered from the Supreme Court bench. "Dissenting from the bench," a new study to be published in Justice System Journal, contends that dissenting is a sort of nuclear option that "may indicate that bargaining and accommodation have broken down irreparably." There is, of course, an element of stagecraft to oral dissents. If justices are to engage in what their colleagues may view as a breach of collegiality and decorum, they want it to count. Justice Clarence Thomas, who has not asked a question from the bench since February 2006, did read a dissent that June from a decision striking down a plan to use military commissions to try suspected terrorists. "In 15 years on the bench," he said, "I have never read a dissent from the bench, but today's decision requires that I do so." Justice Thomas had dissented from the bench once before, in Stenberg v. Carhart, a 2000 abortion case.
Federal Background Probes Come Into Question: San Francisco Gate writer Bob Egelko reports on the Supreme Court's decision to hear NASA v. Nelson, and decide how far the government can go in looking into the background of NASA scientists and engineers. The court granted the Obama administration's request to hear an appeal of a lower-court ruling that barred NASA from conducting far-reaching inquiries into the lives of 28 workers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena. They passed routine background checks when they were hired, but were ordered to undergo further reviews under a 2004 homeland security directive by President George W. Bush. 28 employees refused to submit to checks and were fired. The Ninth Circuit Court intervened in October 2007, blocked the firing and ruled that the inquiries were too intrusive and unrelated to national security. "The decision prevents the routine background checks of many government contract employees and it casts a constitutional cloud over the background-check process the government has used for federal civil service employees for over 50 years," Justice Department lawyers said in seeking Supreme Court review. The Justices will hear the case in the term that starts in October, with a ruling due by June 2011.
Getting the Last Word: New York Times writer Adam Liptak reports on the growing frequency of oral dissents being delivered from the Supreme Court bench. "Dissenting from the bench," a new study to be published in Justice System Journal, contends that dissenting is a sort of nuclear option that "may indicate that bargaining and accommodation have broken down irreparably." There is, of course, an element of stagecraft to oral dissents. If justices are to engage in what their colleagues may view as a breach of collegiality and decorum, they want it to count. Justice Clarence Thomas, who has not asked a question from the bench since February 2006, did read a dissent that June from a decision striking down a plan to use military commissions to try suspected terrorists. "In 15 years on the bench," he said, "I have never read a dissent from the bench, but today's decision requires that I do so." Justice Thomas had dissented from the bench once before, in Stenberg v. Carhart, a 2000 abortion case.
Federal Background Probes Come Into Question: San Francisco Gate writer Bob Egelko reports on the Supreme Court's decision to hear NASA v. Nelson, and decide how far the government can go in looking into the background of NASA scientists and engineers. The court granted the Obama administration's request to hear an appeal of a lower-court ruling that barred NASA from conducting far-reaching inquiries into the lives of 28 workers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena. They passed routine background checks when they were hired, but were ordered to undergo further reviews under a 2004 homeland security directive by President George W. Bush. 28 employees refused to submit to checks and were fired. The Ninth Circuit Court intervened in October 2007, blocked the firing and ruled that the inquiries were too intrusive and unrelated to national security. "The decision prevents the routine background checks of many government contract employees and it casts a constitutional cloud over the background-check process the government has used for federal civil service employees for over 50 years," Justice Department lawyers said in seeking Supreme Court review. The Justices will hear the case in the term that starts in October, with a ruling due by June 2011.
Leave a comment