Debunking the most recent criticism of the U.S. justice system for terrorism trials.

Post-9/11; insight into the federal procecution of suspected terrorists

As our combat troops leave Iraq, the number of private security contracts is expected to increase over two fold. What does this mean for our ability to hold them accountable for their conduct in war zones?

Pretrial hearings in the case of Omar Khadr today were dominated by arguments over whether his “confessions” to interrogators should be suppressed due to alleged abuse, and what other evidence should be admitted at trial. Khadr’s lawyer argued that all of his statements about what he did should not be admissible at trial because his lead interrogator at Bagram threatened him with gang rape, and possibly with death, thereby tainting his perspective of all of the interrogators asking him questions afterwards.

For months now, certain commentators and legislators have been arguing that Congress needs to pass a new law authorizing the indefinite detention without charge or trial of suspected terrorists and their supporters.

The interrogation tactics described in today’s Gitmo hearing give reason to believe that any confession from Khadr was not reliable.

By abandoning our own rule of law we lose the support of our own citizens and allies, and at the same time support al Qaeda’s most powerful recruitment strategy.

We must end the politics of fear and let our Constitution work without interference.

A civilian federal court judge would likely throw out the case of Omar Khadr.

The second update today from Daphne Eviatar’s observations of the Guantanamo military commissions.