Should al Qaeda Spokesperson Sulaiman Abu Ghaith be Prosecuted in Federal Court? >
Guantanamo Military Commissions Have No Jurisdiction With Conspiracy Charges
Following the rule of law means Abu Ghaith has to be charged in the U.S. court system
March 12, 2013
About Sterling Thomas:
Sterling Thomas, Lieutenant Colonel, USAF, is defense counsel for Ammar al Baluchi, one of the 9/11 defendants being tried in the Guantanamo military commissions.
On March 8, 2013, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith was arraigned in federal district court in the Southern District of New York on the charge that from May 2001 to 2002 he participated in a conspiracy to kill United States nationals. Abu Ghaith cannot be tried for conspiracy in a military commission like the one currently underway at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Why? Because, at least here in the United States, "the rule of law" still has meaning. In January 2013 the D.C. Circuit court, which has appellate jurisdiction over the Guantanamo military commissions, ruled what most legal observers already knew: that conspiracy was not a crime under the law of war before 2006. Thus, the Guantanamo military commissions have no jurisdiction over the 2001-2002 conspiracy charge that Abu Ghaith faces. Bringing Abu Ghaith to federal court was the government's only viable option that incorporated the rule of law.
[See a collection of political cartoons on defense spending.]
It should come as no surprise, as higher courts continue to strike down and overturn decisions of the Guantanamo military commissions, that the federal courts have again become the preferred method of trying those accused of terrorism. Some cheerleaders for the Guantanamo military commissions have questioned the federal courts' ability to handle high-profile terrorism cases because of concerns about physical security or handling of classified information. Yet, federal courts routinely handle terrorism cases large and small every day while following ancient legal principles like due process, equal protection under the law, and the right to privileged communications with an attorney. The Guantanamo military commissions have sacrificed these values and diminished our standing in the world without making anyone safer.
- Join the debate on Facebook.
- Follow U.S. News Debate Club on Twitter.
- Check out U.S. News Weekly: an insider's guide to politics and policy.
- Other Arguments
-
#16315
Yes — Illegitimate military commission trials breed more enemies and cause more terrorism
DAPHNE EVIATAR, Senior Counsel Associated with Human Rights First's Law & Security Program
-
#26122
Yes — Abu Ghaith should be tried in federal court, and more should be done to close Guantanamo Bay
ANDY WORTHINGTON, Freelance Investigative Journalist
-
#32825
No — Terrorists like Sulaiman Abu Ghaith don't have constitutional rights
DANNY GONZALEZ, Director of Communications for Move America Forward
-
#5109
Yes — Sulaiman Abu Ghaith can't be tied to specific acts of international terrorism
STEPHEN VLADECK, Professor of Law at the American University Washington College of Law
-
#6211
Yes — Federal court is best for Abu Ghaith, but military commissions still have their use
DANIEL J. GALLINGTON, Senior Policy and Program Adviser at the George C. Marshall Institute
-
#7926
No — Terrorists like Sulaiman Abu Ghaith shouldn't be tried like common criminals
MIKE ROGERS, Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Reader Comments (