Roughly nine years after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, the debate continues within the United States on how terror suspects should be tried for their crimes.
Experts on the issue discussed the controversy revolving around the rights of detained terrorists in the U.S. on Friday in the University of Toledo Law Center Auditorium.
The day-long symposium titled “Military Commissions Act of 2009: Back to the Future or the Fix for a Flawed System?,” was sponsored by the Toledo Law Review and concentrated on the legal consequences of the revisions of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and what the revisions will mean when trying several high-profile terror suspects in Article Three courts.
The revisions were put in place to help improve the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
The event had three panels: a View from the Bench, Perspectives from the Front Lines and the 2009 MCA — the Fix for a Flawed System.
Panelists said that since President Barack Obama signed the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act in October 2009, there has been public debate over how the approaching trial of the Sept. 11 terrorists will be carried out once Guantanamo Bay is closed.
According to Amos Guiora, a professor of law at the University of Utah and panelist at the symposium, said the revisions to the act will allow the suspected terrorists to have a trial by jury.
“The proposed domestic terror courts resolve two issues: the suspected terrorist’s right to confront his accusers and the right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers critical to the criminal law paradigm while establishing a paradigm that guarantees a fair trial, admittedly with less rights for the defendant than in Article Three Courts,” Guiora said.
Panelists had varying opinions on trying detained terrorists; however, there was an agreement between all members that if the terrorists were to be tried in a federal court, there would be a threat to national security. But the panelists said the federal courts have the ability to try the accused although security may be expensive.
Rebecca Zietlow, a professor of constitutional law at UT, said that since the original Military Commissions Act was declared unconstitutional, she wonders how the revision is now constitutional. Zietlow also said she believes one of the main issues is whether or not the laws will give ample procedures to try the suspected terrorists.
“As the trial readily approaches, many American people want to see justice brought to the terror the 9/11 terrorists have brought upon us,” said Yvonne Watson, a freshman with an undecided major.
Watson thought that the speakers did not provide enough information on what procedures would be taken against the accused.
“Honorary Judge James G. Carr did give his view on what procedures might be taken, but no one really can say for sure,” Watson said.
Panelists also compared the MCA of 2006, which was proposed by former President George W. Bush’s administration, to the current 2009 revision.
Robert N. Strassfeld, a professor of law at Case Western University, spoke about differences between the 2009 revision and the 2006 MCA. One example of an issue discussed was if suspected terrorists should be tried in military courts or in federal courts.
“I think that an opportunity to hear different perspectives on a very pressing issue is vital. I want to know what they’re going to do with the suspected terrorists in the post Sept. 11 era.” Zietlow said.
Be the first to comment on this article!