The Corner

National Security Court

There is a lot of rumbling suddenly about the possibility of Congress crafting new procedures for the handling of war-on-terror detainees.  Much of this, for sure, is the result of the Supreme Court’s ominous announcement, on the last day of its term, that, next fall, it will hear a detainee case on which it had earlier denied certiorari — a case that squarely raises the question whether alien enemy combatants have constitutional rights (not just habeas rights but, if transnational progressives have their way, all the rights guaranteed to Americans by our founding law).

Many people are uncomfortable with the idea that a matter so crucial to America’s ability to fight war successfully may hinge on which side of the litigation Justice Kennedy gets up on that morning.  It is virtually always better for Congress to legislate solutions in such circumstances than for the courts to impose them ad hoc — especially if such impositions take the form of a Supreme Court decision rooted in the Constitution, something that is almost impossible to overturn in our system and creates a constitutional crisis if ignored.

Last week, Jack Goldsmith of Harvard and Neal Katyal of Georgetown jointly penned a very interesting op-ed in the New York Times, discussing the idea of a new terrorist court.  Ben Wittes has recently broached the subject at TNR.  Stuart Taylor also wrote about it last February, based largely on discussions with Neal and me.

I’ve been thinking about this issue, and wishing Congress would act on it, for quite a while now–first publicly suggesting a National Security Court in a piece for NRO back in May 2004, after news of Abu Ghraib broke.  Last year, with the help of the superb Alykhan Velshi, formerly of FDD, I did a comprehensive white paper for AEI called, “We Need a National Security Court.” 

Thanks to the graciousness of AEI’s John Yoo, FDD is now at liberty to make the paper available publicly on our website, here

The paper undertakes to analyze the history of, and problems with, treating terrorism as a criminal justice issue, as well as the difficulties of fitting its legal issues into the war paradigm.  It proposes a hybrid:  The creation of a new court that takes the best features of both systems, does not grant terrorists full constitutional rights, but has enough safeguards that other countries (in whose territories terrorists are likely to be apprehended in the future) would be more willing to extradite detainees to it than they have been to our present military system.

The paper is scheduled to be formally released later this year as part of an AEI book, Outsourcing American Law, derived from a conference John put together (and I participated in) back in 2006.  The issue of creating a National Security Court was also center-stage last January at our inaugural conference for FDD’s new Center on Law & Counterterrorism.  It’s my hope that this is the sort of contribution the CLC will make to important national security questions — and I’m gratified that there has been a good deal of interest in the paper in Washington over the last few weeks.

Most Popular


Courage: The Greatest of Virtues

Dear Reader (Or Listener), As the reporter assigned the job of writing the article about all of Sidney Blumenthal’s friends and supporters told his editor, I’m going to have to keep this short. I’ve spent most of every day this week in a studio recording the audiobook version of my dead-tree/pixel ... Read More

My American Dream

This morning, at 8 a.m., I did something I’ve wanted to do for as long as I can remember: I became an American. I first applied for a visa in early 2011, and since then I have slowly worked my way through the system — first as a visa-holder, then as a permanent resident (green card), and, finally, as a ... Read More

The Gun-Control Debate Could Break America

Last night, the nation witnessed what looked a lot like an extended version of the famous “two minutes hate” from George Orwell’s novel 1984. During a CNN town hall on gun control, a furious crowd of Americans jeered at two conservatives, Marco Rubio and Dana Loesch, who stood in defense of the Second ... Read More

Billy Graham: Neither Prophet nor Theologian

Asked in 1972 if he believed in miracles, Billy Graham answered: Yes, Jesus performed some and there are many "miracles around us today, including television and airplanes." Graham was no theologian. Neither was he a prophet. Jesus said "a prophet hath no honor in his own country." Prophets take adversarial ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Obstruction Confusions

In his Lawfare critique of one of my several columns about the purported obstruction case against President Trump, Gabriel Schoenfeld loses me — as I suspect he will lose others — when he says of himself, “I do not think I am Trump-deranged.” Gabe graciously expresses fondness for me, and the feeling is ... Read More