July, 24 2009, 10:31am EDT
New Report Finds Federal Courts Best Equipped to Handle Complex Terrorism Cases
Report Comes as House Armed Services Committee Hearing Takes on Reform of Military Commissions Act, Detainee Policy
WASHINGTON
Just
one day after it released a report finding that U.S. federal courts are
the best venue for handling complex terrorism cases, Human Rights First
is urging the House Armed Services Committee to abandon the use of
military commissions to prosecute suspected terrorists, warning that
the system is at odds with the Constitution, the laws of war, and
American values. The call came today as the full committee conducted a
hearing on reforming the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and detainee
policy.
"Politicians have spent eight years trying to reinvent the wheel when
it comes to prosecuting terrorism and that approach has failed
miserably. This report makes clear that the best way forward is to rely
on our existing legal system. Its track record of successfully
prosecuting criminals, safeguarding national security, and addressing
the complex legal issues of our time is unmatched," said Elisa
Massimino, Human Rights First's Chief Executive Officer.
Yesterday, Human Rights First released In Pursuit of Justice: Prosecuting Terrorism Cases in the Federal Court - 2009 Update and Recent Developments,
a report that challenges the arguments of those who favor new,
un-tested legal regimes for terrorism suspects such as "national
security courts," or administrative detention without trial. The new
report is a comprehensive, fact-based assessment of the capability of
federal courts to handle terrorism cases. Written by former federal
prosecutors Richard B. Zabel and James J. Benjamin Jr.--now partners at
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP-- the report issued yesterday by
Human Rights First is the most thorough examination to date of federal
prosecution of those who are "associated--organizationally, financially,
or ideologically--with Islamist extremist terrorist groups like al
Qaeda." It also shines new light on America's ability to safely detain
terrorism suspects within the federal prison system and the resources
needed to handle these cases.
The report offers an exhaustive analysis of a newly compiled,
comprehensive database of federal terrorism prosecutions and relevant
federal laws through May 2009. It builds on a 2008 white paper on the
topic, also released by Human Rights First. Together, these reports
examine 119 international terrorism cases with 289 defendants
prosecuted in the existing criminal justice system, ranging from epic
mega-trials, including those involving the first attack on the World
Trade Center (1993) and the East African embassy bombings (1998), to
individual, pre-emptive prosecutions focused on prevention. Of the 214
defendants whose cases were resolved as of June 2, 2009 (charges
against 75 defendants were still pending) 195 were convicted either by
verdict or by a guilty plea. This is a conviction rate of 91.121%, a
slight increase over the 90.625% conviction rate reported in May of
2008.
Human Rights First also noted the existence of widespread international
skepticism about the United States' use of military commissions and
stated that continuing to prosecute terrorist suspects using this model
will undermine President Obama's ongoing efforts to 'enlist the power
of our fundamental values.'
"This report shows that there is no
need to abandon our federal court system in order to successfully
prosecute terrorism suspects," said Human Rights First International
Legal Director Gabor Rona. "It is dangerous to downplay the very real
and drastic consequences of departures from long-standing norms of
American justice, and it is very troubling that politics - not smart
policy - has led some to exaggerate the challenges that terrorism cases
present to the traditional criminal justice system."
For more information about In Pursuit of Justice: Prosecuting Terrorism Cases in the Federal Court -2009 Update and Recent Developments, visit https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/prosecute/index.asp.
Human Rights First is a non-profit, nonpartisan international human rights organization based in New York and Washington D.C. Human Rights First believes that building respect for human rights and the rule of law will help ensure the dignity to which every individual is entitled and will stem tyranny, extremism, intolerance, and violence.
LATEST NEWS
As Trump Imposes New Tariffs, State Lawmakers Demand Direct Refunds for Americans
"Your illegal tariff taxes have created an unprecedented affordability crisis, spiking prices for groceries, cars, clothes, electronics, and countless other household necessities."
Feb 24, 2026
As President Donald Trump plows ahead with his controversial and legally contested tariffs, he faces mounting pressure to refund Americans for duties struck down last week by the US Supreme Court, including in a letter from 21 Democratic state legislators, first reported Tuesday by Common Dreams.
Lawmakers from Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and Vermont called for a swift response to the high court's "definitive ruling" last Friday that the president's imposition of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) "is illegal, unconstitutional, and amounts to an unauthorized tax on the American people."
"Your illegal tariff taxes have created an unprecedented affordability crisis, spiking prices for groceries, cars, clothes, electronics, and countless other household necessities," the lawmakers noted. "Families across our states have been forced to make impossible choices between paying for food, keeping the heat on, and affording clothing for their children."
"Farmers have lost markets, small businesses have been stretched to the breaking point, manufacturing hasn't returned as you promised, job growth flatlined, layoffs rose, and the economy has slowed to a crawl," they continued. "Your illegal tariffs have been an unmitigated disaster."
The legislators demanded that Trump "work with Congress immediately to provide a refund to American families for the illegal tariff taxes you imposed on them through higher prices on everything, from clothes and cars to electronics and groceries, and which cost families at least $1,700 each last year alone."
"These refunds should go to the American people, not just the businesses who paid the tariffs and passed on their cost to Americans in the form of higher prices, lost wages, and layoffs," they stressed. The lawmakers also demanded that Trump "immediately abide by the court's ruling and stop collecting these illegal tariff taxes," and "cease and desist on any plan or scheme to reimpose the tariffs at issue in the Supreme Court's decision without congressional approval."
The letter was organized by Defend America Action as part of a campaign pushing for tariff refunds and also sent to US Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.). Its signatories include Colorado Sen. Cathy Kipp (D-14) as well as Illinois Sens. Mary Edly-Allen (D-31) and Graciela Guzmán (D-20).
The other signatories are Democratic Reps. Ken Croken (97) of Iowa; Gary Friedmann (14) of Maine; Noah Arbit (20) and Stephen Wooden (81) of Michigan; Susan Almy (Grafton 17), Tony Caplan (Merrimack 8), and Linda Haskins (Rockingham 11) of New Hampshire; Jo Anne Simon (52) of New York; Arvind Venkat (30) of Pennsylvania; Aftyn Behn (51) Tennessee; Rhetta Andrews Bowers (113), Jessica González (104), Vikki Goodwin (47), Josey Garcia (124), Vincent Perez (77), Ron Reynolds (27), and Gene Wu (137) of Texas; and Will Greer (Bennington 2) of Vermont.
Trump is also facing pressure from Democratic governors and members of Congress in the wake of the high court's ruling. On Monday, US Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)—along with 19 other members of the chamber's Democratic Caucus, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY)—unveiled the Tariff Refund Act.
The bill would require US Customs and Border Protection to pay refunds for the $175 billion in unlawfully imposed tariffs within 180 days, prioritizing small businesses. It calls on importers, wholesalers, and large corporations to pass on those refunds to their customers.
On Tuesday, US Sens. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Peter Welch (D-Vt.)—who are all notably not original co-sponsors of that bill—wrote to Trump and highlighted that roughly 95% of the cost from Trump's IEEPA tariffs "was passed on to American families and small businesses in the form of increased costs."
"Any refunds from the federal government should be returned to the millions of Americans and small businesses that were illegally cheated out of their hard-earned money," the trio argued. "Your inability or unwillingness to provide tariff refunds to American families would represent an egregious abdication of your responsibility as president—a giveaway to giant corporations that amounts to theft from the middle class."
In the House of Representatives, Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) also signaled support for refunds, taking aim at Trump on social media Tuesday morning: "We need our money back. He owes us: $1,700 in illegal tariffs per family; $4 billion he's profited off the presidency; $1 trillion he stole in tax breaks for the ultrarich."
Trump has responded to the Supreme Court's decision by not only lashing out at justices but also doubling down on his mission to impose tariffs. Rather than relying on the IEEPA, Trump is now invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. A 10% tariff took effect on Tuesday, though the president promised over the weekend that he would aim for 15%.
"Every day, I hear from my neighbors how their cost of living is rising rapidly," Venkat, one of the state lawmakers who signed the letter, told Common Dreams. "Whether it's food, utilities, housing, or healthcare, tariffs are driving inflation and a regressive tax."
Venkat said that Trump doubling down on tariffs is "disastrous for my constituents and all Pennsylvanians."
Keep ReadingShow Less
New Poll Shows Platner Romping in Dem Primary and Comfortably Ahead of Collins for Maine Senate Seat
"Platner stomping Mills in the primary, then cruising to a double-digit win in the general election... wouldn’t just be a Senate-seat victory but a narrative earthquake," said one writer.
Feb 24, 2026
The progressive candidate Graham Platner has a commanding lead in the Democratic primary for Maine's US Senate seat over the state's centrist Gov. Janet Mills. Come November, he's also much more likely than Mills to defeat the Republican incumbent, Sen. Susan Collins.
The University of New Hampshire's Pine Tree State Poll, released Tuesday morning, showed that Platner has built momentum since October. Five months ago, 58% of likely Democratic voters said the 41-year-old oyster farmer was their first choice to be the state's next senator, compared with 24% who preferred the governor.
Now, with the June primary less than four months away, undecided voters have broken hard in Platner's favor: 64% said he’s their first choice, while Mills has only jumped up to 26%.
It's perhaps an unsurprising result, as Democratic voters overwhelmingly support the kind of economically populist anti-oligarchy politics that Platner—a proponent of Medicare for All and a federal billionaires' tax, with backing from labor unions and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—has unapologetically championed.
But Tuesday's poll suggests his message is not only resonating with Democrats. Where a race between Mills and Collins has the Democrat leading by a single point, within the margin of error, Platner would be expected to win the general election comfortably with 49% of the vote to just 38% for Collins.
The steady shift toward Platner comes as affordability issues have become increasingly salient to Maine voters. A full 35% of voters said that either the cost of living or housing was the most important problem facing Maine.
As President Donald Trump suffers historic unpopularity amid a flailing economy, the most marked shift has been concern about the cost of living. Where just 4% of Mainers said it was their No. 1 issue in March 2025, that number has shot up to 20% this month.
Collins' popularity has been in a dramatic freefall in the era of Trump 2.0, to the point where a late January Morning Consult poll showed her to be the second-least popular US senator, behind only the former longtime GOP leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
While Democratic Party insiders have long argued that voters prefer a safer, moderate candidate when ousting a hated incumbent, observers say Platner's success over the candidate backed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and much of the party establishment is redefining what it means to be "electable" in a swing state.
"The fatal part of this poll for Mills isn’t even the massive lead Platner has," said Drop Site News co-founder Ryan Grim. "It’s that he is 10 points more electable against Collins, which is the real priority for Maine voters who don’t want her in office anymore."
New York Times columnist David Wallace-Wells said: "This is a small-sample poll, and there’s a long way to go. But if something like this comes to pass—Platner stomping Mills in the primary, then cruising to a double-digit win in the general election—it wouldn’t just be a Senate-seat victory but a narrative earthquake."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ahead of State of the Union Address, Progressive Caucus Leader Tells Trump: ‘We Need Our Money Back’
"Spare us the speech," said Rep. Greg Casar. "Pay up or shut up."
Feb 24, 2026
Now that the US Supreme Court has ruled President Donald Trump levied illegal tariffs on US businesses and consumers for more than a year, progressive Democrats are escalating demands that Americans get their money back.
Days after the Supreme Court shut down Trump's ability to unilaterally enact tariffs through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) said on Tuesday that during the State of the Union address, Trump should announce refunds for Americans he unlawfully taxed.
"Americans don’t need a rambling, two hour lecture from Trump," Casar wrote in a social media post. "We need our money back. He owes us: $1,700 in illegal tariffs per family; $4 billion he’s profited off the presidency; $1 trillion he stole in tax breaks for the ultra-rich. Spare us the speech. Pay up or shut up."
Casar's demands for tariff refunds aren't isolated.
Politico reported on Monday that Democrats have pounced on the Supreme Court ruling to deliver a simple message to voters: Trump wrongfully took your money and should return it.
Rep. Steven Horsford (D-Nev.), who along with Rep. Janelle Bynum (D-Ore.) introduced legislation mandating tariff refunds on Friday, accused Trump of outright thievery.
"When someone takes money that wasn’t authorized and does it in a way that harms you," Horsford told Politico, "they’ve stolen from you, and that is what the Trump administration has done for the last year."
Horsford's rhetoric echoed a statement made by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who said in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling last week that Trump "illegally stole your money" and "should give it back to you" instead of trying to cook up new ways to slap tariffs on imported goods.
Groundwork Collaborative on Tuesday previewed Trump's State of the Union speech by noting the president has totally failed to keep his promise to bring down prices, adding that his tariffs "cost the average working family nearly $1,200 last year."
"No matter what Trump says in the upcoming State of the Union address," Groundwork Collaborative said, "it won’t change the fact that working families know that the president and his lackeys in Congress alone bear responsibility for painfully high prices and a dragging economy."
Although the Supreme Court clipped Trump's power to levy tariffs via the IEEPA, he has since announced plans to issue a 15% global tariff using his authority under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to levy tariffs to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits with foreign nations.
However, as a recent analysis by the libertarian Cato Institute explained, any tariffs enacted through Section 122 expire after 150 days without authorization from Congress, which in theory could put vulnerable congressional Republicans on the spot to vote for or against the president’s signature economic policy this summer right before the 2026 midterm elections.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular