In Pursuit of Justice Prosecuting Terrorism Cases in the Federal Courts 2009 Update and Recent Developments Richard B. Zabel James J. Benjamin, Jr. July 2009 About Us 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. Human Rights First protects people at risk: refugees who flee persecution, victims of crimes against humanity or other mass human rights violations, victims of discrimination, those whose rights are eroded in the name of national security, and human rights advocates who are targeted for defending the rights of others. These groups are often the first victims of societal instability and breakdown; their treatment is a harbinger of wider-scale repression. Human Rights First works to prevent violations against these groups and to seek justice and accountability for violations against them. Human Rights First is practical and effective. We advocate for change at the highest levels of national and international policymaking. We seek justice through the courts. We raise awareness and understanding through the media. We build coalitions among those with divergent views. And we mobilize people to act. Human Rights First is a non-profit, nonpartisan international human rights organization based in New York and Washington D.C. To maintain our independence, we accept no government funding. This report is available for free online at www.humanrightsfirst.org © 2009 Human Rights First. All Rights Reserved. Headquarters Washington D.C. Office 333 Seventh Avenue 100 Maryland Avenue, NE 13th Floor Suite 500 New York, NY 10001-5108 Washington, DC 20002-5625 Tel.: 212.845.5200 Tel: 202.547.5692 Fax: 212.845.5299 Fax: 202.543.5999 www.humanrightsfirst.org In Pursuit of Justice: 2009 Update Preface As the Obama Administration takes steps to shut down analyzed 119 cases with 289 defendants. Of the 214 the Guantánamo Bay detention facility, the heated defendants whose cases were resolved as of June 2, debate over when and how to prosecute suspected 2009 (charges against 75 defendants were still pend- terrorists continues. Some commentators have asserted ing), 195 were convicted either by verdict or by a guilty that bringing accused terrorists to the United States to plea. This is a conviction rate of 91.121%, a slight face trial and incarceration poses a danger to American increase over the 90.625% conviction rate reported in communities. Others have argued for the creation of a May of 2008. new, untested legal regime to preventively detain Our research also found: and/or prosecute persons suspected of complicity in terrorism. Often missing from this debate is the fact that The statutes available to the Department of Justice the federal courts are continuing to build on their proven for the prosecution of suspected terrorists continue track record of serving as an effective and fair tool for to be deployed forcefully, fairly, and with just re- incapacitating terrorists. sults. Because of the importance of resolving the question of Courts are authorizing the detention of terrorism when and how to try and detain terrorism suspects to suspects under established criminal and immigra- our national security, our legal culture, and our standing tion law authority and, now through the time-tested in the world, we have updated our May 2008 report, In common law system, are delimiting the scope of Pursuit of Justice: Prosecuting Terrorism Cases in the military detention to meet the demands of the cur- Federal Courts, to include cases and developments rent circumstances. from the past year. Together, we believe In Pursuit of The Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA), Justice along with this 2009 Report, In Pursuit of although subject to being improved, is working as it Justice: Prosecuting Terrorism Cases in the Federal should: we were unable to identify a single in- Courts—2009 Update and Recent Developments stance in which CIPA was invoked and there was a (hereinafter “2009 Report”), are the most comprehen- substantial leak of sensitive information as a result sive analysis ever undertaken of criminal cases arising of a terrorism prosecution in federal court. from terrorism that is associated—organizationally, financially, or ideologically—with self-described “ji- The Miranda requirement is not preventing intelli- hadist” or Islamist extremist groups like al Qaeda. And gence professionals from interrogating prisoners, we hope these reports will continue to help focus the and recent court decisions have not interpreted debate on these important issues. In total, we have Miranda, even in the context of foreign law en- Human Rights First Preface forcement interrogations, as a bar to criminal The primary authors of this 2009 Report are Richard B. prosecution. Zabel and James J. Benjamin, Jr., partners in the New York office of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. Prosecutors are able to make use of a wide array of They, along with a dedicated team at Akin Gump, evidence to establish their cases. devoted much hard work and many long hours to Convicted terrorists continue to receive stiff prepare this report on a pro bono basis. Members of the sentences. Akin Gump team include Joseph Sorkin, Jessica Budoff, The Federal Bureau of Prisons has been detaining and Amit Kurlekar, who provided indispensable leader- ship and assistance throughout the process, as well as accused and convicted hardened terrorists in U.S. prisons on a continuous basis since at least the Peter Altman, Daniel Chau, Russell Collins, Jane Datillo, early 1990s without harm to the surrounding Ryan Donohue, Monica Duda, Jonathan Eisenman, Daniel Fisher, Jessica Herlihy, Leslie Lanphear, Sherene communities. Lewis, Isabelle Liberman, Kathleen Matsoukas, Andrew In sum, the federal courts, while not perfect, are a fit Meehan, Elizabeth Raskin, Gary Thompson, Ashley and flexible resource that should be used along with Waters, and Elizabeth Young. Although Akin Gump is other government resources—including military force, proud of the firm’s commitment to pro bono work, the intelligence gathering, diplomatic efforts, and cultural views expressed in this 2009 Report include those of and economic initiatives—as an important part of a the primary authors and Human Rights First; they are multi-pronged counterterrorism strategy. In contrast, the not the views of Akin Gump as a whole or other Akin creation of a brand-new court system or preventive Gump attorneys. detention scheme from scratch would be expensive, uncertain, and almost certainly controversial. The analysis of additional data from the past year confirms our conclusion from In Pursuit of Justice that the criminal justice system has been and should continue to be an important tool in confronting terrorism. Human Rights First In Pursuit of Justice: 2009 Update Table of Contents I. Introduction and Overview........................................................................................................................... 1 II. The Data on Cases Prosecuted in Federal Court ............................................................................................ 5 III. Recent Developments in Material Support Law and the Emergence of Narco-Terrorism Prosecutions ........................................................................................................................................... 13 A. Material Support Statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 2339A and 2339B) ............................................................................................. 13 B. Narco-Terrorism Statute (21 U.S.C. § 960a) ....................................................................................................................... 16 IV. Detention of Individuals Suspected of Involvement with Terrorism................................................................19 V. Balancing the Demands of Due Process with the Need to Protect Classified Information................................ 25 VI. The Miranda Requirement in Terrorism Cases ............................................................................................. 29 A. The Abu Ali Case................................................................................................................................................................. 31 B. The Embassy Bombings Case ............................................................................................................................................. 32 VII. Broad Array of Evidence Successfully Introduced in Terrorism Prosecutions.................................................. 35 A. United States v. Abu Ali— the Confrontation Clause ............................................................................................................. 35 B. United States v. al-Moayad—the importance of attention to evidentiary requirements .......................................................... 37 C. United States v. Ahmed and United States v. al-Delaema—illustrating the breadth of available evidence in terrorism cases.. 38 VIII. Recent Developments in Sentencing Terrorism Defendants ......................................................................... 41 IX. Safety and Security of Communities Near Prisons Holding Terrorism Defendants........................................... 45 X. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................