Human rights group says federal courts are best equipped to handle terrorism cases

I've written time and time again about how the Bush administration's military commissions in the "war on terror" were nothing more than a kangaroo court system.

Still, the Obama administration apparently wants to continue this travesty of justice, at least for some detainees, albeit with the promise of some changes.

But there is a far better alternative.

Legal experts and human rights advocates have been calling for the Obama administration to transfer the terrorism cases to our federal court system. If our federal courts were good enough for Timothy McVeigh, and good enough to effectively lock away the perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, then they're certainly good enough for the Gitmo crowd.

Furthermore, the group Human Rights First (HRF) recently released a report finding that the U.S. federal courts are actually the best equipped venues for handling complex terrorism cases. To that end, HRF is urging the House Armed Services Committee to abandon the use of military commissions, which HRF describes as being "at odds with the Constitution, the laws of war, and American values."

Elisa Massimino, HRF's Chief Executive Officer, issued the following statement upon the release of the new report:

"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."

Well said. So then why does our government have to make it all seem so complicated?

>> Read the HRF report: In Pursuit of Justice: Prosecuting Terrorism Cases in the Federal Court - 2009 Update and Recent Developments