This Human Rights First study has been making the rounds, and with good reason. The report says that of over 120 terrorism cases prosecuted in federal criminal courts since the 1990s, the government has won convictions 91 percent of the time -- and of the 19 acquittals, the defendants were all convicted of another crime. The report also says that "Courts ... through the time-tested common law system, are delimiting the scope of military detention to meet the demands of the current circumstances." In other words, the report argues that "preventive detention" is being limited to a military context (rather than simply people we believe are "dangerous") the only one in which most human-rights advocates believe is appropriate.
The kind of material support and conspiracy laws the government uses to convict suspected terrorists are incredibly broad, which is part of the reason why they have such success securing convictions. It's remarkable to me that with a conviction rate of 91 percent (or 100 percent, if we're counting those who were later convicted of another charge) the conversation is about whether the courts are adequate to try terrorism suspects rather than say, the laws themselves are so broad that they virtually ensure conviction.
-- A. Serwer
