Question: "Should Suspected Terrorists Be Tried in Military Courts or Ordinary Criminal Courts?" As the Obama administration and Congress grapple with issues stemming from the impending closure of the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and consider how to deliver justice in complex terrorism cases, America's federal court system holds many of the solutions the nation's leaders seek, according to a new report by two former federal prosecutors. In Pursuit of Justice: Prosecuting Terrorism Cases in the Federal Court-2009 Update and Recent Developments challenges the arguments of those who favor new, untested legal regimes for terrorism suspects such as "national security courts" or administrative detention without trial by presenting a comprehensive, fact-based assessment of the capability of federal courts to handle terrorism cases. The report is the most thorough examination to date of federal terrorism cases brought against those who are associated-organizationally, financially, or ideologically-with Islamist extremist terrorist groups such as al Qaeda.

Instructions: 1. Go to the website www.cengage.com/criminaljustice/samaha.

2. Read the full report.

3. Write a policy position paper summarizing the debate over whether to try suspected terrorists in military or ordinary courts. Take a stand on whether ordinary or military courts promote the most ethical public policy.