What do you think?
Rate this book
The Terror Courts: Rough Justice at Guantanamo Bay
The first inside account of America’s continuing legal experiment at Guantanamo Bay—a permanent, offshore justice system designed to assure convictions by denying constitutional rights
Soon after the September 11 attacks in 2001, the United States captured hundreds of suspected al-Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan and around the world. By the following January the first of these prisoners arrived at the U.S. military’s prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where they were subject to President George W. Bush’s executive order authorizing their trial by military commissions. Jess Bravin, the Wall Street Journal ’s Supreme Court correspondent, was there within days of the prison’s opening, and has continued ever since to cover the U.S. effort to create a parallel justice system for enemy aliens. A maze of legal, political, and moral issues has stood in the way of justice—issues often raised by military prosecutors who found themselves torn between duty to the chain of command and their commitment to fundamental American values. While much has been written about Guantanamo and brutal detention practices following 9/11, Bravin is the first to go inside the Pentagon’s prosecution team to expose the real-world legal consequences of those policies. Bravin describes cases undermined by inadmissible evidence obtained through torture, clashes between military lawyers and administration appointees, and political interference in criminal prosecutions that would be shocking within the traditional civilian and military justice systems. With the Obama administration planning to try the alleged 9/11 conspirators at Guantanamo—and vindicate the legal experiment the Bush administration could barely get off the ground— The Terror Courts could not be more timely.
Soon after the September 11 attacks in 2001, the United States captured hundreds of suspected al-Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan and around the world. By the following January the first of these prisoners arrived at the U.S. military’s prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where they were subject to President George W. Bush’s executive order authorizing their trial by military commissions. Jess Bravin, the Wall Street Journal ’s Supreme Court correspondent, was there within days of the prison’s opening, and has continued ever since to cover the U.S. effort to create a parallel justice system for enemy aliens. A maze of legal, political, and moral issues has stood in the way of justice—issues often raised by military prosecutors who found themselves torn between duty to the chain of command and their commitment to fundamental American values. While much has been written about Guantanamo and brutal detention practices following 9/11, Bravin is the first to go inside the Pentagon’s prosecution team to expose the real-world legal consequences of those policies. Bravin describes cases undermined by inadmissible evidence obtained through torture, clashes between military lawyers and administration appointees, and political interference in criminal prosecutions that would be shocking within the traditional civilian and military justice systems. With the Obama administration planning to try the alleged 9/11 conspirators at Guantanamo—and vindicate the legal experiment the Bush administration could barely get off the ground— The Terror Courts could not be more timely.
448 pages, Hardcover
First published October 28, 2006
10 people are currently reading
293 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
December 5, 2019
This is a very lucid examination of what the Bush administration did after 9/11 to bypass justice, to allow torture, and to sequester prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
Shortly after 9/11 there was a seizure for power by the presidential executive to bypass all regular procedures for law enforcement. All power and decision making, particularly for legal purposes (the power of arrest, detainment, the means of waging war...), was to be done at the presidential level. People could be arrested and charges made up after (or not at all). There was an Orwellian doubletalk. In the words of George Bush in June 2003 (page 80 my book): “Burma, Cuba, North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe have long sought to shield their abuses from the eyes of the world by staging elaborate deceptions and denying access to international human rights monitors...We are leading this fight by example. I will call on all governments to join the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating and persecuting all acts of torture and in order to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment”.
The findings of other U.S. citizens rather blunted these fine words. The great strength of this book is we follow the lives of several military personnel as their careers unravelled after visits to Guantanamo.
Page 157 Major Preston
“I lie awake worrying about this every night. I find it impossible to focus on my part of the mission – after all writing a motion saying that the process will be full and fair when you don’t really believe it will be kind of hard – particularly when you want to call yourself an officer and a lawyer. This assignment is quite literally ruining my life”.
Page 153 Lt. Col Stuart Couch
“Due to legal, ethical, and moral issues arising from past interrogations of this detainee, I refuse to associate with any further prosecution efforts against him.
...These techniques violate provisions of the 1984 United Nations Conventions Against Torture.
... I am morally opposed to the interrogation techniques, employed with this detainee and for that reason alone refuse to participate in his prosecution in any manner”
The prosecutors became aware of the torture (and in some cases witnessed it) and could not bring themselves to prosecute the detainees at Guantanamo. They were morally repulsed and in a legal sense they felt that all testimony delivered under torture would be dismissed due to coercive methods. In some cases the government did not even want testimony or evidence presented because they didn’t want it made public. Guantanamo became a complete fiasco.
Idealistic allusions would surface from time to time to make the Guantanamo trials akin to the Nuremburg Trials. The idea was to expose the full horrors al Qaeda’s world view – and this would have been a good thing. But in comparison to Nuremburg, Guantanamo was secretive. The trials at Nuremberg were filmed, reporters were permitted. Guantanamo was not open, filming was prohibited and only selected reporters were allowed. Even drawings of the courtroom were censored.
Due to a Bush administration ruling it was a modified military court that was to try the Guantanamo prisoners. Again, in contrast to Nuremberg where the elite of America’s judiciary were sent; we witness a far less impressive array of judiciary at Guantanamo. The author points out that the civilian justice system had far more experience and success at prosecuting terrorists. They had more background in dealing with terrorists than the modified military courts.
And very sadly some of the prisoners, because they were British or Australian citizens were returned to those countries. Other charges were dismissed because of statements obtained under coercion. All this is very sad because many of those released were indeed dangerous – and what are they up to now?
I feel this book is a good companion volume to 500 Days: Decisions and Deceptions in the Shadow of 9/11 by Kurt Eichenwald. Even though this book had many legal aspects it was very readable (well, perhaps the levels of judiciary became confusing at times). More than that it was a moral book as well - several individuals felt they had to make a life choice. We feel their anguish.
Shortly after 9/11 there was a seizure for power by the presidential executive to bypass all regular procedures for law enforcement. All power and decision making, particularly for legal purposes (the power of arrest, detainment, the means of waging war...), was to be done at the presidential level. People could be arrested and charges made up after (or not at all). There was an Orwellian doubletalk. In the words of George Bush in June 2003 (page 80 my book): “Burma, Cuba, North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe have long sought to shield their abuses from the eyes of the world by staging elaborate deceptions and denying access to international human rights monitors...We are leading this fight by example. I will call on all governments to join the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating and persecuting all acts of torture and in order to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment”.
The findings of other U.S. citizens rather blunted these fine words. The great strength of this book is we follow the lives of several military personnel as their careers unravelled after visits to Guantanamo.
Page 157 Major Preston
“I lie awake worrying about this every night. I find it impossible to focus on my part of the mission – after all writing a motion saying that the process will be full and fair when you don’t really believe it will be kind of hard – particularly when you want to call yourself an officer and a lawyer. This assignment is quite literally ruining my life”.
Page 153 Lt. Col Stuart Couch
“Due to legal, ethical, and moral issues arising from past interrogations of this detainee, I refuse to associate with any further prosecution efforts against him.
...These techniques violate provisions of the 1984 United Nations Conventions Against Torture.
... I am morally opposed to the interrogation techniques, employed with this detainee and for that reason alone refuse to participate in his prosecution in any manner”
The prosecutors became aware of the torture (and in some cases witnessed it) and could not bring themselves to prosecute the detainees at Guantanamo. They were morally repulsed and in a legal sense they felt that all testimony delivered under torture would be dismissed due to coercive methods. In some cases the government did not even want testimony or evidence presented because they didn’t want it made public. Guantanamo became a complete fiasco.
Idealistic allusions would surface from time to time to make the Guantanamo trials akin to the Nuremburg Trials. The idea was to expose the full horrors al Qaeda’s world view – and this would have been a good thing. But in comparison to Nuremburg, Guantanamo was secretive. The trials at Nuremberg were filmed, reporters were permitted. Guantanamo was not open, filming was prohibited and only selected reporters were allowed. Even drawings of the courtroom were censored.
Due to a Bush administration ruling it was a modified military court that was to try the Guantanamo prisoners. Again, in contrast to Nuremberg where the elite of America’s judiciary were sent; we witness a far less impressive array of judiciary at Guantanamo. The author points out that the civilian justice system had far more experience and success at prosecuting terrorists. They had more background in dealing with terrorists than the modified military courts.
And very sadly some of the prisoners, because they were British or Australian citizens were returned to those countries. Other charges were dismissed because of statements obtained under coercion. All this is very sad because many of those released were indeed dangerous – and what are they up to now?
I feel this book is a good companion volume to 500 Days: Decisions and Deceptions in the Shadow of 9/11 by Kurt Eichenwald. Even though this book had many legal aspects it was very readable (well, perhaps the levels of judiciary became confusing at times). More than that it was a moral book as well - several individuals felt they had to make a life choice. We feel their anguish.
February 8, 2021
This book begins hyper detailed but by the end clearly runs out of steam. It does a nice job of setting up the tribunals but clearly, once the author’s primary source was sidelined a lot of the detail dries up. Ultimately this book was probably written a decade too early as the after life of the tribunals is a story very much worth telling.
October 28, 2017
Well researched and written. Frustrating facts.
July 7, 2025
educational; focuses on the related political/legal maneuvering
March 19, 2016
From http://weeksnotice.blogspot.com/2016/...
I read Jess Bravin's The Terror Courts: Rough Justice at Guantanamo Bay (2013). It tells the story of how The Bush administration envisioned military courts being a way of dispensing loose justice, but then also how highly ethical military lawyers worked to reject evidence based on torture. It's a great read, though disappointing how its common sense lessons don't penetrate more into the public consciousness.
Bravin is a Wall Street Journal reporter. His narrative keeps coming back to Lt. Col. Stu Couch, who was one of those lawyers. He was dedicated to holding people accountable for 9/11 but then discovered that for the most part these were low level Al Qaeda operatives and that they had been tortured. Meanwhile, the military justice system itself was ill-equipped to deal with the prisoners. The obvious point was that anger about 9/11 should not mean throwing our constitutional values out the window.
For me, perhaps the most important lesson of the book is that federal courts are much more effective than military courts for effective prosecution. This is critical in the current debate over Guantamano. There remains a perception that holding people there somehow is "safer" or more effective. Federal prosecutors wanted to get their hands on some of the suspects, but instead they were tried in a chaotic and sometimes even bungling military commission system. All to our detriment.
I read Jess Bravin's The Terror Courts: Rough Justice at Guantanamo Bay (2013). It tells the story of how The Bush administration envisioned military courts being a way of dispensing loose justice, but then also how highly ethical military lawyers worked to reject evidence based on torture. It's a great read, though disappointing how its common sense lessons don't penetrate more into the public consciousness.
Bravin is a Wall Street Journal reporter. His narrative keeps coming back to Lt. Col. Stu Couch, who was one of those lawyers. He was dedicated to holding people accountable for 9/11 but then discovered that for the most part these were low level Al Qaeda operatives and that they had been tortured. Meanwhile, the military justice system itself was ill-equipped to deal with the prisoners. The obvious point was that anger about 9/11 should not mean throwing our constitutional values out the window.
For me, perhaps the most important lesson of the book is that federal courts are much more effective than military courts for effective prosecution. This is critical in the current debate over Guantamano. There remains a perception that holding people there somehow is "safer" or more effective. Federal prosecutors wanted to get their hands on some of the suspects, but instead they were tried in a chaotic and sometimes even bungling military commission system. All to our detriment.
March 20, 2014
Great inside perspective on the legal arbitrariness behind the construction of military commissions in addition to a follow up on the lack of action by the Obama administration in closing these commissions and Guantanamo Bay entirely. The idealization of particular elements of the American military in ethical terms, in addition to the uncritical promotion of the American judiciary system (the federal court system in particular)----> despite highlighting the political ideological bias that plagues these courts is unwarranted and a bit of a potentially "liberal" bias on behalf of the author. Also loved reading about Yoo and Katyal. Many tend to depict Yoo as this legal genius that is stuck on the wrong side of the ideological spectrum. Bravin's account on Yoo's academic and legal background convey that he is nothing more than an opportunist that got lucky by playing devil's advocate. (Which having witnessed Yoo's debates and read some of his writings I would argue Bravin's depiction is more true to form).
March 24, 2014
Pretty good book. The author has a tendency to ramble a little. He gives a ton of background on some of the players, including some long passages on their home towns. When the book focuses on the inner workings of the terror courts it's very interesting. I would say my only other critique is that a very small amount of information is first person interviews - most just comes from interviews from other journalists. But the author does put everything together in a way that tracks the courts creation through the cases. Definitely a must read if you want to understand the process and politics behind the Guantanamo trials.
September 16, 2013
A skillfully written, beautifully lucid book that takes us behind the scenes of the Bush administration's decision to bypass the American judicial system and prosecute terror suspects by military commission. Recommended reading for critics and supporters of the administration's approach to the war on terror.
November 22, 2013
An excellent reporting job on the creation and (dis)functioning of the military commission courts set up after 9/11. Bravin manages to maintain a fairly even keel. I was most impressed by the individuals who dutifully did their jobs conscientiously, in particular the hero of the story, Stuart Couch. Couch proved that doing the right thing is not an ideological position.
April 28, 2015
Having gone down and personally witnessed the pre-trial proceedings for detainees, this book gives a fantastic, unbiased, well-researched background to what I saw. This is a must read for anyone interested in U.S. efforts to figure out how to deal with terrorists in a battlefield that is not clear cut.
August 15, 2013
A very good read. It was well researched and clearly written. Not a book you can pick up and put down as you read it (unless you have a better memory for names than I do) but still an interesting book.
May 24, 2013
not a good narrative. Too many characters each with their own background. Not a fan and knew it from the start.
July 5, 2013
An excellent history of the legal history that led to the wrongs of American efforts in bringing. Terrorist to justice. You cannot justify unlawfulness.
August 10, 2013
A very well researched book, i enjoyed reading every page of it
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews