Alien Terrorist Removal Court - Yup, that's a thing

[JW2020]

http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/terrorist-court-unused-16-years-after-creation-14746

More than 15 years since its creation – and a decade after 9/11 – a special court for deporting suspected foreign terrorists has never been used.

Since 1996, five federal judges have been regularly appointed to sit on the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, a court most people have never heard of.

The court has no budget or staff, though the clerk of the U.S. District Court in Washington will serve that role if needed. But legal observers, attorneys and even the judges appointed to the court wonder if that will ever happen.

"I guess I’m still on the court, though I’m not too nervous about being called to active duty," said U.S. District Court Judge David D. Dowd, one of the court's original sitting jurists. "Our court has suggested that Congress should just abolish the court if it's not going to be used, but no one has taken the bait on that issue."

The terrorist court is just one of a few unused – and potentially unconstitutional – counterterrorism laws that remain on the books. Created by Congress in the aftermath of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks in 1993 and 9/11, these legal vestiges may have run their course, been rendered useless by other laws or were never necessary.

[dixiegrrrrl]

1. Where would we want to deport suspected terrorists to???

wonder what court is not being used to decide if a suspected terrorist is a real terrorist.
Well, in the USA I mean.
In other countries, we seem to just drone them to death and call all the body parts "terrorists".

[treestar]

2. Seems like a removable alien is removable alien

So why have special courts for each type?

But as that article says, use it and lose it.

The three laws all could be struck down, possibly making the government wary of their use, said Stephanie Blum, an adjunct law professor at Michigan State University and author of a Lewis & Clark Law Review article that examines the three unused laws. She described the scenario as "use it and lose it."

Which is interesting in that we see people demanding they simply not be used, because of being unconstitutional. Yet they will stay on the books if not challenged.