One issue could be that the crimes foreign terrorists are accused of tend to be particularly heinous, so courts would be more likely than usual to make one-side

One issue could be that the crimes foreign terrorists are accused of tend to be particularly heinous, so courts would be more likely than usual to make one-sided rulings to make sure they got convicted. A potential example can be seen in the recent trial of domestic terrorist Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, where serious questions about the impartiality of the jury were apparently ignored: https://blog.simplejustice.us/2015/01/23/just-another-term-of-art/ https://blog.simplejustice.us/2015/01/23/just-another-term-o... The decision not to change venue was later upheld on appeal, with a dissent: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/01/03/no-change-of-venue-in-tsarnaev-boston-marathon-bombing-trial/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... Perhaps in this particular case the decision wasn't wrong but it's not hard to imagine other, worse scenarios. And in these foreign terrorism cases there's all kinds of crazy stuff going on, like bribing random governments to identify and kidnap suspects for us to interrogate. Faced with the choice of (a) not doing that kind of stuff anymore, (b) letting the accused terrorists go free because our questionable activities violated their rights or tainted the evidence against them, or (c) interpreting the law to make all this stuff allowed, I'm not sure I want to find out what we would pick.