Bipartisan Push Builds to Stop Terrorist Trials in Civilian Courts
EmailABC News' Z. Byron Wolf reports: Two Democrats joined Republicans today introducing legislation to deny President Obama money to transport suspected 9/11 conspirators stateside and try them in civilian courts. It is unclear when or how this measure would come to a vote, but it is abundantly clear that President Obama’s plan to use the American justice system to try suspected 9/11 conspirators is in serious jeopardy. Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark, who faces a tough reelection bid, was asked by a reporter at a press conference today if the President is being “tone deaf” in asking moderate Democrats to support his plan. “I’d be tone deaf if I didn’t speak for the people,” said Lincoln, questioning the “cost, security and appropriateness” of using civilian courts to try suspected terrorists. The President acknowledged Congressional opposition and public opinion much in an interview broadcast Monday on YouTube. And while he said opposition to closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay has “been one of those things that's been subject to a lot of, in some cases, pretty rank politics,” President Obama admitted that if Congress rejects his funding request, he will be hampered in his plan.
Because Congress ultimately controls the purse strings in creating new facilities. If Congress makes a decision that they are going to try to block the opening of a new facility, it potentially constrains what our administration can do,” he said.
The President included $73 million in his budget request, but added he would work with local officials to appropriate more money as necessary. New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly has estimated holding terror trials in New York City could reach $200 million per year for security.
Senators voted overwhelmingly in May of 2009 to strip funds for closing the Guantanamo Bay prison from a war funding bill.
Lincoln was today joined by Democratic Sen. Jim Webb, of Virginia, whose state includes the federal court where 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui was tried. Webb said today that the US should not be the criminal court for the world and argued government plans to permanently incarcerate some GTMO detainees it does not feel comfortable trying would create legal issues in the civilian court system. “Confuses place with process,” Webb said. “The Issue is not Guantanamo Bay.” “It's hard to bring the people of New York City and Little Rock together but they have done that,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, of the growing opposition to civilian trials. Graham favors trying suspected 9/11 conspirators like Khalid Sheikh Mohamed in military trials at Guantanamo Bay, where they are currently held. Republicans have rallied around this issue. Lincoln and Webb were joined by Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman, who often votes with Republicans on security issues, as well as Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) and John McCain (R-Ariz). Lieberman said the trial of suspected 9/11 conspirators in civilian court as “common criminals” would be like “justice in Alice in Wonderland.” "These people are war criminals not common criminals,” said Lieberman, roughly. “The rule of law that should be tried according to is the rule of the law of war.” Justice can’t be blind to terror threat.” But Graham said those who oppose civilian trials are not fear mongering.
“The consequences of the President’s decisions are scaring people. Not politicians,” said Graham. Graham argued that the military commission process he helped develop is better equipped and more appropriate to try the 9/11 suspects while keeping the trials off US shores. “It is about the system that is best able to protect the American people,” Graham said. There was also criticism of the decision to read the suspected Christmas Day bomber his Miranda rights. “I have some experience with interrogation and 50 minutes does not get you what you need,” said Sen. John McCain, who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam.
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
Obama has so many good ideas and is making so much progress in so many areas. By far this is the worst judgment he has made so far. Why in the world, would he defy common sense and want to try terrorists at war with the U.S. in our civilian courts? The Christmas Bomber was singing like a canary until he was read his rights. Congress fine-tuned the military commission trial format in 2005 to be more suited to these new types of enemy combatants. Every time the administration is asked about this they respond: “KSM will be tried, found guilty and executed.” This shows they just don’t get it! The public is not asking them to prejudge these scumbags, we’re asking them to put them in military courts where they belong.
Posted by: hopesprings52 | February 2, 2010, 3:10 pm 3:10 pm
Obama has creaed a mess, the terrorists should not have a forum on US soil. Military tribunals are the best way to go, cost effective and it will protect American confidential information. Also Obama turning over the internet to international powers, coupled with many dangerous ideas and actions should call for his immediate impeachment on the grounds of not protecting America.
Posted by: Downwithsocialism | February 2, 2010, 4:06 pm 4:06 pm
Terrorists are not war criminals.They are criminals and thugs. Just because we claim a “war” on terror, doesn’t mean we are at war. Many cities have waged wars on crime. It’s a play of words.Terrorists come from many countries and have no direct ties with any government.And now is not the time to change laws to accommodate politicians’ verbiage and hopes for reelection. According to the law, how are terrorists going to be defined? Anybody that kills out of hate for the US? A disgruntled postal worker that kills postal employees? Will he now be defined as a war criminal that committed a crime against our government,and require a military tribunal? Will we hand over our civil liberties to the government? It’s our right as Americans to try and convict these criminals for their hate crimes. And we should be happy to do it. Maybe Manhattan isn’t the place for the trial, but terrorists should be tried in civilian courts. This notion that a military tribunal will result in a different outcome is ridiculous. The other terrorists involved in 911 have been tried and convicted in a civilian court. And so should the rest of them.
Posted by: catsrboss | February 2, 2010, 4:09 pm 4:09 pm
Hey catsrboss, since most of the issues we have are with Islamist extremists, how’s this for a definition of “terrorism”? Muslim + proven communication with known terrorist factions + attempt to kill Americans in any location = terrorism. See how easy this is? Silly liberal.
Posted by: C. Heston | February 2, 2010, 4:50 pm 4:50 pm
“Obama has so many good ideas and is making so much progress in so many areas”–hopesprings52
Such as?
Healthcare? Nope
Bipartisianship? Nuh-uh
Transparency? Think again
Lobbyist influence? Better luck next time
Job? Not quite
So what exact progress has he made?
Posted by: worker man | February 2, 2010, 5:14 pm 5:14 pm
Hey Worker Man:
Give Obama his props man. He has made huge progress. He has singlehandedly reinvented the Republican Party and the cause of conservatism as well as destroying the Democtratic Party; all in one year! Soon the conspiracy goons will begin the rumor that the pres is in fact a covert Republican operative.
Posted by: Brianlaws | February 2, 2010, 8:40 pm 8:40 pm
How about we start defining war criminals as non-US citizens – at least then we are not handing over our “civil liberties.”
President Obama has made zero progress. America elected a Chicago politician that has accomplished nothing in his entire career except get elected to things…congrats.
If we only had a place where we could secure the 9/11 terrorists, try them as U.S. enemy combatants – as they would have attacked any city if it had enough of an impact – and keep American citizens out of harms way, we’d be set….somewhere maybe 90 miles from the mainland would be perfect….
Posted by: Mike | February 2, 2010, 8:59 pm 8:59 pm
“The President included $73 million in his budget request, but added he would work with local officials to appropriate more money as necessary. New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly has estimated holding terror trials in New York City could reach $200 million per year for security.”************
Hey Obama, you say you want to cut the budget, so why are you wanting to WASTE MILLIONS for a civilian trial that WE THE PEOPLE don’t want? Terrorists belong in the military system.
Posted by: wheresmymoney | February 2, 2010, 9:32 pm 9:32 pm
“Terrorists are not war criminals.” Posted by catsrboss.************
Is your name really Erik Holder?
Posted by: wheresmymoney | February 2, 2010, 9:38 pm 9:38 pm
Leave national security to Leftists like Holder & Obama and you shall have neither a sovereign nation nor security.
Posted by: St Reformed | February 2, 2010, 9:55 pm 9:55 pm
Eric Holder’s most notable accomplishments:
The pardon of Marc Rich
The pardons of Weather Underground members Susan Rosenberg and Linda Evans
Clemency for FALN terrorists
Failure to prosecute Black Panthers for obstruction of the electoral process
What a guy!
If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s Sixth Amendment rights were violated, HE WALKS!
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a prisoner in U.S. custody for alleged acts of terrorism, including mass murder of civilians. He was arrested in 2003. He was charged on February 11, 2008, with war crimes and murder by a U.S. military commission. Lefty lawyers blocked every effort to move ahead.
Defendants in criminal cases have the right to a speedy trial. The U.S. Supreme Court laid down a four-part ad hoc balancing test for determining whether the defendant’s speedy trial right has been violated in the case of Barker v. Wingo:
Length of Delay: A delay of a year or more from the date on which the speedy trial right “attaches” (the date of arrest or indictment, WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST) was termed “presumptively prejudicial.”
Reason for the delay: The prosecution may not excessively delay the trial for its own advantage, but a trial may be delayed to secure the presence of an absent witness or other practical considerations.
Time and manner in which the defendant has asserted his right: If a defendant agrees to the delay when it works to his own benefit, he cannot later claim that he has been unduly delayed.
Degree of prejudice to the defendant which the delay has caused.
In Strunk v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that if the reviewing court finds that a defendant’s right to a speedy trial was violated, then the indictment must be dismissed and/or the conviction overturned. The Court has held that, since the delayed trial itself is the state action which violates the defendant’s rights, no other remedy would be appropriate. Thus, a reversal or dismissal of a criminal case on speedy trial grounds means that no further prosecution for the alleged offense can take place.
In Boumediene v. Bush, the Supreme Court guaranteed detainees the Constitutional right of habeas corpus. Now, by extension, ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE…including the dismissal of all charges. And if you don’t think dismissal is possible, see Scalia’s dissent in Boumediene v. Bush.
Posted by: Jack Davis | February 3, 2010, 9:45 am 9:45 am
Speaking of Marc Rich: There is a new book about the fugitive oil trader with interesting revelations. It shows that Holder advised Rich’s legal team early on to bypass normal Justice Department procedures to get the pardon. If this is not bringing down Holder, what is? The book is called The King of Oil, St. Martin’s Press.
Posted by: Jason | February 5, 2010, 2:26 pm 2:26 pm
Hello there, simply changed into aware of your blog through Google, and located that it is truly informative. I’m going to watch out for brussels. I’ll be grateful for those who proceed this in future. Numerous other folks will probably be benefited from your writing. Cheers!
Posted by: Keith Ishizu | October 19, 2011, 9:23 am 9:23 am
good article, i clearly adore this amazing site, continue on it.
Posted by: beats by dr dre | January 17, 2012, 1:25 am 1:25 am