THE HILL
 

Families of 9/11 victims write a letter in support of Graham amendment

By J. Taylor Rushing - 11/05/09 12:38 PM ET

Senate Republicans seeking to block civilian trials for Sept. 11, 2001, conspirators received a boost Thursday with a letter that supports the move, signed by 143 families of the victims.
 
In a letter addressed openly to the "United States Senate," the family members lobby for an amendment by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) that would “prohibit the use of funds for the prosecution in Article III courts of the United States of individuals involved in the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.” Graham and other Republicans want the suspects tried instead in a military commission at the U.S. prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, after weeks of raising concerns that civilian courts are ill-equipped for such high-stakes trials.

The Graham amendment is expected to receive a Senate vote Thursday afternoon as part of an appropriations bill.

In the letter, the victim families echo the Republican argument that military commissions are preferable because civilian trials in the U.S. would inappropriately allow the suspects a wide range of legal rights common to the American legal system, providing them "with the very rights that may make it possible for them to escape the justice which they so richly deserve."
 
"We believe that military commissions, which have had a long and honorable history in this country dating back to the Revolutionary War, are the appropriate legal forum for the individuals who declared war on America," the letter reads. "The public has a right to know that prosecuting the 9/11 conspirators in federal courts will result in a plethora of legal and procedural problems that will severely limit or even jeopardize the successful prosecution of their cases."
 
The amendment, which would affect about a half-dozen suspects who were involved in planning the attacks, was quickly taken up by Republicans on the Senate floor Thursday morning.
 
"We are not equipped, nor have we ever in our history dealt with a trial in Article III courts of any enemy combatant arrested on the battlefield," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.). "These folks were not given Miranda warnings because our soldiers captured these individuals with AK-47s in their hands that they were shooting at our men. These are not the kind of individuals that our courts were designed to handle or can feasibly handle."

The amendment puts Democrats in a tough position. The party has backed the Obama administration in opposition to the amendment so far, arguing that U.S. officials need flexibility in prosecution decisions and accusing the GOP of blocking attempts to bring the suspects to justice.

Source:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/66547-families-of-911-victims-lobbying-for-graham-amendment

Comments (6)

So nice to know that Republicans consider our rights merely ways for people "to escape the justice which they so richly deserve". Our civilian courts have tried terrorists, convicted terrorists, and done so with no problems to national security.BY John Meyer on 11/05/2009 at 14:14
Enemy combatants, you know those guys with guns and bombs trying to kill American soldiers. Civilian courts are no place for these people, nor are they entitled to any sort of constitutional protections. Too bad democrats don't consider the rights and protections of their fellow citizens before walking off into la la land about how to treat terrorists.BY Winfield on 11/05/2009 at 16:37
Eric Holder's predecessor as Attorney General of the United States has written about not imagined but real national security problems in a civil trial he presided over - - a critical NSA capability to bin Laden was lost. National Security was impaired—it is a matter of record. So is 9/11.These people were not picked up by the cops for murder or money laundering etc. They violated conventions like the Geneva and The Laws of War by wearing civilian uniforms, but that does not entitle them to civilians status. In fact, because they violated the Conventions, to try them as civilians would be to mock the Conventions and to say there is a reward for being out of uniform. Only Liberals think this way. They do not think through the ramifications and would give these combatants more rights than our own uniformed men and women. Senator Graham, no relation, knows more about this than either Holder or Obama, who got out in front of his headlights with his closure of GITMO announcement. If terrorists know they will be tried in a Military Court, it provide more deterrence because it will show we are serious about defending ourselves and holding people to account, using a very fair military court system.BY graham on 11/05/2009 at 17:03
Thought this would be of interest to readers. Since September 2001 I have maintained a free and confidential "9/11 list-serv". The "9/11 list-serv" distributes daily e-mails containing newspaper articles and other relevant information re: 9/11 issues of interest to 9/11 families, 9/11 organizations and interested individuals. The 9/11 List-serv archives can be accessed at http://groups.google.com/group/911-list-serv If you would like to 'subscribe' to this free news service - send an e-mail to amkorotkin@aol.com with the word "subscribe" in the subject box. ArnieBY arnie on 11/05/2009 at 17:31
Once again Mr. Obama is besmirching his credibility.While our troops are being overrun in Afganistan, he continues to dilly-dally about sending them support.Now it appears that he is trying to go easy on the perpetrators of 9/11.BY john hyland on 11/05/2009 at 18:45
I agree…no civilian trial for terrorists.BY Kay Warman on 11/13/2009 at 10:23

Add Comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Your Comments

You need Flash Player 8 (or higher) and JavaScript enabled to view this content

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.