THE HILL
 

Senate tables Graham amendment on trials for 9/11 suspects

By J. Taylor Rushing - 11/05/09 07:46 PM ET

The Senate on Thursday turned aside a measure to force conspirators of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks to go through civilian trials instead of a military commission.

In a 54-45 vote, the chamber tabled a proposal by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) that would have prohibited funding for civilian trials instead of sending the suspects through a military commission at the U.S. prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Republicans for weeks had warned civilian courts are ill-equipped for such high-stakes trials.

The amendment was attached to an appropriations bill and exposed disagreements among Democrats, as it was opposed by Sens. Jim Webb (Va.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), who caucuses with Democrats.

Graham, along with allies such as 2008 GOP presidential nominee John McCain (Ariz.), argued that the suspects’ legal rights would be protected in a military commission but that a civilian trial would become a “zoo” that would cheat justice.

Graham and McCain repeated their assertion that closing the Guantanamo Bay prison would help the overall U.S. military effort, but emphasized that the prison should be used for commission trials. Graham also said specifically that the so-called “mastermind” of the 9/11 attacks, Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, should not get a trial by a civilian court.

“We would be giving constitutional rights to the mastermind of 9/11 as if they were any average, everyday criminal American citizen,” Graham said. “We would be basically saying to the mastermind of 9/11 and to the world at large, ‘9/11 was a criminal act, not an act of war.’”

Democrats backed the Obama administration in opposing the amendment, arguing that U.S. officials need flexibility in prosecution decisions. They accused the GOP of blocking attempts to bring the suspects to justice.

Leaders such as Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (Vt.) and Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (Mich.) said Graham's amendment would bar the Obama administration from pursuing justice.

“If this amendment passes, it will say that the only people in the world who cannot be tried in the courts of America for crimes of terrorism are those who are accused of terrorism on 9/11,” said Durbin.

More than 200 family members of 9/11 victims had sent an open letter to the Senate, echoing the Republican argument that military commissions are preferable.

“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 read. "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.”

Democrats cited opposition to the Graham amendment from other 9/11 victim families as well as Attorney General Eric Holder and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, arguing that 165 terrorists have been successfully prosecuted in U.S. courts in recent years and that the amendment would be an unprecedented intrusion into executive branch decisions about national security.

The amendment would have affected about a half-dozen suspects who were involved in planning the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

The day’s arguments included a rare reference by McCain to his U.S. military service during the Vietnam War, during which he was held prisoner by the North Vietnamese.

“During my life, I have been a warrior, although that seems a long time ago now,” said McCain. “I know something of the law of war, have fought constrained by it and having lived through with the help of my comrades and my faith -- times when my former enemy felt unconstrained by it. No, the attacks of 9/11 were not a crime. They were a war crime.”



Source:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/66653-senate-tables-graham-amendment-on-911-trials

Comments (15)

This article contradicts itself in the first two paragraphs. First it says "The Senate on Thursday turned aside a measure to force conspirators of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks to go through civilian trials instead of a military commission." Then it goes on to say that the amendment would have prevented the administration from using civilian trials. Which is correct?BY Bob H on 11/06/2009 at 10:31
The people that are being held now in Guantanamo have not been tried for anything so how can one call them anything. These people have no charges against them except that it is thought that they maybe enemies against the United States no judge have convicted them of any wrong doing. I disagree with the argument that they would some how hurt Americans if they are allowed a trial here in the states. We already have bad people in our Prisons and none of them have been walking our streets. America wake up, this would mean jobs for those who like this kind of work. A Maximum Prison can hold them and I guarantee you that they will not be on our streets except for somebody mind.We were fooled into this war in Iraq in the first place by the previous Administration don't allow this kind of thought rule your sensibility we know better than what is being said in the media and some of our law makers, this makes since to bring those men here give them a fair trial and if it is warranted send the to prison, but this way we are sending the wrong message to the world saying it is alright to hold some one who is suspected of doing something wrong with out a trial. We should look within ourselves for that answer. I am a human and I believe in human rights as well as love for my fellow manBY Marie on 11/07/2009 at 15:33
With all the light being shed on typos and, or, a confused publication,… the reality of this matter is very clear. The 9/11 attack on innocent U.S. citizens was clearly an ACT of WAR on U.S.A. soil,… period!!! To claim otherwise is to put slanted political rhetoric above truth.War criminals have NEVER been tried in a civilian court, for obvious reasons.This current administration and its left wing fanatics are against proper historic judicial procedure,… for obvious reasons as well !!!Hopefully. the day will come when all will answer who put their personal political agendas, above the safety of our country.BY jon on 11/08/2009 at 12:05
The attitude of some people about these terrorist is the reason America is still not safe from attack. The cowards at Gitmo don't need to be charged with anything, they are war criminals. They confessed, end of story!BY Michael Shannon on 11/13/2009 at 09:57
The day is quickly coming, the cleansing starts in Nov. of 2010.BY Michael Shannon on 11/13/2009 at 10:00
Another opportunity for Obama and his administration to reveal his true sentiments. He is clearly attempting to reduce the United States to the level of the rest of the world. Worldwide RE-DISTRIBUTION of our wealth and knowledge. I digress.. The cost to the American tax-paying public, to put these terrorist on trial in N.Y.C.,on top of his current spending spree, is outrageous. The Military is more than capable of handling this. I can't wait to vote in 2010 and 2012!!!!!BY Lane on 11/13/2009 at 10:26
It is no wonder that our country is in so much trouble, considering that we have too many voters who think like Marie. It is scary.BY Patricia on 11/13/2009 at 10:59
This administration is already the laughing stock of the world. Why not let these monstrous murderers do their jihad grandstanding in the public forum at taxpayer expense? How many ways can Obama and Pilosi find to squander our wealth? Does anyone else wonder who are the real enemies of the United States and its traditions.BY JohnC on 11/13/2009 at 11:53
I have to agree with Patricia. Such views are indeed scary. Political correctness is a form of mental illness characterized by the denial of reality and the law of identity. For many, it is an unconscious evasion or obfuscation of truth for the purpose of avoiding the discomfort that occurs when our perception of reality is not consonant with our view of the perfect world. It is also a tool used by politicians to hide the truth. For example, Nancy Pilosi changed the name of "the public option" to "the consumer option" and, in her small mind, the problems of the public option went away. We call brutal abortions a "choice". The Ft. Hood killer is not a radical, Muslim terrorist, he's a psychopath. Maybe he wasn't adequately medicated in high school? We must show compassion don't we? It's sickening. If we surrender our cognitive ability to PC, we will not survive as a nation or a species.BY JohnC on 11/13/2009 at 12:22
2403 Americans died in the attack on Pearl Harbor2948 died 9/11/2001 as a result of Jihad (Holy War) by extremist Muslims. By some inconcievable logic of the current Washington administration, admitted co-conspirators to this "Holy War" are being given the legal rights of our Constitution so many have died to defend.God save our RepublicBY Richard on 11/13/2009 at 12:34

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.