www.aclu.orgJOIN THE ACLUTAKE ACTIONABOUT US
ACLU Blog of Rights - Official Blog of the ACLU National Office American Civil Liberties Union Homepage Blog of Rights Homepage Support the ACLU
Mar 10th, 2010
Posted by Laura Murphy, Director, Washington Legislative Office at 12:06pm

Sen. Graham, You and What Army?

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is a leading congressional proponent of using the discredited and fatally-flawed military commissions system to try the alleged planners and conspirators of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. Sen. Graham feels so strongly that he has introduced legislation to bar the Justice Department from using any funds to try these cases — the most important terrorism trials in our country's history — in our regular federal courts.

It is worth noting that these are the same federal courts that have successfully handled over 300 terrorism cases since the attacks of 9/11. In contrast, there have only been three successful prosecutions in the military commissions. Our federal criminal justice system has proven time and again that it is far more capable of resolving these cases quickly and with more credibility than the military commissions. Why would we want to entrust a case as important as that of the 9/11 defendants to such a flawed and unproven system when we already have something that works very well? More importantly, why is such a position considered "tough on terror"?

It has been reported in numerous press stories in recent days that Sen. Graham has been reaching out to the White House to urge them to reverse the November decision of Attorney General Eric Holder to try the 9/11 cases in our federal courts. In return, Sen. Graham has promised to secure the support of other congressional Republicans for the administration's plans to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. Sounds like a pretty tempting offer huh? The problem? Congressional Republicans, while also joining the call to urge military commissions trials of the 9/11 defendants, remain steadfast in their opposition to closing Gitmo.

In an article in Congressional Quarterly last weekend, the Vice Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Christopher Bond (R-Mo.), stated —

I'm sure not going to horse-trade getting rid of one bad decision to let them make another bad decision.

Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) added —

I hope that the Obama administration has finally recognized that military commissions are better equipped to handle the sensitive national security information that is part of terror trials. And I hope that next, they will realize that Guantánamo Bay is best equipped for the detention and prosecution of terrorists, not a prison inside the U.S.

An article in Tuesday's New York Times by Charlie Savage and Scott Shane also points out that Sen. Graham is pretty much isolated and alone among congressional Republicans in being open to support a closure of Gitmo in return for trying the 9/11 cases before military commissions. Just last week, two of Sen. Graham's closest friends and collaborators in the Senate, John McCain of Arizona and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, introduced legislation that would hand the government the power to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects, including U.S. citizens, without charge or trial.

If it isn't already, it should be ever clearer to the Obama administration that something is pretty rotten about this proposed "compromise" deal being floated by Sen. Graham. It seems pretty one-sided from my perspective.

The administration could do far better by honoring its commitment to the rule of law and getting justice for the families of those who died in the terror attacks of September 11 by pursuing these cases in our federal criminal courts. Overruling the decision of Attorney General Holder will open the administration to attacks of flip-flopping on a critical issue of national security. They should also continue to strongly oppose Sen. Graham's legislation, which would tie the president's hands in resolving these cases.

They need only look to the Savage/Shane article for support from some unlikely allies from (of all places) the Bush administration. Former Deputy National Security Adviser for Combating Terrorism (2005-2009), Juan C. Zarate, is quoted as saying —

We shouldn't inadvertently handcuff ourselves by taking this tool [federal criminal trials] completely out of our tool kit.

Tell President Obama to support Attorney General Holder's decision to try the 9/11 defendants in federal criminal court. Anything less would be unjust, unlawful, and unwise.

 

We intend the comments portion of this blog to be a forum where you can freely express your views on blog postings and on comments made by other people. Given that, please understand that you are responsible for the material you post on the comments portion of this blog. The only postings that we ask that you refrain from posting and that we cannot permit on our website are requests for legal assistance and postings that could cause ACLU to incur legal liability.

One important law in that regard is the prohibition on politically partisan activity. Given our nonprofit status, we may not endorse or oppose candidates for elective office. That means we cannot host comments on our site that show a preference for one candidate or party. Although we in no way wish to discourage you from that activity elsewhere, we ask that you not engage in that activity on our website (or include links to other websites that do so). Additionally, given that we are subject to very specific rules concerning the collection of personally identifying information through our website (names, email addresses, home address, financial information, etc.), we ask that you not use the comments portion of this blog to solicit this information from users of our website. We also ask that you not use the comments portion for advertising or requests for legal assistance, and do not add to your comment links to other websites, as we cannot be responsible for the content on other websites.

We are not able to respond to unsolicited inquiries, complaints or requests for assistance sent to this blog. Please direct your complaint or request for assistance to the ACLU affiliate in your state. Requests for legal assistance left in the blog comments will not receive a response or be published.

Finally, the ACLU cannot guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information in the comment section and expressly disclaims any liability for any information in this section.

Comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
 

© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004
This is the Web site of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation.
Learn more about the distinction between these two components of the ACLU.

User Agreement | Privacy Statement | FAQs | Site Map

Statistics image