Feinstein, Leahy Clarify Support for 9/11 Perps’ Civilian Trials

By
Thursday, February 11, 2010 at 5:03 pm

A few weeks ago, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the chairwoman of the Senate intelligence committee, gave conservatives a flicker of hope for a high-profile Democratic dissenter on the Obama administration’s plans to try the 9/11 perpetrators in civilian courts. She didn’t come out and float such a possibility, but she urged Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to reconsider holding a trial in New York. Close enough, right?

Not really, it turns out. Today, she and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the chairman of the judiciary committee, wrote to the president to express full support for civilian trials for terrorists. And they’re also trying to forestall any effort by congressional Republicans to compel trials in military commissions. “Congress should not tie the hands of our national security and law enforcement agencies, but should instead ensure they have the flexibility to use every means available,” Feinstein and Leahy wrote. “Congress should be working with you in a shared mission to most effectively protect our national security and to ensure that just convictions, once obtained, will be sustained and upheld.”

Read the full letter after the jump.

February 11, 2010

The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear President Obama:

We are writing today to endorse the use of our Federal criminal courts to prosecute and bring terrorists to justice. As we all work to strengthen our counterterrorism efforts, Congress should not interfere with your administration’s using all available means to make us safer and more secure.

Our counterterrorism agents, prosecutors, and Federal criminal courts have the track record to show that they are capable of handling these cases. In hundreds of cases – both before and after September 11 – our courts have demonstrated that they can handle sensitive classified information, security, and other legal issues related to terrorism and national security. The Senate Judiciary Committee has held several hearings on the issue of how to best handle terrorism suspects and Guantanamo detainees. Experts and judges have agreed that our criminal justice system can handle this challenge.

We disagree with those who contend that our investigators, prosecutors, courts, and the men and women who protect our courts and prisons are not up to the task of bringing these terrorists to justice. We should not let partisan distractions lead us to cast aside such valuable tools as the experienced terrorism interrogators of the FBI or forego convicting terrorists in our Federal courts. Nor are these efforts mutually exclusive from obtaining valuable intelligence. Just last week, during a hearing in front of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Director Mueller acknowledged that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is providing valuable intelligence. This is after he received medical attention and after he was read the Miranda warning.

There has been debate about whether to try the men accused of plotting the September 11 attacks in civilian courts or military commissions. We believe that whether such a trial is held in New York City or another location, these men should be brought to justice in a Federal court. Article III courts have proven to be the most capable venues to try and convict dangerous terrorists. These men should finally face justice.

We commend the Attorney General’s decision to make these men answer for their heinous acts and hold them accountable. As Paul Bremer, one of President Reagan’s top advisers on counterterrorism explained during the Reagan administration, a longstanding element of our overall strategy against terrorism has been to “use democracy’s most potent tool, the rule of law, against them” and to delegitimize them.

Our system of justice is strong enough to prosecute the people who have attacked us. There are hundreds of inmates in the United States who have been convicted of crimes related to international terrorism. The “supermax” facility in Florence, Colorado, houses 33 of these international terrorists. There has never been an escape from that facility.

We appreciate this administration’s willingness to use all possible venues to seek justice. The September 11 defendants and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab will face trial in Federal court; the USS Cole defendants will face trial before a reformed military commission; and Major Nidal Hasan, the alleged Fort Hood shooter, is charged in a court martial. Congress should not tie the hands of our national security and law enforcement agencies, but should instead ensure they have the flexibility to use every means available. Congress should be working with you in a shared mission to most effectively protect our national security and to ensure that just convictions, once obtained, will be sustained and upheld.

Respectfully,

PATRICK LEAHY DIANNE FEINSTEIN
Chairman, Senate Committee of the Judiciary Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Follow Spencer Ackerman on Twitter


Comments

5 Comments

uberVU - social comments
Trackback posted February 11, 2010 @ 6:31 pm

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by TWI_news: Feinstein, Leahy Clarify Support for 9/11 Perps’ Civilian Trials http://bit.ly/cE1SON...


johnbyrnes
Comment posted February 12, 2010 @ 2:53 pm

Last Tuesday, Directors of the CIA, FBI and National Intelligence declared that an attack by Al Qaeda in the next 3 to 6 months “is certain!” Leon Panetta, CIA Director announced, “The biggest threat is not so much that we face an attack like 9/11. It is that Al Qaeda is adapting its methods in ways that oftentimes make it difficult to detect.”

Panetta’s statement does not take into account the ability to identify any terrorist whose goal it is to give up their life for a cause. Only when you are observing measurable emerging aggression can you identify a terrorist before they effect their violence.

The Center for Aggression Management discovered 15 years ago that there were two kinds of aggression: adrenaline-driven Primal Aggression and intent-driven Cognitive Aggression. The Primal Aggressor, in the extreme, is “red-faced and ready to explode,” the Cognitive Aggressor (the terrorist) is not. When a person, regardless of the culture, gender, education or position, rises to the level where their goal is to give up their life for a cause, their body looses animation and we see the “thousand-yard stare.” But it is more than this, the whole body and behavior looses animation and this is how we can identify them. The problem is that security and law enforcement are still looking for the Primal Aggressor (red-faced and ready to explode). Of course they are finding it difficult to detect these terrorist; a terrorist is a Cognitive Aggression; they are looking for the wrong person!

As our Government analyzes what went wrong regarding Abdulmatallab’s entrance into the United States, you can be assured that Al Qaeda is also analyzing how their plans went wrong. Who do you think will figure it out first . . . ?

You can read more at http://blog.AggressionManagement.com


The Case for Civilian Trials | TheWorldPolitics
Pingback posted February 12, 2010 @ 5:02 pm

[...] Patrick Leahy bravely bucked the scaremongering by Republicans and too many of their own Dems to strongly back the use of civilian trials for 9/11 suspects. The Intelligence and Judiciary chairs wrote to the president to “express [...]


johnbyrnes
Comment posted February 12, 2010 @ 7:53 pm

Last Tuesday, Directors of the CIA, FBI and National Intelligence declared that an attack by Al Qaeda in the next 3 to 6 months “is certain!” Leon Panetta, CIA Director announced, “The biggest threat is not so much that we face an attack like 9/11. It is that Al Qaeda is adapting its methods in ways that oftentimes make it difficult to detect.”

Panetta’s statement does not take into account the ability to identify any terrorist whose goal it is to give up their life for a cause. Only when you are observing measurable emerging aggression can you identify a terrorist before they effect their violence.

The Center for Aggression Management discovered 15 years ago that there were two kinds of aggression: adrenaline-driven Primal Aggression and intent-driven Cognitive Aggression. The Primal Aggressor, in the extreme, is “red-faced and ready to explode,” the Cognitive Aggressor (the terrorist) is not. When a person, regardless of the culture, gender, education or position, rises to the level where their goal is to give up their life for a cause, their body looses animation and we see the “thousand-yard stare.” But it is more than this, the whole body and behavior looses animation and this is how we can identify them. The problem is that security and law enforcement are still looking for the Primal Aggressor (red-faced and ready to explode). Of course they are finding it difficult to detect these terrorist; a terrorist is a Cognitive Aggression; they are looking for the wrong person!

As our Government analyzes what went wrong regarding Abdulmatallab’s entrance into the United States, you can be assured that Al Qaeda is also analyzing how their plans went wrong. Who do you think will figure it out first . . . ?

You can read more at http://blog.AggressionManagement.com


Feingold: Don’t Use Military Commissions for Terror Trials | NEWS Gate
Pingback posted March 6, 2010 @ 12:17 am

[...] with a statement on the Washington Post report today. Dianne Feinstein and Patrick Leahy, who have publicly urged a criminal trial in the recent past, have said nothing today. The relative timidity of virtually the entire [...]


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.