Post by Anja Nieser on Sept 6, 2006 18:23:50 GMT -5
WAR ON TERRORISM----Tribunals called essential for terror trials
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said that without controversial new
courts, the government would have serious trouble prosecuting terrorists.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday that it would be difficult
to bring top al Qaeda captives, such as suspected Sept. 11 mastermind
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, to trial without a special court designed to keep
secrets gathered in the war on terrorism.
His comments upped the stakes in the administration's negotiations with
Congress over what kind of special military commissions would be needed to
prosecute jailed terrorist suspects.
Recently, the Supreme Court rejected the idea of such courts because they
had few safeguards for the accused and were set up by President Bush
without congressional approval.
During a wide-ranging briefing days before the 5th anniversary of the
Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Gonzales said the administration worked over
Congress' August recess to win support for legislation creating the
tribunals. He said that once established, the tribunals would ``allow us
to bring dangerous terrorists to justice.''
Such a controversial proposal, which would be likely to provide defendants
with many fewer legal rights than those offered to soldiers in traditional
military courts, could draw considerable opposition in Congress.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican and Air Force Reserve
lawyer who is a key player in the negotiations with the White House,
called the tribunals ''very troubling'' and said support for the
administration's version of them would be hard to find.
Gonzales also expressed concerns about the threat of homegrown terrorists
being radicalized and trained over the Internet.
He said the Justice Department would assess whether to bring U.S. charges
against any suspects in the foiled, British-based plot to use liquid
explosives to blow-up transatlantic flights.
So far, the only person tried in the United States for involvement in the
Sept. 11 hijackings is al Qaeda operative Zacarias Moussaoui, who pleaded
guilty to conspiring with the Sept. 11 hijackers but was spared the death
penalty by a jury last May.
Several suspected senior al Qaeda members are in U.S. custody, but none
has been charged.
Gonzales said that military commissions, ''in a time of war,'' should be
governed by procedures that don't force the government to decide between
prosecuting terrorists and protecting classified information.
Graham said the Senate Armed Services Committee is close to reaching a
consensus on a bipartisan bill that would establish the format and
procedures of special military commissions for terrorism detainees, but he
indicated that roadblocks remain.
Graham said he and other senators oppose an administration proposal to
make such information available to the military prosecutors and defense
lawyers, but not to the defendants.
''I find that very troubling,'' Graham said in an interview.
"It raises ethical and constitutional questions. The idea of sending
someone to jail based on evidence they didn't see or hear is a bridge too
far for me.''
(source: Miami Herald)
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said that without controversial new
courts, the government would have serious trouble prosecuting terrorists.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday that it would be difficult
to bring top al Qaeda captives, such as suspected Sept. 11 mastermind
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, to trial without a special court designed to keep
secrets gathered in the war on terrorism.
His comments upped the stakes in the administration's negotiations with
Congress over what kind of special military commissions would be needed to
prosecute jailed terrorist suspects.
Recently, the Supreme Court rejected the idea of such courts because they
had few safeguards for the accused and were set up by President Bush
without congressional approval.
During a wide-ranging briefing days before the 5th anniversary of the
Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Gonzales said the administration worked over
Congress' August recess to win support for legislation creating the
tribunals. He said that once established, the tribunals would ``allow us
to bring dangerous terrorists to justice.''
Such a controversial proposal, which would be likely to provide defendants
with many fewer legal rights than those offered to soldiers in traditional
military courts, could draw considerable opposition in Congress.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican and Air Force Reserve
lawyer who is a key player in the negotiations with the White House,
called the tribunals ''very troubling'' and said support for the
administration's version of them would be hard to find.
Gonzales also expressed concerns about the threat of homegrown terrorists
being radicalized and trained over the Internet.
He said the Justice Department would assess whether to bring U.S. charges
against any suspects in the foiled, British-based plot to use liquid
explosives to blow-up transatlantic flights.
So far, the only person tried in the United States for involvement in the
Sept. 11 hijackings is al Qaeda operative Zacarias Moussaoui, who pleaded
guilty to conspiring with the Sept. 11 hijackers but was spared the death
penalty by a jury last May.
Several suspected senior al Qaeda members are in U.S. custody, but none
has been charged.
Gonzales said that military commissions, ''in a time of war,'' should be
governed by procedures that don't force the government to decide between
prosecuting terrorists and protecting classified information.
Graham said the Senate Armed Services Committee is close to reaching a
consensus on a bipartisan bill that would establish the format and
procedures of special military commissions for terrorism detainees, but he
indicated that roadblocks remain.
Graham said he and other senators oppose an administration proposal to
make such information available to the military prosecutors and defense
lawyers, but not to the defendants.
''I find that very troubling,'' Graham said in an interview.
"It raises ethical and constitutional questions. The idea of sending
someone to jail based on evidence they didn't see or hear is a bridge too
far for me.''
(source: Miami Herald)