Grappling Over the Graham Amendment

November 03, 2009  |  Posted by Danielle Belton

It can't be easy to be among the few Republicans who actually want to see Guantanamo Bay's detention facility closed. That's especially the case for South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, who says he wants "to be a constructive partner" in the closure and is "one of the few Republicans in favor of closing Guantanamo Bay and starting over." But his latest amendment to a House appropriations bill has us scratching our heads. Why would Graham propose to "help" the president by hindering the Justice Department?

Both Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Attorney General Eric Holder have come out against the amendment, which would make it illegal to try 9/11 terrorism suspects on U.S. soil by defunding any effort to bring them to justice in federal courts.

Rather than let the Executive Branch decide how and where a suspect should be prosecuted, the Graham Amendment would prevent agencies like the DOJ from properly prosecuting terrorism cases in the manner they see fit. Congress would be restraining the hands of the president as he works towards justice for those nearly 3,000 people killed on Sept. 11, 2001.

Graham believes the military commissions system is the only way to try terrorists, but that just isn't true. In the eight years of the Bush Administration only three -- THREE -- suspects were tried and convicted by military tribunals. This compared to the federal courts and their 195 convictions since 2001. While we're for Graham's efforts to close Guantanamo, we have to say he is just plain wrong when it comes to the prosecution of terrorism suspects.

From The Hill:

“Why should we preclude any forum where they can be successfully tried and held accountable?” Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told The Hill. “We rely on civilian courts every day for the security of Americans in our neighborhoods and homes, and I am not going to draw a conclusion that the Department of Justice should not be part of this conversation. I want them tried in a court where they are most likely to be prosecuted.”

Graham is worried that a trial in federal courts could become "a zoo," when we've already successfully tried 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui in Virigina and those involved in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Plus, under this amendment, if Osama bin Laden were captured tomorrow he couldn't be prosecuted in an American court.

It's either military courts or nothing for Graham. Anywhere but here on U.S. soil where actual criminals actually get sentenced.

blog comments powered by Disqus