Florida Republican Congressman Vern Buchanans Military Tribunals for Terrorists Act this week won the approval of the U.S. House Rules Committee and the full U.S. House when the measure was added as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act.
Buchanans amendment passed Thursday on a 246-174 vote. The Defense Authorization Act also passed on Thursday on a much wider 322-96 vote.
Buchanans measure would have captured terrorists tried by military tribunals instead of in civilian courts.
Todays vote is a win for the security of the American people, said Buchanan. Foreign terrorists who attack our country should be treated as enemy combatants, not common criminals.Using military tribunals to prosecute and sentence foreign terrorists who conspire or attack the United States is the right policy.
Buchanan, who has left the door open to taking on Democratic U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson in 2012 though it appears he has done little to lay the groundwork for such a campaign, maintained that trying terrorists in military tribunals would be the better option as they require majority, and not unanimous, verdicts to convict and they will allow better protection for sensitive military data. The Florida congressman said that when civilian courts tried a terrorist with ties to al-Qaida last year in New York, the jury found him innocent of 279 of the 280 felony charges leveled against him.
Terrorists with ties to known terror organizations such as al-Qaida should not be afforded the same constitutional protections as American citizens, argued Buchanan after his bill emerged from the Rules Committee. Using military tribunals to interrogate, prosecute and sentence foreign terrorists who conspire or attack the United States is a far better way to handle these kinds of sensitive matters.
While the White House has threatened a presidential veto of his amendment, Buchanan approved of the decision made last month by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to prosecute Sheikh Mohammad --an al-Qaida terrorist who has been linked to actions ranging from the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center to the murder of journalist Daniel Pearl --in a military tribunal.
We can and must distinguish between how our federal government responds to terrorist attacks and burglars, said Buchanan. Military tribunals allow us to do just that.
Democrats countered that Buchanans amendment would tie the presidents hands in combating terrorism.
In a time of war, we must not restrict the presidents ability to bring terrorists to justice, said U.S. Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee. Since Sept. 11th, the United States has tried and convicted in federal court more than 400 defendants for violations of international terrorism laws. Removing this option would remove one of our strongest tools for bringing terrorists to justice and express serious doubt in a system of justice that has been a model for the world for more than 200 years.
There are currently more than 300 convicted terrorists held in prisons around the United States, added Smith. Clearly, it is beyond question or doubt that our Department of Justice and our federal courts can handle these types of cases. While I agree that military commissions should be an option in some cases, it should not be the only option. Congress should not be pre-empting the administrations ability to determine where and when to prosecute detainees. These decisions should be made based on the facts of each individual case and the security of our nation.
Despite his opposition to the Buchanan amendment, Smith joined the majority of Congress in backing the Defense Authorization Act.
With the Democratic-controlled Senate scheduled to take up the Defense Authorization Act in the middle of June, the fate of the Buchanan amendment remains unclear and will continue to garner debate in the next few weeks.
Reach Kevin Derby at kderby@sunshinestatenews.com or at (850) 727-0859.
