Poll: Most Oppose Terror Trials in Open Court
(CBS)
A new CBS News poll finds that only 40 percent of Americans believe suspected terrorists should be tried in an open criminal court. Fifty-four percent say such suspects should be tried in a closed military court.
There is a correlation between where people stand on the trials and their political beliefs. Roughly six in ten Republicans and independents favor closed military trials, while 54 percent of Democrats prefer open civilian trials.
Read the Complete Poll
The suspects have been held at the Guantanamo Bay prison facility, which the Obama administration has promised to close. Americans have become increasingly resistant to doing so, according to the poll: fifty percent now say the facility should be kept open, while 39 percent back the administration's plan to close it.
Americans were more split in February, when 46 percent wanted the facility kept open and 44 percent wanted it closed.
A majority of Democrats want to see the Guantanamo Bay facility closed, while a majority of Republicans and independents want it kept open.
More CBS News Polls:
Poll Shows Support for Public Option, But Not for Full Bill
51% Say Fort Hood Could Have Been Prevented
Most Say War in Afghanistan Going Badly
CBS News Poll: Fewer Than 1 in 4 Have Favorable View of Palin
Obama's Approval Rating Slips to 53%
Search the CBS News Polls Database
This poll was conducted among a random sample of 1,167 adults nationwide, interviewed by telephone November 13-16, 2009. Phone numbers were dialed from random digit dial samples of both standard land-line and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The error for subgroups is higher.
This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.
Popular in Politics
- Immigration reform would cut deficit, analysis shows 78 Comments
- Senators: U.S. must take "more decisive" military action in Syria
- House Republicans pass 20-week limit on abortions 173 Comments
- Obama and Berlin: Faded echoes meet new realities
- Smooth, on-time Obamacare rollout no sure thing: GAO
- Bill Ayers: Obama should be tried for war crimes
- Snowden: U.S. gov't destroyed my chance for fair trial
- Treasury secretary's loopy signature is now less loopy
- James Madison
Holder made four basic arguments for his decision to send KSM and others to federal court.
1. Holder?s first argument was that federal court was the best venue for KSM because it is the forum ?most likely to obtain justice.?
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), a former judge, pointed out that KSM has offered to plead guilty, several times, in his military commissions trial. How, Kyl asked, was it more likely that KSM would ?obtain justice? in federal court -- in a contested case -- when he has been begging to plead guilty in his military commissions case? A plea of guilty is the strongest form of proof in the law, and with a plea of guilty alone, the court can find the defendant guilty.
Holder admitted that he didn't know if KSM still wanted to plead guilty -- a disturbing admission, since that should have been a factor in the choice of venue.
2. His second point, was that he believes the US is at war, implying that the law of armed conflict, not criminal law, was the underlying legal framework for most decisions. Yet, he instantly stated that the attacks of 9/11 were not only acts of war, but also crimes. By not explaining any strategic overarching rationale for his legal decisions, Holder opened himself to sharp criticism.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the only military lawyer (JAG) on the committee, asking Holder what the admin's plans were when they captured Usama bin Laden. Where would they try him, federal court or by military commission? Holder actually stuttered, and meekly said, ?It depends.?
3. Holder?s third message: there have been hundreds of successful terrorism trials in federal court and we have a conviction rate of over 90%. That sounded good -- until Sens. Graham and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) spoke up.
Hatch suggested Holder?s number of successful terrorism trials was inaccurate. Hatch asked Holder for the actual number of successful terrorism trials, prosecuted in federal court, where terrorists were captured in the United States and convicted of material support to terrorism.
Holder, who should have expected that question, said he didn't ?have that number.? He should have.
Graham asked: ?Can you give me a case, in United States? history, where an enemy combatant, caught on the battlefield, got tried in federal court?? Holder, his brow starting to glisten, said nothing. Graham, provided the answer, stating, ?None. We are making history.?
Thus, Holder?s argument -- all terrorism trials are the same -- crumbled.
4. Holder?s fourth, and weakest argument, was that ?justice has been delayed for 8 years,? and he was committed to obtaining swift and certain justice for the perpetrators of 9/11 through federal court trials. He asserted that his decisions were based on the ?facts and law, regardless of politics,? and that there was not a ?political component to my decision.?
Sen. Kyl pounced on Holder?s ?justice delayed? comment. Quoting from Andy McCarthy?s article titled ?Justice Delayed? Kyl said, The principle reason there were so few military trials is the tireless campaign conducted by leftist lawyers to derail military tribunals and challenging them in the courts. Many of those lawyers are now working for the Obama Justice Department. That includes Holder, whose firm, Covington & Burling, volunteered its services to at least 18 of America?s enemies in lawsuits they brought against the American people ? It is mind-boggling that the delay in completing commissions trials would be derided by Eric Holder, a lawyer whose firm is among those responsible for the litigation-driven delay.
Kyl then demanded to know how many current Justice Department officials working on detainee matters were former members of the Guantanamo Bar Association. Holder, clearly off his game, assured Kyl and members of the committee that his Justice Department knew how to police itself, and anyone with a conflict in these cases --
-- like Holder himself --
have and will continue to recuse himself from detainee policy-making.
But Holder made this policy decision even though their is an obvious direct conflict of interest.
In that brief but pointed exchange, Holder lost the intended moral high ground of his point. His ?we?re-better-at-this-than-Bush-and won?t-stand-for delay-like-they-did? argument became a mere punch line. He became defensive, and everyone knew it, including the Democrats.
Amen brother!
How do you like that trial ? called a hellfire missle, and a fraction of the cost of a trial in NY....how's that for "fair" justice....the Commander in Chief, just became the judge/jury/executioner of these terrorists....three cheers for the UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle, for the libs)
And this has been working in ages past but in the age of the Internet this no longer works. People have much more knowledge now and can easily debunk all this fear nonsense.