Trying Terrorists in Our Courts
TRYING TERRORISTS IN OUR COURTS -- (Senate - July 29, 2005)
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it has come to my attention that there was a significant decision by a criminal court in Seattle. The decision, as I understand it, was made this week, and it involved a U.S. district judge, John C. Coughenour. I hope I have pronounced his name correctly. Judge Coughenour was tasked with an awesome responsibility-the prosecution of Ahmed Ressam, who had been accused of terrorist acts against the United States.
The case was rather straightforward. The man had plotted to bomb the Los Angeles Airport on the eve of the celebration of our millennium. It was in imposing the sentence that Judge Coughenour said some things which are worth repeating. He called into question some conclusions that many people have reached about our system of justice and really reminded us of our legacy in terms of constitutional responsibility in this country.
I ask unanimous consent that the judge's entire statement at the sentencing hearing be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Let me read a few things from this statement that I think are so significant. The judge said at the sentencing hearing for Ahmed Ressam, an alleged terrorist now prosecuted and convicted, the following:
Okay. Let me say a few things. First of all, it will come as no surprise to anybody that this sentencing is one that I have struggled with a great deal, more than any other sentencing that I've had in the 24 years I've been on the bench.
The judge went on to say:
I've done my very best to arrive at a period of confinement that appropriately recognizes the severity of the intended offense, but also recognizes the practicalities of the parties' positions before trial and the cooperation of Mr. Ressam, even though it did terminate prematurely.
The judge said:
The message I would hope to convey in today's sentencing is two-fold: First, that we have the resolve in this country to deal with the subject of terrorism and people who engage in it should be prepared to sacrifice a major portion of their life in confinement.
Secondly, though, I would like to convey the message that our system works. We did not need to use a secret military tribunal, or detain the defendant indefinitely as an enemy combatant, or deny him the right to counsel, or invoke any proceedings beyond those guaranteed by or contrary to the United States Constitution.
The judge said:
I would suggest that the message to the world from today's sentencing is that our courts have not abandoned our commitment to the ideals that set our nation apart. We can deal with threats to our national security without denying the accused fundamental constitutional protections.
Despite the fact that Mr. Ressam is not an American citizen and despite the fact that he entered this country intent upon killing American citizens, he received an effective, vigorous defense, and the opportunity to have his guilt or innocence determined by a jury of 12 ordinary citizens.
Most importantly, all of this occurred in the sunlight of a public trial. There were no secret proceedings, no indefinite detention, no denial of counsel.
The tragedy of September 11th shook our sense of security and made us realize that we, too, are vulnerable to acts of terrorism. Unfortunately, some believe that this threat renders our Constitution obsolete. This is a Constitution for which men and women have died and continue to die and which has made us a model among nations. If that view is allowed to prevail, the terrorists will have won.
It is my sworn duty, and as long as there is breath in my body I'll perform it, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
That is the end of the statement by Judge Coughenour.
This judge was appointed by a Republican President. He clearly speaks to constitutional principles which know no party bounds.
All of us, Republicans and Democrats, swear to uphold that same Constitution in our service to the Senate and our service to this Government. It is clear that in some cases the open and public trial which this accused, Ahmed Ressam, received in Seattle could never occur because of concerns over classified information, over concerns of security for individuals. But it is very clear that in this case extraordinary efforts were made to make certain that we said to the world, this man can be tried in open court, judged by a jury of 12 ordinary citizens and his guilt determined according to a system bound by the Constitution we have sworn to uphold.
I am humbled by the wisdom of this simple statement from this Federal judge. I hope it serves as a reminder to all that we must seek not only security in this time of peril, but we must seek it in a way that never imperils our basic freedoms in America.
http://thomas.loc.gov