Fox News "Fox News Sunday" - Transcript

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

WALLACE: Now for the other side of the argument, we're joined by Democratic senator Jack Reed, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a former Army ranger.

And, Senator, welcome back.

SEN. JACK REED, D-R.I.: Thanks, Chris.

WALLACE: I want to start where we ended with Mayor Giuliani. Military commissions have been reformed by Congress. Attorney General Holder announced Friday he is going to use them...

REED: Right.

WALLACE: ... as a legitimate legal forum to try five of the other Guantanamo detainees. Why not use them for the alleged 9/11 conspirators?

REED: Well, first of all, these 9/11 conspirators are heinous criminals, terrorists. The damage they've done to New York and the nation are significant. And they have to be treated, I think, fairly but with all due process, but with great, I think, sensitivity to the crimes they've committed against America.

The attorney general pointed out very clearly that there are several factors -- the location of the incident, the type of victims, the investigative services that are engaged in this process -- and that led him to conclude that the best forum -- and also, I think as a prosecutor -- the best forum to guarantee the success of the prosecution was a federal court, and in this case in New York City.

WALLACE: Let me ask you about a point that Mayor Giuliani made, that the Obama administration is holding these -- his allegation is -- holding these trials in New York in civilian court to make a political statement -- this president is different than the last president, and to say to the world, "We're different."

REED: Well, as you pointed out, in 2006, Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker, under the Bush administration was tried in a federal court in Alexandria, Virginia. Mayor Giuliani was one who testified in the penalty phase and he, as you indicated, claimed this was a symbol of American justice, as he said in 1993.

But this was not 1993. This was 2006. The alternative existed for a military tribunal then. The Bush administration decided to make the case in federal court. They succeeded. A hundred and ninety or so terrorists have been convicted in federal courts, only a handful -- less than 10 -- in tribunals.

There are 200 individuals serving time in federal facilities now for their terrorist crimes. So what was a statesmanlike decision by the Bush administration can't be a political decision by this administration.

WALLACE: Before we get into some of the specific risks, let me ask you a more fundamental question a lot of people are asking. Why do these men, allegedly enemy combatants who have declared war on the U.S. -- why do they deserve the same constitutional protections as an American citizen?

REED: Well, the court has determined that they deserve some constitutional protection. That was the whole issue in the Hamdan case and other cases by the Supreme Court.

WALLACE: But they could have fewer constitutional protections in a military commission.

REED: They could have if they were tried under military law under the provisions we set up. But they're also criminals. And I think this debate about are we playing into the hands of terrorists -- all of these, particularly the sheikh, Mohammed, wants to be considered a holy warrior, a jihadist.

And if we try him before military officers, that image of a soldier will be portrayed by the Islamic community. That's not the image we want. These are heinous murderers. WALLACE: But -- but -- but wait a minute. I mean, Mayor Giuliani said, and he's quite right, when in March of 2003 Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was picked up, the first two things he said are, one, "I want a lawyer," and two, "I want to be taken to New York."

Aren't you more granting him his wish by trying him in New York City?

REED: No, I don't think so, because I think the attack here on September 11th was designed not just to kill innocent Americans, it was to break our spirit. It was to render our system of government fragile and broken.

When the foreman of that jury stands up and delivers the verdict, not empowered by religious fanaticism, by -- but the Constitution, he will know he's lost.

And I can't think of a better group of people to judge the guilt or innocence and the punishment for these individuals than people in New York who saw the towers fall.

WALLACE: But here, I think, is the question. There are some obvious downsides to having this trial in a civilian court in New York City. There's the risk that intelligence information will come out. There's less protection of that.

In fact, in the 1995 prosecution of the so-called blind sheik, apparently information came out that Osama bin Laden was a co-conspirator and he then left Sudan for Afghanistan.

There's obviously the danger of a terrorist attack. It's going to make New York City once again Ground Zero for Al Qaeda. There's the danger of more of a political circus, that they're going to use this as a platform. There are obvious downsides.

REED: Right.

WALLACE: What's the upside?

REED: The upside, I think, is you are vindicating this country's basic values. And it's not to condone terrorism. But it is to stand as a symbol in the world of something different than what the terrorists represents, blind violence directed at those they dislike.

This is an opportunity to show that we're better than they are, we're much better than they are.

WALLACE: So it's basically a political decision. I don't mean political in the sense of partisan, but it's more of a political statement by this country than it is a matter of justice, or security, or safety for the...

REED: Well, I...

WALLACE: ... people of New York.

REED: ... I think all those factors have been considered. In fact, the Moussaoui case, which took place about two or three miles from here in Alexandria, presented the same problems -- classified information, security. We were able to accomplish that. I think New York can do that also.

The case you referred to in the '90s about the blind sheik -- those individuals involved did not seek protective orders or use the system of classification properly. That's been established.

We're going to be very conscious, I'm sure -- the attorney general -- about protecting this information. So those factors have been considered. I don't think the president would have -- or the attorney general -- made a decision which would release classified information or endanger unnecessarily the public.

We -- again, the facts are pretty clear. We've done this before. We've done this consistently.

WALLACE: We've got about 30 seconds left. What if one of these guys gets off?

REED: Well, if -- that is highly unlikely. The evidence is compelling.

WALLACE: But there are no guarantees in a trial.

REED: There are no guarantees, but under basic principles of international law, as long as these individuals pose a threat, they can be detained, and they will.

WALLACE: But -- and very briefly -- if someone is acquitted and then he's picked up again...

REED: I...

WALLACE: ... what's the message that that would send to the rest of the world?

REED: I do not believe they will be released, because under the principle of preventive detention, which is recognized during hostilities, we held...

WALLACE: No, no, no. What I'm saying is if he's acquitted and then picked up again and held...

REED: Well, but you...

WALLACE: ... what's the message that sends?

REED: ... you presume that he'll be acquitted and released.

WALLACE: I'm just...

REED: I don't presume...

WALLACE: ... raising the issue.

REED: ... he'll be released.

WALLACE: Senator Reed...

REED: Thank you, sir.

WALLACE: ... thank you. always a pleasure. Thanks for coming in.

REED: Thank you.

Source