And good morning again. We begin with Congressman Peter Hoekstra , who is with us in the studio here in Washington. Senator Patrick Leahy is in his home state. He's in Burlington, Vermont, this morning.

Congressman, I will start with you. You're the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. I want to get your take about the announcement that they will try Sheikh Mohammed in New York, just blocks from ground zero. Most Republicans seem to think this is a bad idea. Most of the Democrats seem to think it's a good idea.

HOEKSTRA: And I think most Americans are going to think that this is a bad idea.

This is ideology run wild. We're going to go back into New York City, the scene of the tragedy on 9/11. We're now going to rip that wound wide open and it's going to stay open for, what, two, three, four years as we go through the circus of a trial in New York City?

SCHIEFFER: Do you think it's going to take two, three or four years?

HOEKSTRA: Well, you never know. You can bet that folks that are going to be tried and their lawyers are going to try to use this opportunity to extend it as long as they can, because this is what they wanted. They wanted center stage, and they're going to want to keep it for as long as they can. They will bring every motion forward that they can that will drag this trial out.

SCHIEFFER: The fact is, he did ask to be brought to New York when he was first arrested. And we all know he has confessed to this. Do you think it will just turn into some sort of a propaganda show? HOEKSTRA: Well, that will be their objective. Obviously, our attorney general, our legal system, will try to keep it dignified and civil and bring some respect to it. But that's not what KSM is going to try to do. They're going to do everything they can to disrupt it and make it a circus, and allow them to use it as a platform to push their ideology.

SCHIEFFER: What -- I guess the question I'd have, what would you have done? Something has to be done with these people.

HOEKSTRA: I'd do exactly what the president is doing with some of the other people that they have down in Guantanamo. The president has said for some of these other individuals, we will use military tribunals. And he hasn't really, you know, demonstrated to us as to why some are going to go into New York and be tried there and why others are going to go through military tribunals.

He clearly has said military tribunals are an appropriate step to use, but he hasn't said why it's OK for one, for another.

I would have put him through the military tribunal process. We started that process. They pled guilty. Why won't the president take guilty for an answer and say now let's go on to the sentencing phase?

SCHIEFFER: Do you believe, I mean, is it your basic belief that these terrorists do not deserve a trial in an American court and the benefits that come with that?

HOEKSTRA: Not an American civilian court. I believe that they have certain protections that they would get in a tribunal. But to give them all of the extraordinary protections that you and I have as American citizens, and to give that to KSM, people who have mocked the American system, who want to do everything that they can do to destroy it, and now give them those extraordinary protections that we enjoy -- yes, I think that's a bad decision.

SCHIEFFER: Do you think this puts the people of New York at risk?

HOEKSTRA: I think America is at risk continually from the threat from radical jihadists. We saw it in Fort Hood 10 days ago. To now say that New York is on list -- I think New York has been on the list ever since 2001. We know that we were attacked in 1993. We know that we were attacked in 2001. I think that Al Qaida and radical jihadists, if they could attack us again in New York, they would.

SCHIEFFER: They talk now and there are reports that the administration is now examining various federal prison sites in this country. Illinois is one of them. They were talking a while about perhaps putting them in prisons in Michigan, your home state. How do you feel about that?

HOEKSTRA: Well, the president has never answered the question why. I'm all about problem-solving. What problem is the president going to solve by moving these trials to New York or by moving Gitmo prisoners to Michigan, to Illinois, to Colorado? He hasn't outlined what problem he's solving. I don't see the problem of moving them from Gitmo. It's been a great place. We've been able to keep them there safely. There are certain challenges with these prisoners. Why move them into the United States while we are still under the threat from radical jihadists?

SCHIEFFER: I want to turn to the massacre at Fort Hood, because you were one of those in Congress who immediately began pressing the government for answers when they were giving out very little information. Where do you think this thing stands now, Congressman? Are you satisfied with where it's going so far?

HOEKSTRA: No, I think that the government has been too slow in giving us information. There hasn't been enough transparency for members of Congress, for the press, or for the American people. You know, I think that we need to move very, very aggressively and do a full-scale investigation as to who knew what and where.

You know, this Awlaki guy in Yemen. He's been on our radar screen since 2001, 2002. What -- my sources tell me we had evidence back in 2002 that would have enabled us to prosecute him. Why didn't we prosecute him then?

The other thing I want to know is people want to know who Hasan has been talking to in the Middle East. I want to know who Awlaki is talking to in the United States. And have we been able to capture those communications? I want to know what's going on between the intel community, the Department of Defense, and the FBI.

I think we had a lot of information on Hasan, but I'm not sure that we put all of these things in place so that we would have been in a position to perhaps stop what happened at Fort Hood last week.

SCHIEFFER: Do you think the government was timid in questioning him? Because we now know that he was even carrying cards with the phrase SOA. Some people say that's a soldier of Allah, some say a slave of Allah. Who knows how it is interpreted. But there seemed to be so many red flags that were raised here that one group would know about it, another group would know about it, but it never came together, and it never set off alarm bells.

HOEKSTRA: I think the administration knew by the Friday after the Fort Hood shootings that they had a lot of questions that needed to be answered, that there had been all of these red flags, but that they had never come together in one place. And I think that's why they've been slow in providing people like yourself and myself with the transparency and the information, because there's going to be a lot of tough questions that need to be asked that I'm not sure that they were prepared to answer.

SCHIEFFER: You have called for an investigation, a congressional investigation. Can Congress investigate this without hampering the investigation by the authorities that's going on?

HOEKSTRA: I sure hope so. I mean, Senator Lieberman has called for an investigation. I really think we need to do an aggressive investigation. We need to use this opportunity as to what happened in Fort Hood to, sure, find out what happened in these tragic circumstances, but to get a better insight to what I think is a real and continuing threat from radical jihadists. I think most Americans aren't aware of how severe this threat really is.

SCHIEFFER: Congressman, thank you very much for being with us this morning.

HOEKSTRA: Thank you.

SCHIEFFER: I want to turn now to get the other side to some of these questions, to Senator Pat Leahy. He is the Democratic chairman, of course, of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Well, you heard what the congressman said, Senator Leahy. Tell me why you think he's wrong.

LEAHY: I think that Eric Holder, our attorney general, is right. I think the president is right in holding the trials of these murderers in New York City.

What we're saying to the world is the United States acts out of strength, not out of fear. I know when I go around Vermont, people say, let's try criminals. Let's try criminals like KSM. Let's get them convicted. We're very much a law enforcement type of state here.

I was a former prosecutor. I'd like to just see them prosecuted. In the same which way we prosecuted Timothy McVeigh. We're not afraid to do that. We're the most powerful nation on earth. We have a judicial system that is the envy of the world. Let's show the world that we can use that power. We can use our judicial system, just as we did with Timothy McVeigh, and send the people -- and convict the people.

SCHIEFFER: But Timothy McVeigh was an American. He was not what some people would call an enemy combatant.

LEAHY: But...

SCHIEFFER: Won't this be a circus of sorts, though? That's what the congressman is saying. He says it's going to just turn into a propaganda show.

LEAHY: I have a lot of faith in our judges. They know how to run a trial. They know how to keep decorum in their court. If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed wants to stand up and say, as he did in Guantanamo, I committed all these murders, I did all these things, fine. If I was a prosecutor, I would just sit there and let that jury hear it, because he's going to be convicted.

That's the important thing. And we show the world that our judicial system works. I think that's why people like Ray Kelly, who is the commissioner of police, one of the finest commissioners of police anybody has ever had there in New York City, said we're prepared, we can handle this.

SCHIEFFER: But I guess the point that some people are raising is that someone who is an enemy combatant does not deserve the benefits that one gets in a trial in an American courtroom.

LEAHY: Bob, if somebody murders Americans and they murder Americans in America, they ought to be prosecuted in America, and hopefully convicted in America. I mean, if somebody comes into our country and murders somebody walking down the street, we're going to prosecute them here. It doesn't make any difference whether they're Americans or not Americans. They committed the crime in America, and that's what he did.

I think that the administration is doing the right thing. They're using all the things we have available. With Major Hasan, we're using a court martial at Fort Hood. That's the appropriate venue for that. With these 9/11 murderers, we're using the criminal courts in New York for them. With the people who bombed the U.S. Cole, we'll use the newly reconstituted military tribunals.

I think it's an example we're showing the rest of the world. We have systems that work. We're not afraid of these people. We're ready to stand up to them. I don't think we should run and hide and cower. Let's use our system. And let's convict them.

SCHIEFFER: What if he should be acquitted?

LEAHY: I don't think he's going to be acquitted. I've discussed the evidence that's available. Again, I've not prosecuted this kind of a case, but I've prosecuted a lot of murder cases. I think most prosecutors know what is going to happen.

You have got Eric Holder, who is one of the most experienced prosecutors this country has ever had as attorney general. He's got one of the greatest teams of prosecutors around him. I've gone over the case with him. I'd rather be the prosecutor than the defense counsel in this case.

SCHIEFFER: You know, anybody who has watched "Law and Order" or any of the other crime shows on television knows that the first thing that happens when a law enforcement arrests someone, they advise them of their rights, that they have a right to an attorney and so on. Now, there was no attorney here. This man was waterboarded 183 times. Do you think that we can find untainted evidence, enough of it, to convict him? Because if you say, well, he didn't have a lawyer from the beginning, would that say to people, to a judge, well, you can't use any of that evidence?

LEAHY: No, I think that we have plenty of evidence as obtained outside of the -- whatever he said in waterboarding. Keep in mind, they indicted him long before this waterboarding. They had evidence enough to bring indictments against him long before that. I don't -- with the review that I've had of the evidence available, I have no question that they have enough evidence untainted by the waterboarding that will be admissible in court. And he will be convicted.

SCHIEFFER: Let me just ask you because you're the chairman of the Judiciary Committee about this investigation that's going on down in Fort Hood. Obviously, somebody dropped the ball in all of this process. This man should not have been at Fort Hood. Do you think Congress ought to actively open an investigation into this, Senator Leahy?

LEAHY: Well, I agree with the congressman that there's a lot of the dots were not connected. The fact of the matter is, there will be congressional investigations. I think we have to do it carefully, in a way that we don't interfere with the prosecution that is going to be of him, the court martial prosecution. We don't want to step on things that will make it more difficult to prosecute him, because, of course, he should be prosecuted for these murders.

But obviously, in the Congress, we have a reason for oversight. I've already talked to Director Mueller of the FBI about this and the attorney general. The attorney general will be before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. I fully expect that he'll be asked a number of questions about this. Ultimately, we should know where, if mistakes were made, where they were made for the sole purpose of making sure those mistakes are not made again. The same way we did after 9/11. You know, the evidence was there and the information was there to stop the attack in 9/11. The dots were not connected. Had they been -- we just want to make sure these mistakes are not made a second time.

SCHIEFFER: All right. We'll look forward to those hearings in the coming week. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for joining us. We'll be back in one minute.