Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee - Federal Government Counterterrorism Efforts

Federal News Service

HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

SUBJECT: FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COUNTERTERRORISM EFFORTS

CHAIRED BY: SENATOR ORRIN HATCH (R-UT)

WITNESS: ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT

LOCATION: 226 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.

BODY:
SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): Thank you, General Ashcroft. I guess-you have stated on multiple occasions here today and before the course that we are at war. And indeed, it was the 107th Congress who voted by 98-to-0 in the Senate and 420-to-1 in the House to authorize the use of military force, and indeed that's what we are doing in fighting this war on terror.

But I-I am very much impressed with the challenge that that presents in the minds of many Americans to understand how this war on terror comports with our historical experience with what war entailed, where we fought against-our armies fought against other uniformed armies, with all of the equipment and armament that goes along with war. And indeed, there have been high elected officials serving here in Washington and elsewhere who have questioned whether in fact this is a war.

But, isn't the case, General Ashcroft, that the resolution of this very Congress, and indeed-that authorized the use of force, and the president, as commander-in-chief, his execution of his powers under the Constitution and pursuant to that resolution, that provides the authority that is necessary for us to not only investigate but to preempt much of the terrorist activity that has made this country safe, or prevented a terrorist attack since 9/11?

ATTY GEN. ASHCROFT: Well, Senator, this was is different, your first point. But, there are similarities to previous conflicts. And the basis upon which this administration has acted to secure the United States in the war against al Qaeda is found in the precedents from previous settings.

In the Second World War, much discussion of which has taken place as we have celebrated the heroism of the greatest generation, un- uniformed saboteurs came into the United States from our enemy and sought to, with a view to disrupting and destroying and killing Americans. They were treated as enemy combatants, and the basis for the apprehension by the executive branch of individuals as enemy combatants comes from the Supreme Court cases that followed that apprehension of unconventional, un-uniformed individuals, who against the laws of war threatened the United States.

SEN. CORNYN: Indeed, isn't it that precedent, that Supreme Court precedent that you're referring to, that provides the basis of the government's position in the Padilla and Hamdi cases currently pending before the United States Supreme Court?

ATTY GEN. ASHCROFT: Among the precedents cited in those cases is that case. Of course, the court also-the courts have considered the acts of the Congress taken in this particular situation, which you cited earlier in your remarks, providing a basis for understanding that the president needed to take action to defend the American people in this war against al Qaeda, and that the authority to take such action had been granted by the United States Congress.

SEN. CORNYN: Well, let me just ask you, in your opinion, what would be the consequences of a decision that prevented us from acting to preempt terrorist attacks, but merely treated terrorism as some species of a crime that could not be investigated and punished until after it occurred? What would be the consequences in the national security of the United States?

ATTY GEN. ASHCROFT: Well, I can give you one example, and I believe I cite the deputy attorney general of the United States who was an active prosecutor of terrorists in New York before he became the U.S. attorney in New York, and before he became the deputy U.S. attorney general. And in commenting on the Padilla case, he indicated that we would be incapable of restraining an individual whose expressed intent was to, in acts of war, destroy innocent people in America by detonating explosions which would destroy things like apartment houses and the like. Of course, we know also that he, Padilla, had also spent time studying the potentials of a dirty bomb so as to detonate a device which would disperse radioactive or other very dangerous contamination materials.

And, the ability to intercept and to interdict the activities of an enemy combatant, one who is a part of the enemy, has trained with the enemy, has developed a skill which could be very injurious to the public is-is a long-standing ability in the United States. As I say, it was employed by President Roosevelt in the Second World War, and obviously it's a-it's a responsibility of the president in the war against al Qaeda to be willing to defend the American people and to take such steps to do so in this war as well.

SEN. CORNYN: It's been said that the United States Constitution is not a suicide pact, so I assume that you believe-I trust you believe that it's within the authority under international treaties, under the --

SEN. HATCH: Senator, your time is up.

SEN. CORNYN: Well, I'll send you any other questions I may have in writing. Thank you.

ATTY GEN. ASHCROFT: Thank you.