Guantanamo Bay

Floor Speech

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, a lot has been written over the past several days about the inmates at Guantanamo, and none of it makes the administration's decision to shut this facility down by the end of the year any less challenging than it already was. This is an issue which has grave implications for our Nation's security, and we really need to get it right. So this morning, I wish to spend a few minutes explaining why the administration would do well to reconsider its approach to Guantanamo, an approach that looks even hastier now than when it was first announced back in January.

One of the most obvious problems the administration faces on this issue is what to do with these inmates once Guantanamo is closed. This is not a new concern. Ever since the United States started using Guantanamo as a detention facility after the invasion of Afghanistan, Government officials and legal thinkers have tried to come up with ways of dealing with enemy combatants who don't fall into the traditional categories of war. No one denies that the United States is legally entitled to capture and to hold enemy fighters to prevent them from returning to battle, but their release and repatriation have proved to be extremely complicated. As the years have passed, these questions have become even more complicated--not less--than they were back in 2001.

Just this week, a number of European countries that had previously offered to help the administration find a new home for about 60 of the remaining 241 inmates at Guantanamo began to backpedal. Some of these countries now indicate they won't take any of these inmates unless the United

States agrees to take some of them as well and agrees to put them in American prisons. This is clearly a dodge since the American people appear to be even less interested in housing these inmates than the Europeans are. Well, if there is no place for these terrorists to go in Europe and no place for them to go in the United States, an obvious question arises: Where else can they go? At the moment, there is no answer to that most important question.

When the question of sending detainees to U.S. soil was put to the Senate in the summer of 2007, the vote against it was 94 to 3. We had that vote right here in the Senate in the summer of 2007, and by a vote of 94 to 3 Members of the Senate said they did not want these Guantanamo prisoners on U.S. soil. This is not only a good reflection of where public opinion is on the issue, it is also notable that four of the votes cast were Senators from Kansas and Colorado, States that are most often mentioned as possibilities to house the inmates. One of these Senators, Ken Salazar, is now in the Obama administration, and former Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, who also opposes sending inmates to Kansas, is the administration's pick to head the Department of Health and Human Services. So the bottom line here is that it is hard to find anyone anywhere, even inside the Obama administration, who wants their State to become the next home to captured violent terrorists.

Now, there is a reason no one wants to have these guys nearby. Over the years, the pool of prisoners at Guantanamo has become only more dangerous, not less, and those who remain include dozens of proud and self-proclaimed--proud and self-proclaimed--members of al-Qaida. Many have been directly linked to some of the worst terrorist attacks in history, including some who had direct knowledge--direct knowledge--of September 11. Others have trained or funded terrorists, made bombs or presented themselves as potential suicide bombers.

We recently got a vivid glimpse into the minds of these men when a number of them responded in writing to the Government's charges against them. Here are some of the excerpts from the document which was signed by five men whose names appear on the chart right behind me:

With regard to these nine accusations that you are putting us on trial for--

So said one of the terrorists--

to us, they are not accusations. To us, they are badges of honor which we carry with pride ..... therefore, killing you and fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you, responding back to your attacks, are all considered to be great legitimate duty in our religion.

Later on, these men refer to the September 11 attacks as ``the blessed 11 September operation.''

Toward the end of the document, they make a statement and a prediction. Here is what they said:

We ask to be near to God, we fight you and destroy you and terrorize you. ..... your end is very near and your fall will be just as the fall of the towers on the blessed 9/11 day. ..... so we ask from God to accept our contributions to the great attack, the great attack on America, and to place our nineteen martyred brethren among the highest peaks in paradise. .....

One of the most chilling statements in the document is the simple assertion by these men, quoted on the chart behind me:

We are terrorists to the bone.

``We are terrorists to the bone.''

This is how they see themselves. These are the men the administration wants to release from Guantanamo?

Not only are most of the remaining inmates at Guantanamo extremely dangerous, they are also increasingly likely to return to battle if they are transferred back to their home countries. According to Pentagon reports, detainees who have been released from Guantanamo appear to be reengaging in terrorism at higher rates, with the current rate of those either suspected or confirmed of reengaging in terrorism at about 12 percent. About 12 percent of those who have been released are back in the fight.

More than a third of the detainees who have already been released were from Saudi Arabia, which has its own detention and rehabilitation system. But our confidence in that system has been shaken by recent reports that Saudi detainees who returned home have gone back to fighting.

Last month, two Saudis who were released from Guantanamo and who passed through the Saudi rehabilitation program appeared in a video as members of al-Qaida in Yemen. One of them, Ali al-Shihri, is thought to have been involved in a deadly bombing on the U.S. Embassy in Yemen last September.

Al-Shirhi was released to Saudi Arabia from Guantanamo in 2007.

Even more worrisome than the Saudi detainees, however, is the prospect of releasing Yemeni detainees to Yemen since Yemen has shown little ability to control even the most dangerous terrorists we release. Of the 100 Yemenis who remain at Guantanamo, about 15 have been cleared for transfer to Yemen. Another 15 may face trial in the United States. Some of the remaining Yemenis could go to Saudi Arabia, but the Yemeni Government is protesting the move.

Other inmates who have been released have shown up on the battlefield in places like Pakistan and Iraq. One former inmate from Kuwait traveled to Syria after his release, snuck into Iraq, and plotted attacks against U.S. forces there. He eventually drove a truck packed with explosives into a joint American and Iraqi military training camp, blowing himself up, and killing 13 Iraqi soldiers.

Each one of these concerns is serious enough to warrant a reconsideration of the administration's decision to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. Taken together it is hard to imagine the administration is not already having second thoughts. Of the alternatives that have been considered, some, like a transfer of detainees to Europe, may no longer be viable.

But even if these inmates were sent to Europe, one all-important question would remain: What then? Will they be released? With a recidivism rate now hovering around 12 percent, this is a risk that is simply too dangerous to take--especially when it only takes one terrorist to inflict unimaginable horror.

According to the European Union's own rules, a detainee who is released within a 25-nation area within the EU is free to move about these countries without even a passport check. A member of al-Qaida who is sent to Europe and subsequently released could easily reenter a transnational terrorist network--and the recidivism rate suggests that this is not at all unlikely.

Guantanamo itself, on the other hand, has proven to be a completely secure facility: in more than 7 years of use, not a single prisoner has escaped Guantanamo to maim or kill a single innocent person. Let me repeat that: in the more than 7 years that we have used Guantanamo as a detention facility, not a single prisoner out of the roughly 800 who have been housed there has escaped to maim or kill a single innocent person.

No one has credibly argued that the inmates are poorly treated: three meals a day, a full library or books, magazines, and DVDs, and medical care that is said to be excellent. Indeed, one European official who visited in 2006 called Guantanamo ``a model'' prison and better than the ones in Belgium. This is not Abu Ghraib.

Attorney General Eric Holder is in charge of the review of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. He captured the dilemma over Guantanamo after a recent trip there when he offered a glowing report on the facility, said the prisoners were being treated well--and then reiterated the administration's intent to close it within the year. On some level, the Attorney General must realize how illogical this seems. If he doesn't, then for the sake of the safety of the United States and its citizens, it is my hope that he realizes it before the end of the year.

President Obama was right and courageous to rethink an artificial deadline on withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq. As we approach another artificial deadline, it is my hope that he rethinks this decision irrespective of what they may think in certain European capitals. Any shift in our policy on these detainees must meet a simple test: Will it keep us as safe as Guantanamo has from men like the ones whose names appear behind me? If the answer is no, then the policy we have is best. At the moment, the only safe option is to keep the inmates at Guantanamo in one place--and that's right where they are.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the court order to publish the Islamic Response to the Government's nine accusations and the Response itself.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source