MSNBC Interview - Transcript

Interview

MSNBC INTERVIEW WITH SENATOR JOHN THUNE (R-SD)

INTERVIEWER: ANDREA MITCHELL

Copyright ©2009 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Carina Nyberg at cnyberg@fednews.com or call 1-202-216-2706.

MS. MITCHELL: Joining us now from Capitol Hill, Republican Senator John Thune. The senator serves on Armed Services Committee.

And, Senator, you agree with the vote against Guantanamo detainees being released into the U.S. prisons. Why? We've got murderers. We've got all sorts of very dangerous criminals being held successfully in U.S. prisons throughout the United States. Why not these detainees?

SEN. THUNE: The American jail system is designed for American systems, for criminals. It's not designed to handle the types of threats and risks and dangers that having terrorists housed in some of these prisons would pose to communities and neighborhoods in this country, Andrea.

And I think what you saw in the Senate today was a vote. It was 90 to six, Democrats and Republicans coming together. And actually it was an about-face for the Democrats in the Senate because earlier they had put funding into the bill that would have gone toward closing Guantanamo, but they recognized that that was a losing proposition, particularly given the fact that the president has not put forward any kind of a plan or detailed what he would do with these detainees.

So the 90-to-six vote was a big bipartisan vote, a demonstration again, I think, that the concern that the American people have about having detainees in their neighborhoods and in their communities is a loser. And I think that -- I hope, at least, that this will send a message to the White House, too, that maybe they'll start backing away from the position that they have about closing Guantanamo in the first place.

MS. MITCHELL: The president has a major speech on this whole issue tomorrow. What do you want to hear from him? What would satisfy your concerns?

SEN. THUNE: I would like to hear him say -- I mean, the president has done an about-face on photos, done an about-face on military commissions. I would like to have him come out and say that he's going to back away from his stated January 2010 time frame for closing Guantanamo.

I mean, it's a $200 million state-of-the-art facility hundreds of miles from American communities and neighborhoods. It's very safe and secure. And it's never been -- no one's ever escaped from it. It's a -- it seems to me to fit everything that we need in terms of a facility to house these detainees. And in spite of that, the president seems intent on closing it without a plan about what to do.

So, now, maybe --

MS. MITCHELL: Well --

SEN. THUNE: -- he'll spell out a plan tomorrow, but I would like to hear him say that "I have decided that I am not going to adhere to my 20 -- January 2010 time frame to close Guantanamo."

MS. MITCHELL: But, Senator, you've got foreign policy experts on both sides of the aisle -- Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Hillary Clinton -- all saying that the Guantanamo prison has become a major foreign policy black eye. It is a real sore point not only with the Arab and Muslim world, but with Europeans as well. Doesn't that argument have any sway with you?

SEN. THUNE: I come to a different conclusion. I have a different point of view. And I know there are folks both in the previous administration and, of course, those in the current one who want to close it. But I don't think we ought to make decisions predicated upon what the Europeans think.

I think that we have a situation we have to deal with. We've got about 250 or so terrorists, and we've got facility -- a $200 million state-of-the-art facility, I might add -- that is very suitable for this purpose. And it seems to me that, in spite of those who are calling for its closure, that -- and one of the arguments they'll use is that it's going to invite more terrorist attacks.

I mean, terrorists don't need another excuse to attack us. They've proven before -- before Guantanamo was used as a detention facility -- that they were very willing to attack and kill Americans. They have all the reasons in the world, and most of it's because they hate our way of life, they hate our value system, and they want to see America destroyed.

So I don't think that having Guantanamo as a place to house detainees poses any greater risk to America of terrorist attacks. In fact, I would argue that if you close it and move them into the United States, you're probably inviting more terrorist attacks against American communities.

MS. MITCHELL: We're going to have former Vice President Dick Cheney speaking tomorrow on this subject and on the subject of interrogations. The president's speaking as well, almost at the exact same time here in Washington. Is that a debate that you or Republicans welcome?

SEN. THUNE: You know, I honestly think that -- it's -- what we want to do is what the right thing is for the country and for our national security interests. But I think if the president stays intent on this objective, that he's going to be on the wrong side of the American people. I think the American people are coming to the conclusion that having a facility like Guantanamo makes sense to house these detainees, and that introducing them into American communities and cities would be a really bad idea.

MS. MITCHELL: Now, a couple of really quick things. You voted, I think -- correct me if I'm wrong -- you voted against the credit- card legislation? Is that correct?

SEN. THUNE: I did. Yes.

MS. MITCHELL: And why?

SEN. THUNE: Well, that became a jobs issue in my state. There are many things in the bill that I support, but the bill went too far in terms of trying to provide corrective action or what they perceive to be corrective action. And it, as a consequences of that, will undermine about 5,000 jobs in my state of South Dakota.

We have some subprime, low-limit credit-card issuers in my state who create a lot of good-paying jobs. They provide access to credit for millions of Americans. And so I could not support the bill because of the steps it went to to close some of those operations down.

But there are many things in the bill that, frankly, were good. This was just, in my view, an overreach. And there regulations put in place last fall by the Fed that were very comprehensive, and addressed a lot of the abuses.

MS. MITCHELL: But they don't go into effect yet. They won't go into effect --

SEN. THUNE: Well, they go into effect in July of 2010. This would go into effect, I think, next January.

But either way, you're going to have to allow some transition time, I think, for a lot of these issuers who are going to be impacted by the new rules and now by the new law. Unfortunately, in my state, my theory is that they will not be able to adapt their business plans, and thereby we could use a lot of good-paying jobs in my state.

MS. MITCHELL: And, Senator, finally, just very briefly, I know this has been circulating around in reference to the Supreme Court. Jeff Sessions was open to a -- the possibility if it turns out to be a gay or a lesbian justice being nominated. You said that you think that would be a bridge too far right now. Is that not something you could accept?

SEN. THUNE: You know, my comment with regard to that, Andrea -- and I probably stated it somewhat poorly -- but what I meant to say was that we should not make a decision or the president should not nominate a judge based upon identity politics; that it shouldn't be because they're a certain orientation or a certain race or --

MS. MITCHELL: No, but if it's incidental to whom they are -- to who they, are then that would be all right?

SEN. THUNE: Well, I think the key for me is their judicial philosophy and whether or not they're going to interpret the laws and the Constitution of the United States, whether they're going to exercise judicial restraint. And if that's true, I'm not going to vote against a nominee because they happen to be gay or, you know, whatever -- a woman or someone from -- you know, if you've got someone who is a particular race or national origin. I don't think that ought to be the basis on which a decision to nominate somebody to the court should be based.

It shouldn't be based upon identity politics. It ought to be based upon their judicial philosophy. And in my view, that would be a restrained philosophy, one who is supportive of interpreting the laws and the Constitution of the United States, not legislating from the bench, not trying to implement a particular political ideology.

MS. MITCHELL: Okay. Thanks for clarifying that. Senator Thune, thank you very much.

SEN. THUNE: Thanks, Andrea.

END.

Source