Department Of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010 - Conference Report - Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. I rise today to speak in support of a provision in this bill and thank the chairman of this committee, Senator ROBERT C. BYRD of West Virginia, for his fine work not only on this bill but for his amazing contribution to America and to this institution of the Senate.

I rise today to speak in support of a provision in the bill which allows detainees held at Guantanamo to be transferred to the United States to be prosecuted and held responsible for their crime. The President has been clear. It is a priority of this administration to bring to justice those responsible for 9/11 and other terrorists who have attacked our country.

The conference report which we are considering would allow those people responsible for acts of terrorism to be brought here to be tried for their crimes. Unfortunately, some people on the other side of the aisle have spoken today and have a different view.

Earlier today, my colleagues, Senators CHAMBLISS and SESSIONS, argued that we should not transfer suspected terrorists from Guantanamo to the United States to be prosecuted for their crimes.

Senator Chambliss said, ``Prosecuting these individuals in our United States courts simply will not work.''

Senator Sessions said, ``There is no practical alternative'' to prosecuting detainees in military commissions at Guantanamo Bay.

Those statements are very clear but they are also wrong. Look at the record. For 7 long years the Bush administration failed to convict any of the terrorists planning the 9/11 attacks. And for 7 long years only three individuals were convicted by military commissions at Guantanamo. In contrast, look at the record of our criminal justice system when it came to trying terrorists accountable for their crimes. Richard Sabel and James Benjamin, two former Federal prosecutors with extensive experience, published a detailed study of the prosecutions of terrorists in the courts of the United States of America.

Here is what they found: From 9/11 until June 2009, 195 terrorists were convicted and sentenced for their crimes in our courts.

When the Senator on the other side says, ``Prosecuting these individuals in our United States courts simply will not work,'' he ignores 195 successful prosecutions.

According to the Justice Department, since January 1, 2009, more than 30 terrorists have been successfully prosecuted or sentenced in Federal courts. It continues to this day.

When you compare the record at Guantanamo, where Senators from the other side of the aisle say all these cases should be tried, it is clear the only way to deal with this is through our court system--not exclusively, but it should be an option that is available to the Department of Justice.

Recently, the administration transferred Ahmed Ghailani to the United States to be prosecuted for his involvement in the 1998 bombings of our Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 people, including 12 Americans.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been critical of the administration's decision to bring this man to justice in America's courts. For example, ERIC CANTOR, who is a Member of the House on the Republican side, said:

We have no judicial precedents for the conviction of someone like this.

The truth is, there are many precedents for the conviction of terrorists in U.S. courts: Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; Omar Abdel Rahman, the so-called Blind Sheikh; Richard Reid, the ``Shoe Bomber;'' Zacarias Moussaoui; Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber; and Terry Nichols, the Oklahoma City coconspirator.

In fact, there is a precedent for convicting terrorists who were involved in the bombing of the United States Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, the same attack Ahmed Ghailani was indicted for. In 2001, four men were sentenced to life without parole at the Federal courthouse in lower Manhattan, the same court in which Mr. Ghailani will be tried.

I will tell you point blank: If they on the other side of the aisle are trying to create some fear that we cannot bring a terrorist to the United States of America, hold them successfully, try them in our courts, convict them and incarcerate them, history says otherwise.

Over 350 convicted terrorists have been tried in our courts and are being held in our prisons today successfully--held every single day. Is America less safe because of it? No. We are safer because would-be terrorists are off the streets, convicted in our courts, serving time in prison--exactly where they belong.

To argue we should eliminate this administration's right to try a terrorist in a U.S. court is to deny to our government a tool they need to fight terrorism. We also know that not a single person has ever escaped from maximum security in the Federal prisons of America. Somehow, to create the notion that the people tried in our courts are somehow going to be released in
America--President Obama has made it clear, that will never happen. He is not endorsing that, never has. And to suggest that is to suggest something that has never been endorsed by the administration. Furthermore, we know they can be held successfully in our courts.

This bill does the right thing. It gives the President the option, when the Department of Justice believes it is the most likely place to try, successfully, those accused of terrorism--to bring them into our court system, to detain them in the United States for that purpose.

There is nothing in this bill which would give the President--or anyone, if he wanted it--the authority to release a Guantanamo detainee in America. This is something that has been created, unfortunately, by a lot of talk show hosts who do not read the bill and do not understand the law and certainly do not understand what Guantanamo does to us today.

What does it cost for us to hold a terrorist at Guantanamo today? Mr. President, $435,000 a year. That is what it costs--dramatically more than the cost of incarcerating in America's prisons.

I want to make it clear that I endorse the position not only of the administration but also of GEN Colin Powell; Republican Senators JOHN MCCAIN and LINDSEY GRAHAM; former Republican Secretaries of State James Baker, Henry Kissinger, and Condoleezza Rice; Defense Secretary Robert Gates; ADM Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and GEN David Petraeus, who have all said that closing Guantanamo will make America a safer place.

There are some on the other side of the aisle who have not accepted that. I do not believe they understand the threat which the continuation of Guantanamo as an imprisonment facility challenges us to acknowledge in this day and age when we face global terrorism.

Guantanamo must be closed because it has become a recruiting tool for al-Qaida and other terrorists. That is not just my opinion; it is the opinion of significant leaders of this country, such as former GEN Colin Powell.

I think we should endorse the language in this conference report. We should move forward with the adoption of this conference report, give the President another tool to fight terrorism.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source