National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 - Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. AYOTTE. I wish to thank my colleague from Georgia, who is the Republican ranking member on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Senator Chambliss has seen so much in terms of the real threats that we face from terrorists in this country. I appreciate his leadership on ensuring that America remains safe and his leadership on this issue of ensuring that the Guantanamo detainees are not released to get back in the fight against us, to attack not only our soldiers but us and our allies.

I would start with the Defense authorization, as it stands, and even the side-by-side offered by Chairman Levin, is a dramatic change from current policy of where we are now with regard to Guantanamo and the transfer of Guantanamo detainees internationally and to the United States of America between last year's Defense authorization and this year's Defense authorization.

What has changed? The only thing that has changed is the fact that the reengagement rate of those who are suspected of having been released--who have been released from Guantanamo and are suspected or actually have reengaged in the fight against us--has increased, not decreased.

Yet the status quo of where we stand now, if our amendment just described by Senator Chambliss is not adopted, amendment No. 2255--is that we would weaken what is required to be certified from people who are released from Guantanamo.

In other words, the Defense authorization and the proposal offered by Chairman Levin would weaken the national security requirements that are currently in place; the standards which we have to meet before someone is transferred from Guantanamo to another country, even though the reengagement rate has actually increased.

What else would it do? It would now allow the potential for transferring Guantanamo detainees to the United States of America. This would include Guantanamo detainees potentially such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed whom Senator Chambliss has referenced. He is the mastermind of September 11. He is the key player behind the attacks on our country on September 11, and so we are going to allow the potential that he could be transferred to the United States of America.

In addition, there is allowance for a potential transfer to the country of Yemen. As Senator Chambliss has talked about, the country of Yemen is the place where the head of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is centered. Not only that, in Yemen, there have actually been instances where we have seen prison breaks in Yemen. In fact, it is a very destabilized place.

In June I asked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff about Yemen, and he assessed it to be the most dangerous. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which is located in Yemen, is the most dangerous Al Qaeda affiliate. Again, when we look at Yemen, there have been breaks from detention facilities there.

Senator Chambliss has described the 2009 Christmas Day Bomber who received his training in Yemen.

We have Guantanamo detainees who have actually been captured--whom we have let out previously--captured, killed or spotted in Yemen. These included Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula's former second in command, Said al-Shihri and Ibrahim Suleiman al Rubaish, alleged to be one of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula's main religious leaders. We have instances where in Yemen there actually been have Al Qaeda terrorists, some who have returned to the leadership of Al Qaeda after we released them from Guantanamo and have gone back in.

I ask, why are we lifting the prohibition of transfers to Yemen when there still is not a certification that can be made that they will not reengage and that Yemen even can detain these individuals or account for them in a place which is the head of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula?

Where we are now is very important in terms of the protection of our country. As Senator Chambliss mentioned, the administration has been so caught up in not wanting to transfer anyone into Guantanamo that we are left with a situation where we are potentially losing valuable intelligence to protect our country.

I wish to speak about that. If we captured tomorrow the current head of Al Qaeda, Zawahiri, what would we do with him? Are we going to bring him to the United States or should we bring him to a secure detention facility at Guantanamo?

The legal questions that are raised by this in terms of if we bring him to the United States, are we going to tell him you have the right to remain silent, even though he is the current head of Al Qaeda? Shouldn't the first priority be to collect information to protect our country, to know what they are planning, to know what they are doing, to know what could happen next?

We now have the example that was given of Warsame, who was a terrorist captured overseas. Instead of being brought to Guantanamo, he was put on a ship for approximately 60 days and then brought to the United States, where he was told you have the right to remain silent.

Worse, recently, there was the capture of a man named al-Libi, and al-Libi actually had been involved in the beginning--in fact, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation recently said before the Homeland Security Committee that he was a founder of Al Qaeda with Osama bin Laden--and recaptured in Libya. Rather than bring him to Guantanamo Bay, he was put on a ship for only 1 week, 1 week.

Then he was transferred to New York City and read his Miranda rights. This is someone who was alleged to have committed the bombing against the embassies in Africa in 1998 and someone who has decades of involvement in Al Qaeda and who was only interrogated on a ship for 1 week, rather than being brought to Guantanamo and fully interrogated to make sure we maximize the gathering of intelligence to protect our country.

Now the administration wants to close Guantanamo. The alternative offered by Chairman Levin is that they should come up with a plan of where we would put these detainees in the United States of America.

The question is why have we had to wait this long, first, to even have some information of what the plan would be and what to do. Second, why would we want the most dangerous terrorists in the world, some of them, to come to the United States of America, when we have a secure detention facility at Guantanamo? Why would we risk the legal questions that will be raised if we bring them to the United States? Do we have to read them Miranda? If we capture Zawahiri and we have no Guantanamo to take him to, do we have to read him Miranda because he is in the United States of America and we can't gather intelligence to protect our country?

How much does it cost to make sure people are secure in the area where these terrorists are being brought? We don't even know where they will be brought because the alternative amendment, all it says is that they have to come up with a plan of where to put these terrorists rather than at Guantanamo. We don't know--the amendment does not provide for us as Congress to approve this plan. It only says the Secretary of Defense has to come up with a plan, and then he may take action to transfer the detainees, allowing them to be transferred to the United States of America.

Stay tuned if the Guantanamo detainees are coming to your neighborhood because we don't know. This is why it is important that the prohibitions stay in place in the absence of any plan. Why should we bring them to the United States of America, given the dangerous nature of who they are? Also, why wouldn't we want to have a secure facility to ensure that we have a place to interrogate terrorists, to make sure we can maximize the information and understand what they know to prevent attacks against our country. Otherwise, we will continue to have a situation where terrorists such as al-Libi are only interrogated for 1 week and then they are told you have the right to remain silent. No terrorist should hear that right.

I wish to say that what this provision does is it puts back in place the requirements that the administration has to meet a strong set of criteria before they can transfer to third-party countries.

What was taken out? What was taken out, which is important, is the way they have weakened the requirements for transferring people, the requirements the administration must meet before transferring from Guantanamo to third-party countries. They have taken out language that requires the Secretary of Defense currently to certify that a country is not a state sponsor of terrorism or foreign terrorist organization.

Now there is no longer a requirement that we even have to certify that. If our amendment is not passed and the alternative is passed, if there is a country or an entity that is a state sponsor of terrorism or a foreign terrorist organization, then they can transfer there.

They have also taken out the provision that would consider whether we have previously transferred a detainee to the country and yet the detainee has gone back into the fight, has reengaged. In other words, if we made a mistake in the past and transferred someone out of Guantanamo to a country such as Yemen, they weren't able to secure that individual and that individual gets back into the fight, that was a consideration they had to take into account before they could transfer to that country.

That is now being removed from the national security criteria, making it much weaker and easier to transfer to countries that are not only potential sponsors of terrorism but are also countries where we have already had a history of transferring detainees who have gotten back in the fight against us and our soldiers. We have seen some of these detainees show up in places such as Afghanistan against our soldiers. We have seen these detainees attempt to attack us and our allies. We cannot risk weakening the provisions to say we are going to transfer them and take our risks that they can do that again.

We should keep the current law in place. The administration has been able to meet the current law. They have transferred six detainees under the current provisions. They do not have an excuse to say that we can't transfer anyone because they have already been able to transfer people.

I ask unanimous consent to ask my colleague, the Senator from Georgia, a question about these provisions.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. AYOTTE. I ask Senator Chambliss, if we eliminate Guantanamo--in other words, under this proposal they would be permitted to transfer people to the United States of America or that new captures be brought to the United States of America instead of to a facility such as Guantanamo, what are the risks we face in terms of losing valuable intelligence that we need to protect our country?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. AYOTTE. I would say we have to go from the evidence we have before us, where we have a 29-percent reengagement rate. And let's face it. The easier decisions were made first, in terms of who should be released. Now we have some very hardcore individuals who are there. We already have a 29-percent reengagement rate of them getting back in the fight against us as terrorists, and so we face a grave risk of some of the most hardened individuals if we transfer them or we lessen the standard for transfer, which is what this is doing. It is taking away the issues I talked about--the consideration of countries we have already transferred to but people have gotten back in it--and making it easier to transfer and weaker in terms of the national security requirements that have to be met, and I am worried they will get back in and then harm us and our interests because we already have a history of that.

I want to ask the Senator from Georgia an additional question. Some have cited the cost issue as the reason we should close Guantanamo. But to the Senator's knowledge, has anyone done the cost estimate of all the considerations that would have to be taken into account in the United States and also the security interests of the people of this country of transferring these terrorists to the United States?

Finally, I would also say there are risks we face in losing intelligence if they have to be Mirandized, and things such as that. That is a huge cost in terms of protecting our country, is it not?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I rise in support of amendment No. 2255. Let me just say what we cannot afford. What we cannot afford is to read terrorists Miranda rights and tell them they have the right to remain silent.

Why can't we afford that? Because if we lose the opportunity to gather valuable information to protect our Nation, then we cannot prevent future attacks against the country.

Here is the problem we face. Here, shown in this picture I have in the Chamber, is the current head of Al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri. If we capture him tomorrow, I ask my colleagues this: Do you want to send him to a secure detention facility where he can be fully interrogated under the laws of war and held there in detention under law of war authority or do you want to send him to a prison in the United States where we cannot know--the legal questions are many--where there is a real risk that he will not be able to be held in law of war detention and will be told you have the right to remain silent, and we will lose opportunities to gather intelligence to protect our country.

My colleague from Illinois talked about the worst criminals whom we put in prison. I am a former murder prosecutor, and I put some of the worst murderers in prison. There is a difference. We are not dealing with criminals; we are dealing with terrorists. The priority has to be to gather information and protect our country. If we catch Zawahiri tomorrow, bring him to a prison near you, give him a lawyer, tell him he has the right to remain silent, those legal questions are not dealt with if we adopt the alternative amendment that allows the administration to transfer people such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, to the United States.

What do we do with future captures, such as Zawahiri? How do we ensure we can gather information? By the way, that is priceless. If we can stop a terrorist attack by interrogating someone--the price we can save for America, we cannot put a number on that.

If you believe, with a rising reengagement rate of 29 percent--which is higher than last year in terms of people we have had at Guantanamo, we have let go but have gotten back in the fight against us--that we should weaken the standards this administration has to meet to transfer people from Guantanamo to third-party countries, then that is essentially what is done in the Defense authorization.

My amendment will restore existing law to ensure that there are strong national security waivers the administration must meet before they transfer prisoners to countries where they are getting back in the fight against us, where they are getting out and getting back in the fight, including against our troops.

So this is a fundamental question. We cannot afford right now, with what is happening around the world, to close the one secure detention facility we have, and it is clear we can conduct law of war detentions there. We still remain in a fight against terrorists. We cannot treat them like common criminals. That is what is at stake.

If you believe this man shown in this picture should come to a prison near you, that is not what I have heard from my constituents or the American people. That is why my amendment will prohibit the transfer of the mastermind of 9/11 to U.S. soil and keep him in Guantanamo, a top-rate detention facility that keeps terrorists, as opposed to common criminals, secure.

Finally, I would say, as we look at the prohibition on Yemen, my amendment, which is also cosponsored by the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee and many other Members in this Chamber, would prevent transfers to the country of Yemen. Without my amendment, the administration could transfer terrorists to Yemen. What does that mean? Yemen is where Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is centered. We have actually had terrorists who have been released from Guantanamo and gone back into Al Qaeda leadership and been found in Yemen and there have been prison breaks in Yemen. Yet if my amendment is not adopted to prohibit transfers to Yemen, the administration can transfer detainees from Guantanamo to countries such as Yemen, and the security requirements are weakened.

The world is not a safer place from last year to this year, unfortunately. The reengagement rate of Guantanamo prisoners has increased from last year to this year.

Why are we weakening the national security provisions? Let's keep existing law in place. Why do we want to send Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to the United States of America when we have a secure facility at Guantanamo? Why do we want to take any risk that if we are blessed enough to have our men and women in uniform--who do a fantastic job--capture Zawahiri tomorrow, that he may have to be told ``you have the right to remain silent'' because there are legal ambiguities when he is brought to this country, as opposed to law-of-war detention and interrogation in Guantanamo? This is what is at stake.

We cannot afford to think we are no longer fighting a war against terrorists. We cannot afford to treat people like him as common criminals. As much as I believe in our criminal justice system, it was not created to gather intelligence, which is what we need to do to make sure America remains safe.

I ask my colleagues to support amendment No. 2255, which is cosponsored also by Senator Chambliss, the ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee; Senator Inhofe, the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee; as well as Senator Fischer, Senator Rubio, and Senator Barrasso.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source