Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment which would strike the section of the bill restricting the use of funds for building and modifying facilities in the United States to house prisoners presently at Guantanamo Bay.

The argument for why we should strike this section is straightforward. The detainees at Guantanamo Bay must be brought to justice. Those who are guilty of terrorism need to be tried and punished in a swift and judicious manner. Any detainee who is innocent should, with equal speed and sincerity, be released.

Two cases exemplify this argument and underline the importance of this amendment. The first is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind the attack on the United States on 9/11. Since 2006, Mr. Mohammed has been detained at Guantanamo, where he has yet to be tried, convicted, or appropriately punished for his heinous actions. Justice for the victims, for the families who lost loved ones at the World Trade Center, at the Pentagon, and in Pennsylvania must be carried out. So far, this has not happened.

At the same time, while they haven't managed to try and convict anyone at Guantanamo, more than 400 terrorists, including the 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, have been tried, convicted, and sentenced in the Federal courts in the United States without incident and in a manner befitting the American justice system. No convicted terrorist has ever escaped from a U.S. prison, and no prison has ever been compromised or been subject to an attack because of the dangerous persons being held within.

The second case I want to mention is of Mr. Shaker Aamer, which came to my attention in a recent New York Times editorial or op-ed piece authored by a bipartisan group of British members of Parliament. In November 2001, Mr. Aamer, a British permanent resident, was doing charity work in Afghanistan when he was picked up by the Northern Alliance, sold to Americans for a bounty, and taken to Bagram prison before being moved to Guantanamo in February 2002. He was cleared for release by President Bush in 2007 and cleared again by President Obama in 2010. Six different U.S. agencies agreed, including the CIA, the FBI, the Departments of State and Defense, while Prime Minister David Cameron and the House of Commons unanimously have called for Mr. Aamer's immediate release and transfer to Britain.

So far, this has not happened. Mr. Aamer has never been charged with anything and has twice been cleared for transfer. Every American agency that has looked at this says that he has not been a terrorist and did not fight against the United States. There is no reason for him to remain in this custodial purgatory; yet he remains a detainee at the Guantanamo Bay facility.

As long as this provision remains in the bill, people like Mr. Aamer, guilty of nothing--not terrorists, not fighters against the United States--will be unjustly imprisoned, and people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who are guilty--probably, we think--of terrorism will not be tried.

For too long, the terrible people in Guantanamo have avoided facing the consequences of answering to a U.S. court for their horrendous actions, while innocent detainees are denied recourse for continuing their detention.

The United States must not keep people in prison indefinitely for no reason, with no trial. The opponents of this amendment must not share my faith in America's courts to deliver justice. For hundreds of years, our legal system has kept Americans safe by imprisoning dangerous individuals while protecting those who are innocent of any charges.

Time and time again, Federal courts have successfully proven their ability to convict criminals and terrorists without violating the rights of due process. This amendment represents a return to our founding principles, that no person may be deprived of liberty without due process of law.

Without this amendment, we will continue to hold terrorists and innocents alike, indefinitely and without charge, contrary to every tradition this country stands for.

We must close this facility, try these people, release the innocent, and restore our national honor.

I urge support of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. The continued repetition of untruths does not make them true.

Not all these people were captured on the battlefield. Mr. Aamer, whom I referenced, for example, was picked up doing charity work in Afghanistan. He was picked up by a faction of the Northern Alliance, which then sold him for a bounty to the United States. He was not a fighter. He was not on the battlefield. He was a victim of a kidnapping by a foreign faction.

Everyone who has looked at this--President Bush, President Obama, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the British Parliament--agrees on the facts with him; yet we hear that everybody was a fighter. No, they weren't. Some were; probably most were.

We are told that military tribunals will try these people. Well, Mr. Aamer has been in Guantanamo for 9 years. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has been in Guantanamo for 15 years. They can't get their act together. Every time they try to hold military tribunals, there is another legal objection. Federal courts have tried, convicted, and imprisoned 400 terrorists.

We have to do justice. Keeping people in jail indefinitely because we repeat that they were caught on the battlefield, when some were not, hoping for a military tribunal that doesn't occur, is not American. It is un-American.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this is the third of the three amendments that have the same purpose. This one would strike the section of the bill that makes it more difficult to transfer Guantanamo detainees to other countries.

I find it surrealistic. We have now debated two amendments tonight, and all we hear in opposition are repeated statements that everyone at Guantanamo is a terrorist--not true--and that everyone in Guantanamo is picked up on the foreign battlefield, fighting--not true. It is demonstrably not true.

These are not debatable propositions. Some of the people in Guantanamo are terrorists. Some of the people in Guantanamo are picked up on the battlefield. Some were not.

I gave you the example of Mr. Aamer, who was picked up by a foreign faction in the Northern Alliance and sold for a bounty because the United States offered a bounty for people who someone claimed was a terrorist. Everyone looked into it and said he wasn't a terrorist, he wasn't a combatant; yet he stays in Guantanamo.

It costs us $3 million per prisoner, per year. There are communities in the United States which can handle these trials. I can think of no honest reason why we would not want the terrorists to be tried.

The terrorists cannot be tried by military tribunal; let them try it, but the fact is they haven't been able to. They have been trying the military tribunals for 10 years now, and they haven't succeeded in convicting one person. They have had three plea bargains, no convictions, and no trials in the last 8 or 9 years.

The Federal courts are functioning. Why not save money, try the people we think are guilty, get a guilty verdict, put them in maximum security prisons, and not hold people indefinitely without charge and without trial? That is simply un-American.

Finally, we are engaged in an ideological war. Someone referenced radicalizing people. What radicalizes people more, what gives more evidence of the American bad faith and of anti-Islamic sentiments of terrible behavior than Guantanamo? It is a symbol worldwide. It is a radicalizing influence. Our own generals have said that nothing has recruited more enemy soldiers than Guantanamo.

Let's close it, take care of the people who are there one way or the other, and do justice.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, we all obviously want to free Americans unjustly held by North Korea or Iran or anybody else. I suspect the reason that we don't spend a lot of time on the floor is because we all agree. There is nothing to debate. We obviously want them freed.

I hope our government behind the scenes is doing whatever we can to do it; we should do whatever we can publicly, but that has nothing to do with Guantanamo.

The fact of the matter is it isn't that the administration decided not to prosecute people by military tribunals. That is not the case. It is that every time the Bush administration or the Obama administration tried to prosecute--and they have continued to try--another legal obstacle comes up. They have never worked it out.

Appeal after appeal has shut the process down. I should say judicial decision after judicial decision as a result of appeal after appeal has shut the process down because they haven't managed to find a military tribunal procedure that gives enough constitutional rights to pass judicial muster, but is short of a Federal article III court. That is why 400 terrorists have been convicted in article III Federal courts--and no terrorists--let them be tried properly, and let the innocent be freed.

We can't simply stand here and say they are all guilty. How do we know that? How do we know that every single one of them is guilty? We know that some are not. By what right do we hold those who are guilty of nothing forever? It is a blot on American justice; it is a blot on our country's representation, and we should stop it.

I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source