[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
TRANSFERRING GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEES TO THE HOMELAND: IMPLICATIONS FOR
STATES AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND
MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCY
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 28, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-66
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
22-759 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Michael T. McCaul, Texas, Chairman
Lamar Smith, Texas Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Peter T. King, New York Loretta Sanchez, California
Mike Rogers, Alabama Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Candice S. Miller, Michigan, Vice James R. Langevin, Rhode Island
Chair Brian Higgins, New York
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania William R. Keating, Massachusetts
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Filemon Vela, Texas
Curt Clawson, Florida Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
John Katko, New York Kathleen M. Rice, New York
Will Hurd, Texas Norma J. Torres, California
Earl L. ``Buddy'' Carter, Georgia
Mark Walker, North Carolina
Barry Loudermilk, Georgia
Martha McSally, Arizona
John Ratcliffe, Texas
Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., New York
Brendan P. Shields, Staff Director
Joan V. O'Hara, General Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
I. Lanier Avant, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCY
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania, Chairman
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
Curt Clawson, Florida Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Earl L. ``Buddy'' Carter, Georgia Norma J. Torres, California
Barry Loudermilk, Georgia Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Michael T. McCaul, Texas (ex (ex officio)
officio)
Ryan Consaul, Subcommittee Staff Director
John Dickhaus, Subcommittee Clerk
Cedric C. Haynes, Minority Subcommittee Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS
The Honorable Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight
and Management Efficiency:
Oral Statement................................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 4
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 5
Prepared Statement............................................. 9
WITNESSES
Panel I
Honorable Nikki R. Haley, Governor, State of South Carolina:
Oral Statement................................................. 10
Prepared Statement............................................. 12
Panel II
Mr. Michael J. Bouchard, Sheriff of Oakland County, Michigan
Oakland County Sheriff's Office, Testifying on Behalf of the
Major County Sheriffs' Association:
Oral Statement................................................. 30
Prepared Statement............................................. 32
Mr. Ken Gude, Senior Fellow, National Security, Center for
American Progress:
Oral Statement................................................. 35
Prepared Statement............................................. 37
Mr. Todd Thompson, County Attorney, Leavenworth County Attorney's
Office, Leavenworth County, Kansas:
Oral Statement................................................. 40
Prepared Statement............................................. 42
FOR THE RECORD
The Honorable Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight
and Management Efficiency:
Letter From the Major County Sheriffs' Association............. 2
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Statement of Major General Michael R. Lehnert, USMC (Ret.)..... 5
Statement of James A. Gondles, Jr., Executive Director,
American Correctional Association............................ 7
The Honorable Jeff Duncan, a Representative in Congress From the
State of South Carolina:
Letter......................................................... 18
APPENDIX
Questions From Chairman Scott Perry for Michael J. Bouchard...... 55
TRANSFERRING GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEES TO THE HOMELAND: IMPLICATIONS FOR
STATES AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES
----------
Thursday, April 28, 2016
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Oversight and
Management Efficiency,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 p.m., in
Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Scott Perry
[Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Perry, Duncan, Clawson, Carter,
Loudermilk, Richmond, and Thompson (ex officio).
Also present: Representatives Katko and Jenkins.
Mr. Perry. The Committee on Homeland Security's
Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency will come
to order. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony
on State and local perspectives regarding the impact of
transferring Guantanamo Bay detainees to the homeland.
The Chair now recognizes himself for an opening statement.
In January 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order
13492, which ordered the closure of the detention facilities at
Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. Over 7 years later, in
February 2016, the administration submitted its plan to close
the detention facility. Although the plan is devoid of
specifics, the administration has made clear that it intends to
identify a location within the United States to detain an
unspecified number of Guantanamo prisoners.
In a hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee
last month, a senior Defense Department official touted the
plan as representing the collective best judgment of the
administration's top military and civilian leaders and as the
result of close collaboration across numerous Federal agencies.
I just must break from the script and comment on that a
little bit: The collective best judgment of the
administration's top military and civilian leaders--and with
all due respect, military leaders that serve in the
administration are bound to agree with the Commander-in-Chief.
Right? The old saying is: ``Ours is to do and die; ours is not
to question why.'' So their credibility in this regard,
unfortunately, has to be questioned on those bases, if nothing
else. Of course, the civilian leaders looking to curry favor
with the administration are in the same position.
We want to look at the solid unbiased facts, not the
opinions or the collective best judgment.
Moving on, it is time to set the record straight. The
administration has failed to seek the very necessary input from
State and local law enforcement on its plan. The reason is
simple: Law enforcement professionals strongly oppose any plan
that could endanger the citizens they are sworn to protect.
Last month, the Major County Sheriffs' Association, which
represents sheriffs' offices from our Nation's largest
counties, wrote the President to express their opposition to
the plan. I ask that this letter be included in the record.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Letter From the Major County Sheriffs' Association
March 30, 2016.
President Barack Obama,
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20500.
Dear President Obama: The Major County Sheriffs' Association (MCSA)
is an association of elected sheriffs representing our nation's largest
counties with populations of 500,000 people or more serving over 100
million Americans. As constitutionally-elected law enforcement
officials tasked with ensuring public safety, the MCSA remains
adamantly opposed to your continued effort to close the U.S. detention
facility on the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.
More so now than ever before, our nation is facing increasingly
sophisticated threats from abroad and from within. Given the evolution
of the threat environment, state and local law enforcement--in
conjunction with our federal partners--are at the forefront of keeping
our homeland secure. It goes without question that any effort to
transfer Gitmo detainees to U.S. soil has immense national security
implications.
Your latest proposal to Congress to close Gitmo and transfer
detainees failed to acknowledge the ``Summary of the Reengagement of
Detainees Formerly Held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba'' issued by the Office
of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). In the September 2015
summary, it was reported that thirty percent of former Guantanamo
prisoners are confirmed or suspected of reengaging in terrorism.
Additionally, just a few months ago, Spanish and Moroccan authorities
arrested four suspected ISIS affiliates--including one described as a
former Gitmo detainee.
As stewards of the rule of law, we respectfully remind you that you
recently signed two separate pieces of legislation into law that
explicitly bar the use of funds to transfer, release or assist in the
transfer or release of Gitmo detainees to or within the continental
United States. Detainees, deemed too dangerous to release, should not
be brought to the homeland where they will pose a threat to the local
communities we serve.
With an increased threat environment, law enforcement has
continually been tasked to do more with less. Cost implications coupled
with a heightened security environment is simply unsustainable. In an
era of deep budget cuts and lack of federal funding, state and local
law enforcement does not have the necessary funds, and most recently
the necessary lifesaving equipment, to adequately address the national
security implications associated with Gitmo detainees being housed in
U.S. facilities. Some have lauded the closure of Gitmo as a cost-saving
measure, but that is most assuredly short-sighted--both from a national
security and taxpayer perspective.
As the only elected law enforcement officials in America, we are
committed to the protection of our communities and believe the closing
of Guantanamo Bay poses an unnecessary threat to the safety of the
citizens we are sworn to protect.
Very Respectfully,
Sandra Hutchens,
President, Major County Sheriffs' Association,
Sheriff-Coroner, Orange County (CA).
Michael J. Bouchard,
Vice President--Government Affairs, Major County Sheriffs'
Association,
Sheriff, Oakland County (MI).
Mr. Perry. The letter states that detainees deemed too
dangerous to release should not be brought to the homeland
where they will pose a threat to the local communities we
serve. Why would the administration ignore the advice of our
State and local law enforcement professionals? Just because
their advice doesn't fit the administration's political
narrative doesn't mean their voice shouldn't be heard.
The fact is State and local law enforcement have numerous
concerns with the implications of bringing the world's most
dangerous terrorists to our homeland. Law-enforcement officials
have serious questions which the administration's plan either
failed to consider or simply did not answer. For example, what
if the base requires evacuation? What if detainees require
transportation to medical facilities? What additional resources
are needed for such transfers? I will add, what about court
facilities? I happened to visit Guantanamo Bay, where the
taxpayers paid dearly for a very specific court facility that
handled these very dangerous people in a Classified setting.
Where is that going to happen? Who is going to be paying for
that yet again?
The administration has argued that taxpayers could save
tens of millions of dollars by transferring these terrorists to
the homeland. I would say, which taxpayers? Right now, all of
us pay for Guantanamo Bay, but if you move them, State by
State, facility by facility, it will be the taxpayers in those
local locations that will bear the entire burden. Did they
calculate the cost to States and local communities? Cash-
strapped States and localities will face additional costs due
to the heightened threat environment brought about by this
decision, and taxpayers will foot the bill. This site likely
would become a magnet for protest, as well further straining
the resources of the locals.
We also have legal questions such as whether these
terrorists could be eligible for certain forms of relief from
removal, release from immigration detention, or constitutional
rights. The Department of Justice believes that existing
statutory safeguards are sufficient, and courts historically
have ruled that detainees held under the laws of war who are
brought to the United States are outside the reach of
immigration laws. But make no mistake: Their lawyers will test
every avenue and slow justice even further.
Another major concern is that the facility would become a
terrorist target itself. Consider the propaganda value for ISIS
if it successfully sprang a hardened GTMO terrorist on American
soil. Anyone who thinks that this is impossible is suffering
from, as the
9/11 Commission puts it, ``a failure of imagination.'' With
about 30 percent of released detainees having been confirmed or
suspected of rejoining the fight, GTMO detainees clearly remain
dangerous and want to kill Americans.
The facility also could become an attractive target for
lone wolves, and other radical Islamic extremists may be
inspired to perform jihad in the homeland. The American people
do not want GTMO terrorists detained in their communities,
their neighborhoods, or down the street from their children's
school.
Fortunately, Congress passed legislation that prohibits
transferring GTMO detainees to the homeland, and the President
signed it. However, it is still moving forward with its
legacy--the President, that is, and the administration--is
still moving forward with his legacy-driven agenda, which
includes closing Guantanamo Bay. And it is different--it is
very different--from the National security agenda that I think
he should be focused on. Despite the will of the American
people, he is moving forward with this agenda. States and
localities must prepare for the possibility that this
administration will seek to detain these terrorists in our
community despite the will of the American people.
Finally, I thank Governor Haley for appearing before the
subcommittee today, leaving her great State and coming to
Washington, DC. As I stated earlier, receiving input from
States and local communities regarding these transfers is
critical. That Governor Haley made the trip to Washington today
underscores that importance.
Thank you again for being here today, Governor. I look
forward to your testimony.
[The statement of Chairman Perry follows:]
Statement of Chairman Scott Perry
April 28, 2016
In January 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order 13492,
which ordered the closure of the detention facilities at the Guantanamo
Bay Naval Base in Cuba. Over 7 years later--in February 2016--the
administration submitted its plan to close the detention facility.
Although the plan is devoid of specifics, the administration has made
clear that it intends to identify a location within the United States
to detain an unspecified number of Gitmo prisoners. In a hearing before
the House Foreign Affairs Committee last month, a senior Defense
Department official touted that the plan, ``represents the collective
best judgment of the administration's top military and civilian
leaders'' and is the result of close collaboration across numerous
Federal agencies.
But it's time to set the record straight: The administration has
failed to seek very necessary input from State and local law
enforcement on its plan. The reason is simple: Law enforcement
professionals strongly oppose any plan that could endanger the citizens
they're sworn to protect. Last month, the Major County Sheriff's
Association, which represents sheriff's offices from our Nation's
largest counties, wrote the President to express their opposition to
the plan. I ask that this letter be included in the record. Without
objection, so ordered. The letter states that, ``detainees, deemed too
dangerous to release, should not be brought to the homeland where they
will pose a threat to the local communities we serve.''
Why would the administration ignore the advice of our State and
local law enforcement professionals? Just because their advice doesn't
fit the administration's political narrative doesn't mean their voice
shouldn't be heard. The fact is, State and local law enforcement have
numerous concerns with the implications of bringing the world's most
dangerous terrorists to our homeland. Law enforcement officials have
serious questions, which the administration's plan either failed to
consider or simply didn't answer. For example, what if the base
requires evacuation; what if detainees require transportation to
medical facilities; and what additional resources are needed for such
transfers?
The administration has argued that taxpayers could save tens of
millions of dollars by transferring these terrorists to the homeland.
But did they calculate the costs to States and local communities? Cash-
strapped States and localities will face additional costs due to the
heightened threat environment brought about by this decision--and
taxpayers will foot the bill. The site likely would become a magnet for
protests as well, further straining the resources of the locals.
We also have legal questions--such as whether these terrorists
could be eligible for certain forms of relief from removal, release
from immigration detention, or Constitutional rights. The Department of
Justice believes that existing statutory safeguards are sufficient and
courts historically have ruled that detainees held under the laws of
war who are brought to the United States are outside the reach of
immigration laws. But make no mistake their lawyers will test every
avenue, and slow justice even further.
Another major concern is that the facility would become a terrorist
target in itself. Consider the propaganda value for ISIS if it
successfully sprang a hardened Gitmo terrorist on American soil. Anyone
who thinks this is impossible is suffering from, as the 9/11 Commission
put it, ``a failure of imagination.'' With about 30 percent of released
detainees having been confirmed or suspected of rejoining the fight,
Gitmo detainees clearly remain dangerous and want to kill Americans.
The facility also could become an attractive target for lone wolves,
and other radical Islamist extremists may be inspired to perform jihad
in the homeland.
The American people do not want Gitmo terrorists detained in their
communities, their neighborhoods, or down the street from their
children's school. Fortunately, Congress passed legislation that
prohibits transferring Gitmo detainees to the homeland--and the
President signed it. However, he's still moving forward with his
legacy-driven agenda which includes closing Guantanamo--despite the
will of the American people. States and localities must prepare for the
possibility that this administration will seek to detain these
terrorists in our communities.
Finally, I thank Governor Haley for appearing before the
subcommittee today. As I stated earlier, receiving input from States
and local communities regarding these transfers is critical; that
Governor Haley made the trip to Washington today underscores that
importance. Thank you again for being here today, Governor; I look
forward to your testimony.
Mr. Perry. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Minority
Member of the full committee, the gentleman from Mississippi,
Mr. Thompson, for his statement.
Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. Thank you, Chairman Perry for
holding today's hearing.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to request unanimous consent to
introduce statements into the record from retired Major General
Michael Lehnert, who commanded the joint task force that stood
up the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, and James
Gondles, executive director of the American Correctional
Association.
Mr. Perry. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Statement of Major General Michael R. Lehnert, USMC (Ret.)
April 28, 2016
Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Watson Coleman, Members of the
committee, thank you for the opportunity to share my views with you.
The goal of terrorism is to change behavior and to make us live in
fear. On
9/11 America changed.
In September 2001 I was a new brigadier general at Camp Lejeune,
North Carolina commanding an 8,000 man force of Marines and Sailors.
America made the decision to go to war in Afghanistan, and some of my
troops were deployed early into the fight. And as we began to take
captives, the question of what to do with them became more imperative.
Many in the administration believed that these individuals represented
an intelligence treasure trove.
The decision to send me and my command to Guantanamo employed a
strange logic. Guantanamo has been used for decades by administrations
from both parties as an extra-legal zone to buy time during crises. It
had been the site for several Cuban and Haitian migrant camps and in
fact I'd commanded the Guantanamo camps in 1995 during the Clinton era
when we had 18,000 Cubans and Haitians there on the ground. Though the
U.S. Army is doctrinally responsible for prisoner of war camps, the
Marines' ability to deploy rapidly coupled with my past experience
probably drove the initial decision. That there is a vast difference
between an economic migrant and a prisoner of war seemed lost on the
policy makers in Washington.
So in early January 2002 I received a deployment order to form a
Joint Task Force, get to Cuba and build the first 100 cells in 96 hours
and be prepared to receive prisoners of war (that's what we called them
then). That we created a detention facility in 87 hours said a great
deal about the young troops I led but it also drove a series of
unfortunate early decisions. Many of those administration decisions
involved the application of both U.S. and International law. I'm not a
lawyer but it is very clear that when we decided to forgo generations
of legal precedent and start all over, bad things happen.
As enemy prisoners of war began to arrive, even their titles began
to change. They were not enemy combatants. I was told that I was to
``be guided by but not required to follow the Geneva Conventions.''
When I asked my lawyers what that meant, I was told ``pretty much
whatever they want it to mean.'' Though we were told that these were
``worst of the worst'' many detainees appeared to have been sent based
upon their need for medical or psychiatric attention. Some had poor
excuses for being caught in a war zone and many were there because we
were paying bounties for terrorists. We did not understand the Afghan
tribal system. For a tribal leader what better way to enrich yourself
while resolving old grudges than to finger a neighbor who was your
enemy regardless of his support for either al-Qaeda or the Taliban?
It took time to recognize our early storing process was flawed.
Almost all who arrived said they were simply ``studying in a
madrassa.'' Some were students. Others were truly enemy combatants. Our
failure to apply Article V hearings at the point of capture as required
by the Geneva Conventions was beginning to result in detainees being
sent who shouldn't have been sent.
I'd been sent down for 60 days with instructions to turn the
command over to the Army once they were able to get down to GTMO. I was
there nearly 100 days when I was finally relieved. By this time, it was
becoming more apparent that GTMO was housing a number of prisoners who
were either noncombatants or simply low-level fighters.
Perhaps the best proof that we sent the wrong people to Guantanamo
is that of the 780 who have ever been in Guantanamo, 647 were released
back to their country of origin or resettled without action.
So why should we close Guantanamo?
First and foremost because Guantanamo's continued existence hurts
us in our prosecution of the fight against terrorists. It feeds into
the narrative that the United States is not a Nation of laws nor one
that respects human rights. Military commissions create a facade of
justice. There are currently only 3 detainees at Guantanamo who were
convicted by military commissions though they have been in operation
for over 8 years. Four previous convictions by commissions were
overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. U.S. Federal Courts have been
much more successful in getting convictions of terrorists, and those
convictions have held up under appeal. Our reliance upon military
commissions, the absence of precedent, and their inability to resolve
these cases make a mockery of our claim that we are a Nation of laws.
Secondly, Guantanamo's extra-legal status is inconsistent with our
values as Americans. When I was first commissioned and every subsequent
promotion thereafter I took the oath of office to support and defend
the Constitution of the United States. Unlike the enlisted oath,
officers don't swear allegiance to the President or to their chain of
command. The authors of the officers' oath knew exactly what they were
doing. They recognized that the Constitution is the seminal document
that governs who we are as a people and that commissioned officers must
have the wisdom to align their actions to the Constitution. To have a
place on earth where the Constitution does not apply is simply un-
American. It also begs the question that if it means nothing in
Guantanamo, does our Constitution and the requirement to live by it
stop at the water's edge? When we fail to live by that remarkable
document it diminishes us as a people.
Thirdly, Guantanamo and all locations where so-called enhanced
interrogation techniques were practiced are a blight on our honor and
put our citizens at greater risk. It's no accident that many captives
executed by terrorists were filmed being killed wearing orange jump
suits. We are feeding the terrorist narrative not creating our own.
Torture and its euphemism ``enhanced interrogation techniques'' don't
make us safer. They don't deliver useful intelligence, and these
practices are beneath us. When Senator McCain stood on the floor of the
Senate on December 9, 2014, and delivered his opposition to torture, it
was his finest hour in a lifetime of service. Despite significant
pushback from many in his own party, he is the 1 elected member of our
Government with absolute credibility on this topic. Torture is wrong.
It is also ineffective. Guantanamo is a symbol of a flawed, ill-
considered, and shameful policy. It must be closed.
Guantanamo was a mistake. History will reflect that. It was created
in the early days as a consequence of fear, anger, and political
expediency. It ignored centuries of rule of law and international
agreements. It does not make us safer, and it sullies who we are as a
Nation. That in over a decade we have failed to acknowledge the mistake
and change course is unforgivable and ignorant.
We can win the fight against terrorism and religious extremism, but
only if we adhere to our American values. If we kill every terrorist on
the planet but in the process abandon the Constitution and our values,
then in their deaths they will have succeeded, and we will no longer be
Americans and this country will no longer be the bastion of democracy,
freedom, and liberty.
Terrorists want to make us live in fear. They want to change who we
are as a people. By both standards as long as Guantanamo continues,
they are winning, and we are playing into their hands.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my views with you.
______
Statement of James A. Gondles, Jr., Executive Director, American
Correctional Association
April 28, 2016
u.s. prisons can safely hold guantanamo bay detainees
Chairman Perry and Ranking Member Watson Coleman, thank you for
allowing me to share my views with you. The Obama administration
recently released a comprehensive plan for closing the prison at
Guantanamo Bay. The plan necessarily requires the Government to move
some prisoners to the United States for continued detention. To listen
to some of rhetoric, one might think that the U.S. prison system is
woefully unprepared to handle dangerous terrorists. This is
categorically untrue.
U.S. corrections systems, both military and civilian, already hold
extremely dangerous people, including terrorists, and have done so for
years. Mass murderers, professional assassins, serial killers: They all
reside unthreateningly in American penitentiaries run by professionals
who generally have been in the business a lot longer than Gitmo has
existed.
Take ``Blind Sheik'' Omar Abdel Rahman. A close associate of Osama
bin Laden and spiritual leader to terrorists responsible for attacks in
several countries, he was involved in the 1993 World Trade Center
bombings. Convicted by a jury in a Federal trial in 1995, he's serving
a life sentence in a Federal prison in North Carolina. Even though al-
Qaeda still calls for his release and has made him part of hostage
demands, there have been no jailbreak attempts or attacks on nearby
communities since he was locked up more than 20 years ago.
The son-in-law of Osama bin Laden, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, and
Zacarias Moussaoui, the 20th 9/11 hijacker are also currently held in
the United States. There is Ahmed Abu Khattala, who participated in the
2012 attack on the Benghazi embassy. There are the 8 men involved in
the 1998 bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. Finally, we safely hold
Dandeny Munoz Mosquera, once the chief assassin of Colombia's Medellin
Cartel.
All of these men are dangerous criminals, and U.S. corrections
facilities keep them safely away from the public, out of sight and out
of mind. Hundreds of convicted terrorists have gone to prison in the
United States since 9/11. None has escaped. None has created security
threats for the communities near the prisons. Few, if any, Americans
even realize when a dangerous criminal arrives at a prison in their
city, county, or State because politicians aren't drawing attention to
this occurrence, telling them they ought to be afraid.
Under President Obama's plan, the Government will send many of the
Guantanamo detainees home or to a third country. A small number of
detainees would be transferred to the United States, and no matter how
dangerous they are, U.S. correction system professionals, military and
civilian, have the ability, training, and capacity to take them on. To
imply otherwise is insulting to the men and women of the Federal Bureau
of Prisons, U.S. military detention officers, and civilian corrections
professionals charged with keeping communities safe and guarding the
Nation's most dangerous individuals.
The Guantanamo prison has been a source of debate since its
inception. But there should be no debate about the U.S. corrections
systems' ability to hold Guantanamo detainees should they be
transferred State-side.
The American Correctional Association takes no position on closing
the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. But those that are opposed to
closing it shouldn't try to win people to their side by stoking
irrational fears. It's important for the American people to know that
when it comes to housing Guantanamo detainees, we're not afraid--and
they shouldn't be, either.
Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. Thank you, and welcome,
Governor, to this subcommittee hearing. Following the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States faced the
question of what to do with so-called unlawful combatants
captured in military operations in Afghanistan or other
counterterrorism operations. The answer at the time that
military leaders seized upon was a U.S. military prison located
within the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. The first 20
detainees arrived at Guantanamo Bay prison on January 11, 2002.
Since that time, Guantanamo Bay has served as a prison camp
to detain dangerous individuals, to interrogate those
individuals on suspected acts of terrorism, and to prosecute
those individuals for war crimes. At its peak, there were
roughly 680 individuals held at Guantanamo Bay. During the Bush
administration, more than 500 were released to their home
countries or transferred to a third country. This month, the
Department of Defense announced that they would transfer 9
detainees to Saudi Arabia. The total number of individuals
currently at Guantanamo Bay is 80. I want to make it clear that
Guantanamo Bay has served its purpose and must be closed.
Closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility is a National
security imperative. Its continued operation weakens our
National security by furthering the recruitment propaganda of
violent extremists, hindering relations with key allies and
partners, and draining Department of Defense resources.
In 2009, President Obama signed an Executive Order
expressing these concerns and ordering the closing of the
detention facilities. As part of the closure, it may be
necessary for those detainees who cannot be transferred to a
third-party country to be in prison in the United States in
facilities deemed capable of doing so.
Today, I expect to hear concerns of the National security
implications for transferring suspected terrorists to the
United States. Some of the witnesses may even say that bringing
detainees to the United States brings terrorism to our own
backyards. Based on years of research and analysis by the
Departments of Defense, State, and Homeland Security, these
concerns simply are not supported. There is no evidence that
suggests housing Guantanamo detainees would bring additional
attacks, attention, or danger to the United States. In fact,
America has a long track record of incarcerating dangerous
terrorists. Some of the most dangerous terrorists in the world
that we have known are incarcerated in U.S. maximum-security
prisons, such as the Supermax facility in Colorado. In fact,
the man who tried to bring down the World Trade Center in 1993
and his co-conspirators have been serving multiple life
sentences in Supermax since 1997. No one terrorist or any
criminal has ever escaped from the Supermax prison. The only
person charged in the 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S.
compound in Benghazi is currently being held in Alexandria,
Virginia, approximately 15 miles from where we are sitting now.
In fiscal year 2015, the cost to operate Guantanamo Bay was
approximately $445 million. In addition to these annual costs,
maintaining the facility in the future would require an
additional $200 million. Closing the facility is expected to
save between $140 million and $180 million annually. The plan
President Obama delivered to Congress represents the best and
most secure way to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay.
Today I encourage everyone to focus on the facts and not
baseless fear. I look forward to your testimony and the
testimony of all the witnesses and fact-based answers to my
questions today.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
April 28, 2016
Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United
States faced the question of what to do with so-called ``unlawful
combatants'' captured in military operations in Afghanistan or other
counterterrorism operations. The answer, at the time, that military
leaders seized upon was a U.S. military prison located within the
Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba.
The first 20 detainees arrived at the Guantanamo Bay prison on
January 11, 2002. Since that time, Guantanamo Bay has served as a
prison camp to detain dangerous individuals, to interrogate those
individuals on suspected acts of terrorism, and to prosecute those
individuals for war crimes.
At its peak, there were nearly 800 individuals held at Guantanamo
Bay. During the Bush administration, more than 500 were released to
their home countries or transferred to a third country. This month, the
Department of Defense announced that with the transfer of 9 detainees
to Saudi Arabia, the total number of individuals currently at
Guantanamo Bay is 80.
I want to make it clear that Guantanamo Bay has served its purpose
and must be closed. Closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility is a
National security imperative. Its continued operation weakens our
National security by furthering the recruiting propaganda of violent
extremists, hindering relations with key allies and partners, and
draining Department of Defense resources.
In 2009, President Obama signed an Executive Order expressing these
concerns and ordering the closure of the detention facilities. As part
of the closure, it may be necessary for those detainees who cannot be
transferred to a third-party country to be imprisoned in the United
States in facilities deemed to be able to safely, securely, and
humanely house detainees for the purpose of military commissions and
continued law of war detention.
Today, I expect to hear concerns of the National security
implications for transferring suspected terrorists to the United
States. Some of the witnesses may even say that bringing detainees to
the United States brings terrorism to our own backyards.
Based on years of research and analysis by the Departments of
Defense, State, and Homeland Security, these concerns simply are not
supported. There is no evidence that suggests housing Guantanamo
detainees will bring additional attacks, attention, or danger to the
United States.
In fact, America has a long track record of incarcerating dangerous
terrorists. Some of the most dangerous terrorists the world has ever
known are incarcerated in U.S. maximum-security prisons, such as the
Supermax facility in Colorado.
In fact, the man who tried to bring down the World Trade Center in
1993 and his co-conspirators have been serving multiple life sentences
in Supermax since 1997. No one--terrorist or any criminal--has ever
escaped from the Supermax prison. The only person charged in the 2012
terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi is currently being
held in Alexandria, Virginia, approximately 15 miles from where we are
sitting now.
Some who oppose the transferring of detainees to U.S. soil are
fear-mongering that it would damage State tourism. The facts do not
support this argument.
Tourism has gone up--considerably--in both Virginia and Colorado,
even as both have terrorists in their Federal prisons. In fact,
Virginia's tourism revenues topped $22.4 billion in 2014, a 4.1 percent
increase over 2013, while Colorado posted a record 71.3 million
visitors and $18.6 billion in revenue.
In fiscal year 2015, the cost to operate Guantanamo Bay was
approximately $445 million. In addition to these annual costs,
maintaining the facility in the future would require an additional $200
million.
Closing the facility is expected to save between $140 and $180
million annually. The plan President Obama delivered to Congress
represents the best and most secure way to close the prison at
Guantanamo Bay.
Today, I encourage everyone to focus on the facts and not base-less
fear. I look forward to your testimony and fact-based answers to my
questions today.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
Other Members of the subcommittee are reminded that opening
statements may be submitted for the record. We are pleased to
have two panels of distinguished witnesses before us today.
The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from South
Carolina, Mr. Duncan, to introduce the first witness.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks for holding this incredibly important hearing today.
It is a great day in Washington, just like it is a great day in
South Carolina, because I am honored and proud to introduce my
good friend Governor Nikki Haley. First elected Governor in
2010 as the 116th Governor of the great State of South
Carolina, she is the first female and first minority Governor
in State history and is currently the youngest Governor serving
in the Nation.
Prior to becoming Governor, we served together in the South
Carolina General Assembly for 6 years. She has been an ardent
leader in South Carolina, bringing numerous jobs to the State
and constantly furthering South Carolina's economic
development. I appreciate her hard work as Governor and her
leadership in bringing our State through some very difficult
times, especially in the last 12 months. She is also an alumna
from my alma mater, Clemson University. We are very--both very,
very proud of that.
She has been a vocal opponent from the very beginning of
the President's plan to move the Guantanamo Bay terrorists to
the United States, specifically to the Naval Consolidated Brig
in Charleston, South Carolina. I am excited to have her testify
before our subcommittee, providing a Governor's perspective on
this important issue.
So, welcome, Governor Haley.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
One point of administrative concern. The Chair asks
unanimous consent that the gentleman from New York, Mr. Katko,
be allowed to sit on the dais and participate in this hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair thanks the gentleman.
Thank you, Governor, for being here today.
The witness' full written statement will appear in the
record. The Chair now recognizes Governor Haley for her
testimony.
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE NIKKI R. HALEY, GOVERNOR, STATE OF SOUTH
CAROLINA
Governor Haley. Thank you very much.
We invite all of you to South Carolina, where it is 80
degrees and sunny. So we hope that you will come and take the
time to visit soon.
Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to be here to speak
on this issue of National importance.
I especially want to thank Congressman Duncan and other
Members of the South Carolina delegation for their support on
this issue.
In August of last year, my office was contacted out of the
blue by the Department of Defense to inform us that they were
traveling to Charleston, South Carolina, to assess the U.S.
Naval Consolidated Brig for the possibility of housing
Guantanamo Bay detainees. Imagine my surprise. Not only was it
against Federal law to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the
United States, but why would anyone want to put terrorists in
Charleston? Charleston, the city we call the Holy City, the
city named the No. 1 vacation spot in the country for 4 years
in a row. In South Carolina, the State that was named the
friendliest State in the country, the most patriotic State in
the Union. It makes zero sense.
On February 23, 2016, President Obama announced his plan to
close Guantanamo Bay detention facility currently used to house
some of the deadliest terrorists in history, including the
principal architect of the September 11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh
Mohammed. This plan contained little new information. It did
not even name a State-side facility for law-of-war detention
but, instead, referenced the Department of Defense's 2015
survey of 13 potential but unidentified facilities. In the
opening paragraph of the plan, President Obama presents the 3
reasons for why it is a National-security imperative that the
United States end its mission in Guantanamo Bay.
Regardless of any merit that may support these assertions,
they do not support the conclusion that the terrorists should
be transferred to Charleston, South Carolina, or any other
location in the United States. I know that other witnesses
today will discuss specific costs and security concerns. So my
testimony today will focus on 3 specific reasons provided by
the President's plan.
First, the President claims that Guantanamo Bay serves as
propaganda and a recruitment tool for terrorists. Well, of
course, it does. But so do statements by public leaders, the
United States' stance against terrorism, and American values as
a whole. So too certainly would a similar facility located in
Charleston, South Carolina; Leavenworth, Kansas; or Florence,
Colorado.
Terrorists have chosen to wage war on the United States
based on ideological hatred towards the American way of life
and the fundamental freedoms for which we pride ourselves. The
September 11th attacks occurred before there was ever a
Guantanamo Bay facility, as did the first World Trade Center
bombing, the USS Cole bombing, and numerous other attacks or
attempted attacks on United States interests around the world.
Moving detention operations from a secure facility outside
of the continental United States and into Charleston will not
stop the propaganda. This line of thinking is giving the
terrorists too much credit and too much validity. Terrorists do
not need a jail to hate us. They hate us on their own.
Second, the President contends that the presence of the
facility at Guantanamo Bay is somehow a major impediment to our
relationships with foreign nations. As a Governor, my principal
engagement outside of the United States is admittedly on the
economic development front, attracting foreign investment to my
State. That being said, assuming the President's assertions are
true, the question that comes to my mind is: What about
detention activities at Guantanamo Bay is damaging to our
relationships with foreign leaders and nations? Whether the
terrorists are detained on an American military base in Cuba or
somewhere in the United States, they will be held under the
same legal authority by the same country in the same manner for
the same duration for the same reasons. Why does the ZIP Code
matter?
As to the impact on foreign relations in South Carolina, I
can tell you I am tremendously concerned. In the Charleston
area alone, we have international manufacturing giants Boeing,
Mercedes-Benz, and now Volvo. We have one of the most important
deepwater ports on the Atlantic Coast. South Carolina is home
to the largest BMW-producing plant in the world. We have 5
international tire companies. We also have GE, Google, Bosch,
DuPont, I could go on and on. How am I to tell these companies
that they will be sharing an address with the most heinous and
dangerous terrorists on Earth, that the city that they chose to
call home is now going to be one of the most high-profile
terrorist targets in the world. The truth is: I can't, and I
won't.
Finally, the President wants to talk about cost. Let me
first say, if there is one thing we can all agree the Federal
Government is absolutely responsible for, it is defending the
people of the United States of America. While the Department of
Defense is not immune from fiscal waste, running a military
prison to detain terrorists during an on-going armed conflict
should not be high on the list of cost-saving measures. I come
from a State where we balance our budget. I promise we can help
you find $85 million somewhere else to cut. But more than that,
cost simply doesn't matter to me. You could pay the State of
South Carolina to host these terrorists, and we wouldn't take
them for any amount of money. There is no price worth the fear
this reckless idea would strike in the hearts of the people of
my State. There is no price worth the inevitable economic
downturn it would cause. There is no price worth watching
terrorists across the globe celebrate victory and rightly claim
that they can dictate the military posture of what should be
the most powerful nation in the world.
I would like to close with this: As the Members of the
subcommittee know better than most, National security decisions
should be made with one and only one consideration in mind:
What is in the best interest of the safety and security of the
citizens of the United States? While serious policy issues with
no easy answers underline the long-term detention and final
disposition of terrorists captured during armed conflict, the
location of a United States-controlled military prison should
not be determined based on loose perception, estimates, and 8-
year-old campaign pledges. Last summer, the people of
Charleston stared hate directly in the eye. We know true hate,
and we know what fear it can bring. We don't need to see it
again, nor do we wish it on any other State. Keep the
terrorists where they are, where they belong. Do not bring them
to my home. I, again, thank you for the opportunity to speak
here today, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Governor Haley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Nikki R. Haley
April 28, 2016
introduction
Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Watson Coleman, and Members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to be here to speak on this
issue of National importance.
In August of last year, my office was contacted by a representative
of the Department of Defense to inform us they were traveling to
Charleston, South Carolina to assess the U.S. Naval Consolidated Brig
for the possibility of housing Guantanamo Bay detainees. Imagine my
surprise: Not only was it against Federal law to transfer Guantanamo
detainees into the United States--and has been since 2010--but why
would anyone want to put terrorists in Charleston?
We came to learn that the Obama administration was not only
surveying the Charleston brig, but also other facilities across the
United States--military and civilian, Federal and State.
On February 23, 2016, President Obama announced his plan to close
the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, currently used to house some of
the deadliest terrorists in history, including the principle architect
of the September 11, 2001 attacks--Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. This
``plan'' contained little-to-no new information, but instead discussed
detainee disposition options previously outlined in other forums. Nor
did it name a State-side facility for law-of-war detention, but instead
referenced the Defense Department's 2015 survey of 13 potential
facilities with no list included.
In the opening paragraph of the plan, President Obama presents
three reasons for why it is a ``National security imperative'' that the
United States end its detention mission at Guantanamo Bay. According to
the President, the continued operation of this detention facility:
1. Serves as recruiting propaganda for violent extremists;
2. Hinders relations with key allies and partners; and
3. Drains Department of Defense resources.
Regardless of any merit that may support these assertions, they do
not support the conclusion that terrorists should be transferred to
Charleston, South Carolina (or any other location within the United
States). Notwithstanding the legal ambiguity associated with the
transfer of long-term law-of-war detainees into the United States, my
testimony today will focus on the 3 specific reasons provided by the
President's plan.
first, recruiting propaganda of violent extremists
Guantanamo Bay no doubt serves as propaganda for terrorists, but so
do statements by public leaders, the United States' stance against
terrorism, and American values generally. Terrorists have chosen to
wage war on the United States based on an ideological hatred towards
the American way of life, and the fundamental freedoms on which we
pride ourselves. The September 11 attacks occurred before there ever
was a Guantanamo detention facility, as did the first World Trade
Center bombing, the U.S.S. Cole bombing, and numerous other attacks or
attempted attacks on United States' interests around the world. Moving
detention operations from a secure facility outside of the continental
United States and into Charleston, South Carolina will not stop the
propaganda. This line of thinking is giving these terrorists too much
credit and validity. Terrorists do not need a jail to hate us. They
hate us all on their own.
But, what could be accomplished by moving the facility to
Charleston? Well, taking the propaganda assertion as fact, Charleston
will then be used in an attempt to inspire potential terrorists to join
the fight. And with the increased accounts of home-grown terrorism and
terrorist sympathizers around the country, we do not want to put a
bulls-eye on what has been named the No. 1 vacation destination in the
country for 4 years in a row simply to fulfill a misguided campaign
promise.
second, interference in foreign relations
As a Governor, my principal engagement outside of the United States
is on the economic development front, attracting foreign investment
into my State. That being said, assuming the President's assertions are
true, the question that comes to my mind is what about detention
activities at Guantanamo Bay is damaging to our relationships with
foreign leaders and nations?
Whether the terrorists are detained on an American military base in
Cuba or somewhere in the United States, they will be held under the
same legal authority, by the same country, in the same manner, for the
same duration, and for the same reasons. Why does the zip code matter
from a foreign relations standpoint?
Completely unrelated to physical location, maybe foreign relations
concerns are due to pure negative perception because the President has
been lamenting the prison facility's existence ever since he was
running for office. And if this perception does matter abroad, I would
hope the leader of the most powerful and influential country in the
world could brush aside the aesthetic complaints of a well-run, Geneva-
Convention-compliant facility when dealing in matters of National and
international importance.
third, department of defense resources
If there is one thing we can all agree the Federal Government is
absolutely responsible for, it is defending the National security
interests of the United States. And while the Department of Defense is
not immune from fiscal waste, running a military prison to detain
terrorists during an on-going armed conflict should not be high on the
list of things that need to be cut.
In President Obama's plan, he states that moving the detainees to
the United States could save between $65 million and $85 million
annually. He estimates that one-time costs associated with hardening a
United States structure will be between $290 million and $475 million,
but over the course of 3 to 5 years the lower operating costs of the
United States facility could fully offset these transition costs and
generate at least $335 million in net savings over 10 years. Whether or
not one agrees that it is worth saving $85 million annually to put
terrorists in our backyard--and let me be clear that I do not--the
estimated time frame and cost to harden a United States facility should
give budget writers and policy makers great pause. South Carolina is
well aware of the Federal Government's ability, or lack thereof, to
maintain project time lines and cost projections, even in cases where
the project is designed to address foreign relations and international
agreements. One need look no further than the MOX facility at the
Savannah River Site in Aiken, South Carolina, currently billions of
dollars over budget and years past original completion projection
dates.
in conclusion
As the Members of this committee know better than most, National
security decisions should be made with one, and only one, consideration
in mind: What is in the best interests of the National security of the
United States of America? While serious policy issues with no easy
answers underline the long-term detention and final disposition of
terrorists captured during armed conflict, the location of a United
States-controlled military prison should not be determined based on
loose-perception, estimates, and campaign pledges.
I again thank you for the opportunity to speak here today.
I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Governor Haley.
The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes of
questions.
We have already spent a fair amount of time today
discussing the security implications of bringing Guantanamo
detainees to the homeland and particularly to your State. In
that vein, can you please just describe for the committee
Members some of the South Carolina-specific concerns that you
and law enforcement agencies under your purview would have?
Governor Haley. You know, the first thing as a Governor I
will tell you is, what does it do to the reputation of the
State where you take these detainees? So here in South
Carolina, where we have worked massively on bringing Made in
America jobs to South Carolina, what company is going to invest
in a State where they keep these heinous terrorists? They are
not going to. The reason is companies look at where they are
going to bring their suppliers, where they are going to bring
their customers. They don't want that reputation on them as
they go forward.
Now you look at the tourism aspect of it: Who is going to
come vacation in a State that is now known to house these
terrorists? It completely taints what we have been proud to say
is the No. 1 tourist destination for 4 years in a row. But it
would do this to any other State.
All of these implications are very important, and we know
we are already having to stand up all of our armed bases, all
of our security, because the targets right now are on
servicemen and -women. You are just putting another target, but
now you are going to put it on Charleston, South Carolina. It
is wrong. To go and have States now have to deal with one more
issue when we are dealing with so many is wrong. Our focus now
is, how do we keep our servicemen and -women safe? Because,
right now, if I sit down and talk to my FBI affiliates as well
as my chief of SLED, that is who we are trying to protect,
because the targets are our military--any military people in
uniform, any security in uniform.
Then if you go and you put it in a place like South
Carolina, we are not only going to have protests, but we will
also have threats that we don't have right now. Why would you
move something there and cause stress on this country when,
right now, this country is going through so many home-grown
issues on its own to turn around and add one more to it?
Mr. Perry. Following up on that a little bit, just to set
the context. Of course, the detention facility in Guantanamo
Bay is sequestered--there is not going to be any protests.
Right? I mean, nobody is flying to Guantanamo Bay for
recreating or whatever and then would be, you know, protesters
at some point. Of course, you are not going to go there
unannounced and exercise some terrorist activity. That is just
not going to happen in Guantanamo Bay. So it is shielded from
that by the virtue of its geography and the kind of place that
it is.
Also, I just want to say, since you mentioned the military
and, of course, you have a high concentration of military
servicemembers in the State and in the area, thank you for
your--you served with your husband as well. We appreciate--the
country appreciates your sacrifices in that regard.
Can you talk at all about the costs to local law
enforcement, whether it is regarding protests, whether it is
regarding being prepared for any eventuality, and to not have
that ``failure of imagination'' where either one of these
individuals would get out, or someone would use the facility as
a target or try and get somebody out? Can you address that at
all?
Governor Haley. You know, we can talk about costs, but you
can't put a cost on fear. You can't put a cost on what it will
do to a State. We looked at hate in the eye last year. We had
to deal with that. Our State is still recovering from that. It
is unbelievable what it will do to the people of a State when
they know hate is anywhere near them. There is no cost you can
put on that. What I can tell you is we have had to stand up our
armed bases. We have already had to add additional security to
our military, to our officials, in everything and anything we
do because every State in the country now has to be more
careful. But, really, cost to me is such a frivolous
conversation in this whole piece of what it will do, because
when you have been a State that knows what this is like, you
never want to go back to that. No State should ever have to
know what that fear feels like.
Mr. Perry. Have the local law enforcement agencies in
collaboration with Federal enforcement agencies done any cost
estimates that you know of? Like you said, it is very difficult
to quantify. But at some point, it is going to require
additional--whether it is additional training, whether it is
additional manpower, additional equipment, briefings,
protocols. I mean, have you even begun? Based on the phone call
that you said you got, have you even started down that road,
and have local law enforcement officials aware of this
expressed any concern to you?
Governor Haley. We have talked to our directors, whether it
be that of SLED, whether it be of DPS, whether it be of our
military bases and adjutant general. Those are conversations we
will have. I am prepared to spend whatever it takes to protect
my people. But what I will tell you, again, is this is
something that, on every level, whether it be law enforcement,
whether it be military, whether it be tourism, whether it be
economic development, every call that I have gotten has been:
Please don't let this happen to South Carolina.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Governor. My time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. Thompson,
for his 5 minutes of questions.
Governor Haley. Good morning.
Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. Thank you very much. Again,
Governor, thank you for appearing before the subcommittee this
morning.
I will get to my question. Have you had any dealings with
the proposed facility that they are talking about potentially
transferring the prisoners to?
Governor Haley. The Department of Defense has had no
interactions with us whatsoever outside of suddenly getting a
call saying that they were going to be going to the Charleston
Navy Brig. That is all that we have gotten. They have not had
any communication with us or told us what to expect or anything
else to that effect.
Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. To your knowledge, are you, as
Governor, spending any money from the taxpayers' standpoint in
the maintenance and operation of that naval facility?
Governor Haley. Right now, not any additional money is
being spent on that facility outside of we are trying to plan
on economic development issues within that area. But that has
all stopped now that they have decided to come in. It would be
extremely helpful if the Department of Defense would engage
with us and let us know what they are doing.
Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. Yeah, I agree. A phone call
would not be enough. But if they demonstrated that they would
pick up the cost of whatever is involved, is that a concern of
yours, or are there some other concerns?
Governor Haley. They could tell me that they would pay
South Carolina to house these terrorists, and I would not take
them. The State of South Carolina does not want them. There is
no amount of money that they can pay, whether it be cost or
supplement, that would justify those detainees coming to South
Carolina.
Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. I appreciate your opinion.
You reference what happened in Charleston relative to the
unfortunate circumstances at Mother Emanuel.
Governor Haley. Yes.
Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. Some of us also participated
in funeral services and other things, and it was not a good
day. That is the other ugly head of terrorism called domestic
terrorism.
Governor Haley. That is right.
Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. I compliment you and the local
law enforcement for how you addressed it.
Governor Haley. Thank you.
Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. Can you just for the record
tell me who has custody of the young man charged with killing
the people at Mother Emanuel?
Governor Haley. He is in South Carolina.
Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. Is he in a Federal facility or
State or a county facility?
Governor Haley. I believe he is in a State facility.
Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. Do you know where? Is he in
Charleston? Is he in Sumter or where?
Governor Haley. He is in Charleston.
Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. So the fellow who did that
heinous crime is in Charleston right now?
Governor Haley. Yes.
Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. Has that posed any kind of
security issues, to your knowledge, for the people of
Charleston?
Governor Haley. We won't let it pose any security issues.
Right now, what I can tell you is it is a constant reminder. It
is a constant reminder of what happened, what we have to deal
with, as we have to know that he is there. No one wants him
there. Right now, they are in the process of going forward with
the death penalty.
Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. There is no issue on my part
to pursue the death penalty at all.
Governor Haley. Right.
Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. But the fact is sometimes we
have difficult jobs to do that include dealing with bad people.
As Governor, you and local officials are dealing with this bad
person. Whatever is required to make sure that that bad person
is kept in a facility where he can't harm anyone. To the extent
that he is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, your
oath of office and other things would allow you to expend
whatever resources to guarantee the safety of the people in
South Carolina. That is the point I am trying to get at.
Governor Haley. Yes, sir. I appreciate your point, Mr.
Thompson, and, you know, our goal is that we will deal with him
as we need to deal with him. That was a home-grown issue that
we will, you know, absolutely deal with.
We just don't want 80 more coming to Charleston. Dealing
with one has shaken the State enough. I can't imagine what we
would have to do if we had to deal with 80 of them.
Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Governor Haley. Thank you.
Mr. Perry. The Chairman thanks the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Governor Haley, I apologize that the Ranking Member had to
bring discussion about a deranged murderer into a discussion
about Guantanamo Bay terrorists that are backed by global
organizations known as al-Qaeda, ISIS, ISIL, whichever term we
want to use, Boko Haram, Abu Sayyaf, and the list goes on and
on of organizations that are global terrorist organizations
that have a completely different mindset than individuals that
are deranged and commit heinous crimes in this country.
For the record, Mr. Chairman, the Governor sent a letter to
Secretary of Defense Ash Carter along with Governor Brownback
on August 25, and there was also an executive order July 16,
2015, by Governor Haley after the Chattanooga terrorist attack.
I would like to submit that for the record, please.
Mr. Perry. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Letter Submitted by Honorable Jeff Duncan
August 25, 2015.
The Honorable Ashton B. Carter,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Defense, Washington, DC 20301.
Dear Secretary Carter: We recently received notice that the
Department of Defense is surveying the U.S. Naval Consolidated Brig in
Charleston, South Carolina and the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at fort
Leavenworth, Kansas to assess the possibility of housing Guantanamo Bay
detainees. Simply put, we do not want them in our states.
Those who are held at Guantanamo Bay are among the deadliest
terrorists in history, including the principle architect of the
September 11, 2001 attacks--Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. In response to a
previous attempt by this Administration to transfer these detainees to
the United States in 2009, Congress unambiguously prohibited such
transfers, and has extended that prohibition every year since. Any
detainee transfer from Guantanamo Bay to the United States would be a
violation of federal law, a law we hope this Administration will
respect and faithfully execute.
South Carolina and Kansas are sovereign states with excellent
military installations, and we are proud of the men and women in
uniform, and their families, who sacrifice for us every single day and
call our states home. We will not be part of any illegal and ill-
advised action by this Administration, especially when that action
relates to importing terrorists into our states. Please know that we
will take any action within our power to make sure no Guantanamo Bay
detainees are transferred to South Carolina or Kansas.
Sincerely,
Nikki R. Haley,
Governor, South Carolina.
Sam Brownback,
Governor, Kansas.
Attachment.--Executive Order No. 2015-18
State of South Carolina
executive department
office of the governor
executive order no. 2015-18
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2015, five United States service members were
killed and numerous others wounded in a domestic terrorist attack at a
military recruitment and a Naval Station in Chattanooga Tennessee; and
WHEREAS, this kind of targeted, domestic attack on United States
military personnel has become increasingly common in recent years and
presents the threat of violence to service men and women and military
facilities in South Carolina; and
WHEREAS, precautionary measures are needed to protect those service
men and women who have volunteered to protect us; and
WHEREAS, immediately following the attack in Chattanooga, I ordered
a full review of all South Carolina National Guard facilities and
installations and ordered active shooter exercises, coordination, and
training with law enforcement; and
WHEREAS, these reviews completed by the South Carolina National
Guard indicate a need to further enhance security at National Guard
facilities and provide more opportunities for Guardsmen to defend
themselves against a threat of violence or terrorism; and
WHEREAS, as commander-in-chief of the State in accordance with
Article IV, Section 13 of the State Constitution, I may take such
measures as necessary in order to prevent violence to persons or
property of citizens and maintain peace, tranquility, and good order,
and pursuant to Section 1-3-410 of the South Carolina Code of Laws, it
appears to my satisfaction that there exists a threat of violence to
National Guard members and facilities in the State of South Carolina;
and
WHEREAS, I may appoint such personnel that I deem necessary to
assist in the detection and prevention of crime in this State,
including at all store-front recruitment centers and other facilities
of the South Carolina National Guard, pursuant to Section 23-1-60.
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the power conferred upon me by the
Constitution and Statutes of the State of South Carolina, I hereby
order the Adjutant General of the State of South Carolina as follows:
1. To install security enhancements at all store-front recruitment
centers and other facilities of the South Carolina National
Guard as he deems necessary.
2. To identify and designate appropriate and qualified members of
the National Guard, State Guard, or any civilian employees
thereof to undergo specific force protection training
coordinated through the South Carolina Law Enforcement
Division.
3. To assign and arm those individuals who successfully complete
force protection training with specific duties and
responsibilities, including, but not limited to, the detection
and prevention of crime at all store-front recruitment centers
and other facilities of the South Carolina National Guard in
this State at such times as he deems necessary.
4. To coordinate with State and local civilian law enforcement
agencies for additional protection as they deem necessary.
5. To periodically issue and terminate orders to State Active Duty
pursuant to Title 1, Chapter 3 for such members of the National
Guard or State Guard as he deems necessary until such time as a
permanent plan for force protection is implemented.
FURTHER, pursuant to Section 23-1-60, I hereby appoint those
appropriate and qualified members of the National Guard, State Guard,
or any civilian employees thereof who have successfully completed the
force protection training coordinated through the South Carolina Law
Enforcement Division to carry out the duties and responsibilities
assigned by the Adjutant General of the State of South Carolina as he
deems necessary to safeguard all store-front recruitment centers and
other facilities of the South Carolina National Guard in this State.
Such appointments do not confer general law enforcement duties or
responsibilities for any other purpose.
FURTHER, I hereby direct the Chief of the South Carolina Law
Enforcement Division to expedite applications for concealed weapons
permits from any member of the South Carolina National Guard, in
accordance with state law.
FURTHER, I hereby direct all state and local law enforcement
agencies in the State of South Carolina to cooperate with the South
Carolina National Guard in furtherance of this Order in accordance with
state and local laws.
This order shall take effect immediately.
Given Under My Hand and the Great Seal of the State of
South Carolina, This 17th Day of August, 2015.
Nikki R. Haley, Governor.
Attest:
Mark Hammond, Secretary of State.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you.
Governor Haley, my understanding is there is a school in
fairly close proximity to the Charleston Naval Brig, elementary
school or middle school. Is that correct?
Governor Haley. Yes. I actually spoke with the
Representative from that area, and he called me yesterday and
said: ``Good luck tomorrow.'' He said: ``Everybody in my area
is terrified of what could happen.''
Mr. Duncan. So we are talking about South Carolinian
mothers and fathers that are considering sending their children
to a school in close proximity to some of the most wanted and
dangerous terrorists in the world. So thanks for pointing that
out.
The letter that you and Governor Brownback sent to Ash
Carter, did you all get a response on that?
Governor Haley. I am not aware that we got a response.
Mr. Duncan. No response from that----
Governor Haley. I will follow up and just confirm that, but
I am not aware of a response. They have been very--they have
handled this very much on their own and have not included us in
the process. I have had conversations with Governor Brownback,
and I have made it very clear, and I want it to be made very
clear, any Governor in the country that has to deal with this,
I will fight for them to make sure this doesn't happen in their
State either. This is not just about South Carolina. This is
about every State in the country.
Mr. Duncan. So, just to be clear, it doesn't sound like the
administration is having any dialogue with Governors across the
country that are considered--their States are considered for
the Guantanamo Bay terrorists.
Governor Haley. No, sir. What we know is that already we
have had to sit there and wonder what is going to happen. But,
again, the fear that it has put in every State up for--who we
think is up for consideration, the fear that every State has
is, what is going to happen, when is it going to happen, when
is the turnaround time, what are we--and we don't have any
answers for them.
Mr. Duncan. Well, it is interesting because the
administration talks about stakeholder involvement, public
input. In fact, they just denied offshore areas off the coast
of South Carolina, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia in the
next 5-year drilling plan for energy development so that our
States can play a part in energy renaissance and energy
security. They touted the fact that they talked to
stakeholders. When 78 percent of South Carolinians that were
polled wanted to see our areas opened up, the stakeholders they
talked to were a very, very small group of environmentalists.
But here we have got the administration wanting to fulfill
a campaign promise and bring terrorists--these aren't just
criminals; These are terrorists backed by the organizations I
mentioned earlier--to States, to the U.S. soil, illegally in
violation of the NDAA, by the way, which is a bilateral NDAA
that goes back multiple Congresses that have said the same
thing, in violation of that, bring these terrorists to U.S.
soil, to South Carolina, Kansas, or maybe another State,
without any correspondence with the Governor? The Governor
represents 4.8 million people in South Carolina. The general
assembly--124 in the house, 46 in the senate--represent a
combined total of 4.8 million people in South Carolina. The
congressional delegation, 7 of us, represents 4.8 million
people in South Carolina who overwhelmingly support your
decision to stop or try to stop the administration bringing
terrorists to Charleston, South Carolina.
So he will listen to a small group of environmentalists
about energy issues, but he won't listen to the Governor, the
general assembly, and the Congressional delegation with regard
to bringing terrorists to U.S. soil? That is alarming to me.
So let me ask you this: Has there been any sort of threat
assessment with regard to the Naval Brig transferring the
terrorists? I believe, right now, terrorists on an island,
isolated from the mainland, very difficult to get to, very
difficult for the terrorist organizations that are supporting
these terrorists to free them, attack the island or whatnot;
they are guarded by United States Marines, by the way. Has
there been a threat assessment about that brig in Charleston
and whether that is a possible target and how that would be
handled that you are aware of?
Governor Haley. So, again, we have not been given any
information by the Department of Defense. What I can tell you
is I look at this very much like I look at my correctional
facilities. You never know what is going to happen. So if one
has a medical emergency, you all of a sudden have to figure
out: Okay. Where are they going to go? Which hospital is going
to be there? How are we going to secure them from one point to
the other? How are we going to handle everything they have to
do in the process? If anything happens, and there is some sort
of breakout or if they shut down the prisons or if they take
over the prisons, which can happen, those are all things that
we have to deal with now.
But we are dealing with those in South Carolina. Never have
we thought about or can we comprehend dealing with terrorists
that have done the crimes that they have done.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you for your valuable leadership on
this. I would be interested to see what other Congressmen would
say and what their Governors would say if their State was
targeted for these terrorists. Thank you for your leadership
and for being here today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the----
Governor Haley. If I could add one point: I would dare to
say any Governor, Republican or Democrat, would not want these
detainees in their State.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman from South
Carolina.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr.
Richmond.
Mr. Richmond. Let me just start off by saying that I know
that Mr. Duncan apologized on behalf of the Ranking Member. You
know, I don't think the Ranking Member needs anybody to
apologize for him, but if you want to apologize, that is fine.
But I am sure he can speak for himself.
The issue of bringing up Mother Emanuel and the fact that a
terrorist is a terrorist is an issue that we have been raising
on this side for a very long time. It doesn't matter the
nationality of the perpetrator. It doesn't matter their
motivation. Terrorism is terrorism no matter the perpetrator or
the victim. So when we look at those 9 people that were killed,
we call it domestic terrorism. The fact that you can hold a
domestic terrorist means you have the ability to safely house a
very dangerous person who others would want to do harm to. So
you would agree that you at least have the ability to do it.
Governor Haley. I will never question our military and our
officers. We are totally capable, and I don't doubt them for a
second that they are not able to do their job and able to do
their job well.
I am talking about the environment you bring upon a State
when you create that kind of fear. You send a chill factor into
a State that you can't put a cost on, that you can't put a
reason on, that you can't give an explanation for.
I know we have the best military in the world. My military
will do whatever they have to do to protect the people of South
Carolina. My officers will do whatever they have to to protect
the people of South Carolina. That is not the issue. That will
never be the issue.
The issue is, why do you want to bring these detainees that
have done these types of terrorist acts onto American soil when
you don't have to? You don't have to. I am an elected official.
I had campaign promises. I know what that is about. You want to
fulfill every one. It is in your heart. It is in your soul that
you want to fulfill it.
I believe that President Obama had his intentions back in
2008 when he was going against Mrs. Clinton that he had a
reason for saying that. These are different times. We are
seeing different types of terrorism. We are seeing a different
level of terrorism. It is time to rethink this and understand
that those people that are doing those types of acts that we
send to Guantanamo, we are sending them there for a reason. We
are keeping them there for a reason.
Mr. Richmond. Well, let me ask you a question. In 2002,
suspected terrorist Yasser Hamdi was transferred to a Naval
Brig in Norfolk, Virginia, and then to a Naval Brig in
Charleston, South Carolina, the same location being looked at
today for some of the transfers. Did his presence cause
concern? Did you even know he was there? I don't think you were
Governor then, but, you know, did it create an uproar when we
transferred him there?
Governor Haley. I know that he was there, but the concern
is you are not talking about 1. Not only that, this is a
different day and time than it was back then. You are now
looking at a time where we have seen tremendous amounts of
terrorist attacks. You are looking at a time where you are now
wanting to bring a different level of terrorist to South
Carolina. So I don't think you can compare that one detainee
that we happened to have at that time compared to the others.
It is totally different.
Mr. Richmond. Just because of the size of the number?
Governor Haley. Because if you go and you bring these
detainees here, now the way that the element comes to the area,
it will encourage more people to want to go and be in South
Carolina, whether to protest, whether to join forces, whether
to create home-grown terrorism. All of those things that
Governors are now trying to protect from as it is, you are
creating a whole new magnet for that when you do something like
this. That is the concern. We now--I get SLED reports, my State
Law Enforcement Division. The SLED reports we get are now
watching all of the home-grown terrorists that we think we may
be getting that are being trained overseas and then are coming
back wanting to do something. If you go and you put these
detainees in South Carolina, you have just created a magnet.
So that propaganda that you claim is in Guantanamo Bay, you
are going to just move that propaganda to Charleston, South
Carolina.
Mr. Richmond. Well, let me just say, and I am from New
Orleans, tourist area very similar to Charleston. Both created,
founded, because of the slave trade. So I understand tourism
being a base. But I guess my ultimate question is this, is just
a classic example of, I guess, all the American territories and
States saying: Not in my backyard. Let's leave them in Cuba
because we don't have a responsibility over there, and we don't
care about how--you know, the ramifications over there. So if
everybody says ``not in my backyard,'' which is basically the
argument that I hear, is: We just don't want the chaos
associated with housing these bad guys.
Governor Haley. So that would imply that all the Governors
are wrong?
Mr. Richmond. I am just asking if that is the argument,
``not in my backyard.''
Governor Haley. I think all the Governors know what this
means when it is in their backyard.
So this is not me saying: Oh, put it in North Carolina or
put it in Kansas, or put it--I don't want it going into any
State in the country. This is not a ``my backyard.'' This is
the United States of America. This is an area that we are
trying to keep safe. To bring terrorists from a place where
they cannot harm anyone to an area that has populations within
their States that they can harm. God forbid if one error
happened, one, none of us wants that on us. None of us. We
can't afford that.
For what? Why are we having this conversation? What is the
urgency to move these detainees? I have yet to hear what the
logical reasoning is. The propaganda is not true, because they
hate us because the terrorists will always hate America. They
hate our freedoms. They hate what we stand for. They hate that
we are against terrorism.
So, for the tax money, the District of Columbia has never
been that stickler on cutting tax dollars. I think we could
help you save some money so that you can keep Guantanamo Bay
open.
When you talk about the other things that this will do,
there are--I just don't get it. Neither do any of the Governors
across this country understand what the urgency is to move
terrorists that are in a place where we know they can't touch
Americans. Why do we want to put them on American soil?
Because now we not only know if they come to American soil,
what sort of rights are they now going to have? We have watched
the Supreme Court totally start to go down that slippery slope.
We have dealt with the habeas corpus issues. We have dealt with
all of that. So now what rights are we going to say that they
are going to have because they are now on U.S. soil? No one has
yet to be able to answer that question. Every Governor in the
country wants to know what rights these terrorists are going to
have and what we are going to have to deal with on that front.
We deserve answers as Governors. We deserve answers to what you
are trying to do to our States. The fact that no one in the
Federal Government will give us those answers is an unfair
assumption and an unfair thought to not allow the people of
this country to speak up, because no one wants Guantanamo Bay
in the United States.
Mr. Richmond. Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
Carter.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Governor, thank you for being here.
Governor Haley. Good morning.
Mr. Carter. Let me begin by saying I want to associate
myself with your earlier testimony about this being an ill-
conceived plan and that I just think it is absolutely ludicrous
to think that moving these prisoners to American soil could
somehow improve our National security. I just don't get it. I
don't understand it at all.
I can tell you I think this is just, again, an ill-
conceived plan to try to keep a campaign promise, which makes
it even worse.
Governor, my question is this: I have the honor and the
privilege of representing coastal Georgia, Savannah. You
mentioned in your opening testimony that Charleston was the
second-most favorable vacation spot behind Savannah, and that
Georgia was the second-friendliest State. I wanted to make sure
we got that clear.
But, nevertheless, tourism is extremely important in
Charleston, extremely important in Savannah. I know it is
impossible to put an economic cost, to put a number on that,
but can you imagine, can you just elaborate on the impact that
that might have on tourism, the driving force in our economy,
in Savannah, in Charleston, and in New Orleans?
Governor Haley. Well, first of all, send greetings to my
sister State and to Governor Deal as well. I will tell you that
the cost associated--who is going to take their family? Who is
going to take their kids? Because if you go to where the Naval
Brig is, that is where a lot of the tourist issues are. You
know, if you want to go down to the market, if you want to go
to look at the houses, if you want to go to all those areas,
you just, as a mom, you don't take your children anywhere near
where you think there could be a threat. It is the perceived
idea that they don't know.
So, No. 1, tourism and conventions and all of those things
would stop going to that State, and that is a big part of it.
Second, you would stop having the element of TV shows. We now
have Top Chef that is coming to South Carolina. Those types of
questions are things that they ask because they don't want to
be in a State that has any negativity to it.
Then you look at the fact that even with the economic
development projects that we have done in South Carolina, I
don't even know how I would begin to talk to a CEO about
something like that. I don't know how I could do that, because
what people don't realize is it is not just getting a plant and
having them manufacture or do work. They want a place where
they can bring, host their suppliers and their customers and
their executives to that area. What are you going to do to
Charleston when you do that?
Mr. Carter. Sure. Last time I checked, it was my impression
that the role of the Federal Government was to assist you and
to help the States and to help the local governments and
increase----
Governor Haley. Protect the citizens.
Mr. Carter. Absolutely. On that point, let me say this: You
know, I have always said that the No. 1 responsibility of the
Federal Government is to protect our people and our homeland.
For the life of me I can't understand how this is going to do
anything except the exact opposite. But on the point of the
Federal Government and their role, it seems to me like this is
going to obviously--I am a former mayor and a former State
legislator--and it is obvious that this is going to push more
cost and more responsibility down to the States and down to the
local communities. How are you going to deal with that?
Governor Haley. It is one more thing that we will have to
deal with. So not only is it going to be security and it is
going to be military, it is going to be planning of medical
services. It is going to be planning for should something go
wrong. It is going to have to create routes and things that we
to have in place. Governors have so much pressure now just in
dealing with all the issues, whether it is tracking the
terrorism in our State, whether it is tracking corrections and
prisoners and making sure they stay in their place. This is a
whole other level of threat that we would have to start doing.
So trying to track the costs of this, I don't know what it is.
But, again, even if it was zero, even if they agreed to pay us,
cost is not an issue on this. This goes far beyond cost.
Mr. Carter. Absolutely. I couldn't agree more. You know, to
the point about--and you brought it up a number times during
this testimony about protesters and about the propaganda
portion of it. Obviously--and today, you know, we are an
immediate newscast. I mean, this is being Tweeted right now; I
can assure you. So the propaganda is a concern. It has got to
be a concern of all of us. Certainly, I know it has got to be a
concern of yours as a Governor.
Governor Haley. I don't disagree with President Obama about
the propaganda of Guantanamo. I think wherever you move the
location, you are creating that same propaganda. It doesn't
change anything.
Mr. Carter. Not at all. Well, again, let me thank you for
addressing this and for making the point succinctly that you
have that it doesn't matter what State this is. It doesn't
matter what city this is. We don't need this on our homeland.
The No. 1 responsibility of the Federal Government is to
protect our homeland, not to bring these people over here.
Don't we understand that? That is what the people are saying.
No. We don't want them over here.
Governor Haley. I will stand side-by-side with any Governor
that has to deal with this.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Governor. Thank you for your
testimony.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
Loudermilk.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Governor, for being here. Just as a side note,
all of my family is from Walhalla, South Carolina. So there you
go.
Governor Haley. We will take good care of them.
Mr. Loudermilk. All right. Could you answer in your
opinion, why are we currently keeping the detainees at
Guantanamo Bay instead of originally just bringing them to the
United States?
Governor Haley. I mean, I think if you look at what the
thought process was, anyone that was involved in a terrorist
act or anyone that could possibly--that was in more, that could
possibly do something of a terrorist attack, we put them there
for a reason, and that was to keep the people of the United
States safe.
Mr. Loudermilk. Because they are threats to the----
Governor Haley. Because they are absolutely to the American
people.
Mr. Loudermilk. So the idea was to keep them off of U.S.
soil in the case of escape or any other action. In fact,
speaking of escapes, they do happen. In 2010, we had 2,500
escapes in the United States. In 2011, 3,100. In 2012, 2,500.
In 2014, over 2,000. So escape is something that we must be
concerned about.
Governor Haley. It is something that we deal with in South
Carolina and every Governor deals with across this country.
Mr. Loudermilk. The Ranking Member brought up the case of
the shooting in South Carolina. That was an American citizen
who was under your legal jurisdiction. Correct?
Governor Haley. That is correct.
Mr. Loudermilk. So we would be adding more perpetrators
into your State that aren't necessarily under your
jurisdictional boundary.
Governor Haley. That is exactly right.
Mr. Loudermilk. Increasing the threats of which we already
have threats in this Nation.
There is another aspect of this: Is Charleston or South
Carolina ever susceptible to natural disasters?
Governor Haley. Yes, of course.
Mr. Loudermilk. Such as hurricanes?
Governor Haley. Yes.
Mr. Loudermilk. Has the administration addressed at all an
evacuation plan or the security risk should you have to
evacuate a detention facility in the case of a hurricane?
Governor Haley. Well, we would have to do that. If that
happened, we would have to certainly figure out how we were
going to do that. That, again, creates not only more security,
but where do you go? What do you do with a terrorist like that?
Mr. Loudermilk. Yeah. Of course, that would have an impact
on you--not only the cost to the State but taking resources
away that should be there helping citizens of South Carolina to
escape the disaster.
Governor Haley. The problem is, what answer do I give to
the people of South Carolina? Because those are the questions
they are going to have. No answer I can give them is ever going
to be good enough.
Mr. Loudermilk. There is one other area that this brings a
threat that I haven't heard many talk about. That is the threat
of additional terrorist attacks because you are housing known
terrorists. If you recall the Garland, Texas, terrorist attack,
that was because there was an art competition that they felt
was offensive to Muslims. So there was an attack in Garland,
Texas. Would you anticipate that ISIS, al-Qaeda, Hamas,
Hezbollah, we can go down the list of those that threaten the
United States and our security, our safety, our people, would
that not increase the risk of soft-target attacks in South
Carolina because you were housing known terrorists?
Governor Haley. I think that was--I was respectfully trying
to tell the Ranking Member and Mr. Richmond exactly why that is
a concern, is because if it is there, we already--I am already
dealing with FBI and SLED on issues that we know we may have in
South Carolina and watching people who may want to do things in
relation to all of those terrorist groups. If we housed
anything in a State, that is going to be more of a reason for
them to want to go to that area to do something in that area to
help get that person out or to make a statement.
Mr. Loudermilk. Do you know if anyone has--any detainee has
ever escaped from Guantanamo Bay?
Governor Haley. Not that I am aware of.
Mr. Loudermilk. Do you know if any detainee--or there has
ever been an attempted terrorist attack against the U.S.
military facility at Guantanamo Bay?
Governor Haley. Not that I am aware of.
Mr. Loudermilk. What would your assessment be if there was
an escape in Guantanamo Bay? Would that person be a direct
threat to citizens of the United States other than our U.S.
military there?
Governor Haley. It is the whole reason they are there, so
that they are not. It is to protect the rights, the freedoms,
and the lives of United States citizens.
Mr. Loudermilk. So Guantanamo Bay is working.
Governor Haley. It is working, and it has been working. Why
we are having this conversation, it just baffles me.
Mr. Loudermilk. There are certain things that this
Government and this administration does that baffles a whole
lot of people of the United States. But being baffled and being
threatened, your life, your liberty, your security, and your
family is a totally different aspect. That is what I cannot
understand why we want to change something that is working and
put your State at risk.
I see I am out of time, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Governor.
Governor Haley. Thank you.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr.
Katko.
Mr. Katko. Thank you Governor. It is a pleasure to have you
here today. I too have family--I am from Syracuse, New York,
not New York City, Syracuse, upstate New York, and I too have
family in Charleston. So----
Governor Haley. Oh, great.
Mr. Katko. Been there many times to Wild Dunes and also to
Kiawah, and it is just an outstanding place.
Governor Haley. Beautiful. Beautiful areas. Thank you.
Visit often.
Mr. Katko. But I want to talk to you about a couple of
things. I want to kind of get a feel from you, if I may, as to
what degree has the administration consulted with you or worked
with you while evaluating the suitability of Charleston for a
site for their--possibly--a site for these detainees. So, in
2015, they did a survey. Did they work closely with you, or did
they work with you at all on that?
Governor Haley. Everything that they have done they have
done on their own. The only thing they did was call us and let
us know they would be visiting Charleston, which was the first
we heard of, to go look at the Naval Brig.
Mr. Katko. Are you telling me here that they made no effort
to try and get input from you about this possible transfer of
detainees?
Governor Haley. No. So what that has done to not only me
but every other Governor that is possibly looking at this, it
has left us without any information to share with our
constituents or any way to defend ourselves against the
possibility of these detainees coming to our State.
Mr. Katko. Just so I am clear, so they never spoke to you
at all about the potential economic costs of bringing them to
Charleston?
Governor Haley. They did not.
Mr. Katko. Did they talk to you at all the possible
security concerns that may emanate from bringing these
detainees to Charleston?
Governor Haley. They did not.
Mr. Katko. Did they talk to you at all or consult you at
all, give you any heads-up or any input at all regarding the
potential for Charleston becoming a target if the detainees are
put there?
Governor Haley. They have not given us any information to
provide any comfort whatsoever.
Mr. Katko. Well, that seems particularly outrageous, given
the fact that there is a wealth of information about--I am on
the Homeland Security Committee as a whole, and I have done a
lot of work with respect to ISIS. One thing is for sure, like
you said earlier, there is a totally different threat dynamic
now than it was even 10 years ago in this country. ISIS and
affiliated groups are radicalizing Americans over the internet
to do violence at home without ever leaving. When they can use
something like this to foment that violence, they most likely
will. I am shocked that they wouldn't even at least talk to you
or share any input with you about that.
Governor Haley. No. We would welcome them talking to us
because we would understand at least where we are in this
situation and why they would consider the Naval Brig or even if
we are still up for consideration. We have got no input
whatsoever.
Mr. Katko. That seems particularly outrageous to me. Now
just switching gears briefly, isn't it true that this is a
medium security facility, the Naval Brig?
Governor Haley. Yes.
Mr. Katko. Okay. So it is not even a max facility?
Governor Haley. We would obviously have to do some things
to it, and I guess, maybe, the Department of Defense has
figured out how to do that, but they have not shared that.
Mr. Katko. So I was a Federal prosecutor for 20 years, an
organized crime prosecutor, prosecuting cartel-level drug
traffickers. I can tell you, there is a slew of individuals
that I prosecuted that are in maximum facilities for much less
egregious crimes than what these individuals have committed
against the United States.
It is shocking to me that we have different grades in the
Federal system: Medium, max, super max. To think about bringing
probably perhaps the most dangerous individuals in the world to
a medium-security facility, and then spend the extra money to
upgrade that facility is perplexing, to say the least.
Governor Haley. I agree.
Mr. Katko. Now, have you ever considered--have you
consulted with anyone about possibly taking legal action to
stop this from happening, given the fact that it is illegal
currently under the law for the United States to expend any
money to transfer individuals from Guantanamo Bay to the United
States?
Governor Haley. Well, Governor Brownback and I both sent
letters, because at the time, the word was that it was Kansas
and South Carolina were the two States that were being strongly
considered. So we sent a letter to Secretary Carter to let him
know that we absolutely didn't want to have this happen. But,
again, we have not heard of anything.
Should we hear something, I will absolutely fight. I will
absolutely sue. I will absolutely do whatever we need to do to
protect our State. Like I said, Republican or Democrat, I will
stand with any Governor that has to go through this, because I
know the fear that it can put in the minds of the people of
their State, but I also know the security concerns that that
Governor would have.
Mr. Katko. Last, it is true, is it not, that the vast
majority, if not all of these detainees, are most likely facing
a military tribunal, if any at all?
Governor Haley. I think so, yes.
Mr. Katko. Isn't it true that Guantanamo Bay is a military
facility?
Governor Haley. Yes, it is.
Mr. Katko. So what are we doing?
Governor Haley. I don't know. If you ever find out or talk
to the Department of Defense--please do--we would love that
information.
Mr. Katko. I am not sure we will get an answer, but thank
you very much, and I appreciate your time.
Mr. Duncan. Would the gentleman yield the remaining time?
Mr. Katko. I will.
Mr. Duncan. In response to the Governor's question about a
legal case, I filed a bill that gives the House of
Representatives standing in court. If the President does
violate the NDAA law and brings Guantanamo Bay terrorists to
U.S. soil, the bill that I filed, H. Res. 617 would give Paul
Ryan and the House of Representatives standing to stop this
through legal means. I would ask the gentleman to sign on.
Thank you for your time. I yield back.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair also thanks Governor Haley for her valuable
testimony, and the Members for their questions.
First panel, Governor, you are excused.
Governor Haley. Thank you.
Mr. Perry. The Clerk will prepare the witnesses' table for
the second panel. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mr. Perry. All right. Everybody, thank you very much. We
will reconvene.
The Chair asks unanimous consent that the gentlelady from
Kansas, Ms. Jenkins, be allowed to sit on the dais and
participate in this hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair will now introduce our witnesses for the second
panel. We will be a little out of order for administrative
purposes here. We will start with Sheriff Michael Bouchard--is
that correct?
Sheriff Bouchard. Yes, sir.
Mr. Perry [continuing]. The sheriff of Oakland County,
Michigan, where he leads one of the Nation's largest sheriff's
offices, overseeing 1,300 employees, and managing an annual
budget of over $140 million. Sheriff Bouchard is testifying on
behalf of the Major County Sheriffs' Association. The
Association is a professional law enforcement association of
elected sheriffs representing counties or parishes with a
population of 500,000 or more. Its membership represents over
100 million Americans.
Mr. Ken Gude is a senior fellow at the Center for American
Progress. He has served in numerous roles at the Center since
its founding in 2003. Previously, Mr. Gude was a policy analyst
at the Center for National Security Studies.
At this point, the Chair yields to the gentlelady from
Kansas, Ms. Jenkins, to introduce our second witness on this
panel.
Ms. Jenkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me this
great opportunity to introduce Mr. Thompson, the Leavenworth
County attorney in the Second Congressional District in the
great State of Kansas.
Mr. Thompson is a Kansan in every sense of the word. He is
a Leavenworth native, and his family dates back 150 years in
Leavenworth. He graduated from the University of Kansas, and
went on to graduate from Washburn University School of Law,
both phenomenal universities in the Second District. His
knowledge of the impact that a detainee transfer may have on
Leavenworth and the entire region stems from his time as the
top law enforcement official in Leavenworth County, and it will
provide much-needed context and insight into this process.
I thank him for taking his time to come to Washington and
sit before this subcommittee to answer questions. I have full
faith in his ability. He will help Congress and the President,
I think, better understand the implications and the
repercussions of such a transfer.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlelady from Kansas, Ms.
Jenkins.
Thank you, all, for being here today.
Mr. Perry. The Chair recognizes Sheriff Bouchard for an
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. BOUCHARD, SHERIFF OF OAKLAND COUNTY,
MICHIGAN OAKLAND COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF
OF THE MAJOR COUNTY SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION
Sheriff Bouchard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Thompson, and distinguished Members of the subcommittee.
I am, as mentioned, Michael Bouchard. I am sheriff of
Oakland County. I have been in law enforcement for almost 30
years and run one of the largest sheriff's offices in America.
As vice president in charge of government affairs for Major
County Sheriffs' Association, I am here to testify on their
behalf.
Far too often, local law enforcement is not consulted ahead
of policy decisions that have direct consequence and
implications for our communities. Despite years of conversation
about closing GTMO, transferring detainees, at no single point
has the administration requested our perspective on this topic.
As constitutionally-elected officials, MCSA is adamantly
opposed to any effort to close GTMO and transfer detainees to
U.S. soil. The nature of violence in America and around the
world has evolved in the expansion of encryption, social media
for mass propaganda, inspiration for lone-wolf attacks, and
selective recruitment has exponentially grown.
Securing a homeland cannot be an afterthought. Law
enforcement regularly and proactively plans and practices for
the unthinkable. After the attacks in Mumbai, I contacted all
of the chiefs in my AOR and called on us to train together on a
regular basis for just such a scenario.
A detainee housed in the backyard of on ISIS sympathizer
would be a powerful inspiration for a lone-wolf attacker and
for the recruitment. We know ISIS has gone so far as to suggest
targets, even in my county where they published a suggested
kill list with home addresses. Clearly, a community that houses
prisoners from GTMO could easily be added to such a list.
Prison radicalization and recruitment is on-going and a big
concern. The same context that is applied to Federal prisoners
must be applied to GTMO detainees, no matter if they are housed
in a military facility or not.
Going back as far as 2003, BOP Director Harley Lappin
testified before the Senate that we know inmates are
particularly vulnerable to recruitment by terrorists.
The September 2015 former detainee summary report issued by
the ODNI reported that 30 percent of former GTMO prisoners are
confirmed or suspected of being back in terrorism.
Additionally, just a few months ago, Spanish and Moroccan
authorities arrested 4 suspected ISIS affiliates, including 1
described GTMO detainee.
With higher recidivism and the proclivity for extreme
violence, releasing or transferring any additional detainees is
simply counterintuitive. Even in the increased threat
environment, law enforcement has continually been asked to do
more with less. Local law enforcement does not have the
necessary funds and, most recently, the life-saving equipment
to properly address National security implications associated
with transferring detainees to the United States.
Grant programs, such as UASI, work to address those gaps
with local agency capabilities; however, over the years, we
have seen a steady decline in those funding. Most recently,
President Obama's fiscal year 2017 budget cut UASI by 45
percent.
The LESO military surplus program and Federal grant
programs are great examples of Federal partnership with local
communities. However, through executive action, not
legislation, this administration recalled 1033 military surplus
equipment and placed burdensome rules on others.
On the very same day San Bernardino terrorists attacked our
Nation, in one of the worst attacks since 9/11, my office
received an order that returned an armored personnel carrier to
the Federal Government to be destroyed. The police in San
Bernardino said ``the terrorists came prepared today.'' On that
day, America became less prepared because of that Executive
Order.
GTMO-housed detainees in U.S. facilities would present an
extraordinary burden on the local community. Sheriff McMahon, a
friend of mine in San Bernardino, has already incurred a
$350,000 overtime bill from that one event and a $19 million
expenditure.
When emergencies arise, Federal officials in military are
not the first responders. It is the locals. Local must
practice, prepare, train, and equip to deal with any situation,
and bringing people here will necessitate that expenditure.
That means significant investment, planning, training, and
equipment, and all of these unreimbursed costs have been
ignored in the so-called saving effort.
Protests against, around, or at those facilities outside of
the wire would be a local responsibility and cost, as would an
escape. We have always sought to be a positive source of ideas
and collaboration, and we applaud the subcommittee's interest
in hearing our thoughts.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the time, and I would be
happy to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Sheriff Bouchard follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael J. Bouchard
April 28, 2016
Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Watson Coleman, distinguished
Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to discuss
local law enforcement's perspective regarding the implications of
transferring Guantanamo detainees to the homeland. Today's hearing is
timely and much-needed; far too often local law enforcement is not
consulted ahead of policy decisions that have direct and potentially
dire and dangerous implications for our local communities.
I am currently serving my fourth 4-year term as sheriff and have
been in law enforcement for almost 30 years. I run one of the largest
sheriff's offices in the country where I oversee 1,300 employees and
manage an annual budget of over $141 million. We provide police, jail,
and court services for over 1.2 million people and nearly 1,000 square
miles. In addition to serving the people of Oakland County, I am also
the vice president of government affairs for the Major County Sheriffs'
Association of America (MCSA). I am here testifying on their behalf.
The MCSA is an association of elected Sheriffs representing our
Nation's largest counties with populations of 500,000 people or more.
Collectively, we serve over 100 million Americans.
As constitutionally-elected law enforcement officials, the MCSA is
adamantly opposed to any effort to close the U.S. detention facility on
the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and transfer detainees to U.S. soil. More
so now than ever before, our Nation is facing increasingly
sophisticated threats from abroad and from within. Given the evolution
of the threat environment, State and local law enforcement--in
conjunction with our Federal partners--are at the forefront of keeping
our homeland secure. It goes without question that any effort to
transfer Gitmo detainees to U.S. soil has immense National security
implications.
The current threat environment from ISIS and other international
terror groups cannot be underestimated. The nature of violence in
America and around the world has evolved as has the expansion of
encryption, use of social media for mass propaganda, inspiration for
lone-wolf attacks and selective recruitment. It is no secret that
social media has played a primary role in the unprecedented uptick of
ISIS sympathizers and disciples. Through the George Washington
University Program on Extremism, over 300 American and/or U.S.-based
ISIS sympathizers have been identified on-line as actively spreading
propaganda.\1\ Since March 2014, 85 individuals across 24 States have
been charged in the United States with offenses related to ISIS and it
has been reported that since the fall of 2015, roughly 250 Americans
have traveled or attempted to travel to join ISIS.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://cchs.gwu.edu/sites/cchs.gwu.edu/files/downloads/
ISIS%20in%20America%20%20-Full%20Report.pdf.
\2\ https://cchs.gwu.edu/sites/cchs.gwu.edu/files/downloads/
ISIS%20in%20America%20%20-Full%20Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Law enforcement is the first group to respond to areas in times of
emergency, with the great responsibility to act quickly and effectively
in times of terror and uncertainty. Securing the homeland cannot be an
afterthought--law enforcement regularly and proactively prepares for
the unthinkable and as the threat picture and nature of violence has
evolved, so too has local law enforcement. After the attacks in Mumbai,
I contacted all the chiefs in my area of responsibility and called on
us to train together on a regular basis. Further, we needed to train on
the same tactics so we could respond and meld together immediately
should a similar scenario develop here. Local police now are directly
responsible for responding to the changing threat matrix.
Law enforcement officials' ability to lawfully access digital
evidence has been severely hamstrung by technological advancements and
non-technological barriers to access. We in the law enforcement
community find ourselves in a new age where criminals and terrorists
enthusiastically operate beyond the confines of the law through
encrypted networks, applications and mobile devices. The encrypted
applications used for preplanning and coordination among the Paris
attackers may have prevented the advance detection of the attacks, but
the cell phone of one of the terrorists recovered outside the Bataclan
theater helped investigators apprehend the ringleader of the attack,
Abdelhamid Abaaoud. When law enforcement officials identified Abaaoud's
cousin in the phone's call list and her location, Abaaoud was finally
located.\3\ It was later confirmed that Abaaoud died in the detonation
of a suicide bomb during the raid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/world/europe/a-view-of-isiss-
evolution-in-new-details-of-paris-attacks.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unnecessarily increasing the threat outlook by transferring
dangerous detainees puts our local communities at risk. A detainee
housed in the backyard of an ISIS sympathizer would be powerful
inspiration for a lone-wolf attack and/or further recruitment--an
unwarranted and avoidable inspiration. We know that ISIS even goes so
far as to suggest targets. In my county, ISIS published a list of
military members as a suggested kill list. Cleary, a community that
houses prisoners from Guantanamo Bay could be easily added to such a
list. Additionally, internal prison recruitment poses a significant and
complex challenge.
As the uptick of indicted ISIS-related offenses increases,
additional attention must be given to radical recruitment efforts in
prison. The same context that is applied to Federal prisoners can also
be applied to Guantanamo detainees, no matter if they are housed in a
military facility. In 2011, the House Homeland Security Committee under
the leadership of Congressman King (R-NY) examined post-9/11 U.S.
prison radicalization cases in which converted Muslims were radicalized
to Islamism in American prisons and upon release, attempted to launch
terror attacks in the homeland.
Kevin James, a radicalized former Nation of Islam adherent, formed
Jam'iyyat Ul-Islam Is-Saheeh (JIS) while at Folsom State prison and
recruited fellow prisoner, Levar Washington who proclaimed to be
inspired to convert to Islam after the success of 9/11.\4\ While in
prison, James developed a target list for parolee Levar which included
LAX, a military recruiting station and a Jewish children's camp--James
was later convicted of seditious conspiracy to levy war against the
United States. Another case example involves Jose Padilla. Padilla
converted to radical Islam in a Florida jail, moved to the Middle East
where he joined al-Qaeda, spent time at a military training camp and
was sent back to the United States in 2002 to carry out a radioactive
dirty bomb attack.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://homeland.house.gov/press/background-information-
prominent-post-911-us-prison-radicalization-cases/.
\5\ http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-jose-padilla-prison-
sentence-20140909-story.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prison radicalization and recruitment is an on-going concern.
Former director of the Bureau of Prisons, Harley Lappin, testified back
in 2003 before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Technology, and Homeland Security where he stated, ``We know that
inmates are particularly vulnerable to recruitment by terrorists and
that we must guard against the spread of terrorism and extremist
ideologies. In addition, our institutions work closely with the Local
Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF) to share information and
intelligence about these inmates.''\6\ Many of our MCSA members devote
both personnel and resources to these JTTFs without Federal
reimbursement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/
lappin_testimony_10_14_03.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Influential radicalized inmates pose a series of complex challenges
to law enforcement officials--they can encourage other prisoners, upon
release, to go to specific locations in an effort to further their
extremist ideologies and can urge inmates to incite violence within the
facility posing a substantial risk to prison security. Should those
influential radicalized inmates or Gitmo detainees be released,
additional scrutiny would need to be applied given the rate of
recidivism.
In the September 2015 ``Summary of the Reengagement of Detainees
Formerly Held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba'' issued by the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) it was reported that 30
percent of former Guantanamo prisoners are confirmed or suspected of
reengaging in terrorism.\7\ Additionally, just a few months ago,
Spanish and Moroccan authorities arrested 4 suspected ISIS affiliates--
including 1 described as a former Gitmo detainee.\8\ With a high
recidivism and penchant for extreme violence, releasing or transferring
any additional detainees is simply counterintuitive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/
September_2013_GTMO_Reengagement_UN- CLASS_Release_FINAL.pdf.
\8\ http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/1.705003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With an increased threat environment, law enforcement has
continually been tasked to do more with less. Cost implications coupled
with a heightened security environment is simply unsustainable. In an
era of deep budget cuts and lack of Federal funding, State and local
law enforcement does not have the necessary funds, and most recently
the necessary life-saving equipment, to adequately address the National
security implications associated with Gitmo detainees being housed
within U.S. facilities.
Grant programs such as the State Homeland Security Grant Program
(SHSP) and the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) work to address
gaps in local agencies' capabilities for responding to terrorist
threats. Other programs such as the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice
Assistance Grant Program (JAG) have a broader focus of providing
critical funding to support a range of different program areas. Over
the past few fiscal years, law enforcement has seen a steady decline in
Federal grant funding and most recently, President Obama's fiscal year
2017 budget request cut UASI funds by 45 percent. The amount of monies
we receive for these new and evolving threats is a trickle at best.
The Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO) military surplus and
Federal grant programs are examples of a good partnership between the
Federal Government and local government entities. It is fiscally
responsible and assists in equipping our Nation's law enforcement with
equipment that saves lives. In areas of our Nation that are fiscally
stressed, it is potentially the only way their law enforcement officers
would ever receive that type of support. The transfer of equipment from
Federal inventory saves taxpayers a significant amount of money, simply
because Federal surplus items have already been purchased once. In
fact, many of the same items that they receive through Federal
assistance programs have been used by law enforcement agencies for
decades.
Through executive action and not legislation, the administration
has recalled certain 1033 controlled military surplus equipment. While
the ultimate goals of law enforcement remain the same: To protect the
public; to solve, deter, and respond to criminal acts; and to enforce
the law in a responsible and Constitutional manner, the administration
has sought to inappropriately legislate through perception at the cost
of public safety. On the very same day as the San Bernardino terror
attack--our Nation's worst attack since 9/11--my office received an
order to return our armored personnel carrier back to the Federal
Government. The recall of certain types of controlled equipment will
undoubtedly leave America's law enforcement less prepared and at a
disadvantage to protect local communities against terror attacks and
dangerous situations.
Guantanamo detainees housed in U.S. facilities would require an
exorbitant amount of resources from State and local law enforcement
agencies. Resources ranging from manpower associated with hospital
watch, medical and/or court transfers, to a coordinated escapee and
riot response plans. Local law enforcement would also be tasked with
preparing and responding to any protestors or sympathizers outside of
the facility gates and into our local communities. When an emergency
arises, Federal officials and the military are not the first to
respond--local law enforcement are and as such, need to be adequately
prepared to properly address the situation at hand. That means both a
significant investment in planning, training, and equipment by the
affected local jurisdictions. Some have lauded the closure of Gitmo as
a cost-saving measure, but that is most assuredly short-sighted--both
from a National security and taxpayer perspective. Additionally, with
the recent efforts to transfer detainees to other countries the
argument that so few are left it only makes sense to close the base is
neither subtle nor supported.
As stewards of the rule of law, the MCSA respectfully reminded the
President that he signed 2 separate pieces of legislation into law that
explicitly bar the use of funds to transfer, release, or assist in the
transfer or release of Gitmo detainees to or within the continental
United States.\9\ In compliance with current law and in full
understanding of the inherent National security risk, MCSA believes
Gitmo detainees should, under no circumstance, be brought to the
homeland where they will pose a threat to the communities we serve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ http://www.mcsheriffs.com/pdf/news/
mcsa_gitmo_closure_letter_to_potus.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For many years politicians and pundits have discussed the closure
of Gitmo and at no single point has the administration requested local
law enforcement's perspective or opinion on the matter. MCSA has always
sought be a positive source of ideas and collaboration and we applaud
the committee's interest in our unique perspective as the chief elected
law enforcement officials in America. Speaking on behalf of our robust
membership, we are committed to the protection of our communities and
believe the closing of Guantanamo Bay poses an unnecessary threat to
the safety of the citizens we are sworn to protect.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Gude for an opening statement.
Correction--no, we will go ahead with that. It is on the script
here. We will go with that.
STATEMENT OF KEN GUDE, SENIOR FELLOW, NATIONAL SECURITY, CENTER
FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS
Mr. Gude. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I know that you are an Iraq War veteran and a general
officer of Reserves, and I want to thank you for your service.
Mr. Richmond and Mr. Duncan, I appreciate you being here
for this hearing today.
I think it is an incredibly important hearing that we spend
time talking about the facts associated with the implications
of bringing Guantanamo detainees into the United States.
First, I want to say that I do agree with President Obama
that closing Guantanamo would advance the National security
interests to the United States. That is not just an opinion
that President Obama came up with in his campaign; it was a
broadly shared view from senior Government officials, National
security officials of both parties in 2007, 2008, and 2009.
George W. Bush, in his memoir, wrote about the necessity of
closing Guantanamo. Then-presidential candidate John McCain,
his plan to close Guantanamo would have moved all of the
detainees to Fort Leavenworth in 2009. A host of other very
high-ranking former officials agree with the necessity for
closing Guantanamo. Colin Powell reiterated just this year how
necessary it was.
So I want to go off script a bit, as you, Mr. Chairman, did
in your remarks, and express my sincere disappointment that you
would so casually impugn the integrity of our military officers
and the men and women serving in the Pentagon, that they would
be presenting their--what is not their full judgment to this
administration, that it is in the National security interests
of the United States to close Guantanamo.
I think you owe them an apology. I don't think that you,
when you were serving, would be clouding your judgment based on
the political imperatives that you felt from your superiors. I
feel like that kind of a comment is indicative of why it is so
difficult for us to have a reasoned debate and a reasoned
analysis of this issue. It is a critical National security
issue.
Now, looking at assessing whether or not Guantanamo
detainees or international terrorists inside the United States
prisons or inside secure military facilities would present a
risk to the United States, we don't have to speculate. We have
the wisdom of experience. I think it would surprise everyone
here in this room, everyone watching on TV, everyone following
this debate, to learn that it was a Republican President who
first brought a Guantanamo detainee to the United States.
Yasser Hamdi, in 2002, was transferred first to Virginia,
and then to Charleston, the very subject of the first panel. It
is unclear to me why that was not the same kind of incredible
security risk that Governor Haley and the Members of this
subcommittee seemed to indicate it was in the first panel when
Yasser Hamdi was held in Charleston for 2 years.
Not only was Yasser Hamdi held in Charleston, but Jose
Padilla. This is a man that was accused of trying to detonate a
radiological dirty bomb in the United States, as well as Ali
al-Marri. They are the 3 detainees that were held in Charleston
for almost the entirety of the Bush administration. There was
no uproar about it at the time. There were no protestations
from Governor Sanford to the Bush administration, or to
Congress, that those detainees in Charleston represented the
kind of security risk that we heard this morning.
The notion that in 2002 still in the shadow of the horrific
attacks of 2001 that brought down the World Trade Center and
attacked the Pentagon, that we faced somehow a lesser threat
than we do now, I find very hard to believe. The detainees in
Charleston are not the only ones. We have at least 11 States
and the District of Columbia since 9/11 which have housed very
high-ranking senior and extremely dangerous international
terrorists at maximum-security prisons, or in secure prison
facilities.
It was alluded to in the Ranking Member's opening statement
that just 15 miles from here, right now the accused ring leader
of the Benghazi attack is sitting in an Alexandria prison
awaiting trial. He was been there for almost 2 years. There has
been no protest. There has been no political controversy
surrounding that particular aspect of the Benghazi attack, yet
the notion that bringing Guantanamo detainees into the United
States in a very similar situation presents an unacceptable
risk is hard for me to understand and hard for me to fathom.
I would just close with one last comment about the
implications for State and local officials. Certainly, there is
emergency response planning that these officials have to deal
with on a day-to-day basis for almost every eventuality. The
notion that Pentagon officials, Defense Department officials,
and the city of Charleston and State of South Carolina have not
prepared for the possibility that the Charleston Naval Base
will have to be evacuated because of a hurricane strikes me as
hard to believe.
Simply because there could be Guantanamo detainees there
now, as there were Guantanamo detainees there for a number of
years before, doesn't change the fact that they have all done
these kind of plans.
With that, I will conclude my opening statement, and I look
forward to your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gude follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ken Gude
April 28, 2016
Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Watson Coleman, and other
distinguished Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I am pleased that you are
holding this hearing so that we can thoroughly examine the issues
related to transferring Guantanamo detainees to the United States for
either trial in Federal court and incarceration in Federal prisons or
continued law of war detention in military custody.
A careful review of the record of the Federal court system and our
military detention facilities both prior to and since 9/11, under both
Democratic and Republican administrations, clearly shows that this is a
task that the United States can handle safely, securely, and with no
threat and little disruption to local communities.
Closing the prison at Guantanamo remains a National security
imperative. Guantanamo is a symbol of lawlessness, torture, and abuse
and continues to be a potent aspect of anti-American messages
distributed by our enemies and adversaries. It is no accident that ISIS
forces their captives to wear Guantanamo-like orange jumpsuits.
For these reasons, a long, bi-partisan list of senior Government
and National security figures do not believe Guantanamo advances U.S.
National security interests.
Former President George W. Bush wrote in his 2010 memoir, Decision
Points, ``the detention facility [Guantanamo] has become a propaganda
tool for our enemies and a distraction for our allies.''
Then-Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain
repeatedly pledged to close Guantanamo during the 2008 campaign, even
producing the specific recommendation that he would ``close Guantanamo
Bay. And I would move those prisoners to Ft. Leavenworth.''
Former Secretary of State James Baker said in 2008 that ``one of
the best things'' the next President could do to improve American
security would be ``to close Guantanamo, which is a very serious blot
on our reputation.''
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State
Colin Powell said in 2007, ``I would close Guantanamo not tomorrow, but
this afternoon. I would simply move them to the United States and put
them in our Federal legal system.'' Powell reiterated his support for
closing Guantanamo and transferring detainees to the United States
earlier this year, saying, ``we've got prisons that can hold them.
They're not going to cause any problems if they go to Leavenworth or
even Rikers Island.''
I join with these and other senior current and former U.S.
Government officials in supporting President Obama's decision to find
another location to hold those Guantanamo detainees that the United
States wants to maintain custody over after transferring those that the
U.S. military believes no longer require detention to either their home
or to third countries.
transfers of guantanamo detainees to the united states have already
occurred
It might surprise many on this committee--and certainly any close
observer of the political debate surrounding closing Guantanamo--to
learn that it was a Republican President that first ordered the
transfer of a Guantanamo detainee into the United States. Yassir Hamdi
was transferred from Guantanamo in April 2002, first to the Naval
Station at Norfolk, Virginia and then to the Consolidated Naval Brig at
the Charleston Naval Base. Hamdi remained in the Brig in Charleston for
2\1/2\ years before he was repatriated to Saudi Arabia. During his
detention, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that his detention was legal
under the law of war.
According to the Bush administration, Hamdi was captured in
Afghanistan in 2001 fighting with the Taliban and was initially sent to
the Mazar e Sharif prison where he was accused of participating in the
notorious prison uprising that killed American Johnny Span. In February
2002, the Bush administration sent Hamdi to Guantanamo Bay.
Hamdi arrived in South Carolina in the middle of campaign season
during a particularly intense election for Governor. The incumbent
Democratic Governor Jim Hodges was being challenged by then-former Rep.
Mark Sanford. There is no evidence in the public record that the
presence of a Guantanamo detainee in Charleston ever featured in any
way in that gubernatorial election campaign. There is no record of Gov.
Hodges ever writing or speaking to the Bush administration or to
Congress about any threat posed to the residents of South Carolina by
Hamdi from inside the Charleston Naval Brig. Nor is there any public
comment by Rep. Sanford on the issue either. Sanford eventually won a
close election 53% to 47% for Hodges.
The other instance of a Guantanamo detainee being transferred into
the United States was not greeted with equal indifference by the
political system. Ahmed Ghailani was indicted in December 1998, along
with a number of other co-conspirators, for his role in the bombings of
2 U.S. embassies in East Africa earlier that year that killed more than
200. He was captured in 2004 in Pakistan and arrived at Guantanamo in
2006. It is unclear where he was held in the intervening period, but he
was one of the individuals the Bush administration admitted was held in
undisclosed locations by the CIA.
Ghailani was transferred to New York in June 2009. That same month,
Congress voted for the first time in the prison's then 7-year history,
and after more than 500 detainees had been transferred out of
Guantanamo by the Bush administration to locations that included the
United States, to impose restrictions on transferring detainees out of
Guantanamo. An absolute prohibition on transferring Guantanamo
detainees to the United States was narrowly-defeated that year in the
House of Representatives. But Ghailani would be the only Guantanamo
detainee brought to the United States by the Obama administration
before that transfer ban was imposed by Congress beginning in 2011.
Despite the political furor surrounding Ghailani's transfer to the
United States, he went on trial in New York City in 2010 for his role
in the embassy bombings. He was convicted of conspiracy in the attacks
and sentenced to life in prison. He was sent to the Federal
penitentiary at Florence, CO, also known as the Supermax, in June 2011
where he has been for nearly 5 years. There is no evidence that there
was any elevated threat to the residents of New York from 2009 to 2011
because of Ghailani's presence during the trial, nor has there been any
evidence that the residents of Colorado have been negatively impacted
during his nearly 5 years at Supermax.
terrorists held as military detainees in the united states
In addition to Yassir Hamdi, 2 other accused al-Qaeda operatives
were held in military detention inside the United States during the
Bush administration. The first was Jose Padilla. He was captured in May
2002 at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport upon arriving on a
flight from Zurich and held in New York City as a material witness to
an on-going criminal investigation.
More than a month later, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft
announced his detention, describing Padilla as ``a known terrorist who
was exploring a plan to build and explode a radiological dispersion
device, or `dirty bomb,' in the United States.'' Padilla, who is a U.S.
citizen, was declared an enemy combatant and transferred on June 9,
2002 to join Hamdi at the Charleston Naval Brig.
Padilla was eventually transferred to Federal prison in Miami in
2006, where he stood trial for terrorism charges unrelated to the dirty
bomb plot. In 2008, he was convicted of conspiracy and first sentenced
to serve 17 years in prison, later increased to 21 years. He is
currently serving his sentence alongside Ghailani in the Supermax in
Colorado.
The second military detainee in the United States was Ali al-Marri.
He was arrested in December 2001 in Illinois and charged with credit
card fraud. He was in Federal prison awaiting trial on those charges
when his case dramatically changed in 2003 when he was declared an
enemy combatant by the Bush administration, accused of being an al-
Qaeda sleeper agent, and transferred to the Charleston Naval Brig. Al-
Marri's arrival brought the Charleston detainee population to 3.
Al-Marri was charged with new terrorism offenses and returned to
Federal prison upon President Obama taking office in 2009, when he pled
guilty to providing material support for terrorism. He was sentenced to
15 years in prison, including the 7 years he had served since his
original arrest in 2001, a sentence he also served at Supermax. Al-
Marri was transferred to his native Qatar in 2015 with little attention
paid to his case.
As with the previous cases of Hamdi and Ghalani, there is no
evidence that the residents of Illinois, New York, South Carolina,
Florida, or Colorado were under any elevated threat because of the
presence of Padilla or al-Marri in Federal or military prisons in their
States.
suspected terrorists captured overseas and brought to the united states
It has also been a regular feature of the criminal justice system
during both the Bush and Obama administrations for suspected terrorists
captured overseas to be brought to the United States for trial and
incarceration.
Aafia Siddique, a Pakistani national educated in the United States,
was detained in Afghanistan in 2008. She was sent to a U.S. military
base where, according to the Bush administration, she attempted to
murder several U.S. military officers in an attempted escape. Siddique
was wounded in her escape attempt, but she survived and was quickly
transported to New York in September 2008 for trial. She was convicted
of attempted murder in 2010 and sentenced to serve 86 years. Siddique
is currently being held at the Federal Medical Center in Carswell, TX,
a Federal prison for inmates with special health needs.
Suliaman Abu Ghaith, Osama bin Laden's son-in-law and top
spokesperson for al-Qaeda, was turned over to the United States in 2013
after being detained by Jordanian authorities. Abu Ghaith is the
highest-ranking al-Qaeda operative to stand trial in the United States,
and he was convicted in a New York courtroom in 2014 for conspiracy to
murder Americans and providing material support for terrorism. He was
sentenced to life in prison and joins many other fellow international
terrorists at Supermax in Colorado.
Ahmed Abu Khatallah is accused of being the ringleader of the
attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi that killed 4
Americans. He was captured in a joint FBI-U.S. military operation in
Libya in June 2014 and quickly transported off-shore to a U.S. navy
ship. On-board that ship, Khatallah was interrogated for several weeks
before his transfer to the United States in July 2014.
Even though that attack has prompted intense political debate, the
detention of Abu Khatallah in Federal prison first in Washington, DC
and then in northern Virginia while he awaits trial in Federal court
has attracted absolutely no attention or controversy. He has been less
than 10 miles from the United States Capitol in an Alexandria prison
cell for nearly 2 years.
There is no evidence that the residents of New York, Texas,
Colorado, Washington, DC, Virginia, or the U.S. Representatives,
Senators, their staffs, or the other employees who work at the United
States Capitol have been under any elevated threat because of the
presence of Aafia Siddique, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, or Ahmed Abu Khatallah
in Federal prisons in their vicinity.
other high-profile terrorists in u.s. prisons
The list of extremely dangerous terrorists currently held at
Supermax in Florence reads like a rogues gallery of international
terrorism. The man who first tried to bring down the World Trade Center
in 1993, Ramzi Youssef, and his co-conspirators, Mahmud Abdouhalima,
Mohamed Salameh, and Eyad Ismoli, were captured in 1995 and have been
serving multiple life sentences in Supermax since their 1997 conviction
in a New York City court.
Ahmed Ghailani's co-conspirators, Wadih el-Hage, Mohamad al-Owhali,
Mohammed Odeh, Khalid al-Fawwaz, were arrested in 1998, prosecuted in a
New York courtroom in a trial that began in 1999, and convicted in 2001
for their roles in the 1998 embassy bombings. All are at the Supermax.
Ahmed Ressam, the al-Qaeda terrorist who was planning to attack Los
Angeles International Airport on New Year's Eve 1999, but was captured
at the U.S. border with Canada, is also held there. He was convicted in
Federal court in Los Angeles in 2000, where he is serving a 37-year
sentence.
So is Zacarias Moussaoui, who was originally believed to be the
missing 20th hijacker in the 9/11 attacks. He was arrested by the FBI
in Minnesota in 2001 and prosecuted in a Federal court in Alexandria,
the same location as Abu Khatallah. Moussaoui pled guilty but the
sentencing phase of his trial dragged on and he ended up spending more
than 5 years in Virginia before he was sent to Supermax in 2006 to
serve a life sentence.
The 2 perpetrators of attacks on airplanes that have come the
closest to success since 9/11 are there too. It is home to Richard
Reid, the British citizen who tried to blow up a U.S.-bound airliner
using explosives hidden in his shoes in 2001. He plead guilty in
Federal court in Boston and was sentenced to 3 life terms in 2002. More
recently, Umar Farook Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian who attempted to
destroy another U.S.-bound plane on Christmas day in 2009 with a bomb
built into his underwear. He pled guilty in Federal court in Detroit
and was sentenced to 4 consecutive life sentences.
Just as with the above-referenced cases, there is no evidence that
the residents of New York, California, Minnesota, Virginia,
Massachusetts, Michigan, or Colorado were or are under any elevated
threat because of the presence of these terrorists in prisons in their
States.
guantanamo detainees won't be released into the united states
Some concerns have been raised that bringing Guantanamo detainees
into the United States would lead to their release from custody into
the United States by increasing the rights afforded them. However,
there is no chance that a Guantanamo detainee would be released into
the United States under current law.
First, it is important to recognize that the number of detainees
that could possibly be brought to the United States under President
Obama's plan is quite small, likely around 3 dozen. These detainees
will have had their cases reviewed in 2009 by the task force
established by the Obama administration to examine the case of every
detainee at Guantanamo, and are likely to have had at least 1 Periodic
Review Board hearing. In each of those instances, the detainee would
have been approved for continued law of war detention, or in addition
to that status potential prosecution in Federal court or the military
commissions. Therefore, the detainees likely to be transferred to the
United States under this plan are the ones who present the most
compelling cases for continued detention.
Should a Guantanamo detainee be brought to the United States to
stand trial, while a conviction is by far the most likely result, it is
possible that such a trial could end in acquittal--we don't do show
trials in the United States. If a former Guantanamo detainee is
acquitted, he could still be held by the military as a law of war
detainee. If this, or any other among this last group of Guantanamo
detainees, were able to win a habeas corpus case that he should no
longer be held as a law of war detainee, that will not result in order
for his release from custody. Rather, it would mean the court would
order him transferred out of the United States and he would remain in
custody until that happens.
Additional questions have been raised regarding the extremely
remote possibility that a law of war detainee is ordered to be
transferred out of U.S. custody over the objections of the Executive
branch, but no country would be willing to accept him and there is no
basis to bring charges in Federal court. The Obama administration
included as an appendix to its plan to close Guantanamo a formal report
to Congress it prepared addressing these very issues. Its conclusion is
the same as mine, that no matter what the difference is between the
rights afforded to the detainees in the United States versus those at
Guantanamo, no detainee will be released into the United States.
conclusion
American Federal prisons and military detention facilities have
held and currently hold some of the most dangerous terrorists the world
has ever known. This is a testament to the success of our law
enforcement and National security officials in keeping Americans safe,
not an indication of an unacceptable level of threat affecting
Americans on a daily basis. I am confident that the American criminal
justice system and U.S. military detention facilities can safely and
securely imprison any Guantanamo detainees that are sent to U.S. soil.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Thompson for his statement.
STATEMENT OF TODD THOMPSON, COUNTY ATTORNEY, LEAVENWORTH COUNTY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, LEAVENWORTH COUNTY, KANSAS
Mr. Thompson. Chairman Perry, esteemed subcommittee, I
would like to first thank our veterans as well as those that
have worked in Guantanamo Bay.
Also, I would like to thank our law enforcement officers
and particularly Representative Jenkins for giving me this
opportunity to speak today.
Today, I speak on behalf of Leavenworth, and I thank you
for that opportunity. I speak to the President's desire to
close Guantanamo Bay detention facility, and the impact it
would have on communities, particularly Leavenworth.
Today, I want to focus on issues of concern: First, the
lack of communication by the Department of Defense and the
Obama administration; second, I would like to talk about the
security implications for the Kansas City Metro area and to the
detainees if they were transferred there; and third, I would
like to talk about the implications to the mission of Fort
Leavenworth.
As county attorney, I am the chief law enforcement officer,
and I am tasked with prosecuting criminal offenses and
protecting the safety and welfare of the community. It is
always important to me to have as much information as possible
in making any decision regarding the community's safety.
The Department of Defense has done a site survey for Fort
Leavenworth, but it has failed to share any of the information
with any of the local officials. Without this information, my
community has no way to prepare for the economic burden or the
potential threats it may receive from housing any detainees
from Guantanamo Bay.
Fresh memories of the attacks of San Bernardino, Paris, and
Brussels demand that communities remain on guard for terrorist
threats. If the detainees were placed in Leavenworth, it would
make our community a high-priority target.
In 1997, Mohammed Salameh, a convicted perpetrator of the
1993 World Trade Center bombing, was housed in a Leavenworth
penitentiary. The prison became a terrorist target and received
several letter bombs. Our own law enforcement, as well as
National law enforcement, had to expend significant resources
to respond to this threat. To build a new facility in Fort
Leavenworth, it would cost $91 million and take 3 years, and
that is comparison from the previous facility that was built 10
years ago.
Paul Lewis, the Department of Defense special envoy for the
closure of Guantanamo Bay, has said that any facility for
housing the detainees would require adequate medical
facilities. Fort Leavenworth does not have these such
facilities. The closest facilities are at the University of
Kansas Medical Center, which is roughly 45 minutes away.
Beyond the economic concerns, there would be significant
safety concerns if the detainees needed to be transferred there
for their care. Further, the current facilities have roadways
that are less than a chip shot away from the Fort's border.
There is a railroad that carries hazardous materials only a few
hundred yards away. If that railroad had to shut down, that
would cost our community $1 million of revenue a day.
There is an airport within the vicinity of the facility
shared by my community. That would be rendered useless if a no-
fly zone were required, such as the one that Guantanamo Bay has
now. The Missouri River is adjacent to Fort Leavenworth, and
can allow access to the Fort. If it becomes necessary to
fortify the Fort's borders, land belonging to the families that
surround that area who have owned it before Kansas was even a
State would have to lose that land to eminent domain.
Leavenworth County is currently home to over 75,000
residents. Because Fort Leavenworth is there, there are
approximately 20,000 veterans residing in and around the
Leavenworth community area, and many of those have served in
Afghanistan and in Iraq. Some of them suffer from PTSD as well
as serious physical injuries from their tours of service.
Gold Star families live in that community, have loved ones
buried near, yards away from the disciplinary barracks. Beyond
the economic concerns, what does putting the detainees in Fort
Leavenworth say to the veterans and those families? How would
this affect these people psychologically?
Finally, Fort Leavenworth has the Command and General Staff
College. It is the premier college for the National/
international officers. Generals Bradley and Powell, and
President Eisenhower were among the attendees. Our officers as
well as international officers bring their families to our
community, which is a significant economic benefit to the area.
President Obama wants Guantanamo Bay closed, in part,
because of the impact of our relationships with our allies. The
placement of detainees in Fort Leavenworth may cause these
families, or even the international officers themselves, to not
attend the college. The impact of losing the relationships with
these international officers could have a long-term effect on
our foreign relations.
Putting it frankly, and from a friend of mine, placing the
detainees in Fort Leavenworth would be similar to building a
prison in Harvard Yard.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to answering questions from
you and the committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Todd Thompson
April 28, 2016
Chairman Perry and Members of the committee: On behalf of the
citizens of Leavenworth County, thank you for the opportunity to
present to this committee testimony regarding President Obama's
continued desire to close the detention center at the Guantanamo Bay
Naval Station. Executive Order 13492, issued January 22, 2009 ordered
the closure of the detention center at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Station
in Cuba. As with the most recent plan promulgated by the Department of
Defense in December 2015, it's quite apparent we lack a clear-cut
course of action and are ill-prepared and ill-equipped to safely and
effectively execute a plan that has been kept hidden to the individuals
and communities responsible for executing the operation.
As the elected county attorney for Leavenworth County, I am the
chief law enforcement officer. I am responsible for prosecuting
criminal offenses committed in violation of State law. This is an
important task that the community both expects and deserves. This
becomes somewhat of a balancing act, as there are limited resources
available to my office that I must carefully allocate to discharge this
duty.
The key issues of concern include a lack of communication from the
Department of Defense or the President's administration, the drastic
change to the core mission of Ft. Leavenworth, and the security
implications for the Kansas City Metropolitan Area as a result of the
transfer of detainees to the Disciplinary Barracks at Ft. Leavenworth.
lack of communication
One issue that has arisen in the Leavenworth community has been the
lack of communication with our State, local, and military officials.
The most important asset that I can have for any part of my job is the
availability of pertinent information upon which to base my decision.
At this late date, we have no clear-cut idea what the expectations of
our community will be if the Guantanamo Bay detainees were placed here.
We are unaware how many detainees President Obama's will request to be
brought to the United States. As we are led to believe, there are 80
detainees currently held at Guantanamo Bay. That is including 44
detainees that are not recommended for transfer because they are too
dangerous, even for their home countries.
These detainees are not a homogeneous group. We know they are high-
value detainees, serious detainees never to be released, and detainees
from places like Yemen who do not have a home to return to at the
moment, among others. This lack of communication causes serious issues
regarding how we as a community are to thwart any pending threats and
how much of our limited resources we would need to expend in dealing
with those threats.
The Department of Defense conducted a site survey recently, but
failed to speak with local officials regarding their objectives or
methodology. I believe that military commanders must know those
objectives and I believe that they were made aware. However, city and
county officials were left out of the conversation and thus, we were
not provided the information needed to best serve our community or
successfully execute this mission.
This lack of communication will come into play when a citizen or
citizens bring a suit against one or more governmental entities. In
that case, I will be called upon to collect and disseminate information
in a timely manner to the correct official. Without knowing who, when,
why, and how these detainees may be transferred, I will not be able to
accomplish that task and discharge my sworn duty as the county
attorney. Even if this entire plan for transfer is out of the realm of
possibility from a legal and legislative standpoint, I ask that the
citizens of Leavenworth be kept informed and that we are become
included in the communications between the Department of Defense and
the Ft. Leavenworth commanders so that I may serve the people to the
best of my ability and so that the citizens may make an informed and
reasonable decision about their lives in Leavenworth County.
change in core mission at ft. leavenworth
Ft. Leavenworth is the site of the newly-created Army University,
which includes the historic and prestigious Command and General Staff
College. The mission at Ft. Leavenworth is to educate and train
military commanders in current and future tactics and leadership.
Not only is the Command and General Staff College open to American
Army officers, but it is also used by many allied nations' commanders.
They send their best and brightest commanders to learn our Army's
tactics and gain insight into how the best Army in the world conducts
itself in wartime. This collaboration serves another purpose: It also
strengthens our relationships with those participating nations. Many of
the nations that send their commanders to Ft. Leavenworth are Muslim
nations. By collaborating with our Army, we strengthen our relationship
with them and enable us to project our values and decency to that part
of the world.
In the event of a transfer of detainees to Ft. Leavenworth, many of
these same allies have already announced that they would cease sending
their commanders to learn and train at Ft. Leavenworth. One may ask,
who will these countries turn to for training? The answer may very well
be Russia.
The reason they come to Ft. Leavenworth to learn with our
commanders is that our Army is of the size and capability necessary to
portray any type of scenario. Our CGSC instructors have seen all types
of battles and training techniques and they are able to relate their
experiences to any commander from any size military force. The only
other nation currently able to do that may be Russia. It is a large and
capable military that has many experienced commanders. With that, it
also has the desire to supplant the U.S. Army's place in the world and
may try to do so by forming educational relationships with our former
partners' commanders.
security issues
In today's society, law enforcement and communities must take into
consideration a terroristic threat, whether real or perceived. As the
9/11 Commission stated, ``[t]he most important failure was one of the
imagination.'' Incidents ranging from the 2015 San Bernardino attack to
the 2015 attack in Paris or 2016 attack in Brussels cause communities
to be frightened of a similar attack occurring in their community.
President Obama, among others, has said that the rationale for the
closure of the Guantanamo Bay detainment facilities is due to the
symbolism the facility represents. This would give good cause to a
like-minded individual or person(s) seeking attention to try a similar
attack. An example of this has already occurred in Leavenworth in 1997.
In 1993, terrorists bombed the World Trade Center towers in New York
City and 1 of the 4 people responsible for the attack, Muhammed
Salameh, was housed at the United States Penitentiary, only 5 miles
south of the Disciplinary Barracks at Ft. Leavenworth. In 1997 the
Penitentiary received several letter bombs that were designed to injure
and kill people housing terrorists. Local and Federal resources were
able to prevent any harm from occurring. The placement of these
detainees from Guantanamo Bay has the real potential to bring harm to
any community wherein they may be placed. Not simply because there will
be more of them in one facility together, but because these detainees
are exponentially more dangerous.
While Ft. Leavenworth is fully confident in its ability to contain
the detainees now housed at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base at their
facilities, they do have serious factors that need considered. At the
present moment there is not a specific facility for the detainees. Ten
years ago, Ft. Leavenworth erected a new facility that took 3 years and
$90 million to build. The understanding we currently have is that we do
not have time to build another structure, therefore we would have to
use an existing facility and move the prisoners currently housed there
to another location. Our facility is approximately 300 feet from County
Road 155 and 250 feet from Coffin Road. At this distance, it would be
extremely hard to stop a vehicle IED, or car bomb from being set off,
as well as someone getting close enough to assist in an escape.
A railroad runs near the prison and through our community that
often carries hazardous materials. A terrorist attack on the railroad
would directly threaten our civilian population as well as citizens to
our east in the State of Missouri. The railroad runs directly next to
Sherman Army Airfield, which is used by civilians and the military on a
frequent basis. It would most likely have to be shuttered and those
pilots, crew, and passengers would have to find another point of entry
into Leavenworth and the Fort.
Ft. Leavenworth and Leavenworth County are also adjacent to the
Missouri River. A threat could easily use the river to gain access to
the Ft. Leavenworth Disciplinary Barracks as well as to target the
civilian population of our community.
Ft. Leavenworth would also need to strengthen the border around the
perimeter for extra protection. This would include creating a buffer
zone much wider than the current 2-lane road outside the prison
perimeter. If the road was to be expanded and land needed for a larger
buffer zone, many families would lose their farms and livelihoods to
eminent domain. The resources that would be needed is dependent on an
unknown assessment at this time.
The other concern for the Ft. Leavenworth prison is the lack of
adequate health care for the detainees, which is one of the key issues
Paul Lewis of the Department of Defense says, is necessary for a
transfer of detainees to the United States. Ft. Leavenworth does not
have a proper facility to meet the medical or dental needs of any
detainee. If detainees would need these services it would be necessary
for them to be taken off the Base and to a local facility. The closest
capable hospitals are University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas
City, KS and Truman Medical Center in Kansas City, MO. This would
necessitate increased protection and transportation to a non-secure
area for the detainee for an unspecified amount of time depending on
the extent of their health care needs. The alternative would be the
expense of building a new facility, with all the needed staff and
equipment, to satisfy this potential issue. There is also the question
of would the Mayor of Kansas City, MO or Kansas City, KS even allow
this to occur in their cities?
Once again, thank you Chairman Perry and Members of the committee.
I am honored to present testimony to you regarding the impact a
transfer of detainees from the Detention Center at Guantanamo Bay Naval
Station to the Disciplinary Barracks at Ft. Leavenworth will have on
our city, county, region and the Fort itself. I welcome your questions
and look forward to providing insightful answers. Thank you.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks Mr. Thompson.
The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes of
questioning.
Sheriff Bouchard, can you just reiterate--I started writing
it down, but I missed the unreimbursed cost regarding San
Bernardino. I think you mentioned that. Can you recount that
figure for us in the subcommittee?
Sheriff Bouchard. Yes. He had told us it was $350,000 right
off the bat in unreimbursed overtime, and $19 million have been
expended by the locals on the totality of the situation.
Mr. Perry. Three-hundred fifty-thousand dollars overtime
and $19 million in unexpected cost to the local government. As
I recall, you said unreimbursed cost, right?
Sheriff Bouchard. Yes, sir.
Mr. Perry. So the Federal Government hasn't come back in,
after the fact, and taken care of that bill. It is the local
community that bears the burden of the cost associated with the
terrorist attack that some in the room have said that all
agencies are prepared to handle and deal with at any time.
We understand that law enforcement does every single thing
it can, but we understand that we are all human and you can't--
they only have to be right one time, right? So everybody--I
guess what we are saying, is that every community has to be
prepared for $350,000 in overtime minimum and potentially up to
$19 million in costs due to some terrorist-related attack,
whether there is a prison housing detainees in your community
or not, right?
Sheriff Bouchard. Yes, sir.
Mr. Perry. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Gude, first of all, I don't owe anybody an apology.
I would ask you, have you ever taken the oath of office to
wear the Nation's uniform?
Mr. Gude. No.
Mr. Perry. Then how would you have any idea of the
requirements hoisted upon individuals that take that oath and
things that are said? I will tell you that I have taken the
oath, and every single officer that has taken the oath, every
single officer, Mr. Gude, understands what I was saying. What I
said was, ours is not to question why. We serve at the pleasure
of the Commander-in-Chief, period. Period. We offer our
opinions.
However, once the Commander-in-Chief gives the order, our
job is to salute and move out. If you knew that, if you ever
took the oath, if you ever wore the uniform, if you ever
served, you would know that.
Mr. Gude. So you are saying that they are giving a bad----
Mr. Perry. Mr. Gude, I think I answered your statement,
okay. Like I said, moving on.
How often have you read the National Security Strategy or
the National Military Strategy?
Microphone, please.
Mr. Gude. Apologies. I have frequently read the National
Security Strategy.
Mr. Perry. Frequently. What is frequently?
Mr. Gude. Many times. It is part of my job.
Mr. Perry. It is part of your job. Many times. Because it
is an evolving document that changes administration by
administration, do you update yourself? You know that the
strategy isn't always updated to concur with current events and
evolving events, right?
Mr. Gude. I believe the National Security Strategy has been
updated 2 times in this administration.
Mr. Perry. Right. You have read both, right?
Mr. Gude. Yes.
Mr. Perry. The National Military Strategy as well?
Mr. Gude. The QDDR. Is that what you are referring to?
Mr. Perry. Yes.
Mr. Gude. Yes.
Mr. Perry. Okay. What background do you have? What
professional background do you have other than working at this
center for 13 years now? What professional background,
training, et cetera, do you have in law enforcement, in the
military, in National strategic studies, what have you? What
background do you have other than working at this location?
Mr. Gude. I have been in a professional National security
policy space for more than 15 years. I have not served in the
military.
Mr. Perry. What does that mean as a professional? What does
that mean? You work there, but what training do you have?
Mr. Gude. I have been following these issues, and I am
deeply involved in them.
Mr. Perry. Many Americans have as well, but they don't come
before Congress and testify with their opinions based on they
have been following these issues for--many Americans are very
concerned. But I am asking, do you have any law enforcement
training?
Mr. Gude. No.
Mr. Perry. Military training?
Mr. Gude. No.
Mr. Perry. Diplomatic training?
Mr. Gude. I don't know what that is, but no.
Mr. Perry. Okay. Well, there is diplomatic corps and they
receive training. I mean, I am just asking----
Mr. Gude. I have not served in the Government, if that is
what you are asking me.
Mr. Perry. Right. So you are elucidating your opinions on
these subjects. But I will remind you, and I am looking at your
own testimony here, that you say, ``For these reasons, a long
bipartisan list of senior Government and National security
figures do not believe Guantanamo advances U.S. National
security interests.''
Well, I can tell you that there is a whole lot of people
that serve in this place that have worn the uniform, who have
training, whether law enforcement, whether it is National
security, whether in the diplomatic corps that disagree.
So with all due respect, while I appreciate your opinion--
and many of us do, and we asked you here for your alternative
opinion--it is your opinion. Quite honestly, I am not sure it
is an informed opinion, but it is an opinion, and we appreciate
that.
Let me ask you this: I spoke with some folks recently in a
hearing on a similar subject, Special Envoy for Guantanamo
Closure and the Defense Special Envoy for Guantanamo Detention
Closure, both of those individuals cited numerous things like
you do about it is a magnet for recruiting, Guantanamo is, and
that it hurts our National security, it costs us a lot of money
to have it there.
I ask, what empirical data do you have to support that?
What empirical data do you have to support the claim that
moving these individuals to South Carolina, to Kansas, or
anywhere in Continental United States will have any difference,
will make any difference? These individuals could provide me no
empirical data or studies on cost or otherwise. Can you provide
any at this time?
Mr. Gude. One of the most famous cases in--during the Bush
administration, there was an interrogator, a military
interrogator from Iraq who reported that at the time, the No. 1
recruitment tool that al-Qaeda in Iraq was using to draw
individuals into their ranks was the existence of Guantanamo
Bay, and it was clear, and it was persuasive, and it persuaded
not people just like me but people like Colin Powell, people
like Jim Baker, people like the President of the United States,
George W. Bush, John McCain.
Now, you can impugn my credentials all you want, but I
think you will have a harder time impugning their credentials.
Mr. Perry. I am in the business of questioning everything,
including my party, because it is National security. National
security, sir, comes before everything. With all due respect, I
am not necessarily interested so much in the opinions of a
terrorist and not only a terrorist, but only one terrorist. Oh,
by the way, I don't understand and nor have you told me how it
makes a difference whether it is in Guantanamo or South
Carolina. What is the difference? Can you tell me that? Is
there a difference?
Mr. Gude. Guantanamo is a symbol of the torture and abuse
that occurred during the Bush administration at that prison and
at other prisons. It is not simply associated with--propaganda
against Guantanamo is not simply associated with the fact that
there are military detainees there. There is absolutely nothing
wrong with that. There was no propaganda associated with the
Charleston Naval Brig when Yasser Hamdi was there.
Mr. Perry. So when we move all these prisoners to South
Carolina, and then--the propaganda moves to South Carolina, I
guess that would then justify and validate the Governor's
concerns about----
Mr. Gude. I don't know that there is any evidence that the
propaganda was----
Mr. Perry. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
Mr. Gude. Yes. There was no propaganda associated with the
Charleston Naval Brig.
Mr. Perry. Were all the detainees in Charleston, South
Carolina?
Mr. Gude. There were 3 detainees.
Mr. Perry. Three, but I am talking about all. All of them,
all in one location, all the focus of international terrorism
and Islamists such as they are in Guantanamo.
Mr. Gude. I understand this is your opinion that that would
follow, but I am talking about the evidence.
Mr. Perry. It is not my opinion. I am asking if you have
any evidence?
Mr. Gude. I have no--there is no evidence.
Mr. Perry. Thank you.
Mr. Gude. There is no evidence.
Mr. Perry. Thank you.
At this point, I yield to the gentleman, Mr. Richmond.
Mr. Richmond. Based on history--because you can only use
history to predict the future--based on history, when South
Carolina contained and held 3, was any propaganda targeted at
South Carolina, Charleston?
Mr. Gude. No.
Mr. Richmond. Thank you.
Now, Sheriff, you mentioned in your testimony--and I am
just trying to relate all this together--that the lack of
military equipment, the 1033 program causes some concern for
housing detainees?
Sheriff Bouchard. It causes concern relative to the
preparedness level and the understanding of the threat and the
situations we deal with on a daily basis. That causes us great
concern, because we believe a lot of the decisions made by the
administration, be it 1033 or otherwise, is focused on
perception, not reality.
Mr. Richmond. So you think it was perception that some of
our police forces were being militarized and that they were
using armored vehicles running through urban neighborhoods?
Sheriff Bouchard. I am saying that the perception that has
been fostered that an armored vehicle makes us militarized, in
essence, is wrong. That an armored vehicle that pulls up at a
bank or a grocery store every day to protect money, when that
bank or grocery store is being held up, and a police vehicle
shows up with the same armored vehicle, somehow it is scary or
militarized, is false. It is there for the same reason: To
protect people.
Mr. Richmond. I understand, but we have tanks going through
urban neighborhoods.
Sheriff Bouchard. We have no tanks, sir. There are no tanks
in police inventory in America. There is only armored vehicles
with no weaponized--that is one of the false perceptions. There
is no tank in police custody in America. Armored personnel
carriers, big safe boxes without weapons, sir.
Mr. Richmond. Well, we are just going to agree to disagree
on that. As my sheriffs and police advocate for things, I think
that one of the things, especially in the petrochemical
industry, that is one of the things that my sheriffs ask for.
But I am just trying to figure out how we made that connection.
You also say that there is a high recidivism rate with
Guantanamo prisoners. What is the recidivism rate? I mean, who
was released, and how often do they recommit a crime?
Sheriff Bouchard. There has been a number of studies. The
most recent one that I read, there was a 30 percent recidivism
of Guantanamo detainees returning to the battlefield.
Mr. Gude. Can I jump in on that one?
Mr. Richmond. Sure.
But what is the recidivism rate at the largest prison under
your jurisdiction?
Sheriff Bouchard. It depends on the crime. But there is a
fundamental difference, and I would like to answer that point
because there tends to be----
Mr. Richmond. No, but let me ask the question, because I
was a State rep, I was on the Judiciary Committee, and
everybody knows the general recidivism rate of their prisons.
So what is your general recidivism rate?
Sheriff Bouchard. Well, first of all, sheriffs don't run
the State prisons, so I can't quote you the recidivism rate.
But my point that I wish to answer----
Mr. Richmond. You run a local one. Wouldn't you run a local
one, a local jail?
Sheriff Bouchard. I do run, in fact, a jail. It depends on
the crime, but typically it runs from 30 to 60, maybe 70
percent, depending on the crime.
Mr. Richmond. Okay. Mr. Gude, you wanted to interject
something?
Mr. Gude. Yes, these figures, I think, must be properly
assessed by breaking them down between the detainees that were
released from Guantanamo during the Bush administration, and
the detainees that were released from Guantanamo under the
Obama administration.
That is because the Obama administration implemented a
substantial process for determining whether or not it was
appropriate to release the detainees, any individual detainee.
Now, in order to be released, that needs the unanimous decision
of 6 senior National security officials, and then it also
further requires the Secretary of Defense to certify that the
security arrangements associated with the individual's transfer
help keep Americans safe.
What we have learned is that this process has worked.
Ninety-four percent of the detainees who have been either
confirmed or suspected of rejoining the fight were released
during the Bush administration. A tiny number of the detainees
that have been accused of or confirmed of rejoining this fight
were released under the Obama administration.
Mr. Richmond. Mr. Thompson, let me--look, this is a very
difficult subject. I understand being an elected official, and
I think all of the witnesses on the Republican side are
elected, and with elected office, there comes a different
responsibility. But let me ask you a question: Would you just
be in favor of closing the Bureau of Prisons facility we have
at Leavenworth now?
Mr. Thompson. No, I would not be in favor of closing the
facility. That removes revenue from our economy. But I can say
in talking to officials and retired officials from Fort
Leavenworth, the detainees coming from Guantanamo Bay would
cause a very serious concern. Those are much different than
detainees we already house at Fort Leavenworth.
Mr. Richmond. Right, because it is more--well, I guess,
middle or minimum security?
Mr. Thompson. Correct.
Mr. Richmond. So you are okay with the economic development
and the jobs that are created by housing minimum-security
prisons, but you just don't want to go to maximum or a few
detainees or several detainees from Guantanamo?
Mr. Thompson. I am Leavenworth. I mean, we know----
Mr. Richmond. I mean in Leavenworth.
Mr. Thompson. I mean, we are known for prisons. We are
known for being able to hold and house prisoners.
Mr. Richmond. Exactly.
Mr. Thompson. But these prisoners are much different than
any of the others that we see or have seen. They are 80 of the
worst that we know of. There is a specific reason why they are
at Guantanamo Bay, and we would not want them in Fort
Leavenworth or Leavenworth for the effects it would have on our
community and on our citizens. Not even the economic concern--
well, including the economic concerns, but primarily, the
psychological concerns it would have to all our veterans, our
Gold Star family members, and anyone else out there.
If I could also address Mr. Gude, who is talking about the
symbolism of Guantanamo Bay and the reason for its closure.
That symbolism was something that President Obama has used to
argue that it should be closed, but that is not going to
dissipate with it being closed. That is going to stay with it.
We don't forget about 9/11 even though there are structures
that are now built over where the Twin Towers have fallen. We
are going to continue to have to have that burden, and we are
going to have to worry about that threat.
I would also reiterate that Mr. Gude's own statements, or
written statements in January 2016 said that symbolism is
fading.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Duncan from South Carolina.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gude, what year was the 9/11 attacks on New York?
Mr. Gude. That was 2001.
Mr. Duncan. You were talking about Charleston Naval Brig
holding detainees terrorists. What year was that?
Mr. Gude. Two-thousand two through 2009.
Mr. Duncan. Okay. Thank you.
What year was the Department of Homeland Security stood up?
Mr. Gude. Two-thousand two.
Mr. Duncan. Two-thousand three.
Mr. Gude. Two-thousand three.
Mr. Duncan. What year was this committee formed?
Mr. Gude. Two-thousand four.
Mr. Duncan. Okay. So what I am showing is this has been a
fluid process. We were attacked. We had to begin prosecuting a
war against those that attacked us. When we captured enemy
combatants on the battlefield, we had to figure out what to do
with them, correct?
Mr. Gude. Yes.
Mr. Duncan. The homeland had to figure out how we are going
to respond to terrorism attacks on our soil. We combined 22
agencies. We created a brand new committee within the halls of
Congress to continually talk about security of the homeland;
hence, we have got this hearing talking about security of the
homeland.
For your information, the recidivism rate or the number of
detainees that return to the battlefield is about 30 percent.
It doesn't matter whether they were released by the Bush
administration or the Obama administration.
How many terrorists shot up the Chattanooga recruitment
station?
Mr. Gude. I believe it was 1.
Mr. Duncan. One. One. It only takes 1 to kill a large
number of Americans somewhere in the world, whether that is
U.S. soil or somewhere else. Whether they are released by Bush
or released by Obama, it only takes 1 to commit heinous acts of
terror against Americans.
So we know that the DOD study said about 30 percent of
those released, regardless of who released them, have returned
to the battlefield. I would argue that American lives have been
lost because of them returning to the battlefield. So your
argument that Bush released more and more returned to the
battlefield just doesn't hold water, because it only takes 1 of
the terrorists to do that.
Mr. Thompson----
Mr. Thompson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Duncan [continuing]. You heard Governor Haley talk
about DOD doing a site assessment at Charleston Naval Brig. We
know that in August, they did a site assessment there at Fort
Leavenworth. What kind of communication have they had with you?
Mr. Thompson. Representative Duncan, they have had no
conversation with myself, and they have had no or little
conversation with any of our cities, local or law enforcement,
or officials.
Mr. Duncan. Nor State officials based on the Governor's
testimony, because she and Governor Brownback had sent a letter
asking, right?
Mr. Thompson. Correct. There has been no communication. We
have no idea. There are 80 detainees that potentially could be
coming. We don't know which of those 80 are coming. There is 26
set for release, but cannot be released because they don't have
a home country. There are 44 that cannot be released at all,
and then there are the 10 or 7 that are being prosecuted and 3
are being convicted. Are we getting the 7? Are we getting the
3? Are we getting the 44? Are we getting the 26? We don't know.
How can we even feasibly understand what type of threat any
one of those people could bring to our community? What we would
have to do is strengthen our border around Fort Leavenworth,
increase our law enforcement costs, increase our safety? We
have no idea because we are not being talked to. That is one of
the things I would want and I would want for our community, or
any community that would look at having these detainees.
Mr. Duncan. Exactly.
Have any of you gentlemen visited the prison at Guantanamo
Bay?
Mr. Gude. No.
Mr. Thompson. No.
Sheriff Bouchard. No.
Mr. Duncan. Mr. Thompson, I have. You heard the Chairman
say he just recently did. I think you have been down there more
than once.
In 2001, 2002, when we started catching enemy combatants,
they took them to Guantanamo Bay. You see a lot of pictures.
TIME magazine loves to show a picture of these outdoor
facilities of people cooking and detainees being in a fenced-in
area. But since 2002, we have built some pretty substantial
prisons, facilities there. There is a medium security. There is
a low-security area. I don't think there are any prisoners in
the low-security area anymore. There is medium security, and
there is a maximum security.
Medium security is probably like the prison in your county,
community rooms, cell blocks off of those. They have the
ability to cook their own food, do their own laundry,
participate in crafts. They are still incarcerated, but it is
much like what you see in counties and State facilities.
Then there is a maximum-security facility. These prisoners,
these terrorists held in the maximum security, Khalid Sheikh
Mohammed, has no contact with any other prisoner. He has his
own room, a cell. He is monitored 24/7, 365 by the security
team that can watch his every movement while he is in that
cell.
They are Muslim. They have to have the ability to pray.
There are compound areas outside of their cell where they can
go out and get some fresh air connected to their cell, not a
community area for exercise. So they can go there. They don't
have any contact with any other prisoner. There are some
special circumstances holding Muslim terrorists that want to
harm America, and a special prison facility has been built on
Guantanamo Bay just for that purpose.
In addition, there is a courtroom facility built in
Guantanamo Bay at taxpayer expense for trying convicted
terrorists, or captured terrorists, rather, at Guantanamo Bay.
So they have access, secure access to their legal counsel so
that they can't escape the courtroom. All this is in place.
If they came to the Naval Brig in Charleston, or to Fort
Leavenworth, I do believe that it is going to cost the taxpayer
additional resources to create or recreate what we already have
at Guantanamo Bay to house these very special prisoners.
Are you set up the same way Guantanamo Bay is, based on my
description of those cell blocks?
Mr. Thompson. We are not set up for that. Like I said, at
this time, we would have to build a new facility. That new
facility would take at least 3 years, and I am using a
comparison from what Fort Leavenworth had told me it would have
took to build their most recent facility, and that was 10 years
ago. So those funds of $91 million might be up to $100 million,
$120 million.
Mr. Duncan. Mr. Thompson, is DOD coming up with these plans
right now, because they are not having any conversations----
Mr. Thompson. No.
Mr. Duncan [continuing]. With you about what your needs
are?
So are they doing this unilaterally, figuring out, well, we
are going to go to Fort Leavenworth, and we are going to build
a brand-new prison, and this is what it is going to look like,
these are facilities it is going to have. Wouldn't they talk to
you because you have got to run the doggone place?
Mr. Thompson. Well, you know, I have no clearance to be
able to talk to the Fort or the military officials on official
duty, so I have no idea what they are discussing. I can tell
you that I have looked at the map of Fort Leavenworth, and I
have been told where the idea would be. There is a Boy Scout
and Girl Scout camp in this center. There is no water. There is
no electricity to connect to that area, much less having to
build it.
There are not the facility or capabilities to be able to
house them at this time. I am also told that the Guantanamo Bay
detainees are generally, especially if they are maximum, have
to have almost specialized security for one-in, one-out
watching over them.
Mr. Duncan. So if we have got to build all these new
facilities, why are we looking at existing facilities? Why
don't we go down to Louisiana and go out into the high ground
in the Bayou and build a brand new facility? Why not go to Fort
A.P. Hill right down the road here, thousands upon thousands of
undeveloped acres, and drop a prison facility there? Why aren't
we talking about Fort Leavenworth or Charleston if we are
talking about this?
Mr. Thompson. Well, I would say that----
Mr. Duncan. It is interesting when you bring that closer to
home, I do believe.
Mr. Thompson. Well, I would say that if they were--I mean,
Guantanamo Bay, they are away from harming any other citizens,
and that is one of the most serious concerns that we have about
bringing them to the United States soil.
Mr. Duncan. Absolutely.
Mr. Thompson. To bring them into a community such as
Governor Haley's Charleston, or bringing them to something like
Fort Leavenworth where there are communities of veterans as
well as just citizens like myself living there, that is going
to cause them undue threat concern, economic impacts, social
impacts, psychological impact, all these things just by moving
them here.
Mr. Duncan. Absolutely. Thank you.
Mr. Perry. The gentleman's time has long expired.
The gentleman now recognizes the Ranking Member.
Mr. Richmond. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to add that
there is no high ground in the Bayou. It is all----
Mr. Perry. That is a good point.
Mr. Duncan. I have been to some high ground in the Bayou,
so anyway, thank you for that.
Mr. Perry. All right. The Chair thanks the witnesses for
their very valuable testimony, for being here today, and the
Members for their questions.
The Members may have some additional questions for the
witnesses, and we ask you to respond to these in writing.
Pursuant to the committee rule 7(e), the hearing record will
remain open for 10 days.
Without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions From Chairman Scott Perry for Michael J. Bouchard
Question 1. Please describe the typical role that State and local
law enforcement plays in responding to an incident at a military
installation. Would you expect the role to be the same in responding to
an installation that houses the Guantanamo detainees?
Answer. Law enforcement is the first group to respond to areas in
times of emergency, with the great responsibility to act quickly and
effectively in times of terror and uncertainty. Securing the homeland
cannot be an afterthought--law enforcement regularly and proactively
prepares for the unthinkable and as the threat picture and nature of
violence has evolved, so too has local law enforcement. Enemy
combatants and foreign fighters bring a whole extra list of concerns.
They are more often directly connected with terrorist networks and hold
a higher value individually and symbolically. Any protest outside the
gate--for or against, any attack on the facility or escape from the
facility would fall on the local agencies. Local communities where
these facilities are located might become a symbolic target. Local
agencies would necessarily have to equip, train, and prepare for these
issues. All, without any consideration or compensation from the Federal
Government. Additionally, I think it is important to note that while
jails and prisons do hold a great number of very dangerous criminals, a
terrorist is not and should not be considered to have the same security
concerns.
Question 2a. It is likely that any facility holding Guantanamo
detainees would become a terrorist target. Furthermore, State and local
law enforcement would be responsible for securing the area ``outside
the fence'' of the installation where these detainees were located.
What concerns do State and local law enforcement have related to
terrorist's ability to ``go dark'' in order to plan attacks?
Question 2b. How can these concerns be ameliorated?
Answer. Law enforcement officials' ability to lawfully access
digital evidence has been severely hamstrung by technological
advancements and non-technological barriers to access. We in the law
enforcement community find ourselves in a new age where criminals and
terrorists enthusiastically operate beyond the confines of the law
through encrypted networks, applications, and mobile devices. The
encrypted applications used for preplanning and coordination among the
Paris attackers may have prevented the advance detection of the
attacks, but the cell phone of one of the terrorists recovered outside
the Bataclan theater helped investigators apprehend the ringleader of
the attack, Abdelhamid Abaaoud. When law enforcement officials
identified Abaaoud's cousin in the phone's call list and her location,
Abaaoud was finally located.\1\ It was later confirmed that Abaaoud
died in the detonation of a suicide bomb during the raid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/world/europe/a-view-of-isiss-
evolution-in-new-details-of-paris-attacks.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Various proposals have been offered to find a ``solution'' to the
going dark debate. MCSA endorsed the Compliance with Court Orders Act
of 2016 as introduced by Senators Burr and Feinstein as well as
Chairman McCaul and Senator Warner's Digital Security Commission Act of
2016. As the Compliance with Court Orders Act clearly states, no person
or entity is above the law. Whether law enforcement is investigating
child exploitation, drug trafficking, rape or homicide cases, officers
need access to critical, time-sensitive information in order to do
their jobs.
MCSA believes the Digital Security Commission Act of 2016 is a
positive step towards thoroughly examining all aspects of the going
dark debate and while MCSA is supportive of the commission concept, we
remain concerned about several provisions related to stakeholder
representation and vote threshold. Nevertheless, the time has come for
all segments--tech, privacy, and law enforcement--to elevate the
conversation and work together in the interest of public safety and
privacy. Advancing the Compliance with Court Orders Act of 2016 and/or
the Digital Security Commission Act of 2016 would be step in the right
direction towards ameliorating LE's concerns.
Question 3. Please provide some examples of past coordination
between State and local law enforcement and the administration. Why do
you believe the administration neglected to coordinate with State and
local law enforcement during the development of this plan?
Answer. I have assigned personnel to Joint Terrorism Task Forces
and to key counter terrorism facilities in Washington, DC at great
expense to my local taxpayers. We do so because coordination and
information sharing was a critical recommendation of the 9/11
Commission. We all want to protect our homeland. Many of our MCSA
members devote both personnel and resources to these JTTFs without
Federal reimbursement.
Far too often local law enforcement is not consulted ahead of
policy decisions that have direct and potentially dire implications for
our communities. At no single point has the administration requested
local law enforcement's perspective or opinion on the transfer of Gitmo
detainees to U.S. soil. One could presume the administration's constant
exclusion of LE is based upon the reality that LE's perspective does
not fit their narrative. MCSA has always sought be a positive source of
ideas and collaboration and finds it unacceptable that we do not have a
seat at the table.
Question 4. In its fiscal year 2017 budget request, the
administration made significant cuts to grant funding, especially those
utilized by State and local law enforcement. Please describe the
importance of Federal grants to State and local law enforcement
agencies. How would the proposed cut in grants affect State and local
law enforcement's ability to deal with any additional responsibilities
brought on by the presence of Guantanamo detainees in the homeland?
Answer. With an increased threat environment, law enforcement has
continually been tasked to do more with less. Cost implications coupled
with a heightened security environment is simply unsustainable. In an
era of deep budget cuts and lack of Federal funding, State and local
law enforcement does not have the necessary funds, and most recently
the necessary life-saving equipment, to adequately address the National
security implications associated with Gitmo detainees being housed
within U.S. facilities.
Grant programs such as the State Homeland Security Grant Program
(SHSP) and the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) work to address
gaps in local agencies capabilities for responding to terrorist
threats. Other programs such as the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice
Assistance Grant Program (JAG) have a broader focus of providing
critical funding to support a range of different program areas. Over
the past few fiscal years, law enforcement has seen a steady decline in
Federal grant funding and most recently, President Obama's fiscal year
2017 budget request cut UASI funds by 45 percent. The amount of monies
we receive for these new and evolving threats is a trickle at best.
The Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO) military surplus and
Federal grant programs are examples of a good partnership between the
Federal Government and local government entities. It is fiscally
responsible and assists in equipping our Nation's law enforcement with
equipment that saves lives. In areas of our Nation that are fiscally
stressed, it is potentially the only way their law enforcement officers
would ever receive that type of support. The transfer of equipment from
Federal inventory saves taxpayers a significant amount of money, simply
because Federal surplus items have already been purchased once. In
fact, many of the same items that they receive through Federal
assistance programs have been used by law enforcement agencies for
decades.
Through Executive Action and not legislation, the administration
has recalled certain 1033-controlled military surplus equipment. While
the ultimate goals of law enforcement remain the same: To protect the
public; to solve, deter, and respond to criminal acts; and to enforce
the law in a responsible and Constitutional manner, the administration
has sought to inappropriately legislate through perception at the cost
of public safety. On the very same day as the San Bernardino terror
attack--our Nation's worst attack since 9/11--my office received an
order to return our armored personnel carrier back to the Federal
Government. The recall of certain types of controlled equipment will
undoubtedly leave America's law enforcement less prepared and at a
disadvantage to protect local communities against terror attacks and
dangerous situations.
Guantanamo detainees housed in U.S. facilities would require an
exorbitant amount of resources from State and local law enforcement
agencies. Resources ranging from manpower associated with hospital
watch, medical and/or court transfers, to a coordinated escapee and
riot response plans. Local law enforcement would also be tasked with
preparing and responding to any protestors or sympathizers outside of
the facility gates and into our local communities. When an emergency
arises, Federal officials and the military are not the first to
respond--local law enforcement are and as such, need to be adequately
prepared to properly address the situation at hand. That means both a
significant investment in planning, training, and equipment by the
affected local jurisdictions. Some have lauded the closure of Gitmo as
a cost-saving measure, but that is most assuredly short-sighted--both
from a National security and taxpayer perspective. Additionally, with
the recent efforts to transfer detainees to other countries the
argument that so few are left it only makes sense to close the base is
neither subtle nor supported.
[all]