[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 171 (Tuesday, December 11, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12836-S12837]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     WE MUST LIVE BY OUR PRINCIPLES

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, today we are commemorating the 
anniversary of a despicable act against our country and against our 
people. We all pay tribute to those who died on September 11. At the 
same time, we salute those defending freedom today at home and halfway 
across the globe.
  War brings out the best in America. The soldiers who stormed Omaha 
Beach are still our heroes. The firefighters who marched into the World 
Trade Center will be our grandchildren's heroes.
  But the heat of battle and the crush of necessity can also bring out 
America's worst, especially here at home. And that is the risk I want 
to talk about today.
  During World War II, one of our greatest Presidents authorized the 
internment of more than 100,000 innocent people, mostly United States 
citizens, simply on account of their ancestry.
  Today, we are ashamed of that episode. And we are resolved that our 
actions should make our grandchildren proud, not ashamed.
  President Bush himself has expressed that resolve. In his speech to 
the Congress on September 20, he said something that was very 
important. He said:

       We are in a fight for our principles, and our first 
     responsibility is to live by them.

  That is exactly right. One of our principles is vigorous debate. I 
was saddened when the Attorney General of the United States last week 
said that unidentified critics ``aid terrorists'' and ``give ammunition 
to America's enemies.'' Mr. Ashcroft did not offer any

[[Page S12837]]

evidence that terrorists benefit when Americans speak their mind.
  In our American tradition, it is the responsibility of leaders to 
promote the free exchange of ideas, not stifle them. That 
responsibility carries over from peacetime to wartime. We don't 
encourage different ideas because we owe it to critics. We encourage 
different ideas because we owe it to ourselves. Robust debate has made 
America stronger for more than 200 years.
  It is only because of open debate that we have a legal right to speak 
our minds at all. The way the Constitution was initially drafted back 
in 1787, there was no guarantee for free speech. There was no 
protection for religious freedom, for privacy, for individual liberty, 
for so many rights all Americans now take for granted. The original 
Constitution contained no Bill of Rights.
  Without a Bill of Rights, many veterans of the American Revolution 
furiously opposed the original Constitution. My State of North Carolina 
flatly rejected it. The first Congress approved the Bill of Rights only 
after those patriots spoke their minds, spoke up and demanded it. 
Today, we are all grateful for their speaking their minds, for their 
patriotism that has meant so much to many Americans who followed.
  A few years later, in the late 1790s, our Nation was on the brink of 
war. The French Government was torturing American soldiers and seizing 
American ships. At that point, an enraged Congress passed a sedition 
act criminalizing ``scandalous'' writing ``against the Government.'' 
Chief among the opponents of that legislation was Vice President Thomas 
Jefferson. As he put it, the country's critics should be allowed to 
``stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of 
opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.''
  Closer to today, President Richard Nixon moved to expand the 
Subversive Activities Control Board's oversight of political protests 
during the Vietnam war. Sam Ervin, whose seat in the Senate I now hold, 
supported that war. But he challenged President Nixon's proposal. What 
he said on the floor echoed Jefferson:

       Our country has nothing to fear from the exercise of its 
     freedoms as long as it leaves truth free to combat error.

  I believe that is still true today. Like the vast majority of 
Americans, I strongly support America's war on terrorism overseas. 
Unlike some, I also support much of the administration's law 
enforcement effort here at home. We live in a new world after September 
11. We simply must take steps that we would not have accepted 3 months 
ago.
  I also believe that vigorously discussing each of those steps 
strengthens our war effort. Thanks to the courage and skill of our 
soldiers, we will win this war against al-Qaida. But there is a totally 
different question whether we will win the war for the minds and hearts 
of those around the world.
  I believe we will do that if we hold true to our values--values such 
as justice, fairness, and the rule of law. Those are the values that 
make America the beacon of freedom for the rest of the world. And 
nothing reminds us of our values like open discussion.
  The debate over military tribunals is a perfect example. The order of 
November 30 that authorized tribunals came with very little 
explanation. Many Americans, including many past Federal prosecutors, 
asked why our ordinary criminal justice system was not adequate. The 
administration responded with a much more detailed explanation for 
their action. That explanation built broad support for the use of 
tribunals in very narrow circumstances. In fact, I support the use of 
military tribunals under the right circumstances.

  But even since that exchange, serious questions remained about the 
gap between the specific terms of the order and basic norms of fairness 
that Americans share and believe in deeply.
  In answer to some of the questions last Thursday, Attorney General 
Ashcroft was able to clarify that many things apparently allowed on the 
face of the order will not happen. For example, secret trials, 
indefinite detentions, executive reversal of acquittals by the military 
tribunals.
  Mr. Ashcroft could not rule out other disturbing possibilities. Could 
a lawful resident in this country be convicted and sentenced to death 
by a tribunal on a 2-to-1 vote? Could it happen under a burden of proof 
requiring only a 51-percent likelihood of guilt; that is, a lawful 
resident of this country being convicted and receiving the death 
penalty on 51 percent of the evidence? And could it happen without an 
independent review to see whether there was evidence that should have 
been admitted that was not admitted, evidence that would have shown 
that this particular defendant did not commit the crime?
  Members of Congress and members of the general public have much more 
than a right to raise those questions. We have a responsibility to 
raise those questions.
  The give and take over military tribunals hardly helps terrorists. I 
believe that it undercuts America's enemies, for open exchange ensures 
that our actions reflect our commitments. It signals that a great 
nation fears nothing from peaceful debate. We should welcome that 
debate. It is a proud, necessary tradition, both in peace and in war.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the will of the Senate?
  Mr. LUGAR. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________