[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 62 (Monday, April 27, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4728-S4729]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               CONCERNS ABOUT RELEASE OF GITMO DETAINEES

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator McConnell for his 
leadership on the issue of securing the peace and security of the 
United States of America and the challenges we face in this very 
difficult world. I am pleased it was he who offered a resolution not 
long ago that passed 94 to 3 to say that those terrorists we have in 
Guantanamo should not be released into the United States. It passed 
this Senate 94 to 3.
  So I was alarmed on Friday to see a report in the Los Angeles Times 
by Julian Barnes, the first line of which said:

       The Obama administration is preparing to admit into the 
     United States as many as seven Chinese Muslims who have been 
     imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay in the first release of any of 
     the detainees into this country, according to current and 
     former U.S. officials.

  The Times report was followed by an Associated Press story over the 
weekend entitled ``Holder Close to Making Decision on Gitmo 
Detainees''--Holder being Attorney General Eric Holder--which detailed 
an emerging plan to release a group of Uighurs held at Guantanamo into 
the United States, possibly northern Virginia.
  Three weeks ago, on April 2, 2009, I wrote the Attorney General. I am 
a member of the Judiciary Committee, and I served in the Department of 
Justice for 15 years. I wrote Mr. Holder on exactly this issue, to 
explain my concerns about the serious national security and legal 
issues raised by any proposed release of Guantanamo detainees. In my 
letter I explained that the 17 Uighur detainees currently held at 
Guantanamo ``received military training, including firearms training, 
in terrorist camps in Afghanistan for potential terrorist actions 
against Chinese interests.''
  I further explained that Federal law, specifically title 8 United 
States Code section 1182(a)(3)(B), clearly prohibits the admission of 
any alien--and they are all aliens--who has engaged in various forms of 
terrorist activity or training, including military type training ``from 
or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was 
received, was a terrorist organization.''
  The Uighurs at Guantanamo received military training, including on 
AK-47s, at camps run by the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement, which 
has been designated as a terrorist organization by both the United 
States and the United Nations since 2002. Accordingly, under the clear 
letter of Federal immigration law, these detainees are not eligible for 
admission into the United States. In my letter I called upon the 
Attorney General, whom I supported for that job and have respect for, 
to explain ``what legal authority, if any, you believe the 
administration has to admit into the United States Uighurs and/or any 
other detainee who participated in terrorist-related activities covered 
by Section 1182(a)(3)(B) [of the federal immigration law].'' He has not 
responded in any way. I am a member of the Judiciary Committee. That 
was a respectful and proper request I made. I have not heard from him 
at all. Yet we are reading in the paper that there is a plan afoot to 
allow this release.
  The current stories in the Times and the Associated Press suggest 
that the administration is knowingly and willfully acting contrary to 
law and to the will of Congress and doing so on a matter that is 
directly at odds with our Government's obligation to keep America's 
communities safe from dangerous terrorists and militants.
  Let me say, the Attorney General has a responsibility to uphold the 
law and protect civil rights. But I would say this, the primary 
responsibility of the Attorney General of the United States is to 
ensure that decent people who follow the law are protected from 
criminals and terrorists and those who would do them harm. If he is not 
the one who is going to lead the effort to protect us from those who 
would harm us, who is? Sometimes I wonder what they think their goal 
is.
  So some will claim that the Uighurs held at Guantanamo are not 
dangerous because the courts and previous administrations agreed that 
these individuals are not enemy combatants against the United States. 
But this argument overlooks the fact that the Uighurs aren't deemed 
enemy combatants against the United States because the organization 
they were affiliated with, the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement, is 
not closely associated enough with al-Qaida or the Taliban to justify 
that determination. But make no mistake about it, these detainees are 
trained militants with ties to a terrorist organization, albeit one 
targeting Chinese interests rather than American interests. They should 
not be ushered into American communities by this administration.
  The Los Angeles Times story from last week illustrates the danger 
these detainees pose:

       Not long after being granted access to TV, some of the 
     Uighurs were watching a soccer game. When a woman with bare 
     arms was shown on the screen, one of the group grabbed the 
     television and threw it to the ground, according to the 
     officials.

  According to the news story, the officials at Guantanamo had to 
censor the TV shows and showed only pretaped programs that wouldn't 
offend the Uighurs. If these detainees cannot handle mere televised 
depictions of Western culture without violent outbursts, why are we 
releasing them into our towns and communities? Even though this seems 
like an obvious question, this administration seems to have little 
concern over it. Rather than sounding alarm bells, the Director of 
National Intelligence Dennis Blair proposed releasing the detainees 
with some form of welfare subsidy. In comments in March, Admiral Blair 
agreed that ``[y]ou can't just put them on the street.'' But his 
solution was not to continue detention or to release detainees to their 
home countries or to China, which wants them. Rather, he said, ``If we 
are to release them in the United States, we need some sort of 
assistance for them to start a new life.''
  So this administration seems more concerned about the welfare of the 
dangerous militants, frankly, than it does about the real safety 
concerns of the American people and of the views of the citizens of our 
country who, by overwhelming polling data, oppose the release of these 
Guantanamo inmates into the country. According to an April 3, 2009 
Rasmussen Reports survey, 75 percent of U.S. voters oppose the release 
of Guantanamo inmates into this country. A similar number--74 percent--
oppose providing public assistance to any Guantanamo detainees who 
might be released.
  So what is surprising about the recent news reports about the 
possible release of Guantanamo detainees is that they come on the heels 
of another announcement earlier last week which made me think the Obama 
administration was coming to understand the dangerous nature of the 
Eastern Turkish Islamic Movement. This past Monday, April 20, 2009, 
President Obama's Treasury Department issued a release listing Abdul 
Haq as a designated terrorist. This announcement, which follows on the 
heels of a similar announcement from the United Nations, is significant 
for three key reasons, as well as a fourth reason that relates directly 
to the Uighur detainees:
  Abdul Haq is the leader of the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement.
  Abdul Haq was listed as a ringleader in planned attacks on the 
Olympic games in China.
  Abdul Haq is listed as a member of a council within al-Qaida. He is 
connected to al-Qaida.
  Perhaps most importantly, Abdul Haq is directly tied to the Uighur 
detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. According to a recent article by 
Thomas Jocelyn, who published a series of excerpts from the Combatant 
Status Review Tribunal proceedings for the

[[Page S4729]]

Uighurs at Guantanamo, the detainees, one after another, testified that 
they were trained by none other than Abdul Haq who ``was the one 
responsible for the camp.'' So just as these detainees testified that 
Haq ran the camp and led their training, they, time and again, admitted 
to training on what they referred to as ``the AK-47'' or ``the 
Kalashnikov.''
  It is unbelievable to me that we are talking about releasing these 
dangerous detainees into American communities, despite the fact that 
they received military-style training on AK-47s in a camp run by a 
known terrorist and terrorist organization, both of which are 
designated as such by the United States and the United Nations. And the 
administration is doing so just one week after it denounced the man who 
trained the Uighur detainees in the following clear words. This is what 
the Treasury Department said:

       Abdul Haq commands a terror group that sought to sow 
     violence and fracture international unity at the 2008 Olympic 
     Games in China. Today, we stand together with the world in 
     condemning this brutal terrorist and isolating him from the 
     international financial system.

  So within a week of our Government seeking to condemn and isolate 
``this brutal terrorist,'' the administration is planning to turn loose 
his pupils into the United States.
  There was a time not long ago when no Senator would need to come to 
the floor to explain that it is dangerous and unlawful to release 
extremist militants trained by terrorists into the United States.
  Why would we release them here? We captured them on the battlefield. 
We took them to Guantanamo. Now we are going to release them. China 
would like to have them back. They are rightly concerned about the 
people who attempted to bomb the Olympic games. We don't have to 
release them here. We don't have to release them.
  Well, according to the press reports I have cited, the administration 
is planning to release the Uighur detainees to gain favor and 
``generate good will'' with foreign governments. Now we understand, 
according to the Associated Press, Mr. Holder is in Europe where he is 
``to reassure skeptical Europeans without generating too much 
opposition back home.''
  That is an uneasy statement for me. That sounds a little duplicitous 
to me, for an Attorney General to be in Europe where he is ``to 
reassure skeptical Europeans without generating too much opposition 
back home.'' I suggest he needs to be focused on security in the United 
States. I think we need to consider why it is we feel that a nation we 
have favorable trade relations with, China, which successfully 
conducted Olympic games, isn't able to detain people who are committed 
to a group that was designed to attack those games.
  If another country captured terrorists who were attacking the United 
States--and we would like to have them and hold them in custody--let me 
ask, what would we think if they released them into their communities 
and gave them subsistence and payments from the government? Wouldn't we 
think that government was aiding terrorism?
  How did we get into this position? I do not think the administration 
has thought this through. There is no question China has certain well-
known problems with human rights, and I have been one of their critics. 
But are those problems any worse than the problems in Yemen, Algeria, 
Libya, Sudan, and Saudi Arabia--all countries to which the United 
States has returned Guantanamo detainees? What message is our 
government sending here, and what will be the repercussions? Have any 
of these questions been seriously considered?
  I call on Attorney General Holder to answer my letter of April 2 well 
before he plans to release any of these militants onto the streets of 
America. If he is able to travel halfway around the world ``to reassure 
skeptical Europeans,'' perhaps he can answer a simple, direct, two-page 
letter from this skeptical Senator.
  We know as many as 60 former Guantanamo Bay detainees who were 
released overseas have returned to the battlefield, including some in 
senior roles with al-Qaida. That stark reality is why the Senate voted 
94 to 3 to support Senator McConnell's resolution that concluded with 
these words:

       It is the sense of the Senate that detainees housed at 
     Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, including senior members of al Qaeda, 
     should not be released into American society, nor should they 
     be transferred stateside into facilities in American 
     communities and neighborhoods.

  I note that now-Vice President Biden and now-Secretary of State 
Hillary Clinton--Members of the Senate then--voted for the resolution. 
Then-Senator Obama did not. He was not voting. But he has made 
statements that indicate he understands the dangerousness of these 
individuals. I suggest that he give more thought to those words he has 
previously issued and that he follow the law, the plain law as I see 
it, and not release any of them into the United States.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, it is my intent to take a very 
few minutes. We are speaking in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Thank you, Mr. President.

                          ____________________