[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 70 (Thursday, May 7, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5253-S5254]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             GUANTANAMO BAY

  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I wish to thank our Republican leader 
for so succinctly summing up the issue we face in regards to the 
terrorists--and, yes, they are terrorists--who are at Guantanamo Bay 
and for what I think is the almost unbelievable suggestion that we move 
these folks to a homeland, USA, and my remarks will continue in that 
regard. I thank the leader for raising the subject.
  I rise today to speak about Guantanamo Bay, but I wish to point out 
that I am speaking about a Guantanamo Bay that some of my colleagues 
and some citizens of our great country might not recognize.
  Obviously, the Guantanamo Bay I am speaking of houses ``terrorists.'' 
I have been there, and there are terrorists at Gitmo. I have seen them. 
As a matter of fact, I have seen interrogation procedures with the 
terrorists. They are not ``enemy combatants'' fighting an ``overseas 
contingency operation,'' but terrorists whom we must wage a war on 
terror against because they continually plan to launch attacks against 
us.
  Senator McConnell spoke of the 10 percent who have been released and 
who have shown back up on the battlefield. There is a wonderful 
picture--well, it isn't a wonderful picture; it is a very telling 
picture--of one of these terrorists who was incarcerated at Gitmo and 
whom we released. He was treated and fitted with a prosthesis--with 
health care better than many of my small communities get.
  There is a picture of him back on the battlefield waving his 
prosthesis in one hand and with an AK-47 in the other. If that doesn't 
tell the story, I don't know what would.
  The reason I explain this is because we have seen a change in how 
those who are incarcerated at Gitmo are now being defined and described 
both in the media and in the administration, and as a consequence, by 
some Americans. I understand there is a poor perception of Guantanamo 
Bay, but to say there are no terrorists there, to say that there are 
not even enemy combatants there is doing a disservice to us all by 
trivializing the crimes committed by those who are incarcerated there.
  I ask my colleagues: When did we start making terror politically 
correct? And why?
  I understand this administration has great feelings about these 
issues, and many Americans have great feelings about these issues. Many 
Americans disagree very strongly with the past administration. I know 
this administration wants to draw a line of demarcation and say: This 
is not our policy, whether it is the war in Iraq, whether it is our 
operations in Afghanistan, whether it is our foreign policy, our 
national security policy, or whether it is intelligence. These are all 
very legitimate topics for debate and discussion, but in the process of 
this debate and this discourse, we should not ignore reality.
  This same question as to why we would do this was asked by Daniel 
Pearl's father, Judea Pearl, in an article that ran in the Wall Street 
Journal this past February. I have the article here. It is called 
``Daniel Pearl and the Normalization of Evil.'' Every Senator and every 
American should read this article and should take it to heart.
  As I think most people know--and we should all remember--Daniel Pearl 
was the American journalist captured and beheaded--beheaded on video--
by the ``nonterrorist, nonenemy combatant'' Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in 
2002. He was beheaded by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is actually 
sitting at Guantanamo Bay right now.
  Listen to what Professor Judea Pearl, who is a respected professor at 
UCLA, has to say about that act of terror when he and Danny's mother 
looked at a picture of their son, Daniel:

       Those around the world who mourned for Danny--

  His son--

     in 2002 genuinely hoped that Danny's murder would be a 
     turning point in the history of man's inhumanity to man, and 
     that the targeting of innocents to transmit any political 
     message would quickly become, like slavery and human 
     sacrifice, an embarrassing relic of a bygone era.
       But somehow,--

  And I continue to quote Professor Pearl--

     barbarism, often cloaked in the language of resistance, has 
     gained acceptance in the most elite circles of our society. 
     The words ``war on terror'' cannot be uttered today without 
     fear of offense. Civilized society, so it seems, is so numbed 
     by violence that it has lost its gift to be disgusted by 
     evil.

  Well, I remain disgusted by evil, and more than that, I am fatigued 
by those who seemingly ignore it. I am disgusted by those who target 
innocent civilians as they spew their hatred, and I refuse to adopt 
what Danny's father called ``the mentality of surrender.'' I think it 
is not too late. It is not too late for a wake-up call. We can all 
refuse to surrender to the idea that terrorism is somehow a tactic. To 
refuse to believe it is an acceptable tool of resistance.
  There is still time for Americans to remember that there are men at 
Guantanamo Bay who cannot be released and most certainly should not be 
on American soil. In fact, Americans must remember there are men at 
Gitmo who planned the September 11 attacks, the USS Cole attack prior 
to that--this was before we even connected the dots--and the attacks on 
American Embassies in Africa, causing great loss of human life. There 
are men at Gitmo who have perpetuated horrible crimes against humanity 
and would like to do so again because they don't like who we are or the 
way we live.
  Terrorist detainees should be held, as they are now, at Gitmo, in 
compliance with international law. That should be respected, of course.
  Ask the Red Cross or our new Attorney General, Eric Holder. 
Guantanamo, despite what some might think, is a first-rate facility 
that safely keeps these men out of civilized societies, affords them 
human treatment, and gives them religious respect. Again, I know. I was 
there.
  Certainly, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed did not afford Daniel Pearl those 
courtesies. No, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others like him were--and 
still are--on a jihad against every man, woman, and child in our 
country. Yet we should bring these terrorists to American soil? Not 
only is that just plain wrong, it is logistically a situation that will 
not work. We can't do it without a tremendous infusion of funds and a 
lot of other problems.
  In Dodge City, KS, at the coffee clatch that I attend, they call that 
flatout dumb. In fact, for those who would like to bring these 
nonterrorists, nonenemy combatants to hometown, USA, let me paint a 
picture.

  Fort Leavenworth, KS, has been mentioned many times as a possible 
location for the 100 or so terrorists whom Defense Secretary Gates says 
can't be released but can't be tried. Leavenworth: where we educate all 
future Army officers, where we host foreign military officers every 
year to build relationships and foster military cooperation. 
Leavenworth: the intellectual center of the Army.
  Do my colleagues think Army officers want to study at Fort 
Leavenworth if terrorists are there? Do they think they want to send 
their kids to school on the base minutes away from the most dangerous 
men in the world? Do they think foreign countries, especially friendly 
Muslim nations, will want to send their best and brightest officers to 
a place that houses men who we all agree are not appropriate for a

[[Page S5254]]

civilized society? I don't think so. Not a chance.
  Even worse, I can't believe we are asking the people of Leavenworth 
to hang out with the ``welcome terrorists'' banner or put out the 
welcome mat to terrorists or to share their community not only with 
terrorists but with every protestor who will inevitably show up or with 
every terrorist who will view a facility on the mainland as a target, 
as they do. And before someone says Fort Leavenworth is secure, let me 
tell you it is secure all right; but for military prisoners who are 
compliant and for civilian prisoners who are not on a jihad against 
America.
  Guantanamo Bay is a fortress, a humane, Red Cross-approved fortress, 
but a fortress nonetheless. Moving such a facility to hometown, USA, 
will require security beyond reality. I can't even begin to imagine 
what it would look like at Leavenworth, but I do know it is unrealistic 
to think a place such as Leavenworth, which has a railroad running 
through it and a river running next to it and highways all around it, 
would not be secure. No, it is not secure enough. In fact, the only 
place that is would have to be a fortress in the middle of nowhere--or 
Guantanamo Bay.
  Let's also not forget the cost to taxpayers if such a thing would 
actually happen. We would not be able to mix these prisoners with the 
general prison population there, let alone the public. We would have to 
build a hospital and medical facilities, exercise and eating 
facilities, places for religious worship, and the list goes on and on 
and on. We have that at Gitmo. If anyone thinks that is crazy, I 
recommend they travel to Gitmo and take a look. They already have all 
of those facilities there. In fact, the medical facilities I saw are 
better than most in most of our small rural communities in this 
country.
  Why we keep coming back to this ridiculous argument, why we keep 
trivializing the crimes committed by those at Gitmo, and why we keep 
offering up our American communities as a reasonable alternative is 
beyond me.
  But I will say this: not in our backyard, not in Kansas, not on this 
Senator's watch, not on my watch. I don't know how many times I have to 
say or shout this on the Senate floor before this misbegotten idea is 
put to rest. But trust me--trust me--I will continue to do it until we 
come to our senses or until one of my colleagues who wants to close 
Gitmo offers a site in their State as a reasonable alternative.
  One Senator has a lot of tools in his toolbox for keeping the Senate 
tied up in knots. If someone gets the bright idea of moving these 
prisoners to Kansas, we can all cancel our summer travel plans because 
we are going to be spending a lot of time here doing nothing. Come to 
think of it, that might be a better alternative as to where we are 
headed.
  Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.
  Madam President, it has come to my attention that I don't think we 
have a quorum, so I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in 
morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________