[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 169 (Monday, November 16, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H12983-H12984]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  THE TRIAL OF KHALID SHEIKH MOHAMMED

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, the 9/11 terrorist Khalid Sheikh 
Mohammed and four of his terrorist buddies are getting a trip to New 
York City to be tried in Federal court for their crimes against 
America.
  Some of the other terrorists, however, are being tried in military 
courts. So why are we trying Mohammed in Federal court in the United 
States? Why aren't we treating them all alike, treating them all the 
same? Is it different strokes for different folks? It appears to be so. 
So why are these five special individuals being treated this way and 
brought to the United States for trial?
  Military tribunals throughout history have always been used to try 
captured enemies on the battlefield. They have different rules and 
standards for evidence and interrogation, and the military courts make 
allowances for these basic differences. And tribunals

[[Page H12984]]

won't use classified intelligence material in open court.
  The military courts and the prosecutors in the military courts have 
been preparing for 18 months to try these five terrorists in military 
court. Now all of that's over, and all of that paperwork now is going 
to be turned over to Federal prosecutors who know nothing about the 
case, and they will start over with their investigation.
  Now, the way I figure it, it's been 8 years since 9/11 occurred. How 
long is it going to be before these people are tried? No one knows, 
because the government is now not prepared and they'll have to start 
getting prepared.
  Military tribunals have always been created in a time of war. War 
criminals and people on the battlefield who are captured are tried 
there. And now we're making some exception, and the reason is we don't 
know. We don't know the reason why they're being tried in New York and 
why some of them, well, they're going to get their military trials. 
Maybe those are lower-ranked terrorists. Who knows. Nobody's talking in 
the Justice Department.
  It does make a difference where a person is tried, whether he's tried 
in a Federal court or a military court, which has the jurisdiction. Let 
there be no mistake about it: these military courts have the 
jurisdiction to try these war criminals, but they are giving up their 
jurisdiction to the Justice Department.
  For example, in 1993 in the World Trade Center bombing, prosecutors 
were required to turn over evidence to defense attorneys that included 
a large amount of intelligence secret information. Those intelligence 
documents were never supposed to be provided to anyone outside of the 
attorneys for each side. But guess what happened, Madam Speaker. Copies 
of those were later found in al Qaeda caves overseas. So much for 
secrecy.
  We used to have Osama bin Laden's cell phone number, and we used it 
to track his movements and hundreds of calls he made back in 1998. It 
helped us to uncover members of the terrorist network prior to 9/11.
  But during the Federal trial of four al Qaeda terrorists who blew up 
two American embassies in East Africa, the extent of our methods of 
intelligence of tracking the terrorists through using their cell phone 
numbers were disclosed. And not only were they disclosed; the phone 
records were made public to the whole world. So guess what. Terrorists 
quit using their cell phones and shut them off. Now they communicate 
with each other using different methods. This was the result of trials 
that took place in Federal court. The rules of evidence are different.
  Doesn't anybody know we are at war and the rules of war ought to 
apply? And when we capture these people on the battlefield, when we 
capture these people who are at war with America, we ought to try them 
in military tribunals.
  Our anti-terrorist operations depend on secrecy. It makes the job of 
the FBI and Homeland Security agents harder when the methods they use 
are publicized in open court. And it doesn't seem to me to make any 
sense why we would want to make all of the evidence that we have 
obtained against these five terrorists public record.
  One more example: the 20th hijacker, Moussaoui, escaped the death 
penalty during his Federal trial, and here's the reason why: the court 
ruled the evidence of his participation in the 9/11 plot from his own 
computer was not admissible in a Federal courtroom. And without that 
evidence, the Feds had to settle for a life sentence. Thus he avoided 
the death penalty.
  Much of the evidence against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was gathered 
through interrogations, and now unless the interrogators read this 
individual his Miranda rights before water-boarding, it makes us wonder 
whether the evidence obtained against him lawfully under military rules 
will be admissible in Federal court.
  Federal courts were never intended to deal with wartime situations; 
military courts have always been the reason. And now we're going to 
allow this individual to have center stage in New York City to be tried 
and maybe possibly convicted and become an international martyr on the 
international stage. It makes no sense. They ought to be sent back to 
Guantanamo.
  And that's just the way it is.

                          ____________________