[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 24 (Wednesday, February 24, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S732-S736]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     HANDLING OF TERRORIST SUSPECTS

  Mr. President, in recent weeks, my Republican colleagues have 
directed a barrage of criticism at President Obama for his handling of 
terrorist cases, and I wish to respond.
  Let's start with the recent case of Umar Faruk Abdulmutallab, the man 
who tried to explode a bomb on a plane around Christmas when it was 
landing in Detroit. My colleagues on the other side have been very 
critical of the FBI's decision to give Miranda warnings to 
Abdulmutallab.
  The Republican minority leader recently said, referring to 
Abdulmutallab:

       He was given a 50 minute interrogation, probably Larry King 
     has interrogated people longer and better than that. After 
     which he was assigned a lawyer who told him to shut up.

  That is what the minority leader said. But here are the facts. 
Experienced counterterrorism agents from the FBI interrogated 
Abdulmutallab when he arrived in Detroit. According to the Justice 
Department, during this initial interrogation, the FBI ``obtained 
intelligence that has already proved useful in the fight against Al 
Qaeda.'' After the interrogation, Abdulmutallab refused to cooperate 
further with the FBI. Only then, after his refusal, did the FBI give 
him a Miranda warning. What the FBI did in this case was nothing new. 
During the Bush administration, the FBI also gave Miranda warnings to 
terrorists detained in the United States.
  I respect Senator McConnell, but I say, respectfully, that he got his 
facts wrong as stated on the floor of the Senate. Frankly, this 
unfounded criticism of the FBI and their techniques should be 
corrected. That is why I stand here today.
  Attorney General Eric Holder recently sent a detailed, 5-page letter 
to Senator McConnell explaining what actually happened in this case.
  I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               Office of the Attorney General,

                                 Washington, DC, February 3, 2010.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McConnell: I am writing in reply to your 
     letter of January 26, 2010, inquiring about the decision to 
     charge Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab with federal crimes in 
     connection with the attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines 
     Flight 253 near Detroit on December 25, 2009, rather than 
     detaining him under the law of war. An identical response is 
     being sent to the other Senators who joined in your letter.
       The decision to charge Mr. Abdulmutallab in federal court, 
     and the methods used to interrogate him, are fully consistent 
     with the long-established and publicly known policies and 
     practices of the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the 
     United States Government as a whole, as implemented for many 
     years by Administrations of both parties. Those policies and 
     practices, which were not criticized when employed by 
     previous Administrations, have been and remain extremely 
     effective in protecting national security. They are among the 
     many powerful weapons this country can and should use to win 
     the war against al-Qaeda.
       I am confident that, as a result of the hard work of the 
     FBI and our career federal prosecutors, we will be able to 
     successfully prosecute Mr. Abdulmutallab under the federal 
     criminal law. I am equally confident that the decision to 
     address Mr. Abdulmutallab's actions through our criminal 
     justice system has not, and will not, compromise our ability 
     to obtain information needed to detect and prevent future 
     attacks. There are many examples of successful terrorism 
     investigations

[[Page S733]]

     and prosecutions, both before and after September 11, 2001, 
     in which both of these important objectives have been 
     achieved--all in a manner consistent with our law and our 
     national security interests. Mr. Abdulmutallab was questioned 
     by experienced counterterrorism agents from the FBI in the 
     hours immediately after the failed bombing attempt and 
     provided intelligence, and more recently, he has provided 
     additional intelligence to the FBI that we are actively using 
     to help protect our country. We will continue to share the 
     information we develop with others in the intelligence 
     community and actively follow up on that information around 
     the world.
       1. Detention. I made the decision to charge Mr. 
     Abdulmutallab with federal crimes, and to seek his detention 
     in connection with those charges, with the knowledge of, and 
     with no objection from, all other relevant departments of the 
     government. On the evening of December 25 and again on the 
     morning of December 26, the FBI informed its partners in the 
     Intelligence Community that Abdulmutallab would be charged 
     criminally, and no agency objected to this course of 
     action. In the days following December 25--including 
     during a meeting with the President and other senior 
     members of his national security team on January 5--high-
     level discussions ensued within the Administration in 
     which the possibility of detaining Mr. Abdulmutallab under 
     the law of war was explicitly discussed. No agency 
     supported the use of law of war detention for 
     Abdulmutallab, and no agency has since advised the 
     Department of Justice that an alternative course of action 
     should have been, or should now be, pursued.
       Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, the practice of the 
     U.S. government, followed by prior and current 
     Administrations without a single exception, has been to 
     arrest and detain under federal criminal law all terrorist 
     suspects who are apprehended inside the United States. The 
     prior Administration adopted policies expressly endorsing 
     this approach. Under a policy directive issued by President 
     Bush in 2003, for example, ``the Attorney General has lead 
     responsibility for criminal investigations of terrorist acts 
     or terrorist threats by individuals or groups inside the 
     United States, or directed at United States citizens or 
     institutions abroad, where such acts are within the Federal 
     criminal jurisdiction or the United States, as well as for 
     related intelligence collection activities within the United 
     States.'' Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 (HSPD-5, 
     February 28, 2003). The directive goes on to provide that 
     ``[f]ollowing a terrorist threat or an actual incident that 
     falls within the criminal jurisdiction of the United States, 
     the full capabilities of the United States shall be 
     dedicated, consistent with United States law and with 
     activities of other Federal departments and agencies to 
     protect our national security, to assisting the Attorney 
     General to identify the perpetrators and bring them to 
     justice.''
       In keeping with this policy, the Bush Administration used 
     the criminal justice system to convict more than 300 
     individuals on terrorism-related charges. For example, 
     Richard Reid, a British citizen, was arrested in December 
     2001 for attempting to ignite a shoe bomb while on a flight 
     from Paris to Miami carrying 184 passengers and 14 
     crewmembers. He was advised of his right to remain silent and 
     to consult with an attorney within five minutes of being 
     removed from the aircraft (and was read or reminded of these 
     rights a total of four times within 48 hours), pled guilty in 
     October 2002, and is now serving a life sentence in federal 
     prison. In 2003, Iyman Faris, a U.S. citizen from Pakistan, 
     pled guilty to conspiracy and providing material support to 
     al-Qaeda for providing the terrorist organization with 
     information about possible U.S. targets for attack. Among 
     other things, he was tasked by al-Qaeda operatives overseas 
     to assess the Brooklyn Bridge in New York City as a possible 
     post-9/11 target of destruction. After initially providing 
     significant information and assistance to law enforcement 
     personnel, he was sentenced to 20 years in prison. In 2002, 
     the ``Lackawanna Six'' were charged with conspiring, 
     providing, and attempting to provide material support to al-
     Qaeda based upon their pre-9/11 travel to Afghanistan to 
     train in the Al Farooq camp operated by al-Qaeda. They pled 
     guilty, agreed to cooperate, and were sentenced to terms 
     ranging from seven to ten years in prison. There are many 
     other examples of successful terrorism prosecutions--ranging 
     from Zacarias Moussaoui (convicted in 2006 in connection with 
     the 9/11 attacks and sentenced to life in prison) to Ahmed 
     Omar Abu Ali (convicted in 2005 of conspiracy to assassinate 
     the President and other charges and sentenced to life in 
     prison) to Ahmed Ressam (convicted in 2001 for the Millenium 
     plot to bomb the Los Angeles airport and sentenced to 22 
     years, a sentence recently reversed as too lenient and 
     remanded for resentencing)--which I am happy to provide upon 
     request.
       In fact, two (and only two) persons apprehended in this 
     country in recent times have been held under the law of war. 
     Jose Padilla was arrested on a federal material witness 
     warrant in 2002, and was transferred to law of war custody 
     approximately one month later, after his court-appointed 
     counsel moved to vacate the warrant. Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-
     Marri was also initially arrested on a material witness 
     warrant in 2001, was indicted on federal criminal charges 
     (unrelated to terrorism) in 2002, and then transferred to law 
     of war custody approximately eighteen months later. In both 
     of these cases, the transfer to law of war custody raised 
     serious statutory and constitutional questions in the courts 
     concerning the lawfulness of the government's actions and 
     spawned lengthy litigation. In Mr. Padilla's case, the United 
     States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that the 
     President did not have the authority to detain him under the 
     law of war. In Mr. Al-Marri's case, the United States Court 
     of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed a prior panel 
     decision and found in a fractured en banc opinion that the 
     President did have authority to detain Mr. Al-Marri, but that 
     he had not been afforded sufficient process to challenge his 
     designation as an enemy combatant. Ultimately, both Al-Marri 
     (in 2009) and Padilla (in 2006) were returned to law 
     enforcement custody, convicted of terrorism charges and 
     sentenced to prison.
       When Flight 253 landed in Detroit, the men and women of the 
     FBI and the Department of Justice did precisely what they are 
     trained to do, what their policies require them to do, and 
     what this nation expects them to do. In the face of the 
     emergency, they acted quickly and decisively to ensure the 
     detention and incapacitation of the individual identified as 
     the would-be bomber. They did so by following the established 
     practice and policy of prior and current Administrations, and 
     detained Mr. Abdulmutallab for violations of federal criminal 
     law.
       2. Interrogation. The interrogation of Abdulmutallab was 
     handled in accordance with FBI policy that has governed 
     interrogation of every suspected terrorist apprehended in the 
     United States for many years. Across many Administrations, 
     both before and after 9/11, the consistent, well-known, 
     lawful, and publicly-stated policy of the FBI has been to 
     provide Miranda warnings prior to any custodial interrogation 
     conducted inside the United States. The FBI's current Miranda 
     policy, adopted during the prior Administration, provides 
     explicitly that ``[w]ithin the United States, Miranda 
     warnings are required to be given prior to custodial 
     interviews. . . .'' In both terrorism and non-terrorism 
     cases, the widespread experience of law enforcement 
     agencies, including the FBI, is that many defendants will 
     talk and cooperate with law enforcement agents after being 
     informed of their right to remain silent and to consult 
     with an attorney. Examples include L'Houssaine Kherchtou, 
     who was advised of his Miranda rights, cooperated with the 
     government and provided critical intelligence on al-Qaeda, 
     including their interest in using piloted planes as 
     suicide bombers, and Nuradin Abdi, who provided 
     significant information after being repeatedly advised of 
     his Miranda rights over a two-week period. During an 
     international terrorism investigation regarding Operation 
     Crevice, law enforcement agents gained valuable 
     intelligence regarding al-Qaeda military commanders and 
     suspects involved in bombing plots in the U.K. from a 
     defendant who agreed to cooperate after being advised of, 
     and waiving his Miranda rights. Other terrorism subjects 
     cooperate voluntarily with law enforcement without the 
     need to provide Miranda warnings because of the non-
     custodial nature of the interview or cooperate after their 
     arrest and agree to debriefings in thc presence of their 
     attorneys. Many of these subjects have provided vital 
     intelligence on al-Qaeda, including several members of the 
     Lackawanna Six, described above, who were arrested and 
     provided information about the Al Farooq training camp in 
     Afghanistan; and Mohammad Warsame, who voluntarily 
     submitted to interviews with the FBI and provided 
     intelligence on his contacts with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. 
     There are other examples which I am happy to provide upon 
     request. There are currently other terrorism suspects who 
     have cooperated and are providing valuable intelligence 
     information whose identities cannot be publicly disclosed.
       The initial questioning of Abdulmutallab was conducted 
     without Miranda warnings under a public safety exception that 
     has been recognized by the courts. Subsequent questioning was 
     conducted with Miranda warnings, as required by FBI policy, 
     after consultation between FBI agents in the field and at FBI 
     Headquarters, and career prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's 
     Office and at the Department of Justice. Neither advising 
     Abdulmutallab of his Miranda rights nor granting him access 
     to counsel prevents us from obtaining intelligence from him, 
     however. On the contrary, history shows that the federal 
     justice system is an extremely effective tool for gathering 
     intelligence. The Department of Justice has a long track 
     record of using the prosecution and sentencing process as a 
     lever to obtain valuable intelligence, and we are actively 
     deploying those tools in this case as well.
       Some have argued that had Abdulmutallab been declared an 
     enemy combatant, the government could have held him 
     indefinitely without providing him access to an attorney. But 
     the government's legal authority to do so is far from clear. 
     In fact, when the Bush administration attempted to deny Jose 
     Padilla access to an attorney, a federal judge in New York 
     rejected that position, ruling that Padilla must be allowed 
     to meet with his lawyer. Notably, the judge in that case was 
     Michael Mukasey, my predecessor as Attorney General. In fact, 
     there is no court-approved system currently in place in which 
     suspected terrorists captured inside the United States can be 
     detained and held without access to an attorney; nor is there 
     any known mechanism to persuade an uncooperative individual 
     to talk to the government

[[Page S734]]

     that has been proven more effective than the criminal justice 
     system. Moreover, while in some cases defense counsel may 
     advise their clients to remain silent, there are situations 
     in which they properly and wisely encourage cooperation 
     because it is in their client's best interest, given the 
     substantial sentences they might face.
       3. The Criminal Justice System as a National Security Tool. 
     As President Obama has made clear repeatedly, we are at war 
     against a dangerous, intelligent, and adaptable enemy. Our 
     goal in this war, as in all others, is to win. Victory means 
     defeating the enemy without damaging the fundamental 
     principles on which our nation was founded. To do that, we 
     must use every weapon at our disposal. Those weapons include 
     direct military action, military justice, intelligence, 
     diplomacy, and civilian law enforcement. Each of these 
     weapons has virtues and strengths, and we use each of them in 
     the appropriate situations.
       Over the past year, we have used the criminal justice 
     system to disrupt a number of plots, including one in New 
     York and Colorado that might have been the deadliest attack 
     on our country since September 11, 2001, had it been 
     successful. The backbone of that effort is the combined work 
     of thousands of FBI agents, state and local police officers, 
     career prosecutors, and intelligence officials around the 
     world who go to work every day to help prevent terrorist 
     attacks. I am immensely proud of their efforts. At the same 
     time, we have worked in concert with our partners in the 
     military and the Intelligence Community to support their 
     tremendous work to defeat the terrorists and with our 
     partners overseas who have great faith in our criminal 
     justice system.
       The criminal justice system has proven to be one of the 
     most effective weapons available to our government for both 
     incapacitating terrorists and collecting intelligence from 
     them. Removing this highly effective weapon from our arsenal 
     would be as foolish as taking our military and intelligence 
     options off the table against al-Qaeda, and as dangerous. In 
     fact, only by using all of our instruments of national power 
     in concert can we be truly effective. As Attorney General, I 
     am guided not by partisanship or political considerations, 
     but by a commitment to using the most effective course of 
     action in each case, depending on the facts of each case, to 
     protect the American people, defeat our enemies, and ensure 
     the rule of law.
           Sincerely,
                                               Eric H. Holder, Jr.

  Mr. DURBIN. Here is what General Holder said:

       Across many administrations, both before and after 9/11, 
     the consistent, well-known, lawful, and publicly stated 
     policy of the FBI has been to provide Miranda warnings prior 
     to any custodial interrogation conducted inside the United 
     States.

  In fact, the Bush administration adopted new policies for the FBI 
that said ``Within the United States, Miranda warnings are required to 
be given prior to custodial interviews.'' That was a requirement from 
the Bush administration. Senator McConnell and others have tried to 
politicize this issue when the facts tell us otherwise.
  Let's take one example from the Bush administration. Richard Reid, 
the shoe bomber, tried to detonate an explosive in his shoe on a flight 
from Paris to Miami in December 2001.
  This was very similar to the attempted attack by Abdulmutallab, 
another foreign terrorist who also tried to detonate a bomb on a plane. 
So how does the Bush administration's handling of the shoe bomber, Mr. 
Reid, compare with the Obama administration's handling of 
Abdulmutallab? The Bush administration detained and charged Reid as a 
criminal. They gave Reid a Miranda warning within 5 minutes of being 
removed from the airplane and they reminded him of his Miranda rights 
four times within the first 48 hours he was detained.
  Has America heard that side of the story, as we have heard all these 
criticisms about Miranda warnings for Abdulmutallab?
  The Republicans have been very critical of the Obama administration 
for giving a Miranda warning to this Detroit, attempted, would-be 
bomber 9 hours after he was first detained, after a 50-minute 
interrogation. But they did not criticize their own Republican 
President when his administration gave a Miranda warning to the shoe 
bomber 5 minutes after he was detained, and before he was interrogated 
at all.
  How do they square this? How can they be so critical of President 
Obama when a similar parallel case was treated so differently under the 
Republican President?
  In mid-January, Abdulmutallab began talking again to FBI 
interrogators and providing valuable intelligence--after the Miranda 
warnings. FBI Director Robert Mueller described it this way:

       . . . over a period of time, we have been successful in 
     obtaining intelligence, not just on day one, but on day two, 
     day three, day four, and day five, down the road.

  According to another law enforcement official:

       The information has been active, useful, and we have been 
     following up. The intelligence is not stale.

  How did this happen? The Obama administration convinced 
Abdulmutallab's family to come to the United States. Then he started 
talking. And his family persuaded him to cooperate.
  This is a very different approach than we saw in the previous 
administration, when detainees who refused to talk were subjected to 
torture techniques such as waterboarding.
  Real life is not like the TV show ``24.'' On TV, when Jack Bauer 
tortures someone, the suspect immediately admits everything he knows. 
Here is what we learned during the Bush administration. In real life, 
when people are tortured, they will say anything to make the pain stop. 
So they often provide false information, not valuable intelligence.
  Richard Clarke was the senior counterterrorism adviser to President 
Clinton and President George W. Bush. Here is what he said recently 
about the Obama administration's approach:

       The FBI is good at getting people to talk . . . they have 
     been much more successful than the previous attempts of 
     torturing people and trying to convince them to give 
     information that way.

  Would Abdulmutallab's family have traveled to the United States and 
persuaded him to cooperate if they thought he was being tortured here? 
I do not think so. A senior Obama administration official said:

       One of the principal reasons why his family came back is 
     that they had complete trust in the U.S. system of justice 
     and believed that [their son] would be treated fairly and 
     appropriately.

  You do not hear that much. There is a belief that if you do not 
waterboard a person or torture them, you are not going to get 
information. Exactly the opposite happened here. This man was treated 
respectfully through our system of justice. He was not given special 
favors. He was treated like the criminal who I believe he is, and yet 
he was treated in such a manner that his family was willing to come to 
the United States and beg him to cooperate with our government, which 
he did at the end of the day.
  So how do my Republican colleagues respond to this development? Did 
they commend the Obama administration for successfully bringing his 
family over and getting more information? No. They now claim the 
intelligence from him was worthless. They have no basis for saying 
that, but they do anyway.
  During the previous administration, Republicans argued that detainees 
held at Guantanamo were still providing valuable intelligence for years 
after they were arrested. Now they are saying that days and weeks after 
Abdulmutallab was arrested his intelligence was worthless. They cannot 
have it both ways.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue that Abdulmutallab 
should be held in military detention as an enemy combatant. But 
terrorists arrested in the United States have always been held under 
our criminal laws. Here is what Attorney General Eric Holder said in 
his letter to Senator McConnell:

       Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, the practice of the 
     U.S. government, followed by prior and current 
     Administrations without a single exception, has been to 
     arrest and detain under federal criminal law all terrorist 
     suspects who are apprehended inside the United States.

  Without exception. That was the standard under the Bush 
administration.
  The Bush administration did move two terror suspects out of the 
criminal justice system after they were arrested. One of them was Jose 
Padilla. He was designated as an enemy combatant and transferred to 
military detention. But then what happened? In a court filing, the Bush 
administration admitted that Padilla had not talked to his 
interrogators for 7 months. They said:

       There are numerous examples of situations where 
     interrogators have been unable to obtain valuable 
     intelligence from a subject until months--or even years, 
     after the interrogation process began.

  Two important points about the Padilla case: My Republican colleagues

[[Page S735]]

criticize the Obama administration for holding Abdulmutallab under our 
criminal laws. But Padilla was held in military detention and the Bush 
administration acknowledged that he did not talk to his interrogators 
for at least 7 months. Second, Republicans argue that intelligence from 
Abdulmutallab, after several weeks in detention, was stale and 
worthless, but the Bush administration argued that information gathered 
from Padilla after months--or even years--was still valuable.
  There is no consistency in the position they have taken on the other 
side of the aisle.
  In the end, the Bush administration changed course on Padilla. They 
transferred him back to the criminal justice system for prosecution. He 
was convicted. He is now serving a long sentence in a Federal supermax 
prison--convicted in our criminal courts.
  What about the shoe bomber? Richard Reid was also prosecuted and 
convicted in the criminal justice system. He is now serving a life 
sentence without parole in a Federal supermax prison, where he will 
never again threaten an American life.
  My Republican colleagues did not complain when the Bush 
administration prosecuted Reid and Padilla in criminal courts. But now 
they argue terrorists such as Abdulmutallab and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed 
should be tried in military commissions only because Federal courts are 
not well suited to prosecute terrorists.
  Well, let's look at the numbers. Since 9/11, 195 terrorists have 
successfully been prosecuted and convicted in our Federal court system. 
Besides Reid and Padilla, here are just a few of the terrorists who 
have been convicted in our Federal court system and are now serving 
long prison sentences: Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993 World 
Trade Center bombing; Omar Abdel Rahman, the so-called Blind Sheikh; 
and the 20th 9/11 hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui, who was tried across 
the river in Virginia and now sits in a prison cell in Florence, CO.

  Compare this with the track record of military commissions. Some 
would have us believe that military commissions have been so much more 
effective in going after terrorists. So let's look at the record. Mr. 
President, 195 terrorists have been successfully prosecuted and 
convicted in our criminal courts. How about military commissions? Since 
9/11, only three individuals have been convicted by military 
commissions--that is 195 to 3--and two of those individuals spent less 
than a year in prison and are now living freely in their home countries 
of Australia and Yemen.
  GEN Colin Powell, the former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and 
Secretary of State under President Bush, supports prosecuting 
terrorists in Federal courts. Here is what he said about military 
commissions last week:

       The suggestion that somehow a military commission is the 
     way to go isn't borne out by the history of the military 
     commissions.

  What would GEN Colin Powell know about the history of military 
commissions? A heck of a lot, having given his life to the U.S. 
military in dedication to his country. His opinion means a lot to me.
  Military commissions are unproven venues, which ultimately may serve 
us well in some circumstances, but to say they are all good and courts 
are all bad is to ignore the obvious and ignore the evidence.
  Just 2 days ago, there was more compelling evidence about the 
effectiveness of Federal courts. Attorney General Holder announced that 
Najibullah Zazi has pleaded guilty to plotting to bomb the New York 
subway system. Zazi, who planned the bombing with al-Qaida while he was 
in Pakistan, could be sentenced to life in prison without parole--
convicted in the Federal criminal courts.
  Here is what Attorney General Holder said about the subway bombing 
plot:

       This is one of the most serious terrorist threats to our 
     nation since September 11th, 2001 . . . This attempted attack 
     on our homeland was real, it was in motion, and it would have 
     been deadly. . . . In this case as in so many others, the 
     criminal justice system has proved to be an invaluable weapon 
     for disrupting plots and incapacitating terrorists.

  I hope all my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans--will join me in 
commending the Obama administration for their success in disrupting 
this dangerous plot and bringing Zazi to justice. I sincerely hope this 
case will cause some of the critics of trying terrorists in Federal 
courts pause to at least reflect on the obvious. This was a successful 
prosecution--another one, 195 of them since 9/11.
  There is a great irony here. For 8 long years, during the Bush-Cheney 
administration, Republicans used to argue that we should not criticize 
the administration's national security policies. Time and again, they 
told us it was inappropriate--maybe even un-American, some of them 
said--for Congress to ask basic questions about the Bush 
administration's policies on issues like Iraq, Guantanamo, torture, 
warrantless wiretapping. Time and again, we were reminded there is only 
one Commander-in-Chief. But now Republicans feel it is fair game to 
second-guess every decision President Obama makes in the area of 
combating terrorism.
  I think we have a right, an obligation, as Senators, to ask questions 
of all Presidents regardless of party. But I think we also have an 
obligation for fairness and balance, as one of the notorious networks 
says. In this case, I think if you look at the evidence in a fair and 
balanced fashion, you can see we are in a situation where the approach 
of using Federal criminal courts has worked. It has worked because we 
know we have the very best in the FBI and the Department of Justice, 
and they have a track record of success. We have an obligation to get 
the facts right when we either defend or criticize the President.
  I am also concerned about the tone of some of the criticism we have 
heard. We can surely disagree with this administration, but when I hear 
the President's critics suggest that he is soft on terrorism and he 
does not care about defending our country, that goes over the line, as 
far as I am concerned.
  Recently, Senator McConnell gave a speech to the Heritage Foundation, 
a conservative think tank on Capitol Hill, and he said the Obama 
administration ``has a pre-9/11 mindset'' and ``has a blind spot when 
it comes to prosecuting this war.'' I think those statements go too 
far.
  GEN Colin Powell has a different opinion, different than Senator 
McConnell. Here is what he said last weekend:

       To suggest that somehow we have become much less safe 
     because of the actions of the administration, I don't think 
     that's borne out by the facts.

  What is the motivation for this criticism of the President? Well, as 
Senator McConnell said to the Heritage Foundation:

       You can campaign on these issues anywhere in America.

  I guess he is right. I guess there is always room for fear, and 
peddling fear is something that is going to appeal to a lot of people. 
It is right that we be mindful of the threat of terrorism and we do 
everything in our power to stop it from ever occurring again. But 
living and quivering in fear, is that what America should be all about?
  Richard Clarke, the senior counterterrorism adviser to Presidents 
Clinton and Bush, said:

       Recent months have seen the party out of power picking 
     fights over the conduct of our efforts against Al Qaeda, 
     often with total disregard to the facts and frequently 
     blowing issues totally out of proportion, while ignoring the 
     more important challenges we face in defeating terrorists.

  Mr. President, 9 years after 9/11, al-Qaida still is a serious threat 
to America. We know that terrorists are plotting to attack us even as 
we speak. President Obama knows it as well. He understands as Commander 
in Chief that he has a special commitment to the American people to 
keep us safe. Congress is a political body and this is an election 
year, but this issue is too important to become a political football. 
Democrats and Republicans should be united in supporting all of the 
efforts of all of the good men and women, including the President, in 
trying to fight terrorism and keep America safe.

  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S736]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________