[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 35 (Tuesday, March 12, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1674-S1676]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           TERRORISTS TRIALS

  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an issue I am 
very concerned about, which involves a man who was recently captured 
overseas. His name is Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, and he is Osama bin Laden's 
son-in-law. Here is a photo of him sitting next to Osama bin Laden. In 
fact, he appeared with Osama bin Laden right after the 9/11 attacks on 
our country.
  He is Osama bin Laden's son-in-law, captured overseas and brought to 
the United States of America. The Attorney General has made the 
announcement Osama bin Laden's son-in-law

[[Page S1675]]

will be tried in New York City in a civilian trial rather than being 
brought to Guantanamo Bay for further interrogation and held in 
military custody.
  I am very concerned about this issue as this is a man who, based upon 
the relationship he had with Osama bin Laden in 2001 and 2002, served 
as a spokesman for al-Qaida. He urged others to swear allegiance to 
Osama bin Laden. On September 12, 2001, he appeared with Osama bin 
Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. He is shown in this photo.
  He warned the United States and its allies, ``A great army is 
gathering against you.'' He also called on all Muslims to battle the 
Jews, Christians, and Americans. He also promised more 9/11-style 
attacks. Right after our country was attacked on September 11, he 
appeared with Osama bin Laden warning of more September 11 attacks. He 
said, ``The storms shall not stop, especially the airplane storms.''
  In 2002, he reportedly arranged to be smuggled to Iran where he was 
held under some form of house arrest. Obviously, we need to understand 
why the Iranians were allowing such a prominent member of al-Qaida to 
be kept in their country. We have deep concerns about Iran, which is 
the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. It is threatening 
our country and right now marching toward nuclear weapons capability. 
It has threatened to annihilate Israel and threaten our country, while 
he was under loose house arrest following his direct allegiance with 
Osama bin Laden.
  In addition, American authorities have tied him to an October 8, 
2002, attack on the U.S. Marines while training on an island off the 
coast of Kuwait. This was a situation where one of our marines was 
killed and another was seriously injured.
  The attack was conducted by al-Qaida fighters with direct ties to Mr. 
Abu Ghaith, who is Mr. Osama bin Laden's son-in-law. Kuwait actually 
stripped Mr. Abu Ghaith of his citizenship because of his role in 
recruiting Kuwaitis to become members of al-Qaida.
  Last week he pled guilty to charges in Federal court in New York 
City. I am concerned when we take a top member of al-Qaida after his 
capture overseas, such as Osama bin Laden's son-in-law, bring him to 
our courts in New York City, and then all the full rights of our 
civilian court system apply to this individual. This includes the 
right, when one is in custody and interrogated, to hear Miranda rights.
  My former role was as attorney general for the State of New 
Hampshire. I have great respect for our civilian system; however, our 
civilian system was not designed to deal with situations where we are 
at war. Mr. Abu Ghaith falls clearly within the definition of what this 
body has authorized as the use of military force against an enemy 
belligerent. When we bring him to New York City, we must Mirandize him 
and inform him he has the right to remain silent. We lose valuable 
opportunities to gather intelligence, to protect our country, and to 
discover if he was with Osama bin Laden.
  We have photos of him one day after the September 11 attack. What 
does he know about al-Qaida? Who else was involved? What does he know 
about their network? During the time he spent in Iran, was he still 
communicating with members of al-Qaida? Obviously, he was because we 
allege he helped commit an attack in 2002 in Kuwait which killed at 
least one marine.
  Who was he communicating with? What future attacks are they planning? 
What associations has he made with members of al-Qaida? When we tell 
someone such as this he has the right to remain silent and give him a 
lawyer, we lose opportunities to protect our country.
  When we are at war, as we are with al-Qaida, we need to focus to 
discover as much information as possible about al-Qaida: who they are 
targeting and who are the members of al-Qaida. Obviously, all of us 
supported the President's decision to take out Osama bin Laden. Who are 
the other members of his network? What information are we losing when 
we bring him to a civilian court system instead of bringing him where 
he belongs as an enemy belligerent in Guantanamo Bay?
  It seems to me inconsistent that the administration would take the 
position--and I support them on this--they would kill top members of 
al-Qaida overseas. Yet they are so averse--when they capture someone--
to bringing them to Guantanamo Bay. It is their preference to take them 
into a civilian court system in the United States of America, where 
they must read Miranda rights to that individual rather than take them 
where they belong, to Guantanamo Bay.

  I have visited Guantanamo, which is a secure detention facility where 
people are treated humanely, kept very securely, but not on U.S. soil. 
We may keep them in Guantanamo Bay under the law of war and interrogate 
the individual as long as we need to.
  Let me remind everyone the intelligence we gathered, which allowed us 
to find and take out Osama bin Laden, took a matter of not just months 
but years to gather. To take someone such as Sulaiman Abu Ghaith and 
immediately, after he is captured, very quickly bring him to New York 
City, we lose the opportunity to go back to him over time to understand 
the full amount of information he may have about al-Qaida. This is why 
we have a distinction under our law between the law of war and our 
civilian system.
  He is not a bank robber. He is not an average criminal who should be 
treated the same way as any other criminal in America. He is someone 
who has sworn to kill Americans and has asked others to take the oath 
for al-Qaida, which is at war with our country. I am very worried about 
the fact the administration seems to be bent on bringing these foreign 
terrorists to the United States to give them all of the rights of our 
civilian court system rather than focusing on ensuring we have all the 
intelligence we need to protect our country.
  I would like to also speak about another individual and the 
inconsistency we have here. This is Anwar al-Awlaki. Anwar al-Awlaki 
was an American citizen. He was radicalized, possessed both American 
and Yemeni citizenship, and became a leader for al-Qaida in the Arabian 
Peninsula. He advocated for violent jihad against the United States and 
has been linked to a dozen terrorist investigations in the United 
States. These include links to the September 11 attacks against our 
country and links to the November 5, 2009, Fort Hood shooting.
  The administration made the decision in September 2011 to take out 
Mr. al-Awlaki overseas in Yemen. I certainly support their decision in 
that regard.
  I want to point out how inconsistent it is that we are willing to use 
the drone program to take out someone like al-Awlaki, and yet we will 
not use all the tools in our toolbox to ensure Osama bin Laden's son-
in-law is held at Guantanamo and fully interrogated to give us the time 
we need to gather the full information he has. It is very inconsistent, 
and I think the administration should be detaining enemy belligerents 
in Guantanamo and ensuring they are interrogated.
  I wish to mention one final person, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Let's not 
forget the administration's first decision with the mastermind of 9/11, 
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, was to bring him to New York City for a 
civilian trial in New York close to Ground Zero, as they are now making 
the decision with Osama bin Laden's son-in-law.
  The public outrage was great over bringing Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to 
New York City due to the amount of security it would take to secure 
someone like him. There was the concern he should be treated as an 
enemy of our country and tried by a military commission in Guantanamo. 
He was transferred there eventually by the administration, but only 
after great pressure from both sides of the aisle in Congress to say it 
would be appropriate that the mastermind of 9/11 belongs in Guantanamo 
before a military commission.
  I think we find ourselves in the same situation now with Osama bin 
Laden's son-in-law. There can be no doubt he is a top member of al-
Qaida; that he had close relationships with Osama bin Laden; that he is 
charged with conspiring to kill Americans. These are very serious 
charges, and there can be no doubt that he falls within our operation 
and the use of military force; that he is an enemy of our country and 
that we should be treating him in a similar fashion as to how we 
treated Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.
  Most of all, we need to prioritize intelligence gathering to prevent 
future

[[Page S1676]]

attacks against our country rather than focusing on bringing them 
immediately into our civilian court system. A man such as Osama bin 
Laden's son-in-law should never hear the words ``You have the right to 
remain silent.'' We can't afford to have him be silent. We need to know 
everything he knows to protect our country, its citizens, and to 
prevent future attacks on America and our allies.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Has all time 
expired from the respective parties utilizing their morning business 
allocation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has.

                          ____________________