[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H275-H276]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           RADICAL ISLAMISTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Comstock). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 6, 2015, the Chair recognizes the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) for half the time remaining before 10 p.m.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, we have now learned that the 
administration is releasing or has released Muhammad al-Rahman al-
Shamrani, a 40-year-old citizen of Saudi Arabia. He was transferred to 
Saudi Arabia on January 11, 2016.
  Apparently, The New York Times had gotten ahold of documents 
regarding--and this is from an October 2008 recommendation for the 
continued detention under the Department of Defense control for 
Guantanamo detainee, and then it gives the long number--it is Muhammad 
al-Rahman al-Shamrani.
  If you read what purports to be secret--I don't know how The New York 
Times got it--but you read over in his file that this Guantanamo 
detainee--that would be Mr. Shamrani--on 14 October 2007 stated: ``When 
I get out of here, I will go to Iraq and Afghanistan and will kill as 
many Americans as I can. Then I will come here and kill more 
Americans.''
  He also stated: ``I love Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar, and if I 
ever get out of Guantanamo, I will go back to fight the Americans and 
kill as many as I can.''
  The detainee stated he hated all Americans and will seek revenge if 
ever released from Guantanamo. The detainee said that, if he is 
released, he would again participate in jihad against the enemies of 
Muslims, to include the United States. The detainee is proud of what he 
has done, and he is willing to do anything to fight against the enemies 
of Muslims. The detainee stated he decided to become more religious 
because of his dislike of the U.S. and its citizens.
  So for those who have been confused about the rules of civilized 
warfare, there is nothing illegal, unconstitutional against the Geneva 
Convention for holding people who are part of a group who are at war 
with your country until the group they are a part of announces they are 
no longer at war with you.
  Now, war was declared, as some of my Muslim leader friends in the 
Middle East and Africa tell me. It is obvious to the rest of the world 
that radical Islam declared war on the United States back in '79 after 
President Carter laid the foundation to allow what he called a man of 
peace to come in and take over ruling Iran. His name was Khomeini. It 
was after that that our American Embassy was attacked and over 50 
people taken hostages, Americans. Basically, we did nothing about it.
  So I know the President likes to say that Guantanamo is used as a 
recruiting tool, but the fact is, oh, basically, if we get rid of 
Guantanamo, then that pretty much eliminates anger at America.
  The fact is that while President Clinton was sending American 
military to protect Muslims who were being unfairly treated, there were 
not only attacks against Americans. There was planning going on, not 
only to attack the USS Cole, but to attack America, our facilities, our 
embassies, our buildings, and they were planning 9/11. There were no 
detainees at Guantanamo.
  Yet, all of this plotting and planning--and from my discussions with 
people in the Middle East when I have been over there, with people who 
are from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, when I have been in those 
countries--I haven't been into Syria, but I have been right there at 
its border--but they all say the same thing. What they use to recruit 
is in 1979 we were attacked by radical Islamists. We did nothing under 
President Carter.
  In '83, we were attacked and around 300 marines were killed in 
Beirut. Congress, under Democratic control, said we are getting our 
people out. So President Reagan ordered the evacuation from Beirut. 
Instead of fighting back, we ran home. I understand that Reagan felt 
that was one of the big mistakes of his Presidency.
  So the attacks have been ongoing. The World Trade Center attack in 
1993, the attack on the Khobar Towers, so many attacks under President 
Clinton. He sent a lot of tow missiles, blew up some tents. It seems 
maybe like there was an aspirin factory.
  It was not Guantanamo that was the driving force in all of those 
years, decades of war against the United States. It didn't exist. The 
elimination of Guantanamo will not end the animosity and the desire of 
radical Islamists to eliminate America from the map along with Israel.

                              {time}  2130

  And just to be clear, today the story from Susannah George, ``Islamic 
State Claims Responsibility for Baghdad Mall Attack,'' they are still 
at war. Whether they are JV or not, they are killing people.
  Adam Kredo from the Free Beacon reports today, ``Obama Administration 
Stonewalling Investigation into 113 Terrorists Inside United States'':
  ``Senators Ted Cruz and Jeff Sessions disclosed Monday that they had 
been pressuring the Obama administration for months to disclose the 
immigration

[[Page H276]]

histories of these foreign-born individuals implicated in terror 
plots.''
  Senators Cruz and Sessions wrote to the Secretaries of State and 
Homeland Security and the Attorney General: ``The American people are 
entitled to information on the immigration history of terrorists 
seeking to harm them.'' They note that we already knew 14 of the people 
that were brought over as refugees turned out to be terrorists, foreign 
terrorists, radical Islamists, but they were given legal entrance as 
refugees.
  We have a right to know how many of those 113 that have now been 
arrested for terrorism were foreign born, how many of them came in as 
refugees. These are all important.
  Then we see the story from yesterday by Jonah Bennett that almost 
half of California driver's licenses went to illegal immigrants in 
2015. Wow. Under the REAL ID Act, that means nobody from California 
should be able to use their driver's licenses to get on airplanes to 
travel in interstate commerce or foreign travel.
  And then the story from Philadelphia, January 8, absolutely tragic. A 
man walks up shooting police. A discussion today that there may be 
other people that were involved. The gunman said he shot the 
Philadelphia officer for the Islamic State. The police have said that. 
However, despite the fact that this radical Islamic terrorist has said 
he shot the police officer repeatedly in an ambush for Allah and for 
the Islamic State, here is the headline from a story by Dave Boyer from 
today: ``Obama Administration Wondering whether Shooting of Philly Cop 
Was Terrorist Act,'' because they don't take the radical Islamist 
terrorist who shot the policeman for Allah and for the Islamic State. 
Perhaps they think he is confused. He doesn't sound confused. He sounds 
like he knew exactly what he was doing when he walked up and ambushed, 
trying to kill by repeatedly shooting a Philadelphia policeman.
  The story of January 8 from Jay Solomon in The Wall Street Journal, 
``Nuclear Deal Fuels Iran's Hard-Liners,'' and it makes clear, as it 
says down here: ``As much as $100 billion in frozen revenues are 
expected to return to Iran after sanctions are lifted, which U.S. 
officials said could happen in coming weeks. The White House hoped the 
cash windfall would aid Mr. Rouhani's political fortunes.''
  Madam Speaker, mark my words. If that $100 billion to $150 billion is 
provided by this administration here in the United States of America to 
Iran, to its current radical Islamic leaders who hate the United 
States, who have not signed the deal that President Obama is so proud 
of--and they have breached it repeatedly already, we know--that money, 
some of that money will be used to finance the killing of Americans and 
Israelis.
  Now, back when I was a judge--years and years ago, a prosecutor--we 
would say, if you fund somebody who says they are going to use some of 
that money, as Iran has, to fund Hamas and Hezbollah, which we know are 
terrorist organizations, been named as such, and you know they are 
terrorist organizations, you know the money you are providing is going 
to, in turn, be provided to terrorist organizations.
  See, back when I was a prosecutor or judge, we would say: You know 
what? If you are knowingly providing money to someone who has already 
said they are going to give it to terrorists who are going to kill 
people, well, it sounds like there is a case to be made for you being 
as guilty as they are. Certainly, it goes beyond the pale of gross 
negligence, but that is hypothetically speaking.
  I am not a prosecutor. I am not a judge. I am not a chief justice 
anymore. But when is the sanity going to return when people who say 
they are your enemies who want death to America, continue to say 
``death to America,'' continue to say we are going to provide more 
money, once you give us that $100 billion, $150 billion, once you give 
us that, we are going to fund more terrorism, and it is already being 
reported. Just the announcement that the money is coming has already 
stimulated more attacks on those who would hope to be free in Iran. It 
is tragic, just tragic.
  But, in any event, we are living in perilous times. Many understand 
that there are radical Islamists who are at war with us. It is time to 
recognize that the release of a man who has said he wants to kill 
Americans and will after he is released should be taken at his word.
  I know there is some claim that he may not have said the things that 
are attributed to him by our own officers, our own personnel that were 
monitoring him, but let me just say that is a real easy one. There is 
video somewhere, unless that has been lost with some of the emails that 
were being pursued by Congress. Unless it has been lost with emails 
that have been deleted to try to avoid turning them over to Congress, 
those videos can be consulted, and we can know for sure whether this 
Islamic radical that President Obama has released from Guantanamo said 
the things that our people said he said.
  I was hearing some of my friends' comments about the gun laws. I know 
we all share the desire to lessen and eliminate gun violence in 
America. The thousands of felony cases that came through my court 
caused me repeatedly to think back. I don't recall anybody who 
committed a crime with a gun that got it legally. Outlaws don't get 
guns legally.
  It has been made clear that the things our President has proposed 
would not have stopped one of these mass murderers that he now says 
spur him on to take action. I would encourage my friends: Let's work to 
take action that will actually stop the mass murders, that will 
actually stop the gun violence, but that will not occur by taking guns 
out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________