[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 23895-23901]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



       HISTORY OF THE CIVIL WAR, MILITARY TRIBUNALS AND DETENTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is recognized for 60 
minutes.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, obviously the last hour of conversation was 
very one-sided, and clearly no opportunity to rebut it; so I intend to 
address a couple of comments by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) 
and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) because I think clearly they 
were either confused or there was some confusion in the research that 
they did for their comments.
  Then I intend to move on from that and address my primary subject 
this evening, military tribunals, the question of treason against the 
individual who claims that he is an American, apparently is an 
American, and has been captured by the Northern Alliance and now turned 
over to American troops.
  I would also like to talk about what is called detention of certain 
individuals in the country under this investigation and protection of 
the security of the Nation.
  First of all, let me address a few comments made by the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). First of all, it would be some benefit to her 
to study history of the Civil War. She would find, probably to her 
surprise, that the Civil War was not driven by economics; the Civil War 
was driven by the principle of slavery.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will not interrupt me.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) 
mentioned my name.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I have the floor and I ask the courtesy 
that that rule be respected, and say to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur), I would be happy to yield to the gentlewoman on another 
occasion. However, they had 1 hour of uninterrupted time. Perhaps at 
the end of my hour, I would be happy to have that conversation with the 
gentlewoman. Prior to that, I have no intention of yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, let me go back to the Civil War. The comment made about 
the Civil War was driven by economics, come on, give me a break. It was 
not economics; it was slavery.
  Let us go on to another comment. The Middle East problems are because 
of trade. Jimminy Christmas, somebody has to study some history here 
before those kinds of comments are made to our colleagues.
  Clearly there are economic issues anywhere in the world; but the 
economic issues, contrary to what the gentlewoman from Ohio has said, 
they are not the driving problem in the Middle East. What I would 
suggest to the gentlewoman, with all due respect, is to take a look at 
the religious history of those countries, and I think she will find 
more of the fundamental problem in the Middle East has to do with the 
religious differences and the religious histories of those regions of 
the world than it does whether or not America allows their President to 
have authority on Fast Track.
  I think it is a little unfair for any of us, and this includes the 
gentlewoman from Ohio, and I say this with due respect, nobody else is 
here to rebut it, and I think the gentlewoman before she carries on 
about a personal conversation between she and the President of the 
United States, especially a conversation that was not intended to be of 
kindness towards the President of the United States, that those 
conversations also allow for a response from the executive branch so we 
hear both sides of the story. It is not to question the accuracy of 
what the gentlewoman from Ohio said. Maybe she was accurate in her 
comments about what the President said, but I think the President or a 
representative of the executive branch ought to be included in this 
debate so we hear both sides of it.

                              {time}  2215

  Finally, let me stress, and then I will move on to the comments of 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and the comments of the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), let me tell my colleagues, an isolationist view 
is not going to cut it. If we had adopted the type of view that is 
proposed by the gentlewoman, how would we ever build a coalition, for 
example, to help us in our war against terrorism? Trade has to be fair 
trade. There is no question about it. I do not know one of my 
colleagues, I do not know a Democrat, I do not know a Republican, I do 
not know either one of them, that proposes that the United States enter 
into an agreement that puts the United States at a disadvantage. I know 
none of my colleagues that want the United States at a disadvantage in 
a trade agreement. Maybe I am wrong, and I stand corrected. By the way, 
I will yield time to any one of my colleagues that wants to come up and 
say they are willing to agree to an agreement that puts the United 
States at a disadvantage. None of us agree to that. Of course not. That 
is pretty fundamental. The only reason people are supporting trade is 
because they think in the long run it benefits the United States of 
America. It is not because of, as some have suggested, corporate greed 
for an effort to revolutionize the Middle East or some of these other 
things that have been mentioned, I think somewhat recklessly. It is not 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, all of us in our own heart of hearts have differing 
views on this floor, but I can tell my colleagues that the view of just 
saying that look, the only time we are ever going to agree with trade 
with other countries or to trade agreements with other countries is the 
idealistic view that everything the United States wants is everything 
the United States gets or we are going to take our ball and go home. I 
think an agreement ought to benefit the United States of America, but I 
do not think we are ever going to reach many agreements, including with 
many constituents who I think are

[[Page 23896]]

benefited in the State of Ohio, I do not think we are going to reach 
many agreements if it has to be 100 percent for the United States and 
zero for the other side.
  Take a look at our agreements with Canada. They are critical about 
the free trade agreements we have. Look at the Canadian trade. Sure, we 
have disagreements with them on beef, we have disagreements with them 
on some of the fisheries and so on. But take a look at all of the 
products that go back and forth across those borders. That border is 
probably the most traded border in the world. It has been a pretty darn 
good relationship, and the United States has benefited from it over the 
years.
  Now let me comment about the comments of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Brown) which I think were most unfortunate. The gentleman made a 
comment, and I am quoting to the best of my ability here: We should not 
pull our standards down to Mexico, our environmental standards, our 
labor standards, et cetera. Remember what was just said. We should not 
in these trade agreements pull our standards down to Mexico. I 
challenge the gentleman on that. I challenge that gentleman to show me 
one trade agreement, one trade agreement that requires the United 
States to reduce its environmental protections within the boundaries of 
the United States of America. I challenge the gentleman from Ohio, 
contrary to what he has said, but I am asking him to show that he is 
correct. I am asking him to buttress his argument with facts, show me 
where the air quality of the United States is required to be reduced or 
made more dangerous because of some kind of trade agreement where we 
agree with some other country that our air standards, our water 
standards, our sewer standards, our hazardous waste standards, should 
be lowered because the other country wants to trade with us. That, in 
my opinion, is flat wrong. The facts do not support it. Yet the 
statement is made.
  If I were not here, this statement would have gone unrebutted. The 
statement is freely made on this House floor to all of my colleagues 
that when the United States, when they asked the United States to give 
the President fast track authority, what they are doing is asking the 
United States to lower its environmental standards for the United 
States. That is not correct. That is inaccurate. I would hope that the 
gentleman tomorrow makes a corrective statement.
  Now, I give the gentleman credit. The gentleman is a very bright man, 
very capable, obviously. So perhaps the gentleman misspoke, and I would 
hope that tomorrow he has the opportunity with the Record to correct 
that kind of statement because, frankly, it is now a part of the 
Record, and I think we have to be very careful about those statements 
that continue as a part of the Record and may later on be introduced in 
some type of proceeding.
  My comments were not intended this evening to center on a rebuttal of 
the previous 1 hour. Let me make it clear to my colleagues out here, my 
purpose in rebuttal was simply that no one else was responding to these 
charges and, under the rules, the previous speakers did not violate any 
rules, they spoke in the time that was allotted to them. They were 
allotted an hour and they gave their side. Well, I did not intend to 
speak on their specific subject. I do feel that sometimes it is a 
little unfortunate up here that one side speaks and the other side is 
not heard, so that is exactly why I spent the first 10 minutes of my 
comments this evening at least giving somewhat of a perspective of the 
other side, so we can have a little bit more of an open debate based on 
facts versus emotional charges of which, in my opinion, the previous 
hour was full of.
  Let me move on. We have seen in the news in the last couple of days 
something that I guess we should have expected would happen but, 
nonetheless, we were all taken back a little bit by it. None of us 
really envisioned that an American, an American young man would go over 
to Afghanistan and join the Taliban. None of us suspected that a young 
man would take on the cause of atrocities against the people that a 
government represents. Take a look at the abuse of the women, the abuse 
of the people of that society. Well, it happened. A young man, 20 years 
old, I guess his name is Richard Walker, Mr. Walker. He has changed his 
name legally. I do not know what the new name is, but at one point he 
was known as Mr. Walker, 20 years old.
  Let me give some facts, the facts as they have been presented to us, 
we will have to determine, these are subject to change, but as of right 
now this is apparently what happened. The young man dropped out of 
school, decided to convert to Islam and, at some point in his 
conversion to Islam, decided to take or adhere to a very radical 
interpretation of Islam, which most of the people of Islam that I know 
of say is not a part of Islam, that this radical approach by the 
Taliban and by bin Laden is an incorrect interpretation of the Koran. 
But this gentleman, this 20-year-old man, decided to take the study and 
decided to affiliate with the radical aspect or the radical 
interpretation, especially when it came to Jihad. So he took up arms 
apparently with the al Qaeda in support of bin Laden, fighting, 
fighting his brothers and sisters in the United States of America. In 
other words, the facts show that in an earlier e-mail to his father; 
now, I just heard ``father,'' I would assume to his parents, let us 
just say to his parents at this point, e-mailed arguments in support of 
the right to blow up the USS Cole. Remember, that is the ship, I say to 
my colleagues, that a few months ago a boat full of explosives blew up 
the side, I think it killed 18 sailors. Also, at the time of his 
detention when he was captured in Afghanistan a few days ago, his 
comments were such that he supported the fighting action and the acts 
of terrorism taken against the United States on September 11. On top of 
this, this American citizen was also found with an AK-47.
  So those are facts. Now, each of those facts on their own, well, with 
the exception of maybe the AK-47, but the fact that an American citizen 
agreed that the USS Cole should have been bombed, that in itself is not 
a charge. I mean we do have freedom of speech in our country, although 
certainly that is a very, very small, small minority of opinion from 
this country. Certainly he is entitled as an American to make those 
kinds of statements. A person saying that they support actions, the 
terrorism actions against this country on September 11, those 
statements made by an American citizen, while clearly wrong, it is a 
right of freedom of speech to make them.
  But it is the accumulation of these that begin to outline exactly 
what I think this individual should be charged with. When we take those 
comments and we add them with the fact that this young man was captured 
in a battle when the opposing troops who fired upon American soldiers 
with the intent of killing American soldiers, who fired upon American 
aircraft and allied aircraft with the intent of bringing down those 
aircraft, who was involved with an organization that we know has 
savagely killed people in that country and, of course, was also the 
organization responsible for the attacks on September 11, when we 
combine it with that and the fact that he was arrested with an AK-47, 
we begin to say, wait a minute; this is an American who has turned as a 
trader against his country, he has betrayed his country, he has left 
America, maybe not formally by denouncing his citizenship, but the fact 
is, there may be an automatic denouncement of one's citizenship if, in 
fact, one takes up arms with the enemy and fights against the United 
States of America and attempts to kill citizens of the United States of 
America in an action, in a war against the United States.
  That is a question that I am not really prepared to answer tonight, 
but I was interested in what would we charge this young man with, or 
should we charge him with anything? We have heard some argument come 
out in the last couple of days that oh, the poor little kid, the poor 
young boy, he is confused. We ought to do what some of the Afghans are 
allowed to do. The Taliban that are Afghans of nationality, some of 
them have been allowed

[[Page 23897]]

to surrender their arms and go home. There is some argument that this 
young man should be allowed to drop his arms and come back to the 
United States and go home.
  That is a hard one for me to swallow. I do not think we have that 
case at all. I think what we have is a clear-cut case of treason. I say 
this carefully. I have been spending the last several hours in my 
office doing a lot of research. I listened to, frankly, Jonathan 
Turley, an expert in constitutional law. I should let my colleagues 
know I was a lawyer, I am legally educated, I am not a constitutional 
lawyer, do not pretend to be; but Mr. Turley is, and I listened to his 
arguments this evening on the Bill O'Riley Show, and both of those 
individuals spoke with some eloquence on this issue.
  I want to look at the Constitution itself. Treason is such a serious 
crime. In our Constitution, we do not describe within the four corners 
of our Constitution homicide, we do not talk about burglaries, we do 
not talk about speeding or any of these other acts. There are a couple 
of acts that we talk about, but the first crime of this Nation, and 
probably the most egregious crime against this Nation is addressed in 
the Constitution, and I have it right here in front of me. That is the 
crime of treason. So I am asking my colleagues tonight, because we 
might, and I hope we do not, but we might discover there are some other 
Americans who have betrayed this Nation who have committed treason, in 
my opinion, against this country, and we really ought to assess, should 
we just turn our cheek in the other direction simply because the 
gentleman had an American citizenship card? Or should we look at how 
horrible the act of treason is against this country, so significant 
that the drafters of our Constitution included it within the 
Constitution, the definition and the description of treason against 
this country.
  Let me refer my colleagues here to Article III under the Judicial 
Department, section 3, Treason against the United States. ``Treason 
against the United States shall consist only in levying war against 
them,'' them refers to the United States, ``or in adhering to their 
enemies.'' In other words, they are going to join the enemies, giving 
them aid and comfort.

                              {time}  2230

  Giving them aid and comfort: ``No person,'' and this is interesting 
in the crime of treason, ``no person shall be convicted of treason 
unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or a 
confession in open court.''
  There are a number of issues presented by this paragraph. Let us go 
section by section. Let us go in reverse order.
  First of all, a confession in open court. Where will this case be 
tried? Is this the type of case we would try in a military tribunal? I 
think there is wide agreement this would not be tried in a military 
tribunal. He is an American citizen. The military tribunals were not 
intended for American citizens. So because of the fact that he is an 
American citizen, it probably will be tried in the Federal courts, not 
a military tribunal nor in the military courts.
  Two witnesses to an overt act. Why is it important? Our forefathers 
saw treason as such a horrible crime against the Nation, as a crime of 
such significance against this Nation, that they said we could not 
build it on circumstantial evidence alone, we actually had to have two 
witnesses to the act of treason.
  We do not want to convict someone of treason, was the thought of the 
drafters of the Constitution, unless we know and have witness to the 
treasonal acts carried out by these individuals. So that is stated very 
clearly.
  Now, let us jump, here. Giving them aid and comfort. There is no 
question that the facts as we know them so far are that this individual 
gave aid and comfort to the Taliban. He considered himself a member of 
the Taliban. He probably had dual citizenship, and there is actually 
some point about dual citizenship.
  This is a further interpretation of treason:
  ``An American citizen owes allegiance to the United States of 
America,'' wherever they may reside. So in our interpretation, under 
our Constitution, it is clearly the intent of the Constitution that an 
American citizen owes allegiance to the United States, owes allegiance 
to our Nation, wherever they may reside. It does not matter whether one 
lives in Japan, whether one lives in Afghanistan, whether one lives in 
Europe, that as a citizen of the United States of America, one owes 
allegiance to the United States of America. Dual nationality does not 
alter that situation.
  So some might say, wait a minute, he was a citizen of the Taliban 
government and he was a citizen of the United States of America, so he 
had a dual citizenship. He has a conflict. He had an obligation to 
carry out the wishes of bin Laden and the Taliban government and the al 
Qaeda.
  But we have already addressed that situation. This is not a new 
factual situation. It is very clear: wait a minute, it does not matter 
what other countries one has a citizenship to, but if one is a citizen 
of the United States of America one must have allegiance to the United 
States of America.
  That standard of allegiance is not in any fashion diluted by the fact 
that one also has citizenship of another country. So keep that in mind, 
because I am sure as the defense attorneys start to put this together, 
that will be an argument as brought up initially. It will be quickly 
squashed by the courts, because it is clear under our law that one's 
allegiance to the United States of America is not diluted, that the 
standard of allegiance is not diluted because one has dual citizenship.
  Now, we are already beginning to see the old defense tricks starting 
to bubble up in some of these interviews that I have seen just in the 
last 24 hours. I do not practice law anymore under the ethics of the 
House, but when I practiced law, I was able to observe a lot of 
criminal defense work. I was not a criminal defense attorney. In fact, 
I need to be fair and give a little disclosure: I used to be a police 
officer. I served in a squad car on the street before I went on to law 
school.
  I was not a prosecuting attorney, either; but I did like to observe, 
out of interest, a defense attorney work. There is kind of a basic 
rule, a fundamental rule if one is going to defend somebody.
  Number one, if they are innocent, that is the best defense one can 
get. If one's client is innocent, you could not ask for a better 
defense, because the facts will play it out. It is a strong weapon to 
go into the courtroom with, that is, that the client is innocent.
  But a lot of times one does not get that benefit. A lot of times the 
client is not innocent. Then what one tries to do is to divert from the 
lack of innocence of the client and divert attention to the people who 
are accusing the client.
  For example, they might allege sloppy police work or that the witness 
was having an affair or is a known liar or has some incentive to turn 
witness against the client; do anything you can to divert from your 
client's lack of innocence to some kind of vendetta or sloppy work, and 
therefore your client has been unjustly charged.
  If those two steps do not work, then go to the traditional, and 
probably as long as this country has been around, probably as long as 
defense law has been around, but certainly much more prevalent in this 
country in the last 10 or 15 years, go to that old standard, ``My 
client was a victim.'' That is exactly what we are beginning to see 
here in the last 24 hours with this young man who I allege committed 
treason against the United States of America.
  By the way, I have sympathy, but that is about the extent of it, for 
the parents of this child. I am a parent, about the same age as the 
father. I would be horrified if one of my children was doing the same 
thing. But the fact is that it does not forgive it.
  What we are beginning to see is that this young man was a victim; 
that somehow, as the father said yesterday, he was brainwashed; or he 
was a victim of the Taliban; or they put pressure on him; or, you know, 
he was such a young man.
  Let me tell the Members, the people he was shooting at were young men 
and

[[Page 23898]]

women, too; young men and women who were not brainwashed, so to speak; 
young men and women who obeyed the allegiance to the Constitution of 
their Nation; young men and women out there who this young man was 
trying to aid and comfort the enemy of, and joined the enemy in 
attempting to wipe out the United States.
  Those thousands and thousands of citizens killed on September 11 were 
innocent. And by the way, there was the most fundamental violation of 
wartime moral ethics, and that is, one does not attack innocent 
citizens; one attacks a military target under a situation like this.
  But what we are beginning to see is some kind of sympathy buildup for 
this young man, because he was young and, oh, my gosh, the parents are 
horrified. I understand the parents, by the way; I feel for them. But 
that is all the further it can go. Our Nation cannot allow, cannot 
allow us to turn our cheek on the Constitution, on an act like treason; 
an act, as I said earlier in my comments, that was taken so seriously 
it was put in the Constitution.
  It is right here. It was put in the four corners of that Constitution 
to tell us that treason is probably not only the first crime recognized 
by this Nation, but one of the most serious crimes recognized by this 
Nation.
  So I am going to look with interest to see exactly how this is 
handled. And obviously, from my statements, Mr. Speaker, this evening, 
Members know that my thoughts are that this gentleman should be tried 
in the Federal courts for treason against the United States of America 
and that he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
  Let us move on. We have had a busy evening so far. I want to talk 
about another issue that is very important, that is, military 
tribunals.
  There has been a lot of talk. The talk radios are full of it, the 
newspapers, lots of editorializing on both sides of the issue. So I 
wanted to lay out some of the facts.
  I have spent a lot of time. I have been on several shows talking 
about military tribunals. I think I am somewhat knowledgeable on the 
subject; I do not claim to be an expert in much of anything. But the 
fact is, I do want to share my views on these military tribunals. I 
think there are some legitimate, good reasons to support military 
tribunals.
  I know some of my colleagues are dead set against this kind of thing 
and that somehow they have bought the ticket that this is a violation 
of civil liberties, that this is unconstitutional, et cetera. I will 
address those points. All I am asking is that for a few minutes Members 
give me consideration of presenting the other side of the issue, the 
side that supports the need for military tribunals.
  First of all, Members should remember that the actual rules of the 
military tribunal have not been laid out specifically; but I think we 
can feel very confident, and I think they will be required by the 
standards set for military tribunals throughout the history of this 
country, that the defendant obviously will have the right to counsel; 
the defendant obviously will have the right to testify; the defendant 
will have a full and a fair trial; the defendant can be assured that 
they will not be prejudiced against because of race, gender, or status; 
that they can freely exercise their religion while in captivity; that 
they will be given food and shelter and the other things that are 
provided for people, citizens that are alleged of a crime.
  So do not let people tell us that for some reason they are not going 
to get legal counsel. I will talk about the secrecy issue a little 
later on, but the secrecy is not going to apply to the extent that it 
denies the defendants in these cases a full and a fair trial. If it 
did, they would be unconstitutional.
  Now, the constitutionality of military tribunals has twice been 
addressed by the United States Supreme Court. Twice the United States 
Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of military tribunals. 
So as we hear people say, well, it is unconstitutional, I think we need 
to say, wait a minute, be a little more specific. If the military 
tribunals follow the same standards or the same course of conduct as 
previous military tribunals have, they have been found constitutional. 
So on what basis can people say they are unconstitutional?
  The fact is, they are constitutional. There is a lot of history to 
military tribunals. They did not just start with President Bush. 
Remember, President Bush's priority is not to get the defendants, not 
to create some type of new Constitution in this country, not to usurp 
the current Constitution. President Bush's primary drive here is to 
protect the security of U.S. citizens.
  When we have to decide, okay, which way do we lean, in favor of 
protection, home security, homeland security for the citizens of the 
United States, or should we sacrifice homeland security for the 
citizens of the United States to go out and quell the concerns of a few 
civil libertarians, who, by the way, do not have the law on their side? 
The law is not on the side of those who are saying it is 
unconstitutional; the law is on the other side, saying it is 
constitutional.
  The President I think very accurately and very correctly has made his 
point clear. His number one priority is the security of the United 
States of America. The people of the United States of America come 
first. The security of those people is an inherent obligation not only 
of the President of the United States as Commander in Chief, but the 
security of this Nation and the security of the people of this Nation 
is an inherent obligation of everyone sitting in the United States 
Congress or the United States Senate or in any public office, or 
working for the government. Their number one priority is the citizens 
of the United States and the protection of the citizens of the United 
States.
  Let me give just a little history. Many people are surprised by the 
history of these tribunals. This history started in the Revolutionary 
War. Military tribunals were held at the very beginning of this country 
in the Revolutionary War. There were spies that were caught behind U.S. 
lines during the Revolutionary War, military tribunals in 1776. 
President Lincoln's assassination, 1865, a military tribunal; military 
tribunals right there under the assassination under President Lincoln, 
or because of President Lincoln's assassination.
  World War II, Japanese officers who failed to prevent their troops 
from committing atrocities during World War II, those Japanese officers 
were subject to a military tribunal. That tribunal was taken to the 
United States Supreme Court, and it was found constitutional.
  Nazi saboteurs who landed on the coast of the United States in 1942 
with the intent to destroy industrial facilities. Those military 
tribunals also had as part of the punishment death penalties which were 
carried out against these saboteurs. The United States Supreme Court 
also found that military tribunal was constitutional.
  There is history in this country. This is not a precedent-setting 
event. Military tribunals are a necessity.
  Now let us talk about why are they necessary. What are some of the 
reasons that we have to have them? I think today, I have to tell the 
Members, I have to give credit to the editorial today in the Wall 
Street Journal. In one editorial, I think the Wall Street Journal set 
out probably as clear a picture as I have seen in this debate as to the 
justification for the military tribunals.
  I am not going to read the editorial to Members, but I will talk 
about and discuss certain elements of that editorial.
  They talk about, of course, the recent cases that have pertained to 
acts of terrorism: the first attack on the World Trade Center, the 
bombings of the U.S. embassies in Africa. The Wall Street Journal talks 
about the good news about these trials; and by the way, they were held 
in Federal courts. The good news about these trials was they managed to 
get convictions. The bad news was that they were protracted, long 
trials, expensive trials, and very dangerous trials to the 
participants, meaning the jurors, the judges, the court reporters.

[[Page 23899]]

  Everyone that had everything to do with the government side of the 
business was under a threat of danger. In fact, it says, some of those 
judges involved in those cases still have security measures taken on 
their behalf to protect them as a result of holding those trials.
  Now, think for a moment, and this is not in the Wall Street Journal 
editorial, but think for a moment on these military tribunals. Let us 
just take out of the air, let us say we capture some al Qaeda members. 
Say we capture 100 of them. That is not unreasonable. There are 
thousands of them.
  Let us say 100 of them are captured and brought to the United States. 
Where are Members going to find 100 additional Federal judges, 100 
Federal courthouses, that can be cordoned off, blocked off, checked 
every day for anthrax, checked for bombs? Where are we going to find a 
courthouse where we can get a jury that is willing to sit, a jury 
deciding on al Qaeda, when we know we do not have every one in our 
custody; when they are constantly reminded in this trial of what 
happened in New York City on the acts of terrorism?
  Where are we going to find, without hampering and deadlocking the 
rest of the Federal court system, where are we going to get all of 
these judges to decide on this? Then what do you do, provide those 
judges with lifetime round-the-clock security for the rest of their 
lives?

                              {time}  2245

  That is why an option of a military tribunal which is constitutional, 
which allows the defendant a fair and full trial, which allows the 
defendant legal counsel, which allows the defendant the same rights of 
food and shelter and a nondiscrimination allowed to any other prisoner 
in the United States, that is one of the reasons these military 
tribunals make sense.
  Let us go on, because the issue you have heard a lot of, ``secret,'' 
and, boy, do they play up on the word ``secret.'' Oh, my gosh. Secret. 
You cannot have a secret hearing. Well, wait a minute. Sometimes it is 
necessary to have a secret hearing because there are a lot of people 
that would like to find out exactly what we know about their 
organizations, their terrorist organizations.
  For example, they say in here in the Wall Street Journal, they talk 
about that the World Trade Center trial, remember that trial a few 
months ago, in fact, the defendants were sentenced I think the day or 2 
days after the September 11 bombing or act of terror. They talk about 
what was revealed in the first trial which was held in open court, not 
in a secret hearing.
  This testimony that was open to the public including the al Qaeda 
network, the testimony in the first World Trade Center trial included 
lengthy testimony about the structure and the stability of the twin 
towers.
  So, in other words, these twin towers, the World Trade Centers, the 
stability and the structural makeup of those towers was discussed in 
open court in the first World Trade Center, so that the people that 
were interested in taking down the towers could figure out why a bomb 
in the basement did not bring it down, but what would in fact be able 
to bring it down based on the structure weaknesses and the stability. 
That was in open court.
  Do you think that is something we ought to be discussing in an open 
court? In other words, daring them to try it again and providing them, 
as the Wall Street Journal says, it is almost like giving out your 
troop movement. You are engaged in a war. We do not want to hold it 
secret from the enemy where our troops are going to be, so we better 
disclose our troop movements before we go into it. That is exactly what 
we are concerned about. The confidential information. How we found out 
about these al Qaeda. How we arrested them. What are our resources? Who 
are our sources of information? What kind of satellite intervention, 
what kind of interception did we use?
  All of those secrets could be forced to be revealed in an open court 
setting. So what we have proposed is a military tribunal. And while a 
tribunal would allow facts like that to be held in secret, it would not 
deny the defendant a fair and full trial. It would fall within the 
bounds of constitutionality, and we can bet that any conviction taken 
out there will certainly go to the United States Supreme Court on the 
question of constitutionality. And I can assure you that the 
prosecutors, the United States of America, the people of the United 
States of America, do not want a trial that is going to be found 
unconstitutional. They do want to stay within the bounds of the 
Constitution. But they also want the priority, while staying within 
those bounds, that the priority should be homeland security, that we 
need to install just a little common sense.
  Do not buy into some of the defense bar on this thing. Let me 
proceed.
  In the embassy bombing, remember our embassies that got bombed? 
Government Exhibit 1677-T was al Qaeda terror manual. By entering the 
manual into evidence, the United States was telling al Qaeda that it 
knew its operating procedures and inviting it to change course. That 
was bad enough during peacetime, but in the middle of the war against 
terrorism it is akin to disclosing troop movements.
  Speedy justice. Talk about the speed of these trials. Can you have a 
trial that is held on a faster basis without it being declared 
unconstitutional? Yes, you have to take certain precautions. You have 
to make sure the defendant is assured the right of counsel. You have to 
make sure the trial is held so it gives a full and fair trial to the 
defendant. But once you meet those standards of the Constitution, there 
is nothing in the Constitution that requires these trials be prolonged 
month after month after month, and that is exactly what happened. With 
the experiment we had in trying the first bombing of the World Trade 
Center, that is exactly what happened in that trial and the subsequent 
bombings of the embassies. Let us talk about it.
  Speedy justice is also not a hallmark of civilian courts. The first 
World Trade Center trial took 6 months, in 1993 to 1994. Six months of 
locking off that courthouse. Six months of trying to keep secret who 
the jurors were, who the judges were, who the court clerks were, who 
the security guards were. As I said before, the security for the judges 
especially continues to this date on many of these cases.
  A second trial lasted 4 months in 1997, a second trial dealing with 
the World Trade Center. A third trial, the blind sheik, took 8 months 
in 1995, 8 months of daily trial in the Federal Court Center. And the 
embassy bombing trial last spring lasted 3 months. That is the one 
where the sentencing took place September 12 in a Federal courthouse a 
few blocks north of the World Trade Centers.
  Now, the Wall Street Journal says, it brings it to the fact that all 
these trials were held under heavy security and great risk to the 
participants. Federal courthouses are heavily trafficked public 
buildings in dense urban areas, and thus difficult to protect. 
Effective security requires more than installing metal detectors or 
closing off adjacent streets.
  A military base is the safest venue for terrorist trials, but even 
that security is not a simple matter. It took a year to prepare a camp 
in the Netherlands for a trial of those accused of bringing down Pan Am 
Flight 103.
  So the Wall Street Journal goes on further and says, look, from a 
practical viewpoint it does not make sense to hold these trials or 
tribunals or have trials in Federal courts in the middle of a populated 
center. It makes sense for the protection of the population around that 
courthouse, for the protection of the people working in that 
courthouse, it makes sense to have these trials, considering the 
backgrounds of these individuals and the allegations against them, to 
have these trials on a military base.
  Now the military base does not prevent legal counsel from 
representing their client, does not prevent them from going on the 
base. The defendant will be able to have military counsel. But it does 
protect society. Again, some people are confused. Some people are 
beginning to adopt the politically correct thinking of whatever the 
liberal defense bar, in some cases, not all

[[Page 23900]]

members of the defense bar, whatever they want we better satisfy them. 
Even though we know it is constitutional, even though we know the 
jeopardy that we are placing other American citizens in, we better have 
it down at the Federal courthouse. You know why they will push hard on 
that, some defense attorneys, especially the defense attorneys that 
will represent the members of the al Qaeda, because they know under 
pressure the United States will probably fold and make a plea bargain 
for their clients.
  The more you can force the government to disclose military secrets 
like satellites, who the names of their spies are, the more you can 
force the United States to hold a trial in a publicly populated area, 
the more pressure you are putting on the government to do a plea 
bargain. That is exactly why you will see these points pushed with such 
vengeance by the defending attorneys.
  Same thing with the juror safety. The usual rules in civilian 
terrorist trials is anonymity for the jurors. But it is hard to believe 
that the jurors are going to consider that adequate protection after 
September 11. Judges are even more at risk.
  Two Federal judges, as I mentioned earlier, two Federal judges in New 
York remain under tight security to this day, long after the end of 
those terror trials.
  The larger point here, and I think this is very, very important for 
our discussion this evening, the larger point here is that military 
tribunals are not some ``Big Brother'' invasion past the normal rules 
of justice. In other words, what is being said, this is not an invasion 
of the rules of the Constitution, this is not a violation of the civil 
liberties of American citizens. In fact, it protects the civil 
liberties of American citizens. In fact, it is about the home security 
of the United States of America, about the security for every man, 
woman and child within this country that are American citizens, or even 
visitors who are not American citizens but residing in this country.
  This is not an invasion of rights. This is not an effort by the 
President of the United States to somehow abscond with the Constitution 
of the United States. It is his inherent obligation and our inherent 
obligation to conduct these in such a way that we protect the home 
security of this Nation while still giving a fair and full trial to the 
defendant, which can be realized under a military tribal.
  Let me go back to the Wall Street Journal. The larger point here is 
that military tribunals are not some Big Brother invasion across the 
normal rules of justice. They are a commonsense and historically well-
established way to cope with the unusual demands of war against 
terrorism. As recently as 1996, the Clinton administration rejected 
Sudan's offer to turn over bin Laden because it did not think it had 
enough evidence to convict him in a military court. A military tribunal 
would have been very handy at that point in time because of the 
pressures that would have been applied by, frankly, the defense 
attorneys working in this case.
  Now, the Defense Department, we would expect here in the next few 
days, would have probably many more specifics in regard to these 
military tribunals. What I am saying to my colleagues tonight is before 
you jump on the bandwagon of criticizing these military tribunals, do a 
couple of things. Number one, use common sense. And when you are 
thinking about common sense, think about, number one, are we protecting 
the Constitution? Common sense would say, well, is there some history 
to it? The answer would be yes. We have had military tribunals 
throughout the history of this country, starting with the Revolutionary 
War, as a result of the Lincoln assassination, as a result of two or 
three acts in World War II. We have a history of military tribunals.
  Common sense says, okay, there is a history. The facts points out 
there is a history. Is it constitutional? Common sense again says look 
at the facts. The Supreme Court on two separate occasions has answered 
that very direct question and the answer has been yes, they are 
constitutional. Use some common sense about the security of the people 
that will be involved in the trial. How can you guarantee the security 
of some regular Joe or regular Jane down there and say, hey, we want 
you to serve on the jury against one of these people that we think was 
connected with the terrorism acts of September 11, do not worry about 
your security?
  What are you going to do with these judges? Protect them for the rest 
of their lives, or jury for the rest of their lives? Think about the 
logistics. Think about common sense.
  Does it make a lot of sense to have these trials at the Federal 
courthouse in downtown Denver or in New York City, in downtown New York 
City, around populated centers? Or does it make more common sense 
because it is constitutional to do it, to hold it out on a military 
base where you allow the defendant still a fair and full trial and the 
right to counsel?
  I think it is so important as we discuss there that you not sign on 
to this argument that on its face military tribunals make no sense; 
that it is a move by the Bush administration to somehow subvert the 
Constitution.
  In fact, it is my belief that a lot of the arguments against military 
tribunals today are in fact not based on real objection to military 
tribunals, but instead designed as a political weapon against the 
Attorney General. That in fact they are designed to try, and somehow 
because President Bush is so popular today, that somehow the way to try 
and dent Bush's popularity is to go after his Attorney General. And so 
military tribunals use the sensitive words like secretive and lack of 
rights and unconstitutional. I think my comments showed you tonight, 
one, the reason for secrecy and it does not deny a fair trial to the 
defendant. Two, the fact it is constitutional. Three, the common sense 
needs to have it at a military base. Those all point out that the 
arguments being used by the other side really in most cases are being 
fictitious and more directed at trying to ruin the credibility of an 
Attorney General in an effort to get at the President.
  Because when you sit down with most Americans and you say let us talk 
about security, let us talk about the Constitution, let us talk about 
the fairness of these trials, let us talk about the history of these 
trials, you will find agreement. Most Americans are concerned about the 
security of this Nation. Every American is concerned because it may be 
them someday.

                              {time}  2300

  Every American is concerned that a fair trial be held there, 
including our United States Supreme Court; and do not believe for one 
minute that the United States Supreme Court is going to look the other 
way on a trial that does not allow the defendant a fair trial. That is 
not going to happen. They would throw it out in a heartbeat, and this 
is not what we want. We want a fair trial, but we want security for 
America. Homeland security has to be our number one policy here while 
staying within the bounds of the Constitution, which we do with 
military tribunals.
  Let me spend my last few minutes on some other facts, and that is, we 
have heard about these detentions across the country. Once again, a 
wide distortion of the facts. Currently in the United States of 
America, remember that these deportations, these are people in 
violation of some law.
  I heard a lawyer tonight on TV who was representing a student whose 
visa was expired, and he was deeply offended by the fact that this 
person was detained and questioned by immigration. He is in violation. 
He should have not been here. He should have gone back to his own 
country. He was invited as a guest, as a student of this country. His 
student visa expires, he gets caught, and his lawyer shows up saying, 
oh my, the wolves are picking on my client.
  I do not know why his client is still in the United States of 
America. I do not know why they do not send him back. Once he is 
released, they should kick him out of the country. His visa has 
expired. We have got to enforce our

[[Page 23901]]

border policies. I am not saying lock down the borders. I never have, 
but the laws we have, we have got to enforce.
  These detentions, there are 20,000 people as we speak, 20,000 plus 
people as I speak this evening, in immigration detention across this 
country. We have heard that we have got, oh, probably 5 percent, 600 or 
1,000, people in detention for various violations of the law as a 
result of the September 11 incident, and those people are being 
questioned.
  The distortion of facts is they would have us believe that these 
people's names cannot be revealed. The government's not going to give 
out their names. Why should we? We should not give out their names. All 
we do is provide the al Qaeda network and other people who do not hold 
the best interests of the United States of America in their heart, we 
provide them information of exactly what we are doing.
  We cannot deny one of the detainees, one of the people who is being 
held in detention. They have every right to tell their attorney or to 
disclose their own name. So their name can be disclosed. We are not 
just going to do it for them. They can do it if they wish. Their 
attorney can come out tomorrow morning, have a press conference and say 
John Jones right here is being detained; he wants everybody to know his 
name. They are allowed to do that. Do not buy into this distortion that 
people are being detained and nobody will ever know their names. They 
will, if those people choose to have their names known.
  I think it is important to remember of those 600-and-some-odd people 
that are being detained, over a hundred of them are being detained on 
serious Federal charges. We cannot play games here. This is a very 
serious threat to the United States of America, and I do not have to 
say it twice because everybody in this room, everybody in this room saw 
what happened on September 11. We witnessed it. I do not have to play 
games here.
  We better be serious about the investigation of these people. We 
better not let a few threats, oh, my gosh, you are hurting their 
feelings, we better put that aside. We have got the security of the 
United States of America to worry about, and we can count on the fact 
that these terrorists will strike again. With good investigative work 
that I would add is constitutional, with good investigative work that I 
would add is fair, with good investigative work that has common sense 
to it, we can prevent a lot of these future terrorist acts.
  Do not buy into this politically correct theory that any kind of 
aggressive action by the investigative agencies is somehow a violation 
of privacy or somehow unconstitutional. All we are doing is asking for 
it. It is like getting in a fistfight and putting your fists down and 
saying maybe it is unfair for me to defend myself because you do not 
hit as fast as I do, so maybe I ought to put my fist down.
  That is an analogy. We should not put our guard down. This is a time 
when we ought to have our guard up, and we ought to use every tool that 
is constitutional and every tool that allows common sense, frankly; and 
that is a lot of what this is about, to protect the security of the 
people of this Nation. We cannot allow these acts of aggression to 
occur again, if at all we can stop it ahead of time. That is what we 
need to do in this country.
  I ask my colleagues, listen to these detentions; and by the way, as 
they listen to these interviews that are being requested, they are not 
required and we have heard people say, well, it is race profiling 
because the government has asked people who are visiting this country, 
they are not asking citizens of this country, they are asking people 
who are visiting from foreign countries who are visiting, who are 
guests of the United States of America, they are asking them to 
voluntarily, not mandatory, they are not being arrested, they are not 
being detained. The government, the President, our leadership has said, 
look, you are from the Middle East, you are from these countries, you 
are visiting our country, could you help us, do you have anything you 
could tell us, would you come down and talk to us. And you never know, 
what may not seem important to you is very important to us to try and 
prevent future acts of terrorism.
  These people are not being detained against their will. They are 
asked voluntarily to come in. Somebody said the other day we are race 
profiling; all you are doing is asking people of Afghan descent or 
people from Afghanistan or Arab people or people of Middle East descent 
to come in.
  Well, geez, let me tell my colleagues something. I mentioned earlier 
I used to be a cop, and once in a while we would be called to the high 
school for a fight, and guess who we asked questions of when we got to 
the high school, the students. Now, some would say, well, now wait a 
minute you better ask the other people, you are just picking on the 
students. I heard that a lot. You are just picking on the students. Who 
do you think knows about the fight? It is a student fight. Maybe, maybe 
the students know the most about it. So we always would ask the 
students questions.
  It is the same thing here. I am just concerned as I have heard the 
news in the last few days that the further away we get from September 
11 the more some people are buying into this argument that some how the 
United States should continue to proceed with its hands handcuffed 
behind it; that the United States should not have an advantage, not an 
unfair advantage, but any kind of advantage.
  We had one person suggest at the beginning of the war that maybe we 
were a bully because we had high-tech weapons. We do not need to pile 
guilt upon ourselves. We are not the party that started this fight. We 
are the party that is going to end it, but we are not the party that 
started this.
  As a party, we have a fundamental responsibility not to handcuff our 
hands behind our back, not to intentionally disadvantage ourselves so 
that we poke our chin out at the enemy so they can pop it once again.
  So I ask all of my colleagues, please give this consideration. My 
colleagues should always ask if it is constitutional, but the moment 
they find out it is and there is precedent for it, which there is in 
all of the cases which I have mentioned this evening, then proceed to 
the next point: Does it make common sense? Does it defend the interests 
of the people of the United States? Does it help prevent future 
terrorist actions?
  It is time to get tough. It is time to roll up our shirt sleeves and 
say we have had enough of this. We are going to go out, and we are 
going to stop terrorism once and for all, and that is exactly what our 
President and his administration is intending on doing, and that is 
exactly what we should do as Members of the United States Congress. We 
should support our President, and we should support the Attorney 
General and our Vice President and Condoleezza Rice and the team and we 
should go out and do everything we can to do our part in stopping 
terrorism against the citizens of the United States and against all 
people of the world.

                          ____________________