[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 366-367]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           INTERROGATION OF AL-QAIDA AND TALIBAN WAR CAPTIVES

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am writing to the President of the 
United States today concerning what I consider to be a very important 
subject,

[[Page 367]]

and that is the interrogation of the al-Qaida and Taliban war captives, 
where an issue has been raised as to whether they are prisoners of war 
or what is their status, with some people objecting to what is going on 
in the way they are being handled. There is no doubt that the captives 
are entitled to humane treatment. There have been inspection tours by 
national observers and by congressional observers. The reports are 
uniform that the captives are being treated humanely. They are being 
fed and clothed. There is medical care. They are permitted to attend to 
their religious activities. All of this is totally separate and apart 
from the basic availability of those individuals to be questioned, 
where information which they might provide could shed light on the 
possibility of additional terrorist attacks.
  Having some experience as an investigator and a prosecutor, I know 
firsthand the value of interrogation and intensive interrogation. We 
are facing at this moment an enormous threat from al-Qaida. We saw what 
happened on September 11. There have been three terrorist alerts since 
then. The fact is there are al-Qaida spread all over the face of the 
Earth. They are in Somalia, they are in the Philippines, in Malaysia, 
in the Sudan. We know their tactics are based on long-term planning 
projects. We know they have sleeper cells. There is reason to be 
concerned that at any moment there could be another al-Qaida attack. We 
do not know where. We do not know when. We do not know if. But we have 
to be very vigilant.
  Where these interrogations of the al-Qaida and Taliban captives might 
lead to some information, then that ought to be pursued, and it ought 
to be pursued vigorously.
  As a matter of international law, there is a mistaken notion you can 
only ask a prisoner of war his name, rank, date of birth, and serial 
number. The international law experts, and I have cited them in my 
letter to President Bush, are in agreement that other questions may be 
asked. Certainly there cannot be torture. Certainly there cannot be 
coercion--physical coercion or mental coercion. But there is no reason 
why those captives cannot be questioned.
  The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld deviations from 
standard constitutional rights where there is an imminent threat of 
harm. For example, in the landmark case of Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 
697, the issue came up on the question of prior restraint to stop the 
publication of a newspaper. And albeit dictum, the Supreme Court of the 
United States said there could be a curtailment of that kind of a 
fundamental constitutional right if, for example, the publication of 
the sailing date of a troop ship would place that ship in jeopardy. The 
possibility of another attack on the United States, considering what 
happened on September 11, we know is much more serious than an attack 
on a troop ship.
  The Supreme Court of the United States, in a celebrated case called 
New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, came to the conclusion that the 
constitutional rights of a suspect under the Miranda decision could be 
circumvented if there was an immediate threat of danger to a police 
officer or the public. That matter involved a rape. A police officer 
pursued the suspect, saw the suspect wearing a holster, and without 
giving him ``Miranda'' warnings, asked where the gun was. The Supreme 
Court of the United States said that where there is an imminent threat 
to public safety, constitutional rights may be abrogated, and 
statements may be admissible into evidence.
  But we know the very major difference between questioning for 
intelligence purposes and questioning for admissibility in court. I am 
not proposing this interrogation be continued for the purpose of 
obtaining evidence to use against these captives, but if there is any 
chance at all that this interrogation could lead to information which 
could thwart another terrorist attack, then it is the fundamental duty 
of the United States Government to pursue that kind of interrogation.
  This matter is on the front pages today. It will be the subject of a 
lot of debate. I think it ought to be known generally that there is 
solid constitutional authority, international law authority, to 
question prisoners of war beyond name, rank, and serial number. No 
torture. Obviously, humane treatment. But if we can get any information 
which would prevent a terrorist attack, it is our duty to do so.
  That is why I am writing to the President and want to make this brief 
statement.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________