[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Page 13776]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              SUPREME COURT DECISION REGARDING TERRORISTS

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I will take the first 10 minutes to speak 
about the recent Supreme Court decision on the treatment of terrorists 
we are holding and their rights relative to trial. This is a classic 
example of a court that has seen the trees but has failed to see the 
forest.
  We are confronted with a situation where individuals, whose purpose 
it is to kill Americans and destroy our Nation, are being held by our 
country in order to protect our country. These are individuals who 
don't function as part of an organized nation. There is no Nation to 
which they are accountable or which would be accountable to us should 
we be functioning in a state of war that was formal, such as occurred 
during World War II when the Nazi government and Germany and the German 
soldiers that were captured were held under the rules of the Geneva 
Convention and the people who were in that government were tried under 
the rules of Nuremberg. There is no such government. These individuals 
function separately from any formal structure that could be called 
governance. And there is no right to the Geneva Convention because the 
Geneva Convention presumes certain statuses of combat and that there 
are certain engagements, even though it is in war, that have rules 
relative to what can and should be done in a war that is appropriate.
  None of these people are signatories to the Geneva Convention; they 
have no rights under the Geneva Convention; and they disavow the 
purposes of the Geneva Convention. Their purpose is to kill for the 
reason that they believe their life will be improved and their 
afterlife, as they see it in their perverse view of Islam--which is a 
great religion but is being perverted by these fundamentalists. Their 
purpose is to kill Americans and destroy Western culture. To ascribe to 
them certain rights, as if they were citizens of our Nation or citizens 
of some other nation that we were at war with, or as if they were 
participants in a group that was signatory to the Geneva Convention, is 
to undermine, first, the legitimacy of nations and what nations stand 
for; and, secondly, the legitimacy of treaties and what treaties stand 
for because you are essentially ascribing to these people rights and 
values which they reject and which they are fighting against.
  Their purpose is to not support the Constitution or be governed by 
the Constitution of America. Their purpose is to destroy America and 
the Constitution. Their purpose is not to support the government of 
whatever Islamic nation they come from. Their purpose is, in most 
instances, to take that government over and to establish a religiously 
fundamentalist state which isn't governed at all by rules of Western or 
traditional civil societies. And their purpose certainly isn't to 
subscribe to the Geneva Convention.
  So when the Supreme Court made this decision, they found themselves 
focusing on the trees but not on the forest. We have to ask ourselves 
why. Why would the Court make this decision? Well, maybe their purpose 
was to force us, as a Congress, to clarify the role of the President, 
and if that is the case, then we should do it. We should act in a way 
that gives the President the authority to hold these individuals 
because, what is the option? What is the option, to not hold them? That 
is not an option.
  If you release these individuals, you basically assure yourself that 
you are releasing people whose purpose it is to come back and do 
dramatic harm to our Nation and to Americans. What President--what 
President--who is sworn to uphold the Constitution and to protect this 
country, could possibly release these individuals in the context of 
what their purpose is? It would totally--totally--affront the 
responsibility of the Presidency to do that.
  The Court has made a decision which makes no sense from the 
standpoint of reality, although it may make sense from the standpoint 
of theory. I believe the Congress needs to act, and act quickly, so 
that this type of error can be corrected. It is, after all, a branch of 
Government that is not infallible--the Supreme Court. They have made 
egregious mistakes in the past such as in the Dred Scott case. And so 
we need to correct that and correct it promptly. We are an equal branch 
of Government. We have the capacity in this instance to correct it, it 
appears, at least from the dictum, if not from the actual core of the 
opinion. So we should do that. I would hope that the Congress would act 
promptly.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I make a point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in 
morning business for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are in morning business. The Senator is 
recognized.

                          ____________________