[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18411-18412]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       INTERROGATION OF DETAINEES

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, something happened last Thursday in the 
Senate Armed Services Committee that many of us tried to stop, but we 
were unsuccessful. The weekend is over now. All we have heard from the 
liberal media and from the Democrats is: Republican rebellion, 
Republican rebellion, Republican rebellion--it has kind of a ring to 
it--a rebellion against President Bush.
  Well, nothing could be further from the truth. It is not a Republican 
rebellion against the President. It is a Democratic denial to the 
President of that which he begged Congress for, and that was the 
ability to interrogate terrorists in order to save American lives, to 
use whatever methods available within the guidelines of the U.S. 
Supreme Court to get this stuff done.
  I was at the White House when he made his presentation. I was sitting 
closer to him than I am to the Chair right now. I have never seen him 
with such an earnest plea in his heart pouring out because he wanted to 
have that ability to save American lives.
  What passed the committee Thursday was the Democrats' program of 
leniency for the enemy, to be sure our interrogators don't get too 
aggressive with the terrorists, and also to tell the enemy what methods 
we will use so they can write their own manual.
  Republican rebellion? Not hardly. It was the Democratic bill, and 
they got four Republicans to go along with it. But 100 percent of the 
Democrats voted for it. Nine of us Republicans on the committee spoke 
and voted against it--all Republicans. Clearly, this was a Democratic 
bill to undermine President Bush's plea to get the tools necessary to 
extract information from terrorists.
  The High Value Terrorist Detainee Program, for all practical 
purposes, will stop, and I don't blame them. What rational interrogator 
would take a chance of going to prison, or even being executed himself, 
by trying to comply with the vague provisions of the Democratic bill 
passed out of the committee Thursday?
  President Bush's bill would clearly define our Common article 3 
obligations. No one is advocating torture. Torture is already illegal. 
The President never did that. Nobody wants to use cruel, unusual, 
inhumane, or degrading treatment that is against the law. It is already 
illegal. Nobody is advocating inhumane treatment that violates the U.S. 
Constitution. What the President wants is clarification under our 
Common article 3 obligations. The President's bill defines these 
obligations by equating the definition to last year's detainee 
treatment. The Democratic bill stays silent on this important topic. 
Their bill also makes it impossible in some cases to use classified 
information against the accused. Imagine that. We cannot use classified 
information against the accused when the terrorists are under our 
control.
  It doesn't go far enough to protect our interrogators who may be 
accused of violating the vague definitions of article 3, especially as 
they pertain to degrading treatment. How do you define cruel, unusual, 
inhumane, or degrading treatment? Should we leave the definition up to 
the interpretation of the courts? Do you want to be an interrogator who 
is told not to worry, you will not be prosecuted even though what you 
are doing might be against the law? I don't. We owe it to them to

[[Page 18412]]

clearly define the law by using the Detainee Treatment Act as the 
definition.
  As the President said last week:

       The bottom line is . . . the CIA program won't go forward 
     if there are vague standards applied like those in Common 
     Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.

  Not having this program will put Americans at risk by leaving us 
unable to gather the vital intelligence needed to fight this enemy.
  And where is the outrage of the American people? Do they have to 
``drag their naked bodies through the streets of Mogadishu'' before 
there is a wake-up call?
  I can't blame the American people. All they have heard all weekend is 
``Republican rebellion,'' and the Senate Democrats are celebrating. So 
they should. They won, we lost. They successfully picked off four 
Republicans and passed their ``soft on terrorists'' legislation. But 
the plump lady hasn't sung yet. We can still reject this on the floor 
this week and pass the President's bill. But to do this, Senators are 
going to have to hear from the folks back home--the folks who believe 
we need to quit worrying so much about the treatment of terrorists and 
get to the business of serious interrogation, even if it hurts 
someone's feelings. Wake up, America; she is about to sing.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________