[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 15]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 20671-20672]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  PROTECTING OUR NATION FROM TERRORISM

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. DAVID E. PRICE

                           of north carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                     Wednesday, September 27, 2006

  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to confront a 
question of central importance to our Nation: are we doing everything 
we should to protect our Nation from terrorism?
  This is not a threat we can afford to underestimate. The terrorists' 
means of organization, communication, and attack challenge our 
intelligence community, our armed forces, and our domestic law 
enforcement agencies in fundamentally new ways.
  We must take the fight to the terrorists, but that does not mean we 
must sacrifice our moral leadership in the international community. We 
must defend our homeland from attacks, but we must also avoid self-
inflicted damage to the values we stand for and the liberties of our 
people. Our strategy cannot be merely aggressive; it must also be smart 
and efficient, and it must be true to the values that make us American.
  We must not only kill and capture specific terrorists and dismantle 
their organizations. We must also reduce the number of new terrorists 
and organizations that might exist tomorrow. Ultimately, we will win 
this war not by denying the rights of detainees and not by law 
enforcement excesses, but by protecting the integrity of our free and 
democratic society, and by repairing our diplomacy and showing the 
world that there is a better way.
  The Bush Administration has repeatedly implied that Americans must be 
prepared to set aside moral considerations, American values, and 
America's image in the world if such concerns get in the way of the 
aggressive pursuit of terrorists. In reality, such a strategic 
blindness will hamper our ability to win the war on terrorism. An anti-
terrorism strategy informed by moral considerations, American values, 
and our effort to lead the world by example is consistent with an anti-
terrorism strategy that pursues terrorists smartly, effectively, and 
aggressively. What's more, such a strategy augments our efforts because 
it unites the American people--and the world--behind us.
  Following the 9-11 attacks, President Bush had two choices. The first 
option was to create and implement a smart, bipartisan anti-terrorist 
strategy. Such a strategy would have been focused on devoting 
sufficient troops and resources to Afghanistan to bring down the 
Taliban, find and incapacitate Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants, and 
enable that nation's successful reconstruction--not just in the capital 
but in the outlying areas that we have never fully secured.
  The President could have capitalized on the tremendous outpouring of 
public support in the wake of the attacks to build bridges between our 
nation and the rest of the world, including the millions of moderate 
Muslims who hold no sympathy for the terrorists who are hijacking their 
religion. He would have proactively sought a resolution to the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict, which has historically been the largest source of 
inspiration for new generations of terrorists. (The Iraq war can now 
lay claim to that ignoble reputation.) And he would have more 
significantly bolstered our defense and intelligence assets to prevent 
future attacks and dismantle terrorist networks.
  Instead, the President chose a second option that has simply failed 
to meet the standard of an intelligent anti-terrorism strategy. He 
diverted resources from the hunt for bin Laden to prepare for and 
initiate a war of choice in Iraq--a war, incidentally, that has made 
the threat of terrorism worse, not better. The recent National 
Intelligence Estimate makes this quite clear.
  In doing so, President Bush left Afghanistan vulnerable to the 
resurgence of the Taliban we have seen over the last several months, 
resulting in a deteriorating security environment in that country five 
years after we supposedly defeated them. He has undertaken policies 
that have seriously undermined public support for the U.S. in the 
Islamic world and beyond, including policies that cultivated a culture 
within the military and the intelligence community that have tolerated 
and even encouraged the abuse of detainees--many of whom were later 
determined to be innocent bystanders. He has largely neglected the 
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with disastrous results for Israel, 
Lebanon, and the entire Middle East region.
  David Schanzer, one of my constituents and director of the Triangle 
Center on Terrorism,

[[Page 20672]]

got it right in a recent op-ed. He wrote: ``Unfortunately, we have made 
no progress, and in fact may have lost ground, in the ideological 
conflict that is fueling jihadist violence around the globe.''
  So I ask today: are we doing everything we should to protect our 
nation against another terrorist attack? Is President Bush pursuing a 
smart, effective strategy to win the war on terrorism? The answer to 
these questions is clearly ``no.''
  This week in the House, we are debating two prominent components of 
the President's strategy to fight terrorism: a bill to grant the 
President the right to circumvent checks by the judiciary to wiretap 
the phones of American citizens, and a bill to establish an 
extrajudiciary system for trying detained terrorist suspects. These 
bills are both clear examples of how the President continues to make 
the wrong choices in the war on terrorism.
  There is no doubt that we need a more extensive and sophisticated 
wiretapping program directed at those who mean us harm, both outside 
and inside the United States. That is not the question. The question is 
who should make decisions that balance civil liberties with 
surveillance needs. The Administration says ``just trust us.'' To that, 
we say a resounding no. This is not merely because the Attorney General 
and the Bush administration have proved unreliable stewards of our 
liberties. It also recognizes what our founding fathers knew quite 
well, that balancing power among institutions with different functional 
roles is the essential to our form of government. The executive branch 
is in the business of putting criminals and terrorists in jail; the 
judicial branch is in the business of interpreting the law and the 
Constitution, and protecting individual rights. Neither can effectively 
do the job of the other.
  The 1978 FISA law established procedures governing how the Federal 
Government can constitutionally collect foreign intelligence, including 
the ability to gather intelligence immediately in urgent situations and 
to obtain a warrant post-facto. Unfortunately, this administration 
feels that protecting the constitutional rights of its citizens has 
become too cumbersome. Instead of abiding by current law, the 
administration has chosen to make up new ones. And now that we have 
called the administration on this violation of the law, it is asking 
Congress to formally authorize its practices. In essence, the 
administration is telling us that we have to choose between being safe 
and being free. I, for one, am not willing to accept this overly simple 
analysis or the proposed wiretapping bill.
  We do not yet know what provisions will be included in the House 
bill, but the President's proposal would allow warrantless surveillance 
of international calls and e-mails of American citizens without any 
evidence that they are conspiring with terrorist organizations. The 
communications of Americans would only be protected if the National 
Security Administration ``reasonably believes'' all senders and 
recipients are in the U.S. Essentially this provision would allow 
anybody communicating with family or friends outside the U.S. to be 
monitored at any given time without any real justification or 
oversight.
  In addition, the President's proposal would pre-approve warrantless 
searches on all Americans following a terrorist attack in the United 
States for up to 45 days. I know the investigations that take place in 
the days and weeks following a terrorist attack are crucial in 
apprehending all of those involved, and I agree that we need to make 
sure the intelligence community has whatever resources it needs. 
However, providing pre-approval to the President to violate the 4th 
amendment of the Constitution after an attack is completely 
unnecessary. Current law already allows the President reasonable 
exemptions in these situations, and if extensions are needed, he simply 
needs to request judicial approval.
  The second key terrorism bill under debate in the House this week 
would establish a system for bringing detained terrorist suspects to 
trial. Again, there is wide and bipartisan agreement that this issue 
must be addressed. But President Bush has once again failed to choose 
the smart and morally acceptable way to do it.
  Over the past 3 years, many of us have watched in horror as new 
details about the Bush administration's treatment of detainees have 
been revealed. Torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, indefinite 
imprisonment--Americans used to think of these as charges off the pages 
of reports about other countries, not as sanctioned American policies. 
While some of us have spoken out against these practices since they 
became public, recent actions by the Supreme Court and a handful of 
courageous Senators have forced the administration to revisit them. 
Yet, the legislation before the House--legislation supported by 
Republicans in the House, Senate, and White House--would do little to 
rein them in.
  In fact, under the proposed legislation, the Administration could 
continue to arbitrarily arrest and detain foreign citizens. It could 
continue to imprison these detainees indefinitely, without standard 
judicial protections such as their right to challenge their detention 
in court and the right of the accused to know the charges against them. 
And, despite the coverage granted to the so-called compromise between 
the White House and Senate Republicans, the Administration would still 
be able to continue practices that violate the Geneva Conventions 
prohibition of torture.
  Many have argued that we must prioritize winning the war on terrorism 
above considerations for the rights of detainees accused of having 
links to terrorism, as if the two were always mutually exclusive. It 
might be tempting to understand the issue in such simple terms, but we 
should resist that temptation.
  It is certainly true that terrorism is such a grave threat to our 
nation that, in some circumstances, extraordinary actions may be 
necessary to protect American lives. The question we should be asking, 
however, is whether particular policies advance our fight against 
terrorism, both now and over the long term. In this case, the moral 
argument--that potentially innocent detainees do have rights that 
should be protected--is in line with the appropriate strategic 
argument.
  In the short-term, the Administration's approach fails because, as 
current and former military and intelligence officers have repeatedly 
stated, torture does not reliably produce actionable intelligence. In 
addition to the statements of these experts, we have hard evidence: the 
New York Times has reported that, according to our military, 
interrogators were able to obtain up to 50 percent more actionable 
intelligence from detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq after coercive 
practices like hooding, stripping, and sleep deprivation were banned.
  In the long-term, the Bush administration's approach is even more 
detrimental to our progress in the war on terrorism. First, it is 
already having disastrous repercussions on our effort to win the hearts 
and minds of those at risk of being tempted by terrorist recruiters. 
Let us be clear: while stopping active terrorists is a critical 
challenge, disrupting the development of new generations of terrorists 
is the single most important task in winning the war on terrorism. 
Every person that we can persuade to renounce violence and cast his or 
her lot with the forces of moderation is one fewer threat to our 
Nation, one fewer potential airplane hijacker or train bomber.
  Winning hearts and minds is no exercise in sentimentality; it is 
perhaps the key strategy in protecting our Nation from another 9-11. 
The Administration's approach negates such efforts, as it essentially 
endorses indefinite imprisonment, arbitrary detention, and treatment of 
detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions.
  The Administration's approach further harms our progress in the war 
on terrorism by placing our own troops at risk. It sends a dangerous 
signal to other nations that the United States has endorsed these 
practices for foreign detainees, inviting these nations to visit the 
same practices upon our own troops. It is that risk that has led 
several top-ranking former military leaders to object to the 
Administration's proposal.
  There is no question that a system is needed for bringing terrorists 
to justice. But doing it the wrong way will impede our ability to stop 
terrorists in the future. And the Bush administration's approach is, 
quite clearly, the wrong way. Victory in the war on terrorism demands, 
and the American people deserve, a smarter approach, consistent with 
the values that have made our country great.
  Mr. Speaker, we can choose a smart, effective strategy for combating 
terrorism that makes our Nation safer, or we can opt for an 
irresponsible, shortsighted approach that undermines our progress. 
These bills represent the latter. I strongly urge my colleagues to 
oppose them.

                          ____________________