[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 24]
[Senate]
[Pages 31963-31964]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             GUANTANAMO BAY

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, early yesterday, the administration 
announced what can only be viewed as the latest in a string of 
seriously misguided decisions related to the closing of the secure 
facility at Guantanamo Bay. It plans to move dozens of terrorist 
detainees from Guantanamo Bay Cuba to a prison in northern Illinois.
  The explanation we used to get for moving detainees onto American 
soil was that Guantanamo's existence is a potent recruiting tool for 
terrorists. But even if you grant that, it is hard to see how simply 
changing Guantanamo's mailing address would eliminate the problem. Does 
anyone believe Al-Jazeera will ignore the fact that enemy combatants 
are being held on American soil? It is naive to think our European 
critics, the American left, or al-Qaida will be pacified by creating an 
internment camp in northern Illinois, a sort of ``Gitmo North'' instead 
of ``Gitmo South.''
  As I said, this is just the latest in a series of misguided 
decisions. First, there was the decision to close Guantanamo by an 
arbitrary date without a plan for doing so. Americans expect their 
Government to protect them. That is why Americans overwhelmingly 
rejected the idea of closing Guantanamo.
  Then there was the decision to bring the self-avowed mastermind of 
the 9/11 attack, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and his fellow 9/11 plotters 
into New York City for trial. We learned just this week, the 
administration plans to give other terrorists the benefits of a 
civilian trial in the United States.
  Now there is this: According to the reports we have seen, the 
administration intends to bring as many as 100--100--foreign terrorist 
fighters from Guantanamo Bay to America, a plan that would make our 
Nation less safe, not more so. What is worse, the defenders of the 
proposal don't even seem to get the implications.
  Rather than even attempt to reassure people about safety, politicians 
in Illinois are trumpeting this decision--get this now--as a jobs 
program, a jobs program. That is how out of touch they are. Democratic 
politicians are so eager to spin the failure of the $1 trillion 
stimulus, they are now talking about national security in the language 
of saved and created jobs.
  The advocates of closing Guantanamo without a plan can't seem to make 
up their minds as to why it is a good idea. First, we were told we had 
to bring them here because Guantanamo is a dangerous symbol--the whole 
symbolism over safety argument. Now, with unemployment in double 
digits, it is being sold--incredibly--as a jobs project, some kind of 
shovel-ready plan.
  But leaving aside the absurdity of marketing this as a jobs program, 
let's get to the core issue. The core issue is this: Moving some of the 
worst terrorists on Earth to U.S. soil on its face is more dangerous 
than leaving them where they are. Nobody could argue with that. Make no 
mistake, this decision, if implemented, will increase the threat to 
security at home. Let's count the ways in which it increases the 
threats of security in the United States.
  There will now be another terrorist target in the heartland of 
America--an

[[Page 31964]]

obvious one at that, right near the Mississippi River.
  The FBI Director has already stated his concerns about the 
radicalization of other prisoners that could happen by moving 
terrorists here.
  There is also the danger of detainees communicating with terrorists 
on the outside, as has happened in the past--a danger that would 
undoubtedly increase with the additional legal rights detainees will 
enjoy once they are moved into the United States.
  Then there is the danger that the detainees could sue their way to 
freedom--yes, that the detainees could sue their way to freedom. Before 
the first detainee has even set foot in the United States, their 
lawyers stand ready to challenge in court the administration's decision 
to incarcerate detainees indefinitely in the United States. By 
purposefully moving detainees here, the administration is making it 
easier for detainees and their lawyers to succeed in doing so.
  The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that foreign nationals have 
more rights if they are present on U.S. soil than if they are not. We 
have already seen the application of this principle. We have seen a 
Federal judge order detainees released into the United States--only to 
be reversed because the detainees at the time didn't enjoy the 
advantage of being present in the United States--an advantage the Obama 
administration intends to confer on them.
  Then there is the case of the so-called shoe bomber, Richard Reid, 
who narrowly failed in his effort to blow up a passenger jet in midair. 
Americans might recall that Reid ended up in a supermax facility in 
Colorado. They might not recall what happened next. Not satisfied with 
his conditions of confinement, Reid sued the government. He said he 
wanted to be placed in less restrictive conditions where he could watch 
TV, order periodicals through the mail, and learn Arabic. He got his 
wish. The Obama administration acceded to Reid's demands. He has been 
placed in the general prison population, a less restrictive environment 
where he can speak to the media and where his visitors and mail will no 
longer be regularly monitored by the FBI. Is this how we should treat 
people who attempt to blow up commercial airliners? We will no longer 
have the FBI routinely monitor their mail? This is an outrage, an 
absolute outrage. Unfortunately, it is not an isolated case.
  Just a few years ago, this same supermax allowed terrorist inmates to 
communicate with terrorist networks abroad. At the time, our Democratic 
colleagues criticized these security lapses harshly. The senior Senator 
from New York said Federal prison officials were ``incompetent when it 
comes to detecting possible terrorist activity in Federal prisons.'' He 
noted ``past evidence of terrorists communicating with live terror 
cells from inside prison walls.'' That was the senior Senator from New 
York.
  Our Democratic colleagues now raise concerns about similar potential 
lapses at the proposed ``Gitmo North.''
  This decision is ill-advised on multiple levels. It is also 
prohibited by law. Fortunately, if and when the Obama administration 
submits its plan for closing Guantanamo, Congress will have an 
opportunity to revisit the prohibition in current law that bars the 
transfer into the United States of Guantanamo detainees for the 
purposes of indefinite detention. That is against the law. At that 
point, we will decide whether this prohibition ought to be removed and 
whether millions of dollars ought to be appropriated to make this ill-
advised decision a reality.
  In short, Congress will have a chance to vote on whether we should 
treat the national security needs of the country as just another local 
jobs project. I suspect the American people will be no more supportive 
of this idea than they were of the administration's plan to close 
Guantanamo by an arbitrary date. Security can't take a backseat to 
symbolism, and it certainly should not take a backseat to some 
parochial jobs program.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________