[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1351-1352]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          TRIALS OF DETAINEES

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, it is so interesting to notice the 
change of approach. When President Bush was in office and we were 
fighting terrorism, Democrats would come to the floor and question 
interrogation and prosecution and be reminded over and over again by 
the Republican side of the aisle that we were literally interfering 
with national security and the authority of the Commander in Chief. I 
took those criticisms lightly because we do have a responsibility in 
Congress to speak out as a separate branch of government if we disagree 
with the Executive. Now to hear the other side, they have completely 
switched their position. Now they believe it is fair game to question 
the decisions that are being made on a daily basis by this President of 
the United States relative to our national security.
  What my friend from Missouri, who has every right to come to the 
floor and speak his mind representing his State, has failed to mention 
is one basic fact: Since 9/11, 195 terrorists have been convicted in 
article III courts in the United States of America. Decisions were made 
by Republican President George W. Bush to prosecute suspected 
terrorists in article III courts, and, yes, that would involve Miranda 
warnings because they believed that was the most effective place to try 
them.
  There was an alternative, so-called law-of-war approach, to use 
military commissions. How many of these suspected terrorists were 
actually tried before military commissions since 9/11? Three. Madam 
President, 3 have been convicted before military commissions, 195 in 
the courts of our land.
  Now come the Republicans to say: We want to stop any conviction in 
any criminal court in America. We believe the people should only be 
convicted by military commission.
  I take a different view. I believe this President, this Attorney 
General, and all of the people involved in national security should 
have the options before them: Use the best forum available to bring out 
the facts and to result in a conviction.
  Do I fear our court system will be used by these alleged terrorists? 
They may try. They have not had much luck. When Zacarias Moussaoui, the 
so-called 19th 9/11 terrorist, was tried in Virginia, I don't think it 
changed America one bit. I don't think it changed the way we live and 
the security we have. Incidentally, he was convicted and is serving a 
life sentence in a supermax prison, one of our Federal penitentiaries.
  Those who argue that we should never consider it ignore the obvious. 
Look at the list of terrorists convicted in Federal courts aside from 
Zacarias Moussaoui: Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993 World 
Trade Center bombing; Omar Abdel Rahman, the so-called Blind Sheik; the 
al-Qaida sleeper agent Ali Al-Marri from my State of Illinois, where he 
was arrested; Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber; and Terry Nichols, the 
Oklahoma City coconspirator. Our courts work. Why would we choose to 
tie the hands of this administration to choose the most effective place 
to try a terrorist?
  This notion, too, about keeping Guantanamo open, that it was just 
President Obama's idea, no, it happened to be Senator McCain's idea as 
well, his opponent in the Presidential election. He called for the 
closing of Guantanamo, as well as GEN Colin Powell, who was head of not 
only our State Department but head of national security under former 
Presidents. It is

[[Page 1352]]

an indication to me that this, on a bipartisan basis, is something that 
should be done and done in a careful way. I would agree with that. But 
let's be honest. There has been a bipartisan consensus that this is a 
good thing to do to make America safe.
  The last point I would like to make on this issue is that we have a 
responsibility to tell the world that those who are accused of 
terrorism will be tried in our courts or before our military 
commissions in a way that respects due process so that at the end of 
the day, we do not have an outcome where people question whether we 
applied the principles and values to these trials as we apply them to 
other trials involving Americans.
  For those who argue they should be given the back of the hand, 
ignored, no warnings, no due process, at the end of the day we will not 
be stronger if we follow that counsel and that advice regardless of the 
outcome and afraid America's intentions will be questioned. I want us 
to be strong in this world, not fearful and shuddering and quivering 
before these alleged terrorists. We need to stand up strong, be safe as 
a nation, gather the information.
  This so-called Christmas Day bomber who was found on this plane, 
whether he should have been Mirandized or not, the fact is, after a 
short period of time his family was brought to where he is being held 
in a Federal penitentiary--I might add, in Michigan--and after meeting 
with them, he gave even more information. To argue that he has not been 
helpful and not forthcoming I think states something the record does 
not reflect.

                          ____________________