[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 144-150]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      TERRORIST ATTACKS ON AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Murphy of New York). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gohmert) is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  It is an interesting time we live in. We have heard in the past year 
that Gitmo is the main recruiting tool, the best recruiting tool for al 
Qaeda, for Islamic jihadists who want to destroy America. And so I 
thought it was important that we look at that a little more in depth, 
rather than just having a cursory action, because for those of us who 
have been to Gitmo, I have been twice, I know that no one has ever been 
waterboarded at the Guantanamo Bay facility. The Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 
waterboarding occurred in the Middle East. And there are those that are 
worried about waterboarding continuing.
  The fact is, when that was leaked and such a big deal made out of it 
and the fact that when the U.S. has done it, been involved, there have 
been a doctor there, there was no way they were going to allow harm to 
come to the individual being waterboarded, the word was out. And so 
Islamic extremists, jihadists that want to kill America, that want to 
wipe us off the face of the map, want to destroy Israel, they knew and 
could tell their extremists you don't have to worry if you are ever 
waterboarded, because they will have a doctor there, they are not going 
to let anything happen to you. So obviously, it will never work as a 
procedure again. But as we have found out, there are a lot of Americans 
that are alive today because that procedure was used.
  So if Gitmo had never been used as a location where waterboarding or 
torture of any kind occurred, then why is it so bad? Well, it is 
because a lot of people don't know what they are talking about. Having 
visited many prisons as a judge, chief justice, and even as a 
Congressman having visited prisons, I know from visiting Guantanamo Bay 
facility, the detention facility there, that the people are not 
mistreated. They get good food. And in fact, most of the detainees 
there have gained weight, not lost weight. They get excellent medical 
facilities. They get treatment when they need it. The interrogation 
often, if there is any at all, occurs in a big lounge chair there.
  In fact, the biggest problem there at Guantanamo Bay for those who 
work there is having feces and urine thrown on them. The detainees 
figure out really brilliant ways to go about throwing feces and urine 
on the guards. Now, at most prisons if you do that you are put in 
isolation, where there is no way you could do something like that 
again. Not at Guantanamo Bay.
  As I was told by a commander there, because there are so many 
frequent visits by those who want to make sure no one is being done 
wrong there, they don't want anyone ever to be found in isolation no 
matter how much feces or urine they are throwing. So the thing that is 
normally done is taking away some of their movie watching time. Yes, 
they watch movies there. Nothing that violates their religion. They are 
given Korans that American hands have never touched. They are given 
food that is not inconsistent with their religious beliefs. It is 
really rather amazing.
  And then all of the money that was spent to build a courtroom 
facility there, and areas where the detainees could consult with their 
attorneys in private so that it was clear to anyone in that facility, 
in that detention area that there is no way to have bugs in this place, 
and so you could truly have private consultation, but it is so isolated 
an area you didn't have to worry about anybody coming in there. And the 
security measures were such there that it was an amazing facility for 
the trial of alleged terrorists.
  Now, we have Americans who are saying but it is just wrong to hold 
somebody without trying them. Those people are completely ignorant. 
They are not mean. They are just ignorant of the laws of war that have 
gone throughout time. Because never in the history of mankind has there 
been a time when a group declared war on another group or country and 
then were captured while they were in the process of bringing war 
against those individuals that they were given full civilian treatment 
in court. Certainly there has never been any American prisoners that 
were treated like that.
  In fact, if you read of the torture to Americans during World War II, 
some in the Pacific, some in Europe, but just phenomenal the treatment 
that has been accorded Americans. If you look at what has happened 
before Guantanamo Bay was ever opened to Americans at the hands of 
jihadists, extremists, then you find out that Gitmo didn't cause those 
problems. They didn't cause a rallying cry for people to join some 
extremist jihadist group. It was a matter of their religious beliefs.
  And if you look at the pleading that was filed by Khalid Sheikh 
Mohammed, who has now been ordered by our President, our Attorney 
General to be brought to New York for trial instead of being tried 
under the constitutional

[[Page 145]]

military commission down in Guantanamo, you see what he has to say. In 
fact, if you go back to his last--and this was declassified so that 
everyone in the country and the world could know what he had to say.
  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a very smart man. He is intent on doing 
everything he can to help destroy America, destroy our freedoms, 
destroy our way of life. But if you look at page six of his pleading, 
toward the end, he says, ``We have news for you. The news is you will 
be greatly defeated in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that America will fall 
politically, militarily, and economically. Your end is very near, and 
your fall will be just as the fall of the towers on the blessed 9/11 
day. We will raise from the ruins, God willing,'' Khalid Sheikh 
Mohammed says. ``We will leave this imprisonment with our noses raised 
high in dignity, as the lion emerges from his den.'' And he says, ``We 
ask God to accept our contributions to the great attack on America, and 
to place our 19 martyred brethren among the highest peaks in 
paradise.''
  Other comments he had to say in his pleading, and as I understand it 
he did his own interpretation, and he would make statements and then 
support them with what he believed was support from the Koran itself, 
he says, ``God stated in his book, verse 190, Al-Baqara, and fight in 
the way of Allah those who fight you, but Allah likes not the 
transgressors.'' But then he goes on in the very next page and talks 
about then fight--and he quotes, he says, ``From God's book, verse 
nine, Al-Tawbah, then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, 
and seize them, and besiege them and lie in wait for them in each and 
every ambush.''

                              {time}  1845

  He says himself, ``In God's book, he ordered us to fight you wherever 
we find you, even if you were inside the holiest of all holy cities, 
the Mosque in Mecca, and the holy city of Mecca, and even during sacred 
months.'' So we've been told we could never fight a battle with 
extremist jihadists during Ramadan because that might violate their 
religious beliefs. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed states his belief that it's 
fine for them to blow us up in their sacred months, that's just fine.
  He goes on in another place, he says, ``We do not possess your 
military might, nor your nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, we fight you 
with the Almighty God. So, if our acts of jihad and our fighting with 
you caused fear and terror, then many thanks to God, because it is him 
that has thrown fear into your hearts, which resulted in your 
infidelity, paganism, and your statement that God had a son and your 
trinity beliefs.''
  So obviously anyone who is a Christian, who believes that there is a 
Father, Son and Holy Ghost as part of the Holy Trinity, as was cited in 
the Treaty of Paris 1783--an original copy of that is over in our State 
Department on display. And you can see that the bold big letters that 
start the Treaty of Paris in which England had to recognize the United 
States--there was a treaty after the surrender at Yorktown, but this 
was the official treaty that England officially signed onto. They knew 
this was so important that they had to have it done in the name that 
was so important that no one in England would dare try to violate that 
oath. So in big, bold letters it says, ``In the name of the undivided 
and most Holy Trinity.''
  So Khalid Sheikh Mohammed makes clear that anybody that would sign 
onto something like that clearly is an infidel and needs to be killed.
  Then he quotes, God stated in his book, verse 151, Al-Umran, ``Soon 
shall we cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, for that they 
joined companies with Allah, for which he has sent no authority''--in 
other words, saying that Allah or God had a son--``their place will be 
the fire; and evil is the home of the wrongdoers.''
  Again, this is the pleading that was declassified by the court so we 
could know what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed wrote. And he wrote it 
apparently, but on behalf of himself and the other prisoners who are 
now going to be transferred to New York City in an unprecedented move 
to get him right in the middle where he can cause more trouble.
  By the way, they were planning on pleading guilty. They were pleading 
guilty. There was not going to be much of a trial because they were 
going to plead guilty, take credit for what they've done, as he has 
done in this pleading. But now that our President and the Attorney 
General have said, hey, let's bring them to New York, let's give them a 
platform to spew their anger and hatred and disgust for the United 
States and let's give them a platform--they didn't say this verbally, 
but it's clearly what is happening and will happen--this will give them 
a platform to recruit for the terrorists.
  I know the President didn't intend to do that, I know that our 
Attorney General didn't intend to do it, but they're just ignorant of 
history and therefore they don't realize--and we'll forgive them, they 
know not what they do. But we need to look at these things that have 
been said.
  If you look at the bottom of page 5, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed says, 
``America is the number one, and the largest country in the world, 
spreading military might and terrorism.'' He says, America is the 
principal and greatest supplier to the occupying terrorist State of 
Israel, and so God has ordered us to spend for jihad and this cause. 
And he says this is evident in many Koranic verses.
  There is one thing he says, though. He says, ``God has stated in his 
book, verse 14, Al-Hashir: They fight not against you even together, 
except in fortified townships, or from behind walls, their enmity among 
themselves is very great, you would think that they were united, but 
their hearts are divided. That is because they are a people who 
understand not.''
  And so as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is saying, this is a great 
recruiting tool because of their ignorance. They don't know who they're 
fighting. They're not united. Obviously they're people that don't 
realize we're at war with them, and so they want to be buddies. And 
others realize we're at war with them and they want to stop us. But 
because of that division, the ignorance of those who don't really 
understand the war--not of the vast majority of Islam, but for this 
small, perhaps 1 percent of Islam, these extremist groups, they're 
saying they're going to be able to defeat us because we're divided 
because so many are ignorant and don't understand that they are in such 
a war with us.
  I see I have a colleague, Mr. Thompson; I would like to yield him 
such time as he may need.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I appreciate that. I appreciate my good 
friend from Texas for hosting this hour on such an important issue. 
Really, this is about national security. And I also appreciate your 
leadership on this. I believe you serve on the Judiciary Committee, and 
with your background as a judge, a chief justice, you have so much 
experience in this area. My background is not in those same areas, and 
so I appreciate having a leader and somebody with that type of 
experience on these issues we're looking at.
  My concern as a citizen and as a Member of Congress is what I think 
is the number one responsibility, the primary responsibility of the 
United States Government, and that is to provide for national security, 
safety and security for our citizens. This is an issue that touches my 
heart deeply in terms of the risks that are involved here.
  We are at war, and we are at war with an enemy that is not uniformed, 
an enemy that is evil, and the measures that it uses as they seek to 
kill Americans. And so this whole issue surrounding Guantanamo Bay, 
which I think has worked well in terms of, in a very humane way, a 
respectful way, housing terrorists, those captured in the act of war, 
and has treated them very respectfully, I have tremendous concern. I 
don't have a legal background, obviously, and that's why I look forward 
to your opinions on that and your insight.
  As the President, whom I disagree with--I think our country is safer 
by using Guantanamo Bay, where those individuals are right now, to keep 
them

[[Page 146]]

there as opposed to bringing them to New York for trial, or bring them 
to Illinois to be housed, or to bring them to our shores, to our soil. 
I would like to yield back to the gentleman in terms of legal concepts 
such as discovery. What do you see as the risks as the President 
continues, I believe, in opposition of the majority of the American 
people that want to bring these terrorists to our soil?
  I will yield back.
  Mr. GOHMERT. That is an excellent question that's been posed about 
the type of discovery that's afforded in a civil trial, in a civilian 
U.S. district court as opposed to those in a military commission. A 
military commission, as set up constitutionally, as the Supreme Court 
has said is constitutional, has more limited discovery, so we do not 
have to turn over all our national secrets to our enemies during a time 
of war when they're at war with us.
  Can you imagine if during World War II there were Japanese or Germans 
who were at war with us captured on the battlefield and President 
Roosevelt or President Truman had said, you know what? We're going to 
bring them in and put them in a show trial in a U.S. district court in 
America. Well, they would say, well, we, as defendants, we want all 
your information; Germans saying we want to know what information you 
have about our Enigma machines. We want to know in the Japanese area of 
occupation what information you have. All the demands that can be made 
in discovery. And you say, well, a U.S. district court can review those 
things privately and decide what can be disclosed and what can't. You 
don't have to disclose state secrets. It is ridiculous to get to that 
point.
  I hear some, again, who are ignorant of history--good people, just 
ignorant of history--that think we need to afford these people all of 
the rights that any American has. Well, an American who is at war with 
another country is afforded certain rights, but not the rights that 
they would be afforded in a U.S. district court. They're afforded all 
of the rights that our Constitution requires in the military 
commission. And there is more restrictive discovery.
  Unfortunately, there was ignorance in America and among our leaders 
and among most of us in America that there was a war going on. The 
United States was at war, but only one side knew, and that was the side 
attacking us. President Carter didn't realize that; actually, President 
Reagan didn't realize that. President Clinton certainly didn't realize 
that. For all the good things he was doing to try to help oppressed 
Muslims in the world and sending troops to help out, you would have 
thought that there wouldn't be this type of thing being planned on his 
watch.
  But we know from the trial back in the early 1990s after the bombing 
at the World Trade Center in 1993 that, on the one hand, information 
was disclosed in discovery that the U.S. had gotten intelligence by 
intercepting cell phone calls. That was immediately traced back to al 
Qaeda, and they immediately stopped using cell phones. And so had that 
not occurred and that trial not occurred in a U.S. district court, so 
they wouldn't have handed over the information that we were getting our 
intelligence from cell phones, there is an excellent chance we would 
have known that 9/11 was coming from the cell phone chatter. But that 
was foreclosed.
  We also know from that trial back in the 1990s that information was 
demanded by the defendants of the unnamed co-conspirators. That was 
required to be disclosed. Within 2 weeks, all of that information was 
back in the hands of Osama bin Laden and they knew who not to use and 
who we were on to. Again, it hurt us dramatically in our intelligence 
efforts to defend ourselves and to prepare for the onslaught against 
us. So it is dangerous to provide people at war with you with the kind 
of discovery that will be available in the U.S. district courts.
  What is infuriating to me--I was in the Army for 4 years. I know 
about the military justice system. To think about our soldiers in 
harm's way having the requirement put on them that for the future you 
may have an Attorney General or a President that decides the people you 
capture on the battlefield are entitled to a trial in a U.S. district 
court. Therefore, we know you're being shot at, but go ahead and go on 
out there and bring your forensic wagon and start getting fingerprints 
so we can prove that they touched the bullet casings that you saw them 
touch because your testimony in a U.S. district court will need to be 
supplemented with hard evidence.
  We will need DNA evidence, we will need other evidence forensic in 
nature. We'll have to have people go out there and check out the 
bodies, take the bullets out of our servicemen who were killed by this 
guy you saw shoot so that we can establish that, yes, their 
fingerprints were on the weapon. That is insane to require our soldiers 
and sailors, our military in harm's way to go out and be conducting 
forensic evidence examinations on a battlefield during a time when 
people are at war with us.
  I was glad to hear our President say in the last couple of weeks that 
he recognizes now that we are in a war. Well, if we're in a war, you 
don't bring--they were called ``enemy detainees''; now, as amended in 
the past year by our majority here in the House and Senate, that 
language has been changed. It was just really kind of impolite to call 
them enemy combatants. That language has now been changed in the law to 
``alien unprivileged enemy belligerents.'' Hopefully that will make 
them feel better.
  But it goes back to what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said in his pleading, 
``They fight not against you even together.
  ``Their enmity among themselves is very great, you would think that 
they were united, but their hearts are divided. That is because they 
are a people who understand not.''

                              {time}  1900

  They know that there are people in this country who are ignorant, 
that they are in a war and intend to destroy us, and they say that's 
what gives them the advantage over us. So you have people well-
intentioned. Now, that's a good intention of the President of the 
United States to say, You know what? We're going to be above board, 
give them all this information, and have all of these open trials. Of 
course, we also heard we were going to have open proceedings on the 
health care bill, and that hasn't happened. Although we're not going to 
open up the health care debate and although we're not going to do what 
we promised and put it on C-SPAN, we are going to do that for the 
enemies of the United States. That is extraordinary.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOHMERT. Certainly.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Yes, I have just tremendous concerns 
with these decisions the administration is trying to move.
  I know the Republicans in this Congress have been working very hard 
over the past year to keep those terrorists--I don't care what other 
label they put on them. They're terrorists. I have a son who was 
wounded as a result of some of those folks south of Baghdad, and 
they're terrorists. They seek to do harm. They want to kill Americans. 
They've been captured in the act of war, in the war theater.
  I have tremendous concern with the Commander in Chief and with my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle who, I really think, have 
compromised principles. You look at every decision that gets made, and 
there are principles behind it. I think the principle that should be 
above all for the Commander in Chief and for the United States Congress 
is the safety and security of the United States citizens. It comes down 
to keeping every individual American as safe as absolutely possible, 
and that's the principle that should be guiding us.
  If that is the principle that should be in place--and that's a 
principle that is easy to find within the opening paragraph of the 
Constitution of the United States--then this would not be a debate. We 
would come to the conclusion that our commanders who established 
Guantanamo Bay used the right wisdom, the right rule of law to do that, 
and we are doing that in a fair and humane way to keep those terrorists 
housed and to keep Americans safe.

[[Page 147]]

  Yet the principle, I believe, that is being followed by our Commander 
in Chief and by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is one of 
almost bowing to other countries, of doing what appears to be 
politically correct, of winning favor in the international community, 
that closing Guantanamo Bay is not good for Americans. It seems like 
it's something that is offered up as a public relations move to the 
rest of the world.
  I yield back for your thoughts.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I would take you back to 1978 when a very nice man at 
that time was the President, named Jimmy Carter. I believe it was in 
1978 that President Jimmy Carter hailed the Shah of Iran as leading a 
country that was the most stable entity in the whole Middle East. Then 
a year later, it had been home to a revolution. Ayatollah Khomeini came 
back, and for the first time in our lifetime--some say the first time 
ever--but certainly, for the first time in my lifetime, there were 
Islamic extremists, jihadist individuals, who were in charge of a 
nation and that nation's military. So going back to what Khalid Sheikh 
Mohammed said in his pleading: Their hearts are divided. That is 
because they are people who understand not.
  Well, we had a President--again, a nice man, Jimmy Carter--but he 
understood not. He was wrong about the shah's having such a stable 
country. It was not stable. That was misread. Then he misread that 
these were guys who, if you just were nice to them, they'd be nice 
back. Apparently, they even sent a Cabinet member to talk to the 
representative of Ayatollah Khomeini to tell him, Look, we're ready to 
be friends, to help, to have a wonderful relationship with you. Just 
let us know when and how fast you want to proceed. He understood not 
that these people considered themselves as extremist jihadists--enemies 
of the United States. They considered it the Great Satan, and they 
needed to destroy it at all costs. Ayatollah Khomeini called for, 
basically, war against the United States.
  On November 4, 1979, Iranian Muslim extremists stormed the American 
Embassy in Iran. They actually took more than 52 hostages. They 
released some for PR purposes later but kept 52 diplomats hostage. Now, 
President Carter and his administration thought we can just out-friend 
them, and they'll release them. We'll just be nice to them. We know how 
to do this. We'll be really, really nice, and we'll work with them. In 
fact, at one point, President Carter said, We don't want to do anything 
that will put these hostages at risk. That was a green light to Islamic 
extremists, jihadists, around the world that the United States is a 
paper tiger, that it's weak and that, as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said, 
They're divided. They understand not. They don't realize we are at war 
with them and are going to destroy them, and so we can take them.
  Those 444 days that the United States allowed itself to be held 
hostage in Iran were the greatest recruiting tools of jihadists the 
world over, and we did nothing.
  During the campaign of 1980, President Carter painted Presidential 
candidate Reagan as being so crazy that he might just attack these guys 
and take them out and that you couldn't trust him. Remember that 
``Saturday Night Live'' had a sketch of Reagan walking around, asking 
where the red nuclear button was. He was going to push it. So the 
reputation around the world was such that people perceived that this 
Reagan guy may actually come after us, that we'd better release the 
hostages. Well, the hostages were released; but again, unfortunately, 
it wasn't limited to President Carter and advisers of his 
administration that they didn't recognize that the jihadists were at 
war with us.
  We had Marines in Beirut, Lebanon. In 1983, the Marine barracks were 
bombed in Lebanon. One terrorist driver drove through the concertina 
wire, drove through the guards, and the truck exploded and killed 241 
American servicemen in Beirut, Lebanon. That was a phenomenal 
recruiting tool. People in America started saying, Let's just get out. 
Just get out. Unfortunately, on that occasion, President Reagan bowed 
to his advisers and to popular opinion at the time that we needed to 
just pull out.
  That was an extraordinary recruiting tool. At the time, jihadists 
used it in an incredible way to recruit for their crazed jihadist cause 
because they were able to say, Look, one guy gave his life, detonated a 
bomb, and the most powerful military country in the world, the United 
States, turned tail and ran. One man completely committed as a suicide 
bomber could make the United States cower and run, because that is the 
way it was perceived. That was a phenomenal recruiting tool for 
jihadists around the world. They were also not ignorant. The jihadists 
were not.
  In Vietnam, instead of just finishing giving our soldiers, sailors 
and airmen what they needed to just win the war and to come home, it 
was strung out in Washington under President Johnson. He was even 
picking the bombing sites in Washington instead of letting the 
servicemen do their jobs.
  One of the things I admire about former President George H.W. Bush is 
when he committed that we were going to liberate Kuwait from the 
atrocity of Saddam Hussein's moving in and taking over that country, he 
did a great thing. He called in the military guys, and said, You guys 
are in the military. You tell me what we need. Here is what we're going 
to do. We're going to liberate Kuwait. So they put together a plan, and 
that's what they did. It was not the civilians running the activity.
  Sam Johnson, a Member of our body here, a colleague who was in the 
Hanoi Hilton for nearly 7 years, was told, after we carpet-bombed North 
Vietnam in Hanoi for 2 weeks, that they rushed back to the negotiating 
table, worked out a deal that was favorable to them and not to the 
United States. Sam said, when he was leaving the POW camp, the Hanoi 
Hilton, the commander was laughing, and said, You stupid Americans. If 
you had just bombed us for one more week, we would have had to 
surrender unconditionally.
  But we didn't do that. We didn't give the servicemembers what they 
needed to just win the war and come home. That should have been the 
lesson of Vietnam: never commit troops unless you are willing to give 
them what it takes to win the war and come home.
  In Beirut, Lebanon, our Marines were told--and the ones who were out 
on the perimeter who should have been able to stop the truck coming 
through the concertina wire--and there should have been more to stop 
them than that-- they were not allowed under their rules of engagement 
to even have rounds in their weapons. We've repeated some of those same 
mistakes, but that was a tremendous recruiting tool.
  If you go through the history, there are so many acts of war. That 
was certainly an act of war. Under everyone's interpretation of 
international law, when you invade an embassy, you have committed an 
act of war against that country. There is an act of war against 
America. We were within our rights to say, You either get our hostages 
out within 48 hours, 72 hours, whatever it is, or we're coming in.
  I was in the Army at Fort Benning at the time, so we were paying 
close attention. Nobody was dying to go to Iran, but people were 
prepared to go and die, if necessary, to defend our country after an 
act of war like that. Yet what happened after that was no response. So, 
again, they were able to recruit.
  After we pulled out of Beirut, Lebanon, after the attack on our 
Marine barracks in 1984, Malcolm Kerr, a Lebanese-born American, was 
president of the American University of Beirut. He was killed by two 
gunmen outside his office. Hezbollah said the assassination was part of 
the organization's plan to drive all Americans out of Lebanon.
  On March 16, Hezbollah kidnapped William Buckley, a political officer 
at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. Buckley was supposed to be exchanged for 
prisoners, but that didn't happen. There was a trial in the U.S. 
District Court of a civil nature, not of prisoners of war, not of enemy 
combatants. There was a trial in the U.S. District Court where the 
evidence came forward to prove and it was established, and the court 
found

[[Page 148]]

that Hezbollah was responsible for the attack on the Beirut Marine 
barracks and that it was sponsored by Iran, that Iran was the one 
behind it all. They've been at war with us since 1979, and we didn't 
know it.
  You would have thought as other things occurred, like the Kuwait 
Airways Flight 221 being hijacked and diverted to Tehran where two 
Americans were killed, that that might have been a clue.
  It might have been a clue when two Hezbollah members hijacked a TWA 
flight and forced the pilot to fly to Beirut. Eight crew members and 
145 passengers were held for 17 days, and one of the hostages, a U.S. 
Navy diver, was murdered.
  You would have thought that perhaps, when 4 terrorists from Abu 
Nidal's organization attacked the El Al offices at Leonardo DaVinci 
Airport in Rome and 13 people, including 5 Americans, were killed and 
74 were wounded, among them 2 Americans, that that would have been a 
clue that someone was at war with us.

                              {time}  1915

  It might have been a clue that in an explosion at the LaBelle 
nightclub in Berlin frequented by American soldiers that two U.S. 
soldiers were killed and 191 individuals were wounded, including 41 
U.S. soldiers, and they saw the evidence indicating Libya was involved, 
that that would have been a clue.
  In 1988, Colonel William Higgins, the American chief of the UN Truce 
Supervisory Organization, was abducted again by Hezbollah, backed by 
Iran, and Hezbollah later claimed they killed Colonel Higgins.
  Some who were alive back in the 1980s may recall that, after Libya 
had sponsored terrorism, President Reagan realized you have got to deal 
with these people in a manner they understand. We sent planes to Libya, 
they bombed his home, and we didn't have any more trouble out of Libya 
for a number of years.
  But if you come up to 1991, there were two car bombings that killed a 
U.S. Air Force sergeant and severely wounded an Egyptian diplomat in 
Istanbul, and the Turkish Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
  You get to 1993, February 26, a massive van bomb exploded in an 
underground parking garage below the World Trade Center in New York 
City that killed six and wounded 1,042. Four Islamist activists were 
responsible for the attack. But those in authority in the country did 
not realize that we were even in a war. We were in a war.
  So when you start thinking about what is the greatest terrorist 
recruiting tool? What is it that has enabled the jihadists to continue 
to recruit since 1979? Well, first they use the fact that even though 
we have so much military might, we turned tail and ran from Vietnam. 
And then they were able to use that in 1979. They attacked the United 
States by attacking our Embassy, took American hostages, and we did 
nothing about it. That was a great recruiting tool, and they were able 
to recruit well because of it, because they were able to show they 
scared the great Satan even though they had more power, more military 
might.
  Then, in 1983, to bomb our barracks and have one man give his life 
and kill 241 Marines and we withdrew, that was a great recruiting tool 
for jihadists. It wasn't Gitmo.
  These people have been at war with us for over 30 years, and it took 
too long for people in authority here to realize it. So if you go 
forward, of course--and there are many other killings, bombings.
  In 1995, Islamic extremists set fire to a warehouse belonging to the 
U.S. Embassy, threatened the Algerian security guard because he was 
working for the United States, and the armed Islamic group was 
apparently suspected and felt clearly that they were involved with the 
attack.
  November 13 of 1995, a car bomb exploded in the parking lot outside 
the Riyadh headquarters of the Office of the Program Manager, Saudi 
Arabian National Guard, killing seven persons, five of them U.S. 
citizens. Three groups--the Islamic Movement for Change, the Tigers of 
the Gulf, and the Combatant Partisans of God--claimed responsibility 
for that attack, that act of war against Americans.
  February 25 of 1996, a suicide bomber blew up a commuter bus in 
Jerusalem killing 26, including three U.S. citizens, injuring 80 
others. Among those injured were U.S. citizens. Hamas claimed 
responsibility for the bombing.
  June 25 of 1996, a fuel truck carrying a bomb exploded outside the 
U.S. military's Khobar Towers housing facility there in Dhahran, 
killing 19 U.S. military personnel and wounding 515 persons, including 
240 U.S. personnel. Saudi Hezbollah was identified as the group 
responsible.
  They were at war, but the United States still did not recognize it. 
Still, we are turning over secrets and intelligence gathering 
information through trials, through the courts in the United States 
District Court. What a mistake.
  1997, September 4, the bombing on Ben Yehuda Street in Jerusalem, one 
U.S. citizen killed, 10 injured. Hamas claimed responsibility for the 
attack.
  There are so many others.
  November 12, two gunmen shot to death four U.S. auditors from Union 
Texas Petroleum and their Pakistani driver as they drove from the 
Sheraton Hotel in Karachi. Two groups claimed responsibility: the 
Islamic Council and Islamic Revolutionary Council, also known as the 
Aimal Khufia Action Committee.
  1998, August 7, a car bomb exploded at the rear entrance of the U.S. 
Embassy in Nairobi. The attack killed a total of 292, including 12 U.S. 
citizens, injured over 5,000, including Americans. The perpetrators 
belonged to some group named al Qaeda that is part of Osama bin Laden's 
network.
  2000, October 12. While the campaign for President in 2000 was going 
on, a suicide squad rammed the warship the USS Cole with an explosives-
ladened boat, killing 13 American sailors and injuring 33. It was 
believed to have been caused by Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda 
organization.
  We still didn't recognize there was a war going on, not until 
September 11, 2001, when people know what happened. Finally, we got the 
picture. Finally, we realized this war has been going on since 1979, 
and it is time we fought in this war and not let it be a one-sided war.
  There is no answering these people who want to destroy our way of 
life with reaching out in peace. I saw a sign not long ago, some 
protestor had a sign that said, ``War never brought about peace.'' I 
was amazed. Obviously, this person knows nothing about history.
  The greatest periods of peace come when bad guys are defeated. Those 
who are mean and evil and they want to take the liberty others may 
have, you defeat them, and then you have a period of peace.
  And there are periods of peace when the bad guys defeat countries who 
don't know they are at war even though they are stronger. That is what 
al Qaeda, that is what Hezbollah, that is what the jihadists are 
counting on is the ignorance in this country by people who do not 
realize there is a war going on and that we are determined to show how 
loving and peaceful we can be.
  Neville Chamberlain tried that. He tried that. And what happened was, 
as Winston Churchill said: An appeaser is someone who keeps feeding the 
alligator, hoping they'll be eaten last. And that is what Chamberlain 
did, and it didn't work. It didn't work in the Pacific.
  When people declare war against you, you have got to fight them in 
the war until they finally acknowledge, Okay, we give up. We are no 
longer at war. We will quit fighting.
  At that point, all of the detainees, the prisoners of war that you 
have held, you release them because their buddies are no longer at war 
with you. That is the history of civilized society at war. And when 
they are released, you hold those you have probable cause to believe 
committed war crimes and then try them in a Nuremberg or military 
commission-style trial.
  I would like to recognize my dear friend, my colleague from 
Minnesota, Michele Bachmann.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. I want to thank the gentleman from Tyler, Texas,

[[Page 149]]

Louie Gohmert, for the wonderful job that he has been doing. I caught 
some of the gentleman's remarks briefly, and I was so pleased that you 
talked about this whole concept of the greatest terrorist recruiting 
tool, Gitmo or U.S. weakness.
  You are exactly right in your description of what we are looking at 
now with Gitmo. What we are looking at the President's idea of closing 
Gitmo is actually a fiction.
  And the gentleman may have already addressed that issue, but it can't 
be underscored enough in my mind: Gitmo will not be closed. Yes, it may 
no longer be in its current physical location off of U.S. soil, but 
Gitmo will simply be packed up into boxes, a moving van is going to 
show up, and that moving van will be taken across water and across 
land. And, guess what? Gitmo is going to have a new address. It will 
fill out a change of address form for the worst of the worst terrorists 
that we know of that are enemy noncombatants against United States 
citizens, only now these enemy noncombatants, rather than being held 
safely and securely off U.S. soil, will be brought on to U.S. soil, 
where they will be on U.S. soil in Thompson, Illinois, in the heartland 
of this great country, whereby they will have opportunities potentially 
to do what we know terrorists have been doing for the past several 
years, and that is recruiting through the U.S. prison system for more 
people to become radicalized in their Sharia-compliant view of jihadist 
extremism.
  Is this going to make anyone safer in the United States? Ultimately, 
that is the final question that we as Members of Congress have to 
satisfy ourselves: Will we be safer bringing these terrorists from 
Gitmo onto U.S. soil or will we be safer keeping them secure where they 
have been all along, on Gitmo? I think it is keeping them on Gitmo.
  Something else I would like to bring up if I could, just for a 
minute, just to divert, and it is the issue of this underwear bomber on 
Christmas Day. This is such a horrible travesty that was averted simply 
because the incompetence of this terrorist. But for his incompetence, 
we would have this Chamber filled with Members of Congress screaming 
about, What happened? Why weren't we secure? We would be having lively 
discussions every night. Thank God this terrorist was not successful. 
But he came so close to taking out nearly 300 innocent lives.
  We have seen this path before, and there is a common thread that 
occurs. The common thread are people who are sold out to radicalize 
Sharia-compliant jihad. That is the thread. Why aren't we as a 
government looking for people with that profile?
  Oh, I guess I said a bad word. Profile? Is that a politically 
noncorrect word now? We are not supposed to say it? Well, let's talk 
about what we need to do to keep safety foremost. Not political 
correctness. Safety of the American people. That is what this is about.
  The American people are right to be outraged when they think that 
their government is lifting up the tenets of multiculturalism over the 
tenets of the safety and security of the American people.
  Oh, that the day would never come when, in the name of political 
correctness, Americans would die needlessly in tragedies like the one 
thankfully that was averted on Christmas Day. May that never be.
  And for my money, one of the worst things that happened is that when 
this underwear bomber was taken off of the plane, he had a small 
interrogation, then was given his Miranda warnings, was given a defense 
lawyer, and that is the end of it. Now duct tape is over his mouth. The 
United States will never again benefit from what this terrorist--I 
suppose we are supposed to say ``alleged terrorist''--what this fellow 
intended against American citizens and other citizens from other 
nations of the world. This is a travesty.
  He should not have been given his Miranda warnings, in my opinion. He 
should have been fully vetted and interrogated for what he was, 
because, let's remember, we have to make a decision. Are we going to 
take this war seriously or are we going to treat this as a criminal act 
akin to breaking and entering?
  This is war. You can't have anything more clear. Someone who comes 
intending to bomb a plane, a Northwest Airlines plane over Detroit, 
this is an act of war. This is not a breaking and entering. This should 
not have been a Mirandized situation, given full rights to a lawyer and 
told forever and ever, You don't have to say a word. Now we are giving 
you all the rights, privileges, and immunities of an American citizen 
even though you aren't one. You are a Nigerian, and you planned evil 
intent for a lot of innocent people.
  This is beyond belief to me. I just can't believe it. That is why I 
am so grateful to the gentleman from Tyler, Texas, because you are 
asking exactly the right question: Is Gitmo a recruiting tool or U.S. 
weakness? When you lawyer up and Mirandize actual terrorists in the 
midst of a terrifying event, an act of war against America, you don't 
Mirandize. You treat them for what they are.

                              {time}  1930

  You treat them for what they are. You interrogate them. Why? Because 
at the end of the day will the American people be safer or will we be 
more at risk? Closing Gitmo, that location, moving it to Thompson, 
Illinois, opening it up, it's still Gitmo; now it's just Gitmo North 
rather than Gitmo South, and that equals U.S. weakness.
  With that, I yield back to the gentleman from Tyler, Texas.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate so much those wonderful points that were 
made. It is weakness that gives a recruiting tool, the joy among 
jihadists to realize we told them, close Gitmo. It's a nice place if 
you're going to be held somewhere as a prisoner. We told them it was a 
recruiting tool. And now, as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said, that is 
because they are people who understand not the reason they'll defeat 
us. They didn't get it. They thought they really did need to close 
Gitmo, and they did, and they're going to bring it onto the continental 
U.S. That shows weakness. The fact that we are showing that kind of 
weakness in closing Gitmo is a fantastic recruiting tool.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Absolutely.
  Mr. GOHMERT. If you go back after the surge that was ordered by 
President Bush, and before that, things weren't going well. General 
Petraeus told us we need a surge. We got a surge and all of a sudden 
things are going much better in Iraq. They're going great. And some of 
the declassified information that was obtained by our intelligence 
sources, we saw their own writings. We saw what they said. They said 
that things are going so good for the United States, we thought after 
the Republicans lost the majority, they would pull out. But now that 
they've come with more troops and they're defeating us, we can't 
recruit. Their own information said we can't recruit, because this 
showed strength.
  And now they're having a big time because, gee, they've been 
successful in making us think that showing weakness is going to help 
us, when it's actually helping them recruit. It is exactly what's 
happened. Every time they acted and did something violent, and we 
responded by backing up.
  I want to address very quickly one of the things that's been brought 
up by some of our friends. Some people in the country say, Well, these 
prisoners need all of the constitutional rights they're supposed to 
have. And they're getting them at Gitmo. Because just as if--when I was 
in the military, I was subject to the UCMJ. I was subject to a military 
court. I wasn't entitled to a trial if I had done something on a 
military installation. I was entitled to a military trial. And that was 
constitutional. And it was constitutional and is constitutional for 
this Congress to set up military commissions to try people who have 
engaged in war against us. That is constitutional. And they've gotten 
all of their constitutional rights as someone at war with us. And now, 
because they're going to be tried in the United States, they're 
deciding to plead not guilty so they can put on a show.
  What causes more weakness, what causes more recruiting? Is it U.S. 
weakness or is it Gitmo? Clearly, our

[[Page 150]]

country leaders have been suckered into thinking that closing Gitmo 
will be a good thing for us, and in fact what is telegraphed is, these 
people are weak, just as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said. You would think 
they are united, but their hearts are divided. That's because they're 
people who understand not. They're saying, We don't understand.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. If the gentleman would yield on Khalid Sheikh 
Mohammed. This is an extremely important point. Again, the mastermind 
of 9/11, who achieved his goal of killing 3,000 innocent Americans in 
the World Trade Center bombing, he got his way. Why would we give him 
his way by bringing him to New York City at over $200 million a year 
taxpayer expense to give him a show trial when he's already pled guilty 
and already asked to be executed? What happened? Did the President, did 
the Attorney General say to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Now wait a minute; 
you don't want to plead guilty. Wait a minute; you don't want to be 
executed. You want to come to New York City. You want to have the trial 
just like you asked for in the first place.
  Why would we do that? Because the only message we will be sending to 
future terrorists will be you, too, can have a show trial in the city 
of your choice if you come to America. Or, if you try a terrorist 
activity, you, too, can be Mirandized and be part of the American legal 
system.
  I yield back to gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. I realize my time is expiring and appreciate 
the indulgence, Mr. Speaker. It should be clear, though, the way to 
deal with Iran is not through weakness. If they won't shut down the 
nuclear proliferation, we have got to shut them down.
  With that, we yield back our time.

                          ____________________