[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1763-1766]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1315
       FIRST CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY: PROVIDE FOR OUR COMMON DEFENSE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
GOHMERT) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate so much my dear friend, Mr. Perry's, last 
hour, almost, talking about such an important issue. I know there are 
those who say the number one job of Congress is

[[Page 1764]]

to create jobs; but I think a more appropriate reading of our 
constitutional duties is, number one, we are supposed to provide for 
the common defense. Every American should do as George Washington 
prayed that we would, to never forget those who have served in the 
field--that is our military men and women--some of whom have given all, 
but all gave something.
  That was Washington's prayer at the end of his resignation as he 
resigned as the commander of the Revolutionary forces--something that 
had never been done before. And my understanding is it has not happened 
since. As a leader in the Maldives Islands said a few years ago, 
unsolicited, he said:

       We have never had a George Washington to set the proper 
     example, so we are always worried about a military coup.

  And, unfortunately, they have had one.
  What a blessed Nation we are because people like Washington were 
raised up for such a time as they were in. Abraham Lincoln spoke more 
than once so eloquently about the need to help those who have served 
and their widows and orphans. So it is particularly dismaying when 
Congress passes anything that does not properly honor and address the 
issues of those who have served in the field, and as we have talked 
about before, to follow up and fulfill our obligation to keep our 
promises. This government promises individuals if you come into the 
military and you serve until retirement, here is what you will get in 
return. We should not break our promises to those who have served and 
risked life and limb to protect us.
  Just as my friend, Marcus Latrel, said recently on CNN, basically 
that they didn't go to the mission in Afghanistan senselessly, that it 
is not senseless when someone hears the call, sees the order of his 
country, and acts in accordance with their order, win, lose or draw. 
And that is the mentality. Of my 4 years in the Army, probably 2\1/2\ 
were under Commander Jimmy Carter and a year and a half under Commander 
in Chief Ronald Reagan. The last year and a half was far better because 
we had a Commander in Chief that truly appreciated more the opinion of 
those who were serving in the field and restored honor for the 
military. President Carter, obviously, from his background had respect, 
but you sure couldn't tell it from the actions when we were in the 
military. As a result, our reputation suffered around the world and we 
had an act of war on our embassy in Tehran. And other than a scaled-
back rescue attempt--scaled back by the White House itself--we were 
embarrassed. And it is still used for recruiting today among radical 
extremists. Muslim Brotherhood members abroad say that these guys don't 
have the backbone to do what is necessary to win.
  In such an important time in this world where so much is at risk to 
have an administration and some in the House or Senate that think it is 
okay to break our word to our military. We have got to turn this 
around. To those who think it is okay, we need to make clear, Mr. 
Speaker, it is not okay. We have the moral obligation to keep our 
promises and to do everything we can to protect those who are 
protecting us and to never send them into harm's way unless they have 
been given authority to win.
  That should have been the lesson learned from Vietnam that wasn't 
learned. The lesson was not that we couldn't win--we could. And as Sam 
Johnson says in his book and points out in person after his 7 years in 
the Hanoi Hilton--much of it in complete isolation, brutally treated--
after carpet bombing North Vietnam for 2 weeks, which could have 
happened many years before and ended the war early, a vindictive 
commander at the Hanoi Hilton laughed, saying, in effect, you stupid 
Americans, if you had just bombed us for 1 more week, we would have had 
to surrender unconditionally.
  So it should be. We should not get involved anywhere where we do not 
give full authority to those in our military to go kick rear-ends, win, 
and then come home.
  In an article today by Kristina Wong from ``The Hill'' publication, 
headline ``Pentagon's hands tied on hunting down Benghazi attackers,'' 
this article says:

       The U.S. military cannot hunt down and kill people 
     responsible for the deadly 2012 attack on an American 
     compound in Benghazi, Libya, as long as the terrorists are 
     not officially deemed members or affiliates of al Qaeda, 
     newly declassified transcripts from congressional hearings 
     show.

  This article goes on to say:

       ``In other words, they don't fall under the AUMF, that 
     stands for authorized use of military force, authorized by 
     the Congress of the United States. So we would not have the 
     capacity to simply find them and kill them either with a 
     remotely piloted aircraft or with an assault on the ground,'' 
     Dempsey said.

  They are talking about General Dempsey in his testimony before the 
House Armed Services Committee, and those were the transcripts that 
were released.
  But he is the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and here is 
where I have become amazed how this administration could think that the 
AUMF somehow gives this President authority without consulting Congress 
to go over and bomb and have our military play an active role in taking 
out Qadhafi, provide weapons to Libyans who very well may have been 
used to help attack our consulate, by the way, in Benghazi. We don't 
know enough to know for sure, but there is a good chance we were giving 
them the weapons. But how this President, this administration, thinks 
you can go over and go to war against Qadhafi, who had become an ally 
after he got scared enough after the invasion of Iraq that he just 
opened up all of his weapons systems, became an ally and, as some 
moderate Muslim leaders in the Middle East have said to me, he wasn't a 
good guy, but he was one of your good friends after he got scared of 
you in 2003. And some have said he was doing more to help fight 
terrorism in that part of the world than anybody besides Israel, and 
yet you bomb him and you give weapons to go against him. We don't 
understand you.
  But this administration felt as if under the AUMF it had full 
authority to go in and attack a place where even the Secretary of 
Defense said we have no national security interest in Libya. Oh, sure, 
the Organization of Islamic Council, the 57 states that make up that 
organization--sometimes confused with the 50 States we have here in 
America--but that 57 states that make up the OIC, they wanted us to go 
in and take out Qadhafi because they didn't like him because he was 
fighting terrorism, radical Islam, and the Muslim Brotherhood.
  How would an administration, how would a Commander in Chief have 
authority to go into Libya, and then when we find out there are people 
that still want to destroy America, kill Americans and destroy our way 
of life, all of a sudden you say, but we don't really have authority to 
go after people who have declared war on us, have committed an act of 
war in attacking our embassy, but we are just not sure we can go after 
them.
  That did not seem to stop this administration and the President from 
issuing an order to murder, to kill a guy I wasn't a fan of, Anwar al-
Awlaki, a U.S. citizen because his parents came over on a visa and he 
was born here, and then he went back and was taught to hate America. 
Even though earlier, even during the Bush administration, he came to 
Capitol Hill and led congressional Muslim staffers here in prayer here 
on Capitol Hill; even though he had contacts within this 
administration, he visited with people in this administration's 
government, for some reason, we didn't see the need to arrest him and 
put him on trial here in America, but they thought it would be better 
just to hit him with a drone attack in Yemen and kill him over there.
  And I'm not finding fault necessarily. That is a different debate 
over whether a President should order a drone attack on an American 
citizen without a trial. My point is if this administration felt as if 
the AUMF, the authorization for use of military force, allowed him to 
take out an American citizen in Yemen, then how is it that this 
administration all of a sudden gets scared and says, gee, we might 
violate the AUMF if we go after the people that

[[Page 1765]]

killed our Ambassador in an act of war against U.S. property, which was 
our consulate in Benghazi?
  I think it is helpful to read directly from the language. It is 
something I was extremely concerned about and a number of my friends 
here have been extremely concerned about. It is why we have pushed 
amendments to rein in the Presidential authority to go after American 
citizens, and we have worked on language and passed language to effect 
this to prevent any U.S. President, whether it was former President 
Bush while he was still President or this President or a future 
President, it would prevent them from being able to just arrest an 
American citizen and hold them indefinitely. We put restraints on the 
President.
  Here is the language that now-General Dempsey and this administration 
say we just don't really have the authority under the AUMF to go after 
the guys that assassinated our Ambassador and killed three others 
including two former Navy SEALs and took much of the leg of a former 
Army Ranger that was on the rooftop with Ty Woods and Glen Doherty.
  Here is the language. It says:

       That the President is authorized to use all necessary and 
     appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or 
     persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided 
     the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or 
     harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent 
     any future acts of international terrorism against the United 
     States by such nations, organizations or persons.

  So we have had people that took that and said, gee, you know, al-
Awlaki didn't help plan 2001's 9/11 attack. In fact, we had him around 
Washington, leading prayers here on Capitol Hill and having contacts 
with this administration. But, gee, they didn't have a problem using 
this language to kill an American citizen in Yemen--not because he 
participated or helped plan
9/11/2001, but simply because they were using language here in the last 
part that:

       Or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to 
     prevent future acts of international terrorism against the 
     United States by such nations.

  So that has been interpreted by this administration for a long time 
now, gee, you didn't have to participate or help plan 9/11/2001; but if 
you did anything to aid, abet, assist, encourage in any way any of 
these organizations that may have participated in some way in 9/11/
2001, then the President can do whatever he needs to with military 
force to, as it says:

       Prevent any future acts of international terrorism against 
     the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

                              {time}  1330

  Well, if al-Awlaki could have this language used to take him out with 
a drone attack, then certainly under this administration's definition 
and usage of that language, it sure ought to authorize them to go after 
people that declared war on us and committed an act of war against our 
enemy, or harbored such persons or organizations. And we already know, 
everybody but The New York Times, everybody knows that the 
organizations, some of the organizations that participated in the 9/11/
12 attack, the act of war on our consulate in Benghazi, were affiliated 
with al Qaeda, organizations that did participate in 9/11.
  So these organizations didn't necessarily part in 9/11 on 2001, but 
they certainly were working with them. So anyway, it just seems to be 
contradictory for the administration to use the AUMF to possibly accede 
their authority to kill people abroad and then turn around and hide 
behind it.
  And perhaps if Dr. Gates had not written the book he did and given us 
insight into things that are said or not said in this administration, 
then maybe we wouldn't know as much. But since we now know that even 
the Secretary of Defense and our top generals can feel the President is 
doing the wrong thing but not have the guts to tell him to his face, 
then I don't know, perhaps possibly General Dempsey is in that category 
now. Maybe he is one of those who fits in the category of maybe knowing 
something is appropriate but, instead, popping those heels together, 
saluting, yes, sir, and never fulfilling their duty not just to follow 
orders, but to give helpful information to a commander above you, in 
this case the Commander in Chief.
  This article says:

       The U.S. could seek to capture the Benghazi attackers under 
     the existing AUMF, but it would need to allow forces in 
     Libya, or any other countries in which the attackers are 
     hiding, to do so.

  Well, isn't that interesting, because that is not what this President 
did to kill al-Awlaki, Anwar al-Awlaki. They just killed him. They 
didn't allow any Yemen force, or anybody else. They just took him out 
with one of our drones bombs. And now all of a sudden they want to hide 
behind this language and say, Oh, well, actually, we can't do that. So 
is that our excuse now for why, after a year and a half--and I feel 
sorry for the President because basically he wasn't going to rest until 
we got these guys. So, man, a year and a half is a long time not to 
rest.
  This article says Dempsey's classified comments highlight the limits 
of the existing authority which was approved by Congress after the 
September 11, 2001, attacks and the difficulty of fighting a constantly 
evolving enemy that in al Qaeda has inspired independent terrorist 
groups to try to murder American forces and civilians. The AUMF gives 
the military authority to hunt and kill those responsible for the 2001 
attacks, wherever they are, and has allowed President Obama to 
authorize hundreds of drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and 
Libya. It has also been used to authorize several Special Operations 
raids, such as the one that took out Osama bin Laden.
  But, see, the article just accepts what the administration says. 
General Dempsey said apparently in his testimony, Oh, well, gee, 
apparently you can go after all these other people. Well, if you can go 
after them, you can use the same language to go after the perpetrators 
of 9/11. So what is the administration afraid of?
  I keep wanting these questions asked, and I think we need a select 
committee to ask these questions. Why don't you just come forward, all 
those in the administration that have information, why do you keep 
polygraphing our intelligence agents who knew what went on in Libya and 
what was going on in Libya? Why do you keep polygraphing them to make 
sure that they are not talking to Congress or anybody else? Why don't 
you just let them tell Members of Congress so we have better 
information from which we can authorize other actions and appropriate 
money to help with those actions? Why don't you just come forward and 
tell us what was going on? Why don't you try for a change being the 
most transparent administration in history? It is a long way to go, but 
maybe it is time to start.
  We are in a war; and as others have so appropriately said, apparently 
we have been in a war since 1979 when radical Islamists committed the 
act of war against American property. An embassy belongs to the country 
and the soil is considered to be the country that occupies that 
embassy. You commit an act against that, military act, hostile act, it 
is an act of war. So we have been at war since 1979. The trouble is 
until 9/11/01, most Americans didn't know we were in a war. Only one 
side knew we were in a war. That was borne out in 1983 when our 
marines, over 200 marines, were killed in Beirut by a bombing, a truck 
bombing that came in there.
  So many acts of war, of violence, including the 1993 World Trade 
Center bombing, including the two embassies that were bombed under the 
Clinton administration, although perhaps some in the administration 
might be tempted to ask, as Secretary Clinton asked not that long ago, 
What difference at this point does it make how or why they were killed 
basically in those embassies. Well, it makes a difference because we 
can prevent them in the future if we know why they were killed and what 
went wrong in the present. But it is a mystery.
  Why hide behind the same AUMF as an excuse not to have brought the 
assassins of our Ambassador to justice? And something I heard, I heard 
a

[[Page 1766]]

former JAG officer talking on Fox News one night this week, obviously a 
smart man, but an ignorant man. You can be smart, but be ignorant. He 
was ignorant of the Constitution because he seemed to think that the 
Constitution requires you capture someone who has declared war on you, 
you have to give them all kinds of access and let them send manifestos 
around, you have to give them all kinds of freedom; and that is simply 
not the case. Some people who mean well but are ignorant of the 
Constitution say everybody has to be treated exactly the same under the 
Constitution. Their constitutional rights mean this or that, not 
understanding that actually under the Constitution everybody is not 
entitled to the same court. They are entitled to due process, but 
constitutionally that means different things.
  So in the Army, in the military--I say the Army because that is what 
I was in--but in the military, constitutional rights are different. So 
you don't have the right to freedom of assembly. I wanted to claim that 
many times. We were ordered to be out for a 5 a.m. forced 25-mile 
march. I wanted to claim, Sir, I have a right to freedom of assembly 
wherever and whenever I want, and I would just rather not assemble for 
this 25-mile forced march. Or the--and I can't remember now--two 5-mile 
runs, whatever we used to do, early in the morning before you even 
started the day. It would have been nice to say, No.
  It would be nice to have freedom of speech so as a member of the 
military we could have said what we really thought about some of 
President Carter's orders, but he was Commander in Chief. And as it 
should be, you are not allowed when you are Active Duty military to 
publicly criticize your command chain. In order to have good order and 
discipline, that is the way it needs to be. But once you are not on 
Active Duty, you can say whatever you want. You should be able to say 
without worrying about a drone taking you out.
  So constitutional rights are different when you are in the military. 
The Constitution also makes clear that Congress has the authority to 
set up the disciplinary procedures, the court systems, tribunals for 
the military. It makes clear that Congress has the authority to set up 
different courts for immigration purposes, entirely constitutional.
  So I get amused when some people that are smart, but ignorant about 
the Constitution, start saying everybody in America has a 
constitutional right to be tried before a United States district court. 
Well, that is ridiculous. There is not a U.S. district court that is 
even established in the Constitution. That is completely up to 
Congress. This Congress has the authority to get rid of every district 
court in America, get rid of every Federal court of appeals in America 
and just set up a whole new system. We have the authority to do that.
  As Professor David Guinn used to say, there is only one court 
established in the Constitution, all others owe their existence, their 
jurisdiction, their very being to Congress. As Bill Cosby used to say, 
his daddy told him and his little brother, I brought you into this 
world and I can take you out.
  Well, Congress brought these courts into this world, and Congress can 
remove them. We have that authority. So nobody has a constitutional 
right to a U.S. district court. There is no constitutional creation of 
a U.S. district court. It is up to Congress.
  So to have some former JAG officer go on TV and say, Oh, yeah, you 
have to give all of these rights. No, you don't. Under our 
Constitution, if you declare war against the United States, we have 
every right if we capture you to hold you until the cessation, the 
stopping, of the hostility, the war that you declared against us. And 
then once the war is over, we don't have to try you. Convince your 
buddy, we will let you send a letter to your buddy telling them stop 
the war so I can be released as a POW. We don't have to release them if 
they are part of a group that is at war with us. And then when the end 
of the hostilities comes and the war is over, then you don't even have 
to release everybody that was a POW. If somebody you believe has 
probable cause, that is a good standard, you believe that they have 
committed a war crime, then instead of just releasing them and sending 
them home, you can try them for a war crime.
  But I understand that there are a lot of people in this 
administration that don't really understand that part of the 
Constitution. Perhaps they got a bad professor at the University of 
Chicago Law School or somewhere, and they don't really understand what 
the Constitution actually says or doesn't say. But you can hold people 
indefinitely, and the Supreme Court verified that. You may have to give 
them a writ of habeas corpus hearing, but you don't have to let them go 
or send manifestos. We owe an obligation to protect this country. We 
have authority to do it here in Congress; and, Mr. Speaker, that is 
what we should do.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________