REID, HARRY: Mr. President, after 52 months--about 210 weeks--and
REID, HARRY: about 1,500 days, America finds itself mired in one of the most tragic foreign
REID, HARRY: policy blunders in our Nation's history. And the sad part about it is, Mr.
REID, HARRY: President, there is no end in sight. In my view, and that of academics and
REID, HARRY: others, it will take years, and even decades, to finally close the book on the
REID, HARRY: damage this war has caused our troops, our economy, and our moral standing
REID, HARRY: in the world.
REID, HARRY: On May 24, 2007, President Bush said, and I quote:
REID, HARRY: "We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign
REID, HARRY: nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's
REID, HARRY: their government's choice. If they were to say leave, we would leave."
REID, HARRY: That's the quote of President Bush.
REID, HARRY: This weekend, Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki--for whom President Bush has
REID, HARRY: expressed consistent support and confidence--said that Iraqi forces could take
REID, HARRY: control of their security at ``any time'' American troops want to leave or were to
REID, HARRY: leave.
REID, HARRY: A recent poll of the Iraqi people showed that 21 percent think the American
REID, HARRY: presence makes their country safer. Sixty nine percent say it puts them, the
REID, HARRY: Iraqi people, at greater risk. That is what the Iraqis say.
REID, HARRY: The Iraqi people and their leaders say they are ready for us to end our combat
REID, HARRY: operation. I think it is time we listen to them, Mr. President.
REID, HARRY: In the war's soon to be 5 years, our troops have accomplished everything they
REID, HARRY: have been asked to do. They took down the Iraqi dictator. They secured the
REID, HARRY: country for not one, not two, but three elections. They provided the security
REID, HARRY: needed for Iraqi factions to come together to negotiate peaceful settlement of
REID, HARRY: their differences.
REID, HARRY: But, Mr. President, the Iraqi leaders have not done their part. After these 52
REID, HARRY: months: more than 3,600 Americans killed and tens of thousands wounded,
REID, HARRY: and after nearly $600 billion of American taxpayer dollars spent. And after this
REID, HARRY: sacrifice--52 months of sacrifice--it is long past time for the Iraqi leaders and
REID, HARRY: the Iraqi people to put their words into action by taking responsibility for their
REID, HARRY: own future.
REID, HARRY: After 52 months, more than 3,600 Americans killed, tens of thousands
REID, HARRY: wounded, and nearly 600 billion dollars in taxpayer dollars spent, President
REID, HARRY: Bush continues to tell our troops and all Americans that we should wait it out,
REID, HARRY: just stay the course. After 52 months, our troops and our security cannot
REID, HARRY: afford the President's ``run-out-the-clock'' strategy.
REID, HARRY: We have an opportunity and an obligation to change course in Iraq right now.
REID, HARRY: We can remove our brave troops from the front lines of another country's civil
REID, HARRY: war, a conflict we have no business policing and little chance to diffuse. We can
REID, HARRY: conduct the kind of tough and strong diplomacy required to stabilize Iraq and
REID, HARRY: the region, which even the President's own military experts plead with him to
REID, HARRY: revise. Remember, Mr. President, General Petraeus has said the war cannot be
REID, HARRY: won militarily. We can refocus our resources and fight a real war on terror that
REID, HARRY: drives the terrorists back to the darkest caves and corners of the Earth.
REID, HARRY: We can choose that path now. We don't have to mark time waiting for the
REID, HARRY: President to wake up one morning with a change of heart or his term to run
REID, HARRY: out. We don't have to wait 2 more months for an arbitrary September deadline
REID, HARRY: when it is so clear a course change is required and required now. With our
REID, HARRY: courage and our votes, we can rise above the tragic failure to deliver the new
REID, HARRY: course that our brave troops and all Americans demand and deserve. We can
REID, HARRY: do that today by voting for the Levin-Reed amendment to the Defense
REID, HARRY: authorization bill.
REID, HARRY: What does Levin-Reed do? It sets a firm date and an end date to transition the
REID, HARRY: mission and begin the reduction of U.S. forces beginning 120 days after
REID, HARRY: enactment and completed by April 30 of 2008. Levin-Reed limits the U.S.
REID, HARRY: military mission after April 30 to counterterror ism; the training of Iraqi
REID, HARRY: security forces and protection of U.S. personnel and assets; and requires that
REID, HARRY: the reduction in forces be part of a comprehensive, diplomatic, regional,
REID, HARRY: political, and economic effort; and appoints an international mediator to bring
REID, HARRY: together the warring factions. Mr. President, that provision dealing with
REID, HARRY: appointing an international mediator to bring together warring factions was
REID, HARRY: newly placed in the bill. The idea and the language came from Senator Hagel of
REID, HARRY: Nebraska , a great addition to this amendment.
REID, HARRY: To those who say this language is binding on the President, I say it is, and that
REID, HARRY: is what it is meant to be. It is binding because the President has resisted every
REID, HARRY: effort we have made to work with him to change the direction of his failed Iraq
REID, HARRY: policy. The record will show that binding language was not our first choice. We
REID, HARRY: passed legislation requiring that 2006 be a year of transition. Instead, the
REID, HARRY: President ignored this language and dug us in even deeper into an intractable
REID, HARRY: civil war. We gave the President a chance to develop his own new course as
REID, HARRY: Commander in Chief. He refused to do that. Instead, he chose to extend
REID, HARRY: deployments and ask even more of our brave men and women in uniform.
REID, HARRY: Earlier this year we passed legislation that would have begun the phased
REID, HARRY: redeployment while leaving significant discretion to the President about how
REID, HARRY: and when to execute the redeployment. Instead, the President vetoed this bill
REID, HARRY: and asserted that only he had the power to set war policy, even though, Mr.
REID, HARRY: President, we have a constitutional obligation to do so.
REID, HARRY: So the record is clear, the President's decision to stubbornly cling to the
REID, HARRY: current course leaves this body no choice but to enact binding language. He
REID, HARRY: has failed to lead us out of Iraq. We are ready to show him the way.
REID, HARRY: Mr. President, I am going to propound a unanimous consent and I have the
REID, HARRY: greatest respect for my friend, the distinguished junior Senator from Arizona,
REID, HARRY: but I say that I am going to enforce the rule here that when I propound this,
REID, HARRY: the distinguished Senator from Arizona should either agree to it or object. This
REID, HARRY: is not the time for speeches because if he objects to it, I have more to say.
REID, HARRY: So I ask unanimous consent that if the House further amends H.R. 1 with the
REID, HARRY: text of H.R. 1401 and requests a conference with the Senate--Mr. President, I
REID, HARRY: misread the first line. I ask unanimous consent that if the House further
REID, HARRY: amends H.R. 1 with the text of H.R. 1401 and requests a conference with the
REID, HARRY: Senate, that the Senate agree to the request and appoint the same conferees
REID, HARRY: which the Senate has already appointed to H.R. 1.
REID, HARRY: 19:13 - end Iraq skipping procedural stuff
REID, HARRY: 24:12 - back to Iraq
REID, HARRY: r. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
REID, HARRY: second-degree amendment to the Levin-Reed amendment be withdrawn and
REID, HARRY: that there be 6 hours of debate on the Levin-Reed amendment; at the
REID, HARRY: conclusion or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on the Levin-Reed
REID, HARRY: amendment with no second-degree amendments in order thereto.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Is there objection?
KYL, JON: r. President, I apologize. If I could ask the distinguished
KYL, JON: leader, was this with respect to the Levin-Reed amendment No. 1401?
REID, HARRY: es. I did propound that request asking, basically, that we
REID, HARRY: have an up-or-down vote on it. I have suggested 6 hours, but we would take
REID, HARRY: any reasonable time.
KYL, JON: r. President, if I could respond, and reserving the right to
KYL, JON: object, I assume that if the Cornyn amendment, which was designed to be a
KYL, JON: side-by-side amendment, and the Levin-Reed amendment could both be voted
KYL, JON: on and both had a 60-vote threshold, a time agreement could be worked out. I
KYL, JON: ask the majority leader, could the unanimous consent request be modified to
KYL, JON: incorporate that principle so that there wouldn't have to be cloture, but there
KYL, JON: could be a vote on both of those amendments?
REID, HARRY: r. President, I have said earlier that we had to file cloture
REID, HARRY: on the initial amendment of Senator Jim Webb, which was an amendment that
REID, HARRY: simply called for the proper rotation of our troops: 15 months in country, 15
REID, HARRY: months out of country. We wanted the Senate to speak its will on that, simple
REID, HARRY: majority, and we were unable to get it. We feel the same way about Levin-Reed.
REID, HARRY: It is a very important policy decision this Senate needs to make. Not to
REID, HARRY: change--I don't know what Cornyn is, but I am sure it is something that is
REID, HARRY: much different than Levin vs. Reed.
REID, HARRY: Therefore, if there is a suggestion that I amend my unanimous consent
REID, HARRY: request to have some side-by-side, 60-vote margins, I would object to that. I
REID, HARRY: believe that we should have in that instance an up-or-down vote. I think that I
REID, HARRY: have no problem giving Senator Cornyn a majority vote. I think that would be
REID, HARRY: very appropriate. I think that is where we need to be on this issue; that is, this
REID, HARRY: issue of the Defense authorization bill. It is very unusual to have on the
REID, HARRY: Defense authorization bill, even issues dealing with Iraq--in times passed, we
REID, HARRY: haven't had a 60-vote margin.
REID, HARRY: So I would not accept my friend's suggestion that there be side by sides. I
REID, HARRY: renew my request that there be a time for an up-or-down vote on the
REID, HARRY: Levin-Reed amendment. I have suggested one hour. Correction. I have
REID, HARRY: suggested 6 hours.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: s there objection?
KYL, JON: es, Mr. President, unfortunately, under that circumstance, I
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: he objection is heard.
KYL, JON: object.
REID, HARRY: r. President, I want to express my apology to my friends
REID, HARRY: because I held them up for a few minutes on their being able to speak. I
REID, HARRY: apologize for that, but they do have a full hour.
REID, HARRY: Mr. President, my worst fears on this bill, the Defense authorization bill, have
REID, HARRY: been realized. We have just seen the Republican leadership again resort to this
REID, HARRY: technical maneuver to block progress on this crucial amendment. It would be
REID, HARRY: one thing for the minority to vote against this bill. If they honestly believe that
REID, HARRY: ``stay the course'' is the right strategy, they have the right to vote no. Now
REID, HARRY: Republicans are using a filibuster to block us from even voting on the
REID, HARRY: amendment that could bring this war to a responsible end. They are blocking
REID, HARRY: this like they did the Webb amendment. They are protecting the President
REID, HARRY: rather than protecting our troops. They are denying us an up-or-down,
REID, HARRY: yes-or-no vote on the most important issue our country faces.
REID, HARRY: So, Mr. President, I say through you to my Democratic and Republican
REID, HARRY: colleagues that we are going to work on this amendment until we get an
REID, HARRY: up-or-down vote on it. If that means staying in session--we have no votes, of
REID, HARRY: course, tonight, but if it means staying in session all day tomorrow and all
REID, HARRY: tomorrow night, that is what we are going to have to do. I will file cloture so
REID, HARRY: that we can have a Wednesday vote, if this continues. I certainly hope during
REID, HARRY: the next few hours and certainly tomorrow that we will have a change of mind
REID, HARRY: so we can have a vote and then move on to the other amendments. The
REID, HARRY: American people deserve an honest debate on this war and deserve an
REID, HARRY: up-or-down vote on this amendment which we believe will bring a responsible
REID, HARRY: end to this intractable war in Iraq.
REID, HARRY: Stop at 28:50
REID, HARRY: Start at 31:12
KYL, JON: r. President, I wish to address a subject that I hope we will
KYL, JON: be able to address soon and that is an amendment that Senator Graham of
KYL, JON: South Carolina will be, has filed and, hopefully, we will be debating soon. It
KYL, JON: relates to conditions that have been placed in the underlying bill, relating to
KYL, JON: the treatment of detainees captured in Afghanistan and Iraq.
KYL, JON: I urge my colleagues to think very carefully about the damage that would
KYL, JON: be brought on the global war against terrorists and future wars that we may
KYL, JON: have to fight if we go forward with the language that is in the bill, specifically in
KYL, JON: section 1023 of the bill which essentially would return us to a law enforcement
KYL, JON: approach to terrorists that, frankly, failed us before 9/11 and, once Osama bin
KYL, JON: Laden and others declared war on us, would obviously not work in the
KYL, JON: post-9/11 context.
KYL, JON: Senator Graham's amendment strikes these harmful provisions from the bill
KYL, JON: and would replace them with commonsense measures to provide a more fair
KYL, JON: process in dealing with detainees at Guantanamo. I just want to remind my
KYL, JON: colleagues for a moment about the nature of these terrorists whom we are
KYL, JON: talking about, and then I want to go through specific provisions of the bill that
KYL, JON: need to be removed--specifically three: a requirement that al-Qaida terrorists
KYL, JON: held in Iraq and Afghanistan be given lawyers; the authorization to demands
KYL, JON: discovery and compel testimony from service members; and third, the
KYL, JON: requirement that al-Qaida and Taliban detainees be provided access to
KYL, JON: classified evidence.
KYL, JON: First, just too review the nature of the detainees that we are holding, not just
KYL, JON: at Guantanamo Bay but also in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. President, these are
KYL, JON: not nice people. At least 30 of the detainees released from Guantanamo Bay
KYL, JON: have since returned to waging war against the United States and our allies; 12
KYL, JON: of these released detainees have been killed in battle by U.S. forces. Others
KYL, JON: have been recaptured; two released detainees became regional commanders for
KYL, JON: Taliban forces; one released detainee attacked U.S. and allied soldiers in
KYL, JON: Afghanistan, killing three Afghan soldiers; one released detainee killed an
KYL, JON: Afghan judge; one released detainee led a terrorist attack on a hotel in Pakistan
KYL, JON: and a kidnapping raid that resulted in the death of a Chinese civilian, and this
KYL, JON: former detainee, by the way, recently told Pakistani journalists he planned to
KYL, JON: ``fight America and its allies until the very end.'' end of quote.
KYL, JON: The provisions of section 1023 would make it very difficult, if not impossible,
KYL, JON: for the United States to detain these committed terrorists who have been
KYL, JON: captured while waging war against us. No nation has ever, in the history of
KYL, JON: armed conflict, imposed the kinds of limits that the bill would impose on its
KYL, JON: ability to detain enemy war prisoners. War prisoners who are released in the
KYL, JON: middle of an ongoing conflict, particularly fanatics like the members of
KYL, JON: al-Qaida, will return to waging war. We have already seen this happen 30 times
KYL, JON: with detainees released from Guantanamo Bay. And if section 1023 of the bill
KYL, JON: is enacted into law, we could expect that number to increase sharply. If section
KYL, JON: 1023 is enacted, we should expect that more civilians and Afghans and Iraqi
KYL, JON: soldiers will be killed, and it may be inevitable that our own soldiers will be
KYL, JON: injured or killed by such released terrorists. This is a price our Nation should
KYL, JON: not be forced to bear.
KYL, JON: Mr. President, let me talk first about the requirement in the bill that al-Qaida
KYL, JON: terrorists held in Iraq and Afghanistan must be provided with lawyers. This
KYL, JON: can't be executed. It would require the release of detainees and here's why: The
KYL, JON: Defense bill requires that counsel be provided and trials be conducted for all
KYL, JON: unlawful enemy combatants held by the United States, including, for example,
KYL, JON: al-Qaida members captured and detained in Iraq and Afghanistan if they are
KYL, JON: held for 2 years. We hold approximately 800 prisoners in Afghanistan and tens
KYL, JON: of thousands in Iraq. None of them are lawful combatants and all would
KYL, JON: arguably be entitled to a trial and a lawyer under the bill. Such a proceedings
KYL, JON: would at least require a military judge, a prosecutor, and a defense attorney, as
KYL, JON: well as other legal professionals.
KYL, JON: That scheme is not realistic. The entire Army JAG Corps only consists of
KYL, JON: approximately 1,500 officers, and each are busy with their current duties.
KYL, JON: Moreover, under the bill, each detainee would be permitted to retain a private
KYL, JON: or volunteer counsel. U.S. agreements with the Iraqi Government bar the
KYL, JON: United States from transferring Iraqi detainees out of Iraq. As a result, the bill
KYL, JON: would require the United States to train and transport and house and protect
KYL, JON: potentially thousands, or even tens of thousands, of private lawyers in the
KYL, JON: middle of a war zone during ongoing hostilities. This is impossible.
KYL, JON: That proposal is half baked at best, Mr. President. It would likely force the
KYL, JON: United States to release thousands of enemy combatants in Iraq, giving them
KYL, JON: the ability to resume waging war against the United States. Obviously, this
KYL, JON: would tie up our military. By requiring a trial for each detainee, this provision
KYL, JON: would also require U.S. soldiers to offer statements to criminal investigators,
KYL, JON: needing later to prove their case after they captured someone. They would need
KYL, JON: to carry some kind of evidence kits or combat cameras or some other method of
KYL, JON: preserving the evidence and establish its chain of custody. They would need to
KYL, JON: spend hours after each trial writing after action reports, which would need to
KYL, JON: be reviewed by commanders. Valuable time would be taken away from combat
KYL, JON: operations and soldiers' rest.
KYL, JON: And finally, it's a very bad precedent for the future. Aside from the war in Iraq,
KYL, JON: this provision would make fighting a major war in the future simply impossible.
KYL, JON: Consider this: During World War II, the United States detained over 2 million
KYL, JON: enemy war prisoners. It would have been impossible for the United States to
KYL, JON: have conducted a trial and provided counsel to 2 million captured enemy
KYL, JON: combatants. So the bottom line is that the bill, as written, would likely be
KYL, JON: impossible to implement in Iraq and, in the context of past wars, it is patently
KYL, JON: absurd.
KYL, JON: The second point, authorizing al-Qaida detainees to demand discovery and
KYL, JON: compel testimony from American soldiers. This bill, the underlying bill would
KYL, JON: actually authorize unlawful enemy combatants, including al-Qaida detained in
KYL, JON: Iraq and Afghanistan, to demand discovery and to compel testimony from
KYL, JON: witnesses just as we do in our criminal courts in the United States. In a
KYL, JON: proceeding the most likely witnesses would be the U.S. soldiers who captured
KYL, JON: the prisoner. Under this bill, an American soldier could literally be recalled
KYL, JON: from his unit at the whim of an al-Qaida terrorist in order to be cross-examined
KYL, JON: by a judge or that terrorist.
KYL, JON: Newspaper columnist Stewart Taylor describes the questions that such a right
KYL, JON: would raise, quote:
KYL, JON: "Should a Marine sergeant be pulled out of combat in Afghanistan to testify at
KYL, JON: a detention hearing about when, where, how, and why he had captured the
KYL, JON: detainee? What if the northern alliance or some other ally made the capture?
KYL, JON: And should the military be ordered to deliver high-level al-Qaida prisoners to
KYL, JON: be cross-examined by other detainees and their lawyers? " End of his
KYL, JON: quotation.
KYL, JON: The questions abound. As the Supreme Court observed in Johnson v.
KYL, JON: Eisenstrager, which is the law on this subject:
KYL, JON: It would be difficult to devise a more effective fettering of a field commander
KYL, JON: than to allow the very enemies he is ordered to reduce to submission to call
KYL, JON: him to account in his own civil court and divert his efforts and attention from
KYL, JON: the military offensive abroad to the legal defensive at home.
KYL, JON: That's what the U.S. Supreme Court said in World War II when a similar issue
KYL, JON: was raised. It would be difficult to conceive of a process that would be more
KYL, JON: insulting to our own soldiers. In addition, many al-Qaida members who were
KYL, JON: captured in Afghanistan were captured by special operators whose identities
KYL, JON: are kept secret for obvious reasons. This would force these operators either to
KYL, JON: come forward and reveal themselves to al-Qaida members, therefore exposing
KYL, JON: themselves or to simply forgo the prosecution of the individual, which is more
KYL, JON: likely what would happen.
KYL, JON: Clearly, Americans should not be subject to subpoena by al-Qaida. And that
KYL, JON: brings me to the last point--the requirement that al-Qaida and Taliban
KYL, JON: detainees be provided with access to classified evidence. Mr. President, the bill
KYL, JON: requires that detainees be provided with, and I'm quoting, ``a sufficiently
KYL, JON: specific substitute of classified evidence'' and that detainees' private lawyers be
KYL, JON: given access to all relevant classified evidence.
KYL, JON: Foreign and domestic intelligence agencies are already very hesitant to divulge
KYL, JON: classified evidence to the CSRT hearings that we currently conduct. These are
KYL, JON: part of the internal and non-adversarial military process today. Intelligence
KYL, JON: agencies will inevitably refuse to provide sensitive evidence to detainees and
KYL, JON: their lawyers. They will not risk compromising such evidence and their sources
KYL, JON: and gathering it for the sake of detaining an individual terrorist.
KYL, JON: In addition, the United States already has tenuous relations with some of the
KYL, JON: foreign governments, particularly in the Middle East, that have been our best
KYL, JON: sources of intelligence about al-Qaida. If we give detainees a legal right to
KYL, JON: access such information, these foreign governments may simply shut off all
KYL, JON: further supply of information to the United States. These governments will not
KYL, JON: want to compromise their evidence or expose the fact that they cooperated with
KYL, JON: the United States. By exposing our cooperation with these governments, the
KYL, JON: bill perversely applies a sort of ``stop snitching'' policy toward our Middle
KYL, JON: Eastern allies, a policy which is likely to be as effective as when applied to
KYL, JON: criminal street gangs in the United States.
KYL, JON: A final point on this: We already know from hard experience that providing
KYL, JON: classified and other sensitive information to al-Qaida members is a bad idea.
KYL, JON: During the 1995 Federal prosecution in New York of the so called ``Blind
KYL, JON: Sheikh,'' Omar Rahman, prosecutors turned over the names of 200 unindicted
KYL, JON: coconspirators to the defense. The prosecutors were required to do so under
KYL, JON: the civilian criminal justice system of discovery rules, which require that large
KYL, JON: amounts of evidence be turned over to the defense. The judge warned the
KYL, JON: defense that the information could only be used to prepare for trial and not for
KYL, JON: other purposes. Nevertheless, within 10 days of being turned over to the
KYL, JON: defense, the information found its way to Sudan and into the hands of Osama
KYL, JON: bin Laden. U.S. District Judge Michael Mukasey, who presided over the case,
KYL, JON: explained, and I quote ``That list was in downtown Khartoum within 10 days,
KYL, JON: and bin Laden was aware within 10 days that the Government was on his
KYL, JON: trail.'' End of quote.
KYL, JON: That is what happens when you provide classified information in this context.
KYL, JON: In another case tried in the civilian criminal justice system, testimony about
KYL, JON: the use of cell phones tipped off terrorists as to how the Government was
KYL, JON: monitoring their networks. Again according to judge Mukasey, ``There was a
KYL, JON: piece of innocuous testimony about the delivery of a battery for a cell phone.''
KYL, JON: This testimony alerted terrorists to Government surveillance and, as a result,
KYL, JON: their communication network shut down within days and intelligence was lost
KYL, JON: to the Government forever--intelligence that might have prevented who knows
KYL, JON: what." End of quote.
KYL, JON: Mr. President, this bill--this particular section of the bill repeats the mistakes
KYL, JON: of the past. Treating the war with al-Qaida similar to a criminal justice
KYL, JON: investigation would force the United States to choose between compromising
KYL, JON: information that could be used to prevent future terrorist attacks and letting
KYL, JON: captured terrorists go free. This is not a choice that our Nation should be
KYL, JON: required to make.
KYL, JON: Mr. President, I will talk more about some provisions that Senator Graham
KYL, JON: would like to substitute for these provisions that provide a more fair process for
KYL, JON: detainees held at Guantanamo Bay--a process that would enable them to have
KYL, JON: greater benefit of the use of counsel and of evidence in their CSRT hearings.
KYL, JON: I will wait until he actually offers that amendment to get into detail. But the
KYL, JON: point is, we have bent over backward to provide the detainees at Guantanamo
KYL, JON: the ability to contest their detention and to have that detention reviewed and
KYL, JON: eventually have it reviewed in United States courts. That is a very fair system,
KYL, JON: more fair than has ever been provided by any other nation under similar
KYL, JON: circumstances and more than the Constitution requires. So we are treating the
KYL, JON: people we captured and are holding at Guantanamo in a very fair way.
KYL, JON: What we cannot do is to take those same kinds of protections and apply them
KYL, JON: to anybody we capture in a foreign theater who are held in a foreign theater
KYL, JON: and therefore are not, under current circumstances--and never has been in the
KYL, JON: history of warfare--subject to the criminal justice system of our country. To
KYL, JON: take that system and try to transport it to the fields of Afghanistan or Iraq
KYL, JON: would obviously be not only a breaking of historical precedent but a very bad
KYL, JON: idea for all of the reasons that I just indicated.
KYL, JON: So I ask my colleagues to give very careful consideration to the dangerous
KYL, JON: return to the pre-9/11 notion of terrorism as a law enforcement problem that is
KYL, JON: inherent in section 1023 of the bill. The terrorists have made no secret that
KYL, JON: they are actually at war with us, and we ignore this point at our peril.
KYL, JON: I conclude by reminding my colleagues that the Statement of Administration
KYL, JON: Policy on this bill indicates that the President would be advised to veto it if
KYL, JON: these provisions remained. Therefore, I urge my colleagues, when the
KYL, JON: opportunity is presented, to join me in striking the provisions of the bill, not
KYL, JON: only as representing good policy but to help us ensure that at the end of the
KYL, JON: day, there will be a bill signed by the President called the Defense authorization
KYL, JON: bill.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: r. President.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: he Senator from California.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: r. President, I believe I have a half hour to speak as
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: if in morning business. Prior to doing so, I wish to give a brief rejoinder to my
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: colleague from Arizona on some of the comments that he has just made.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: It is my understanding that the underlying Defense Authorization Act has
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: several provisions that are necessary to address shortcomings in the legal
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: process for individuals detained on the battlefield. One of these provisions
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: limits the use of coerced testimony obtained through cruel, inhumane, or
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: degrading treatment. Such testimony is not only immoral but is necessary if we
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: are to obtain and use accurate information.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Another provision provides for reasonable counsel and the ability to present
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: relevant information to detainees who have been held for 2 or more years. This
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: is necessary in a war of undetermined duration.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Finally, the bill does not provide classified information to a detainee. It provides
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: for a summary which is intended to be unclassified to the counsel for
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: One of the things that might help is if, on line 16, page 305, subsection Roman
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: detainees.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: numeral II, the word ``unclassified'' was added before the word ``summary'' on
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: that line. But I believe that is the intent.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Now, Mr. President, many in this body and people all over the world watched as
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: America, 5 « years ago, began to arrest, apprehend, and incarcerate detainees.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Some were real terrorists, some were conspirators, and some were simply in
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: the wrong place at the wrong time. We watched as Camp X-Ray was built at the
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: site of the former naval base at Guantanamo, and we have seen the
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: development of a different and lesser standard of American justice developed
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: for proceedings at that base. Since that time, Guantanamo has been derided as
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: a blight on human rights values and as a stain on American justice worldwide.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: I believe the time has come to close Guantanamo. An amendment I have filed
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: with Senator Harkin--Senator Harkin is my main cosponsor--and Senator
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Hagel would do exactly that. It is cosponsored by Senators Dodd, Clinton,
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Brown, Bingaman, Kennedy, Whitehouse, Obama, Durbin, Byrd, yourself Mr.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: President, Senator Salazar, Feingold, Boxer, and Biden.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Now, it is my understanding that the Republican side has refused us a time
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: agreement, which means we will not be allowed a vote. The amendment is not
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: germane postcloture. So if the Republican side will not allow us a time
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: agreement, we have, unfortunately, no way of getting a vote on this
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: amendment.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: You know the fact is that yesterday's New York Times editorialized that
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Guantanamo should be closed, that's a reality out there, that is what many
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: people believe, and yet we cannot fully debate that issue and vote on it here. I
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: think that is truly a shame.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: I very much regret this, but Senator Harkin and I, and Senator Hagel wish to
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: take some time to address this issue. I assure this body that we will not stop
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: here, but we will find another venue in which to debate and vote on this
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: matter.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: The amendment that we have proposed would require the President to close the
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Guantanamo detention facility within 1 year, and it provides the administration
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: flexibility to choose the venue in which to try detainees--in military
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: proceedings, Federal district courts, or both. And the administration would
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: choose which maximum security facilities in which to house them.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Now why should we close the Guantanamo detention facility? First and
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: foremost, this administration's decision to create Guantanamo appears to have
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: been part of a plan to create a Guantanamo appears to be part of a plan to
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: create a sphere of limited law outside the scrutiny of American courts that
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: would result in a lesser standard of justice. Now Guantanamo is unique. It is
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: not sovereign territory of the United States; however, under a 1903 lease, the
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: United States exercises complete jurisdiction and control over this naval base. I
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: believe that the administration hoped to use this distinction to operate without
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: accountability at Guantanamo.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: This is revealed in a December 2001 Office of Legal Counsel memo by John Yoo
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: of the Justice Department, who later authored the infamous torture memo. Yoo
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: knew there was a risk that courts would reject the legal theory of
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: unaccountability at Guantanamo, but, just as he did with his torture memo, he
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: laid out the various arguments why his extreme views might prevail.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: And let me point this out. In his memo, and I'm quoting now, he says:
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: "Finally, the executive branch has repeatedly taken the position under various
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: statutes that [Guantanamo] is neither part of the United States nor a
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: possession or territory of the United States. For example, this Office [Justice]
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: has opined that [Guantanamo] is not part of the ``United States'' for purposes
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. .....Similarly, in 1929, the Attorney
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: General opined that [Guantanamo] was not a ``possession'' of the United States
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: within the meaning of certain tariff acts."
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: The memo concludes with this statement:
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: "For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that a district court cannot properly
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus by an enemy alien detained
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba. Because the issue has not yet been
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: definitively resolved by the courts, however, we caution that there is some
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: possibility that a district court would entertain such an application."
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: End of quote. So here the administration apparently hoped to turn
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Guantanamo into a legal hybrid wholly under U.S. control but beyond the
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: reach of U.S. courts.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Now, what's happened since then? The Supreme Court rejected the
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: administration's position in Rasul v. Bush in 2004, ruling that American courts
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: do have jurisdiction to hear habeas and other claims from detainees held at
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Guantanamo.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: And following another defeat in the Supreme Court, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: 2006, which declared invalid the Pentagon's process for adjudicating detainees,
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: the administration responded by pushing the passage of a new Military
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Commissions Act which expressly eliminates habeas corpus rights and limits
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: other appeals to procedure and constitutionality, leaving questions of fact or
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: violation of law unresolvable by all Federal courts. This happens nowhere else
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: in American law. But this Military Commissions Act went through.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: There are serious questions about whether this provision will withstand a court
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: test and on June 29, just 2 weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: two additional cases which go right to this point: Boumediene v. Bush and Al
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Odah v. the United States. The High Court had declined to hear these cases in
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: April but has reversed itself and granted certiorari--the first time in 60 years
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: that it agreed to take a case after previously refusing it. So from this case, we
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: will find out whether the military commissions law, which prevents full
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: appeals, in fact, can stand the court test.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: What is the administration arguing in that case? Once again, they are trying to
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: argue that the Constitution's protection of habeas corpus does not extend to
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: detainees at Guantanamo because it is outside of U.S. jurisdiction.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: I think it is time to put an end to these efforts to use a legal maneuver to create
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: a law-free zone at Guantanamo.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: As Justice Kennedy emphasized in his concurring opinion in Rasul, and I
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: "Guantanamo is in every practical respect a United States territory."
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: quote::
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: So United States law would apply at Guantanamo whether this administration
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: likes that or not. And the administration's efforts to create a land without law
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: at Guantanamo has been a moral and a strategic catastrophe for the United
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: States. The bad decision to create a separate system of justice at Guantanamo
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: led to another mistake, and I mentioned this briefly: that was the Military
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Commissions Act. In retrospect, let's look at what that act has done:
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: It expands Presidential authority by giving the White House broad latitude to
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: interpret the meaning and authority of the Geneva Conventions.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: It presents vague and ambiguous definitions of torture and cruel and
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: inhumane treatment that fail to establish clear guidelines for what is
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: permissible interrogation technique.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: And it abandons the independent judicial review process by establishing a new
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Court of Military Commission Review with members appointed by the
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Pentagon. This court has yet to be established.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: It limits appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Circuit, which is given limited review authority. This is what will most likely be
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: before the court very shortly.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: For the first time in U.S. history, it allows coerced evidence--obtained prior to
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: December 30, 2005--to be entered into a court record, and it revokes habeas
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: corpus rights that allowed detainees to appeal their status before the Federal
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: court. Direct review is limited and habeas is eliminated by this military
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: commissions bill.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Clearly, the military commission bill, passed by a vote of 65 to 34 in this
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: House, seeks to once again set up a separate and lesser standard of justice.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Senator Specter and Leahy have introduced a bill to restore habeas rights to
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Guantanamo detainees. I hope that bill is allowed to be presented as an
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: amendment to this bill. It is timely, it is important. The world is watching. It
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: should happen, and finally, it is the right thing to do.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: So what have been all the consequences of this? The detention center at
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Guantanamo Bay has become a lightning rod for international condemnation.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: It draws sharp criticism from our allies and hands our enemies a potent
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: recruiting tool. It weakens our standing in the world and makes the world a
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: more dangerous place for our troops, who may be captured on foreign
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: battlefields in the future.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: And yet the administration fails to act, despite public comments from President
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Bush and top advisers that the facility should be closed. Recent news reports
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: say there is renewed debate inside the White House over closing Guantanamo,
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: but still nothing happens. So I believe it is up to Congress to act.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: So what would this amendment do? In addition to requiring the President to
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: close Guantanamo within a year, it would prohibit the administration from
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: transferring detainees under U.S. custody to facilities outside the United
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: States. It also requires the President to keep Congress informed of efforts to
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: close the facility and transfer the detainees, and includes the specific
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: requirement that the President report to Congress in writing within 3 months
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: of the bill's enactment.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: I believe it is critical that we act. To do nothing, to leave Guantanamo open, as
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: some in the administration would like, is to invite further condemnation and
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: further risk. It will weaken our efforts to fight terrorism and it will continue to
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: erode our standing in the world.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: I heard a terrorism expert on CNN. His name is Peter Bergen. I have read his
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: books and listened to him throughout the years. He said he and his colleagues
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: had taken a good look at the increase in terror and he believed it would be fair
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: to assert that our presence in Iraq has served to increase terrorists by
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: sevenfold--by 700 percent over what the world of terrorists was before Iraq and
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: today.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: But the simple fact remains. Guantanamo violates our values and our
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: traditions, including respect for the rule of law and for human rights.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: In avoiding the full weight of American justice, it has shocked the conscience of
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: the world. It has led the men and women who have worn the uniform,
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: including many retired flag officers, to speak out. A dozen former generals and
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: admirals warned in January of 05 that the interrogation techniques allowed at
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Guantanamo and elsewhere had fostered, quote:
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: "greater animosity toward the United States, undermined our intelligence
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: gathering efforts, and added to the risks facing our troops around the world."
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: End quote.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Among those who commented were General John Shalikashvili, former
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs; General Merrill McPeak, former Air Force Chief of
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Staff; Marine General Joseph Hoar, a former commander of the U.S. Central
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Command; and Rear Admiral Dan Guter, a former Navy judge advocate
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: general.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Earlier this year, a very respected retired Marine Corps general, by the name of
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: James Jones, the former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, said quote:
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: "I would close the prison tomorrow. I would do it immediately. Just the images
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: alone have hurt our national reputation. I don't know how you fix that without
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: closing it." End quote
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: I agree with him. I don't know how you begin to fix the damage brought by
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Guantanamo without closing it. A military commissions bill couldn't do it. We
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: can't do it. That's the fact.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said it succinctly:
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: "I would close it not tomorrow, but this afternoon."
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: But importantly, the sense of conscience, as well as a measure of the
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: international reaction to Guantanamo, came in a statement by Archbishop
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Desmond Tutu. And here is what he said, quote:
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: "I never imagined I would live to see the day when the United States and its
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: satellites would use precisely the same arguments that the apartheid
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: government used for detention without trial. It is disgraceful." End quote.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: In May of 2006, President Bush told German television:
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: "I would very much like to end Guantanamo. I would very much like to get
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: people to a court." End quote
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: And earlier this year, Defense Secretary Bob Gates, new to his job, made clear
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: that he also wanted Guantanamo closed. He said:
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: There is no question in my mind that Guantanamo and some of the abuses
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: that have taken place in Iraq have negatively impacted the reputation of the
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: United States.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: He said that at the Munich Conference on Security Policy earlier this year. And
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: on February 27, following an Appropriations Committee meeting, I personally
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: asked him what he thought, and he said, equally as succinctly as General
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Powell, I think it should be closed.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: The following month Secretary Gates told the House Defense Appropriations
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Subcommittee that trials at Guantanamo would lack credibility in the eyes of
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: the world. And in March, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said:
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: The President has been very clear, and he is clear to us all the time. He would
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: like to see it closed. We all would.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Well, then why is the Republican side preventing us from having a vote today
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: or tomorrow or the next day that would say that Guantanamo should be closed
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: within a year? How can the Secretary of Defense, the President of the United
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: States, the Secretary of State make these comments that they want
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Guantanamo closed and the Republican side of the aisle prevent us from
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: taking a vote in the Congress? I don't understand this, Mr. President.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Additional fallout from the Military Commissions Act has stymied further trials
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: under its auspices by finding that the detainees have been incorrectly classified
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: as "enemy combatants" rather than as ``unlawful enemy combatants." So that
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: is another hitch in this. They have classified people wrongly so they can't be
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: tried.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: And recently, a lieutenant colonel, who was part of this process from an
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: intelligence point of view, in an affidavit has stated that even this classification
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: was, quote, "based on vague and incomplete intelligence." End quote.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Lieutenant Colonel Abraham also said tribunal members were pressured by
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: their superiors to rule against detainees, often without specific evidence, and
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: that military prosecutors were given ``generic'' material that did not hold up in
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: the face of the most basic legal challenges.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Now, let me be clear: I have no sympathy for Taliban fighters, al-Qaida
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: terrorists, or anyone else out to hurt the United States, or commit cowardly
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: and despicable acts of terror. There is nothing in this amendment that puts
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: terrorists back on the street. That is not the goal. And any argument that this
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: amendment would harm national security is flat out false.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: I believe that what harms national security is sacrificing our Nation's
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: values--which have made us rightly the greatest democracy in the world--by
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: setting up a hybrid system of justice, by not following the Military Code of
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Justice, but by creating this hybrid system, which has failed court tests now
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: and will quite possibly fail another one shortly.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Now, how do you stop all this? As long as you have this extraterritorial facility
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: out there, without the light of day shining on it, you can't. Today, two of our
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: colleagues are visiting Guantanamo. Unfortunately, I couldn't go with them.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: The last time I visited Guantanamo was with Secretary Rumsfeld, rather early
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: on, and I suspect what they will find is a rather well-run, strong, staunch
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: military prison. But that doesn't mean that the justice that is dispensed there
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: is correct if it is secondary justice, if it's sublevel justice, if there is no right of
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: appeal, if you don't have access to an attorney easily, if you can't see evidence
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: against you.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: And, you know, it's all part of the same thing. One can say, well, Guantanamo
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: is no Abu Ghraib, and I would most likely agree with that--today. There have
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: been allegations of inappropriate behavior in terms of interrogation techniques,
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: no question about that. I assume that is corrected now. But it still looms out
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: there as a way the United States has of not allowing these prisoners to face
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: justice. It's one thing if you are a terrorist; it is another thing if you are in the
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: wrong place at the wrong time, if you're swept up, if you are put in either a
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: cage or a cell at Guantanamo, and if you stay there year after year after year
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: with no recourse. That is a stain on American justice. We criticize the Chinese
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: for their form of administrative detention, and yet here we practice a similar
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: thing.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: We face a serious, long-term terrorist threat. It may well go on for the next 10
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: or even 20 years. We must track down, punish, and prosecute those who seek
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: to hurt this country and hurt our people. But at the same time, we need
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: national policies that are both tough and smart, and this isn't smart. We will
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: fight terror with vigor and drive and purpose, but we must not forget who we
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: are. We are a nation of laws. We are a nation of value and tradition. These
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: values have been admired throughout the decades all over the world.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: The world has looked at Guantanamo and made the judgment that it is wrong.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: I think it is time for the Senate to do something about it. The Senate has borne
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: the burden of Guantanamo for too long. The time has come to close it down. I
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: appeal to the other side to allow the debate on the floor and to give us a
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: unanimous consent time agreement so that there might be a vote in this body.
FEINSTEIN, DIANNE: Mr. President, I yield the floor.