Liberated Text -> Congressional Record -> Nine Senators of Shame
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. Alexander: Mr. President, it is an honor to serve in the same body with the Senator from Hawaii, a Congressional Medal of Honor winner, and with the Senator from Arizona because of his distinguished service in Vietnam. Whenever the Senator from Alaska, a pilot in World War II, who devoted most of his career here to understanding our defense policies, urges caution, I try to listen and pay attention. But I rise today in support of the amendment by the Senator from Arizona to the Defense appropriations bill, and I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor.
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Graham): Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Alexander: Mr. President, I have listened carefully to the debate about whether it is appropriate for Congress to set the rules on the treatment of detainees. I have listened carefully, but for me the question isn't even close.
The people, through their elected representatives, should set the rules for how detainees and prisoners under U.S. control are treated and interrogated. In the short term, the President can set the rules, but the war on terror is now 4 years old. We do not want judges making up the rules. We Republicans often say we don't like to see judges legislating from the bench. So for the longer term, the people should set the rules. That is why we have an independent Congress. That is our job. In fact, the Constitution says quite clearly that is what Congress should do. Article I, section 8, of the Constitution says that Congress and Congress alone shall have the power to make "Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water." So Congress, as the Senator from South Carolina said, has a responsibility to set clear rules here.
But the spirit of this amendment is really one that I still hope the White House will decide to embrace. In essence, as has been pointed out, the amendment codifies military procedures and policies-- procedures in the Army Field Manual and procedures regarding compliance with the Convention Against Torture signed by President Reagan. These amendments uphold or codify policies and procedures the administration says we are following today and intend to follow moving forward.
As the Senator from Arizona pointed out, his amendment would do two things: One, prohibit cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment of detainees. It is in specific compliance with the Convention Against Torture that was signed by President Reagan. The administration says we are already upholding that standard when it comes to treatment of detainees, so this should not be a problem.
Secondly, the McCain amendment states simply that the interrogation techniques used by the military on detainees shall be those specified by the Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation. The military, not Congress, writes that manual. We are told that the technique specified in the manual will do the job. Further, it is under revision, as has been pointed out, to include techniques related to unlawful combatants, including classified portions that will continue to give the President and the military a great deal of flexibility.
If the President of the United States thinks these are the wrong rules, I would hope he would submit new rules to Congress so that we can debate them and pass them. I made this same suggestion in July, but no alternative rule has been suggested so far. I am one Senator who would give great weight to the President's views on this matter.
This has been a gray area for the courts over time. In this gray area, the question is, Who should set the rules? In the short term, surely the President can. In the longer term, the people should, through their elected representatives. We are their elected representatives. It is time for us to act. It is time for us to set the rules. We do not want courts legislating from the bench and writing the rules. That leaves us to do our job.
In summary, it is time for Congress, which represents the people, to clarify and set the rules for detention and interrogation of our enemies. If the White House would prefer different rules, I hope the President will tell us what rules and procedures he needs to succeed in the war on terror.
If the argument is whether it is appropriate for Congress to set clear standards, I believe Congress should set standards and will vote to support the amendment of the Senator from Arizona.
I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. Sununu: Mr. President, I rise in support of the McCain amendment. There has been a lot of discussion about the new challenges we face in dealing with organized terrorist cells around the world. The complexity and the nature of those terrorist threats requires us to engage in ever more combat activity that is nonconventional. We want to make sure we do what we can to secure transportation and infrastructure, that we do what we can to deploy technology, that we improve our preparedness. But it does not change the fact that in dealing with terrorism our greatest asset or our greatest tool will be intelligence gathering. Intelligence gathering will require direct engagement with and interrogation of suspects, trying to gather information that can help us disrupt these networks.
We are trying to gather information that can help us prevent future attacks. That process of interrogation, needless to say, is complex and challenging. We have seen many of the problems and some of the abuses that have been documented by some of the previous speakers.
I think this calls out for a process that is more clear and better defined; interrogation tools, techniques, and procedures that we can be sure are applied consistently in the field. That is why I think this amendment is so important. That is why I think we have a fundamental obligation to support this amendment or at least some approach to clarify these processes, standards, and procedures used for interrogation.
I can think of two basic reasons that this is important and that it will benefit our troops and our country. First, by establishing clear lines, procedures, and process for interrogation, we help our own troops, whether working in the uniformed services or working in covert operations or other intelligence-gathering activities. We can be sure that they know what the allowances are, that they know what the process is, that they know what the procedure is, and, in effect, we provide them with appropriate protection and safeguards in doing their job.
In a similar way, we provide those individuals with protection in the field of combat should they be taken as a prisoner of war. We want to make sure our enemies do not have justification for using any interrogation techniques that we would consider to be improper, cruel, or inhumane.
First, we are providing protection and establishing this clarity. Second, I think we are sending an important message to our allies and our adversaries--a message that while the legal standards that are enshrined in the Constitution do not apply to everyone in the world, our commitment to these basic principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, our commitment to basic principles of human dignity and human rights do apply and we must find ways to define these standards, to clarify this commitment, even in the area of interrogating enemy combatants and interrogating potential terrorists, suspected terrorists, in the field.
So we send a clear message to our allies and adversaries that our commitment to these principles is real, that our desire to establish uniform standards is real.
I do not know, not having the experience of some of my colleagues, whether this is the perfect standard, whether the requirements and the precise language in this amendment are ideal, but I think this is a fair-minded approach that allows the military itself, through its code of conduct, to establish these definitions that allows for the establishment of a classified annex to deal with covert operations, deal with the most sensitive of captives and the most sensitive of interrogations so that we are not undermining the intelligence gathering that we are attempting to facilitate.
In fact, the approach that is taken has been endorsed, as was indicated by the Senator from Arizona, by many who have had very close and intimate experience with this type of interrogation. In the letter that Senator McCain entered into the Record there were two particular points that were made that I want to underscore, and that is, first, "the abuse of prisoners hurts America's cause." I think that is just a fundamental and important underlying point in this debate, that prisoner abuse hurts our cause. It hurts the moral arguments we are trying to make, the political arguments we are trying to make, and it does put our own men and women serving in uniform or in intelligence- gathering operations at risk.
Second, the United States should have one standard for interrogating enemy prisoners that is effective, lawful, and humane. That point brings me back to the concern that we send a clear message to our allies and adversaries that our commitment to human dignity and human rights is universal.
So I am pleased to support the amendment. I think it is a very important first step. I think it gives the military the flexibility that it deserves, and I hope the military will use that flexibility well to add clarity, standards, process, and procedure that will enable us to continue to interrogate prisoners and continue to gather intelligence in dealing with these terrorist networks around the world, but do it in a way that is consistent with the intent, the principle, and the philosophy of our Constitution.
I yield the floor.