Guantanamo Bay

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, there is an issue we have been talking about on the Republican side for quite a bit, and I think some of my Democratic friends realize how serious an issue this is because they care about our military members.

The President of the United States promised, ill-advisedly, before he was ever elected, that he was going to close the Guantanamo Bay facility that housed the worst of the worst terrorists wanting to kill Americans and destroy our way of life. Well, he found out right after he took office that you just can't do that because it is going to put American lives at risk. There is a reason they are being held there. And it violates no rules of law when it comes to war, because war is a little different.

Since civilized society came along in the history of mankind, things improved for prisoners of war. Before there was a civilized society, when one group warred against another, they would either kill them or make them slaves. What occurred was pretty gruesome.

In civilized history, when one group says, ``We are at war with this other group,'' then the other group either responds by defending themselves or they are overtaken by the evildoers--in this case, radical Islamists.

Since the history of more civilized warfare--if we can call it such, because war is truly hell--noble nations played by rules that said, if you capture someone who is part of the group at war with you, then you hold them as prisoners in a humane fashion until such time as the group of which they are a part agrees that they are no longer at war. If the war drags on 15, 20, 30, 50 years, it is not the fault of the country that captures people at war with them, because that country did not start the war.

In this case, the radical Islamists have had this small part of Islam since its beginning and felt like the way to be truly religiously Islamic is to kill anybody that stands in your way of having an international caliphate and forcing everyone in the world to bow before Allah and Islam, in the name of Islam.

It is not our fault if they will not say we are no longer at war with you, because once that happens, then you release those prisoners who were part of the group that was at war with you. And if some of them can be proven to be guilty of actual war crimes against humanity, then you take them to trial, and you try to convict them. And if you do, as we saw after World War II, if they are convicted and sentenced to death, that occurs. If they are sentenced to prison, that is on top of the years that we waited while their group continued to be at war with us. That is under the civilized rules of warfare.

Guantanamo Bay, I can say, having been there more than once, and also having toured many State and Federal prisons, has provided the most humane treatment I have ever seen a group of prisoners get.

For example, in a Texas prison, if you throw urine or feces on a guard, you will suffer consequences for that decision. I found out on one of my trips to Guantanamo Bay prison that when, as often happens, an inmate figures out a way to throw urine or feces on one of our military member guards, that because we don't want to be perceived as having some mean-spirited prison, we take away a couple of their movie- watching hours during some day to teach them a lesson.

And there have been instances where, when they didn't like the movies being presented, perhaps they hadn't been screened properly enough, maybe some woman exposed a bare arm and that offended somebody, well, there was uproar, problems. But if somebody committed a really egregious crime of assaulting one of our guards, then they might actually lose some of their time outside for a day or two.

It bothered me greatly to find out that the guards were not allowed to even say anything when someone threw urine or feces on them who was an inmate at Guantanamo Bay; because one such United States military member, I think they said he was a minority member of our United States military, had feces thrown on him, and he angrily said a name, and he received an article 15 non-judicial punishment, and he was punished for simply saying something back after he had feces thrown on him.

Well, that ought to be the least of the problems. And I couldn't believe one of our military members who had been assaulted in such a despicable manner was the one punished for saying something back to the inmate that threw feces on him.

But the President is determined to follow through with this same kind of policy idea that he has had since the beginning, when he had his apology tour going throughout the Middle East, apologizing in Egypt, apologizing around the world for America, who has been the only country that I can find in history that has shed so much precious American blood, so much blood of our Americans for other people's freedom. We didn't owe anybody an apology, not for that.

And there is this mentality among some liberals like our President that the world will be so much safer and a so much better place to live if America were brought down and were not a superpower and you let other countries be superpowers, like, for example, Iran.

Let's give Iran $100 billion, $150 billion access to that, and let's let them become a superpower, and we will negotiate a deal that, hopefully, will prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon while President Obama is in office. And then who cares what happens after that; right?

But the deal that was negotiated pretty well assures that Iran will have nuclear weapons. It is just a matter of when. And now we know that Iran has repeatedly broken their agreement and we know that this administration, as we found out, this administration actually manipulated video to try to cover up just how bad the deal was that this State Department was negotiating.

I didn't really need to see the story to know this kind of stuff was going on. When I saw that Wendy Sherman was maybe chief negotiator, working with the Secretary of State, who was also part of the glorious deal that the Clinton administration, along with Madeleine Albright, negotiated with North Korea, basically--and this is my translation of the deal--but, okay.

We are going to make sure that you have nuclear power, and we will make sure you have got nuclear fuel, you have got everything you need to make a nuclear weapon so long as you will sign an agreement saying that you are not going to use it to create a nuclear weapon.

You can't help but think of all the snickering that went on in North Korea, especially by Kim Jong-il: Wow, all they want is my signature and they will give us what we need to make a nuclear weapon? Sure. Where do I sign?

I mean, it really reminded me of the story Jeff Foxworthy told about, before he made money as a comedian, he was down on his luck.

A guy shows up at the door, says, ``I'm here to repossess your car.''

``Oh, please don't take my car. If you take my car, I can't make it to any of my gigs. I can't make money, and then I have no chance of paying for the car. So please, don't take my car.''

``I'm sorry, Mr. Foxworthy. I'm here, and I'm supposed to either leave with your car or with cash payment or with a check.''

And Foxworthy basically said, ``A check? You'll take a check? I didn't know you'd take a check.''

``Yeah, how much do you want me to make it out for?''

``I'm glad to write you a check. Sure, you just tell me.'' And then he signs and gives the check and he keeps his car.

That had to be the kind of mentality.

You mean, you will give us everything we need in North Korea to have nuclear weapons, and all we have to do is sign and you're good with that? Wow. Okay. Let us sign.

So they signed. We make sure they have what they need for nuclear weapons in the name of giving them nuclear power, and sure enough--very expectedly by some of us because it was such a stupid thing to do, the Clinton administration, with Wendy Sherman right there in the negotiations--we gave them the ability to create nuclear weapons, which they have done.

The same way with Iran. Their leaders must have been laughing behind our backs, because we know what they were saying publicly while they were still continuing to say ``death to America,'' still calling us the ``Great Satan,'' still saying they weren't going to abide by any agreement, that the United States would never get them to do what we wanted them to.

Oh, so while we are telling the public we are not going to go along with any deal we sign, you are still willing to accept our signature on a deal? For sure, we will sign, because even Allah allows us to sign something that is a lie if, in the end, it furthers his kingdom, in their way of thinking.

So if we had strong enough leadership in the United States Senate, what would happen would be there would be a call for a vote on the Iran treaty, which it is. It modifies other treaty provisions and, therefore, you can't do that unless it is a treaty, so it is a treaty. The Constitution says that requires two-thirds of the Senate to vote for the treaty in order for it to be ratified.

The Senate took up this Corker bill, that turned the Constitution upside down, and said, no, we are going to say it takes two-thirds to vote against a deal; otherwise, it goes forward. Bob Corker is a really nice guy, but, my word, the damage that was done to the Middle East and to the world by the Senate taking an approach to the Iran treaty as if it wasn't really a treaty.

There is still time. Take the vote in the Senate. I know that 60 votes are required for cloture; but when Harry Reid felt like getting very liberal judges into Federal courts was more important than the cloture rule, he had 51 Democrats vote to set aside the cloture rule, and they put in the liberal judges they wanted over the Republican objection.

This Iran treaty is going to eventually bring so much death and destruction to not only the Middle East, but, as Netanyahu has warned us, they are not preparing those intercontinental ballistic missiles for Israel. Those are for us. They can already hit Israel. They are for us.

So what do we see in the news now, other than the fact that Iran-- well, this article says: ``Iran Spends $1.7 Billion in U.S. Taxpayer Funds to Boost Its Military.'' And it says in this June 9 article from Free Beacon, by Adam Kredo:

``The State Department is staying silent after Iranian officials disclosed that the Islamic Republic spent a recent payment by the United States of $1.7 billion in taxpayer funds to expand and build-up its military, according to comments provided to the Washington Free Beacon.

``The Obama administration earlier this year paid Iran $1.7 billion from a U.S. taxpayer-funded account in order to settle decades-old legal disputes with the Islamic Republic.''

Never mind that our American citizens that were taken hostage have never been allowed to collect properly on the damages done by this regime in Iran. Yes, it was Ayatollah Khomeini instead of Khamenei, but these same hoodlums that are running Iran, same type of thinking, were the ones this administration provided $1.7 billion. Instead of taking care of the American citizens that this radical Islamist regime in Iran, after they attacked our Embassy, took our hostages, held them for over a year, and we pay them?

It is consistent, I understand, with the apology mentality that leaders in this country have. Maybe the world will be so much better if we are not a superpower, we cut our military to pre-World War II levels, which is happening, and then we give Iran, that hates us, says very clearly they are going to destroy us and our way of life and our freedoms, we give them $1.7 billion to build up their military while we are breaking down ours.

I keep going back to the comment by a gentleman, African, named Ebenezer from Togo, when I was over there with the Mercy Ship, provided incredible health care to the people of Togo, Lome, there in West Africa. And at the end of my week there, he and other Africans--these were not African Americans. These were Africans. But they also happened to be fellow Christians.

After a lovely meeting with them, Ebenezer spoke, and he said: Look. Basically, he said: We were so excited when you elected your first African American--or ``Black President,'' I believe he said--but since then, we have seen America get weaker and weaker. And the reason we all wanted to meet with you is because, you know, we're Christians. We know where we're going when we die. But our only hope in this life for a peaceful life is if America is strong, because as America gets weaker, we suffer more.

We have seen that around the world. I have been to Nigeria and wept with mothers whose children were kidnapped by radical Islamists. They know that, as America has not responded to the radical Islam in Nigeria and helped them as we could, they have suffered mightily.

Yet, this administration, from what has come out of Nigeria, has said: Look, we will help you a little more. We will really be able to help you with Boko Haram, but you have to start paying for abortions, and you have to start having same-sex marriage. We don't care if it violates your religious convictions because that is what we want you to do.

They are suffering there. They are suffering in all parts of Africa, many parts of Africa, because this administration has not been the force for good; it has been a force for weakness.

Now this story from The Washington Post, Adam Goldman and Missy Ryan, June 8: ``At least 12 released Guantanamo detainees implicated in attacks on Americans.''

The article says: ``The Obama administration believes that at least 12 detainees''--and this is the Obama administration themselves. This isn't Louie Gohmert. This is ``the Obama administration believes that at least 12 detainees released from the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have launched attacks against U.S. or allied forces in Afghanistan, killing about a half-dozen Americans, according to current and former U.S. officials.''

It goes on to explain how these former Guantanamo Bay detainees have been killing Americans in Afghanistan. This is no surprise to some of us who have been saying--when these people were involved in plotting and killing Americans before they were detained, and they have even made statements in detention that they can't wait to get out so they can kill more Americans, at some point even if they say, Okay, I will sign where you want me to, just let me go, who is surprised when they go back on their word like North Korea, go back on their word like the radical Islamist leaders in Iran as distinguished with so many Iranians who want to be rid of the radical Islamist leaders? But who can be surprised that they would actually go back to killing Americans?

That is why so many of us have been saying--a majority in this House--we are not going to let you close Guantanamo. We have made it against the law for him to release people unless certain things were done. And he violated that--the President did--when he made the deal for what is apparently a United States Army deserter, it certainly appears, and he let five of the worst murderers go without following the law that was set out for the President. Now it has been substantiated. We know people that have been released from Guantanamo have been killing Americans.

So one thing we know also is when a nation's enemies see that that nation's strongest ally is pulling away from that enemy, it is provocative. They act against that nation. So when that nation is Israel, and the appearance to the world is that the United States is pulling back from our close alliance and friendship with Israel, is it any wonder that Israel's biggest and most hateful enemies would be moving against Israel?

Terrorists have, once again, been inspired to go on killing sprees in Israel despite the Israelis doing everything they can to stop the carnage. As Prime Minister Netanyahu has said, I believe he even said it in this Chamber as he stood here facing Moses, our greatest known lawgiver of all time, standing, by the way--and I mentioned this to Prime Minister Netanyahu as he came down the aisle in May of 2011: Don't forget, while you are standing, speaking to us, our national motto will be right above your head.

He started to look up, and then he didn't even have to look up because he obviously knew what was up there. He looked me in the eye and said: I had already thought about that.

So as he stood here, In God We Trust above his head, looking at the greatest lawgiver in the history of mankind, Moses--most of us think he had 10 good commandments. I think our Supreme Court would probably say maybe five or six. But he warned us what was happening in the realm of radical Islam, what would be happening to Israel, and what would be happening to what they call the Great Satan, America. People in this administration did not listen.

Americans have spoken out loudly during the primary season about this idea of refugees who cannot be properly vetted, because we don't know really who they are and where they are coming from. As FBI Director Comey testified in front of our Judiciary Committee:

We will vet them, but we have got nothing to vet with. At least in Iraq, we had Iraq's records on who had criminal convictions, who had arrests, and who had things in their record. We got no records from Syria and some of these other places. We don't know who they are. We don't know how criminal they are. We don't know how radical Islamist they are.

So many have been warning, and the American people have been warning through the primary season, and this article substantiates, from June 10, ``Refugees Angry Over Skimpy Ramadan Meals Set Shelter on Fire, Police Say.''

This is from FOX News. It says: ``A pair of North African refugees reportedly set a German shelter on fire Tuesday because they were angry the special Ramadan meals there weren't up to snuff.

``Investigators told the BBC that the men--who were not fasting at the shelter in Dusseldorf--had complained their lunch portions were too small.''

Since they weren't observing the fast, they wanted more food.

``The fire burned the facility to the ground, causing $11 million in damages.''

The 26-year-old North African told reporters:

We had to do it. We had to burn it down so things would change.

So the question remains as more and more refugees are brought into this country against the will of the majority of the American people: How many facilities are going to be burned in America? How many more Americans are going to be killed on our own soil because the State Department and the Homeland Security Department are not properly vetting?

Our friend--and, in my mind, hero--Phil Haney, who worked for the Department of Homeland Security, had thousands of entries that Janet Napolitano said: We tried to connect the dots.

They deleted thousands of those dots. Why? Because this administration apparently doesn't want the public to know or the next administration to find out that many of the people they consult with and consort with have ties to terrorists. They deleted so many thousands of the dots in our system.

We are at risk, and the FBI director--I respect him--James Comey, said Tuesday: ``The Islamic State group is currently the main threat facing the United States, both in its efforts to recruit fighters to join its members overseas and to have others carry out violence in America.''

He said: ``The Islamic State group poses a third potential threat: a `terrorist diaspora' that he said will eventually flow out of Syria and Iraq and end up in Western Europe, where members will have easy access to the United States.

`` `There's three prongs to this ISIL threat,' Comey said. `The recruitment to travel, the recruitment to violence in place, and then what you saw a preview of in Brussels and in Paris--hardened fighters coming out, looking to kill people.'

``He said officials are `laser-focused on that.' ''

We know some officials like him are focused on that, but we also know there are others in the administration who are meeting with people that the Justice Department under President Bush made very clear in their pleadings were coconspirators in support for terrorism. That included the Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR.

Then we hear about our friends at the Council on American-Islamic Relations when we see the article that just this week CAIR is joking around about medicating Americans against Islamophobia.

So that article from Virginia Hale, 9 June, Breitbart, talks about the jokes by the ``Muslim Brotherhood-linked Council on American- Islamic Relations advises that anyone who harbors `intolerance' towards Muslims, or who believes large numbers of the religion's adherents could pose a danger to the U.S., to take anti-Islamophobia medication for their `unthinking bigotry.' ''

Is it really bigotry when you are not prejudiced against Muslims, you have many Muslim friends, but you know there is a part of Islamists and there is a part of Muslims who are radical Islamists who want to kill you, destroy your country, destroy Christianity, and destroy Jews--kill all of them?

Is it really bigotry to say that we would really like to stop them before they destroy America, kill all Americans, kill all Christians in the world, and kill all Jews in the world, that we would really like to stop that? Is that really bigotry?

Because I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that what that is--if you are an American--is love of country. We have had Americans--and I hope and pray still--well, no. I know we have Americans who still have what Jesus, who laid down His life for us, said is the greatest love anyone could ever have, that someone would lay down their life for others. He knew what that was. He did it. We have had so many Americans do that.

But because of the lunacy that is occurring now in the administration, in the State Department, in homeland security, and in our military, Americans are being killed and are going to be killed.

If that is not enough, this article from TownHall, Matt Vespa, June 3: ``Syrian Refugees Pushed Sweden's Welfare State to the Brink of Collapse.''

Very interesting. Osama bin Laden had an interesting statement at one time about how very cheaply they were able to kill 3,000 Americans on 9/11, but that the best part even beyond killing 3,000 Americans was that they cost us billions and maybe trillions of dollars with a very, very small investment to killing Americans on 9/11, and that if they will keep having projects like that, they can break us financially.

It appears that with decisions in this administration, they are on their way to doing that.

If that is not enough, this administration had the VA announce that the Department of Veterans Affairs has now proposed covering transition-related surgeries for transgender veterans in the near future under a proposed rule change. I know that the people making this decision don't want more veterans killing themselves. But as Dr. Paul McHugh, the former head of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins, now retired, was still working with them--but one transgender gentleman that had had the sex change in his forties had told me Dr. McHugh knows more about transgender than anybody.

Dr. McHugh has not made that claim. He is a very humble gentleman. He is a brilliant man. He cites in his article printed in The Wall Street Journal about a 2011 study at the Karolinska Institutet in Sweden produced the most illuminating results yet regarding the transgendered evidence that should give advocates pause. He is talking about advocates for transgender agenda that is even being pushed here in Congress.

And he says: ``The long-term study--up to 30 years--followed 324 people who had sex-reassignment surgery. The study revealed that beginning about 10 years after having the surgery, the transgendered began to experience increasing mental difficulties. Most shockingly, their suicide mortality rose almost 20-fold above the comparable nontransgender population. This disturbing result has as yet no explanation but probably reflects the growing sense of isolation reported by the aging transgendered after surgery. The high suicide rate certainly challenges the surgery prescription.''

So for those in the VA who think a sex change operation is a good idea, Mr. Speaker, I hope they will look at the number of veterans that are killing themselves--higher rates than any time in previous eras of American history--and they will look at how many veterans are dying without the treatment they need, the veterans that are in long timelines to get the treatment they need to stay alive, and those who are dying waiting for the treatment they need.

Do you really want to have 20 times more veterans killing themselves? Is that where you want the VA money being spent, so that we can have 20 times the suicide rate that we currently have?

``Forbid it, Almighty God,'' as Patrick Henry once said.

And now the administration wants to take away parents' choices of decisions for their kids, wants to take our choices away that the First Amendment assures us that we have the right to freedom of religion. There is no right to freedom from religion, but there is a right of freedom of religion; and those rights are being taken away, even as they were from the Little Sisters of the Poor.

Do we want to allow these rights to continue to be taken at the cost of American lives, as we have seen resulting from people released at Guantanamo Bay, resulting from the ridiculous rules that are given to our military members? They are told they can't fire on people unless they are fired at and they can be assured no civilian will get hit.

The rules of engagement are ridiculous under this administration. So many rules are costing American lives. It is time to bring it all home and to understand the words of Ebenezer in Africa that, when America gets weaker, people around the world suffer. They understand that around the world. Freedom-loving people understand around the world when America gets weaker, they suffer.

America has been a gift to the world. Mr. Speaker, you know it, I know it, and I hope and pray more in the administration will realize it before it is too late.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source