MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT OF 2006 -- (Senate - September 28, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAIN. First, I say to my good friend from Michigan that this legislation clearly defines grave breaches of Common Article 3, which are criminalized and ultimately punishable by death. It is critical for the American public to understand that we are criminalizing breaches of Common Article 3 that rise to the level of a felony. Such acts--including cruel or inhuman treatment, torture, rape, and murder, among others--will clearly be considered war crimes.
Where the President may exercise his authority to interpret treaty obligations is in the area of ``nongrave'' breaches of the Geneva Conventions--those breaches that do not rise to the level of a war crime. In interpreting the conventions in this manner, the President is bounded by the conventions themselves. Nothing in this bill gives the President the authority to modify the conventions or our obligations under those treaties. That understanding is at the core of this legislation.
Mr. WARNER. I concur with the Senator from Arizona.
Mr. LEVIN. Would you agree that nothing in this provision gives the President, or could give the President, the authority to modify the requirements of the Detainee Treatment Act?
Mr. WARNER. The purpose of this legislation is to strengthen, not to weaken or modify, the Detainee Treatment Act. For the first time, this legislation is required to ``take action to ensure compliance'' with the DTA's prohibition on cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, as defined in the U.S. reservation to the Convention Against Torture. He is directed to do so through, among other actions, the establishment of administrative rules and procedures. Nothing in this legislation authorizes the President to modify the requirements of the DTA, which were enshrined in a law passed last December. I would point out as well to the distinguished ranking member that the President himself never proposed to weaken the DTA. Rather, he proposed to make compliance with the DTA tantamount to compliance with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. That proposal is not included in this legislation.
Mr. McCAIN. I agree entirely with Senator WARNER's comments.
Mr. LEVIN. Would you agree that any interpretation issued by the President under this section would only be valid if it is consistent with U.S. obligations under the Geneva Conventions and the Detainee Treatment Act?
Mr. McCAIN. That is correct.
Mr. WARNER. I agree.
Mr. LEVIN. Section 8(b) of the bill would amend the War Crimes Act to provide that only ``grave breaches'' of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions constitute war crimes under U.S. law. The provision goes on to define those grave breaches to include, among other things, torture, and ``cruel or inhuman treatment''. The term ``cruel or inhuman treatment' is defined to include acts ``intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering.''
Would you agree that the changes to the War Crimes Act in section 8(b) do not in any way alter U.S. obligations under the Geneva Conventions or under the Detainee Treatment Act?
Mr. McCAIN. The changes to the War Crimes Act are actually a responsible modification in order to better comply with America's obligations under the Geneva Conventions to provide effective penal sanction for grave breaches of Common Article 3. It is important to note, as has the Senator from Michigan, that in this section ``cruel or inhuman treatment'' is defined for purposes of the War Crimes Act only. It does not infringe, supplant, or in any way alter the definition of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment prohibited in the DTA and defined therein with reference to the 5th, 8th, and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Nor do the changes to the War Crimes Act alter U.S. obligations under the Geneva Conventions.
Mr. WARNER. I would associate myself with the comments from the Senator from Arizona.
Mr. LEVIN. Would you agree that nothing in this section or in this bill requires or should be interpreted to authorize any modification to the new Army Field Manual on interrogation techniques, which was issued last month and provides important guidance to our solders on the field as to what is and is not permitted to the interrogation of detainees?
Mr. WARNER. The executive branch has the authority to modify the Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation at any time. I welcomed the new version of the field manual issued last month and agree that it provides critical guidance to our solders in the field. That said, the content of the field manual is an issue separate from those at issue in this bill, and it was not my intent to effect any change in the field manual through this legislation.
Mr. McCAIN. I concur wholeheartedly with the Senator from Virginia. As the Senator form Virginia is aware, there is a provision in the bill before the Senate that defines ``cruel and inhuman treatment'' under the War Crimes Act. I would note first that this definition is limited to criminal offenses under the War Crimes Act and is distinct from the broader prohibition contained in the Detainee Treatment Act. That act defined the term ``cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment'' with reference to the reservation the United States took to the Convention Against Torture.
In the war crimes section of this bill, cruel and inhuman treatment is defined as an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering. It further makes clear that such mental suffering need not be prolonged to be prohibited. The mental suffering need only be more than transitory. It is important to note that the ``nontransitory'' requirement applies to the harm, not to the act producing the harm. Thus if a U.S. soldier is, for example, subjected to some terrible technique that lasts for a brief time but that causes serious and nontransitory mental harm, a criminal act has occurred.
Mr. WARNER. That is my understanding and intent as well, and I agree with the Senator's other clarifying remarks.
In the same section, the term ``serious physical pain or suffering'' is defined as a bodily injury that involves one of four characteristics: ``a substantial risk of death,'' ``extreme physical pain,'' ``a burn or physical disfigurement or a serious nature,'' or ``significant loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ or mental faculty.'' I do not believe that the term ``bodily injury'' adds a separate requirement which must be met for an act to constitute serious physical pain or suffering.
Mr. McCAIN. I am of the same view.
Mr. LEVIN. And would the Senator from Arizona agree with my view that section 8(a)(3) does not make lawful or give the President the authority to make lawful any technique that is not permitted by Common Article 3 or the Detainee Treatment Act?
Mr. McCAIN. I do agree.
Mr. WARNER. I agree with both of my colleagues.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank both my friends of many years, Senator Levin and Senator Warner, for the collegiality, the bipartisanship, and the effort that we all make under their leadership on the Armed Services Committee for the betterment of the men and women who serve our country and our Nation's defense. I am honored to serve under both.
For the record, I believe I just calculated, I say to my dear friend from Virginia, it has been 33 years since I came home from Vietnam and found that our distinguished Secretary of the Navy was very concerned about the welfare of those who had the lack of talent that we were able to get shot down. So I thank my friend from Virginia especially, and I thank my friend from Michigan. I believe our committee conducts itself in a fashion which has been handed down to us from other great Members of the Senate, such as Richard Russell and others.
Mr. President, before I move on to other issues, I have heard some criticism on the Senate floor today about the way in which the bill treats admissibility of coerced testimony.
A New York Times editorial today said that in this legislation ``coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses'' in their own inimitable style.
This is thoroughly incorrect, and I would like to correct not only the impression but the facts.
This bill excludes any evidence obtained through illegal interrogation techniques, including those prohibited by the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act. The goal is to bolster the Detainee Treatment Act by ensuring that the fruits of any illegal treatment will be per se inadmissible in the military commissions.
For evidence obtained before passage of the Detainee Treatment Act, we adopted the approach recommended by the military JAGs. In order to admit such evidence, the judge--we leave it to the judge--must find that: it passes the legal reliability test--and, as applied in practice, the greater the degree of coercion, the more likely the statement will not be admitted; the evidence possesses sufficient probative value; and that the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that three different letters from three different JAGs--Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps--be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAIN. These men express one common view: that modifying the Geneva Conventions would be a terrible mistake and would put our personnel at greater risk in this war and the next. If America is seen to be doing anything other than upholding the letter and spirit of the conventions, it will be harder, not easier, to defeat our enemies. I am pleased that this legislation before the Senate does not amend, redefine, or modify the Geneva Conventions in any way. The conventions are preserved intact.
The bill does provide needed clarity for our personnel about what activities constitute war crimes. For the first time, there will be a list of nine specific activities that constitute criminal violations of Common Article 3, punishable by imprisonment or even death. There has been much public discussion about specific interrogation methods that may be prohibited. But it is unreasonable to suggest that any legislation could provide an explicit and all-inclusive list of what specific activities are illegal and which are permitted. Still, I am confident that the categories included in this section will criminalize certain interrogation techniques, like waterboarding and other techniques that cause serious pain or suffering that need not be prolonged--I emphasize ``that need not be prolonged.''
Some critics of this legislation have asserted that it gives amnesty to U.S. personnel who may have committed war crimes since the enactment of the War Crimes Act. Nothing--nothing--could be further from the truth. As currently written, the War Crimes Act makes criminal any and all behavior that constitutes a violation of Common Article 3--specifically, any act that constitutes an ``outrage upon personal dignity.'' Observers have commented that, though such outrages are difficult to define precisely, we all know them when we see them. However, neither I nor any other responsible Member of this body should want to prosecute and potentially sentence to death any individual for violating such a vague standard.
The specificity that the bill provides to the War Crimes Act--and its retroactive effect--will actually make prosecuting war criminals a realistic goal. None of my colleagues should object to that goal.
It is also important to note that the acts that we propose to enumerate in the War Crimes Act are not the only activities prohibited under this legislation. The categories enumerated in the War Crimes Act list only those violations of Common Article 3 that are so grave as to constitute felonies potentially punishable by death. The legislation states explicitly that there are other, nongrave breaches of Common Article 3.
This legislation also requires the President to publish his interpretations of the Geneva Conventions, including what violations constitute nongrave breaches, in the Federal Register--in the Federal Register--for every American to see. These interpretations will have the same force as any other administrative regulation promulgated by the executive branch and, thus, may be trumped--may be trumped--by law passed by Congress.
Simply put, this legislation ensures that we respect our obligations under Geneva, recognizes the President's constitutional authority to interpret treaties, and brings accountability and transparency to the process of interpretation by ensuring that the Executive's interpretation is made public--the Executive's interpretation is made public. The legislation would also guarantee that Congress and the judicial branch will retain their traditional roles of oversight and review with respect to the President's interpretation of nongrave breaches of Common Article 3.
In short, whereas last year only one law--the torture statute--was deemed to apply to the treatment of all enemy detainees, now there is a set of overlapping and comprehensive legal standards that are in force: the Detainee Treatment Act, with its prohibition on cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment as defined by the fifth, eighth, and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, and the War Crimes Act. This legislation will allow--my colleagues, have no doubt--this legislation will allow the CIA to continue interrogating prisoners within the boundaries established in the bill.
Let me state this flatly: It was never our purpose to prevent the CIA from detaining and interrogating terrorists. On the contrary, it is important to the war on terror that the CIA have the ability to do so. At the same time, the CIA's interrogation program has to abide by the rules, including the standards of the Detainee Treatment Act.
I, like many of my colleagues, find troubling the reports that our intelligence personnel feel compelled to purchase liability insurance because of the lack of legal clarity that exists in the wake of the Hamdan decision. This legislation provides an affirmative defense for any Government personnel prosecuted under the War Crimes Act for actions they reasonably believed to be legal at the time. That is a longstanding precedent. In addition, it would eliminate any private right of action against our personnel based on a violation of the Geneva Conventions. The intent of this provision is to protect officers, employees, members of the Armed Forces, and other agents of the United States from suits for money damages or any other lawsuits that could harm the financial well-being of our personnel who were engaged in lawful--I emphasize ``lawful''--activities.
It is important to note, however, that the fact that the Geneva Conventions lack a private right of action--and the fact that this legislation does not create such a right--has absolutely no bearing on whether the Conventions are binding on the executive branch. Even if the Geneva Conventions do not enable detainees to sue our personnel for money damages, the President and his subordinates are nevertheless bound to comply with Geneva. That is clear to me and to all who have negotiated this legislation in good faith.
This point is critical, because our personnel deserve not only the legal protections written into this legislation, but also the undiluted protections offered since 1949 by the Geneva Conventions. Should the United States be seen as amending, modifying, or redefining the Geneva Conventions, it would open the door for our adversaries to do the same, now and in the future. The United States should champion the Geneva Conventions, not look for ways to get around them, lest we invite others to do the same. America has more personnel deployed, in more places, than any other country in the world, and this unparalleled exposure only serves to further demonstrate the critical importance of our fulfilling the letter and the spirit of our international obligations. To do any differently would put our fighting men and women directly at risk. We owe it to our fighting men and women to uphold the Geneva Conventions, just as we have done for 57 years.
For these reasons, this bill makes clear that the United States will fulfill all of its obligations under those Conventions. We expect the CIA to conduct interrogations in a manner that is fully consistent not only with the Detainee Treatment Act and the War Crimes Act, but with all of our obligations under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.
Finally, I note that there has been opposition to this legislation from some quarters, including the New York Times editorial page. Without getting into a point-by-point rebuttal here on the floor, I simply say that I have been reading the Congressional Record trying to find the bill that page so vociferously denounced. The hyperbolic attack is aimed not at any bill this body is today debating, nor even at the administration's original position. I can only presume that some would prefer that Congress simply ignore the Hamdan decision and pass no legislation at all. That, I suggest to my colleagues, would be a travesty.
This is a very long, difficult task. This is critical for the future security of this Nation, and we have done the very best we can. I believe we have come up with a good product. I believe good-faith negotiations have taken place. I hope we will pass this legislation very soon. I think you will find that people will be brought to justice and we can move forward with trials with treating people under the Geneva Conventions and restoring America's prestige in the world.
I thank my colleagues.