Increasing The Statutory Limit On The Public Debt - Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I had the benefit last week of attending two different hearings on the attempted terrorist attack that took place on Christmas Day. The first was in the Homeland Security Committee and the second was in the Commerce Committee. One thing became clear: There is a definite disconnect in this administration about how to handle terrorists once they are captured. Over this last weekend, Osama bin Laden claimed responsibility for the foiled Christmas Day bomber terror attack. He has, once again, inserted himself into the national security dialog in the United States.

I fear al-Qaida will have another opportunity to attack the United States because of the fumbling of intelligence information that could have been gathered on the Christmas Day bomber before his attempted attack and subsequently from this terrorist after he was captured. But this administration clearly dropped the ball. We know the Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair; FBI Director Mueller; National Counterterrorism Center Director Michael Leiter; and the Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, were not consulted about the decision to read Abdulmutallab his Miranda rights and try him in civilian courts. We know that as soon as this terrorist was told of his right to remain silent, that is what he did. He stopped talking.

It is unfathomable that these individuals were not even consulted before this hugely important decision was made. After the hearings conducted last week and interviews over the weekend, it appears it was ultimately the Attorney General who made the decision to read the Miranda rights and place Abdulmutallab in the civilian court system. However, there is a lot of ambiguity to show how this decision came to be made. Were there any deliberations or meetings that occurred prior to this decision? Was the President brought into this discussion? All these ambiguities need to be cleared up so we do not make the same mistakes again.

As a member of one of the committees charged with oversight of homeland security, I will be asking for a written response from the administration on this issue.

Additionally, because the heads of government agencies charged with making the decisions do not seem to be talking, I have joined with several of my Senate colleagues to cosponsor legislation authored by Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman, the distinguished ranking member and chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. This legislation would require the Attorney General to consult with the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Secretary of Defense prior to the initiation of giving any terrorist Miranda rights or the initiation of civilian criminal charges against a foreign person detained by the U.S. Government on suspicion of any terrorist activities. The legislation would also require, in the event of a disagreement amongst these folks on whether such action should be initiated in civilian criminal court, that the Attorney General not initiate such action unless specifically directed by the President. I ask my other Senate colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this vital legislation.

A second thing we learned from last week's hearings was there is confusion about when the high-value interrogation group or the HIG should be convened to decide on whether to interrogate terrorists such as Abdulmutallab or to interview them with their lawyers present. Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair told the Homeland Security Committee:

This unit was created exactly for this purpose--to make a decision on whether a certain person who is detained should be treated as a case for Federal prosecution or for some other means.

The intelligence chief said the interrogation group was created by the White House last year to handle overseas cases but will now be expanded for domestic cases.

He said:

We did not invoke the HIG in this case. We should have.

Subsequently, we heard from the administration that this HIG unit isn't even up and running yet.

My question is, How does the individual who is in charge of our intelligence infrastructure not know the policy and procedures for interrogating terrorists? Based on the testimony given last week, it would seem we do not have a fully integrated and comprehensive method for interrogating terrorists, whether they are captured abroad or here at home. The capture and subsequent handling of terrorist Abdulmutallab was bungled from the get-go. It is continuing to be bungled.

A week ago, I signed a letter to President Obama with a number of my colleagues indicating that the decision to prosecute this terrorist in civilian court has resulted in a missed opportunity to collect timely intelligence. In order for the U.S. Government to fully understand where we failed on Christmas Day, it is imperative we examine the methods and means Abdulmutallab used to avoid detection.

As many of my colleagues have pointed out, our ability to gather this information has been severely hampered by the decision to put this terrorist almost immediately into the civilian court system. He now has all the rights, protections, and privileges of American citizens. Make no mistake about it, this decision to try Abdulmutallab as a U.S. citizen, which he is not, as opposed to an enemy combatant will be a detrimental impact on our ability to learn more about this failed terrorist attack. Taking it a step further, this decision may very well weaken our national security. Last week, the Republican leader mentioned that a year ago the President, immediately after taking office, decided to revise the Nation's interrogation policies and to restrict the CIA's ability to question terrorists.

This was done by Executive order. While questioning the Director of National Intelligence, I specifically asked if the Director believed the classified interrogation methods used previously by our own government were more effective than the current methods found in the Army Field Manual that is publicly available for the terrorist to train to.

One statement the DNI, the Director of National Intelligence, made during the Q-and-A portion of the hearing particularly caught my attention. In response to a question from Senator Burris regarding al-Qaida's ability to exploit open source intelligence, Admiral Blair stated this--I am quoting, once again:

[T]he public discussion of the specifics of the defensive measures we take are making it that much easier for people to evade our defenses and come in ..... I think they are just making the job of those who are working hard to try to defend us that much harder. It costs the taxpayer that much more money. And I wish people would just shut the hell up.

That is what he said.

So if keeping some of our airport security measures a secret makes it harder for terrorists to evade them, shouldn't that same logic also hold that keeping some of our interrogation measures classified also makes it harder for the terrorists to beat those interrogation techniques? But this administration does not seem to be on the same page.

As I am sure you can imagine, those who wish to do us harm can simply train to the methods that are publicized in this public document. By limiting our intelligence community to only those techniques in the Army Field Manual, we have removed one important tool the intelligence community has to use against al-Qaida; that is, fear of the unknown.

Terrorists now know exactly what our interrogation methods and limitations are, and based on that knowledge they can train and prepare themselves to successfully resist our interrogation efforts.

I am also concerned that the administration may begin to bargain or propose a plea deal to this terrorist, Abdulmutallab, in order to obtain additional information. I believe this would set a very dangerous precedent for would-be terrorists in order to potentially have their jail time reduced. It is my understanding the policy of the United States is not to negotiate with terrorists.

We should comprehensively and effectively interrogate terrorists to gain the information we need, not to negotiate with them for it. The only true way to gather this information is through an extensive interrogation of the terrorist by highly trained intelligence personnel. The definition of an ``extensive and comprehensive interrogation'' is not a 50-minute questioning while the terrorist is being prepped for surgery, as was the case with Abdulmutallab.

Extensive interrogations are conducted over a sustained amount of time, with members of various government agencies included. They incorporate individuals from defense intelligence and have elements of uncertainty and surprise. This means those conducting the interrogations are not limited to a set of interrogations which the terrorist has trained against. In short, a proper and extensive interrogation should not solely consist of the interrogation methods listed in the Army Field Manual.

We have in our custody an individual who has been trained by al-Qaida. He has met with some of its most senior leaders and has not been properly and comprehensively interrogated. How is this possible? He could give us information on the al-Qaida command-and-control structure. It is possible he could give us information on funding mechanisms, ongoing operations, safe houses, personnel and leadership profiles, al-Qaida's governmental connections in Yemen and maybe other Middle East nations, and what the enemy views as weaknesses in our airport security.

What happens if, say, new information comes to light; say, Osama bin Laden releases a new tape like he just did, or if we intercept some communication coming out of Yemen? As it stands now, we have lost the ability to interrogate Abdulmutallab on those issues.

Over the weekend, we heard a preposterous statement from the President's spokesman when he said the FBI got all the information they could get out of him. That is a preposterous statement. I do not believe that to be the case, and I do not believe most Nevadans or other Americans believe it either.

It is for these reasons we must transfer Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to the
military and remove the Executive order restrictions that requires our intelligence community to follow only the Army Field Manual when interrogating a terrorist. It is in the best interests of the security of the United States to do so.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source