Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will wrap this up. I know we have colleagues who want to speak. Let me reiterate what Senator Lieberman said. There is a stream of thought that every member of al-Qaida, American citizen or not, is an enemy of the people of the United States in a military sense, not a criminal sense, and they should be in a military tribunal. That is the way we have handled most cases in the past. Here is what I believe: I believe that the choice of venue should lie with the executive branch, and I think there is a very robust role for article III courts. So I don't want to say from a congressional point of view that every member of al-Qaida has to be tried by a military commission all the time, because, quite frankly, sometimes article III courts could be the better venue. When it comes to telling the executive branch that you have to put a noncitizen in military custody inside the United States, I think that is the right way to do it, but I don't know enough, so if there is a reason to waive that provision, the experts can waive it. I have been very cautious about micromanaging the executive branch because they are the ones fighting the war. We have a role to play, we have a voice to be heard, and here is what I am urging some my colleagues. This compromise is not what some of our friends wanted, such as Senator Lieberman and, quite frankly, it is not what the ACLU wants, because they don't buy into the idea that al-Qaida operatives are anything other than common criminals. So you have two poles here. I believe an al-Qaida operative is not a common criminal, and if an American citizen joins al-Qaida they should be treated as an enemy combatant as one possibility. But if you want to go down the other road, you can go down that road. I just don't want us to take off the table, for the first time in the history of America, that an American citizen trying to help the enemy kill us here at home somehow can no longer be talked to by our military to gather intelligence. That is a crazy outcome. I think we have a good bill that gives maximum flexibility to the executive branch but preserves the tools we are going to need now and into the future. And to my colleagues, please ask yourself: If in World War II we could hold an American citizen who tried to help the Nazis blow up America as an enemy combatant, why wouldn't you want to help hold an American citizen who is helping al-Qaida--which did more damage to the homeland than the Nazis--as an enemy combatant? Why would you want to take off the table the ability to hold that person, humanely interrogate them to find out why they joined, who they talked to and what they know? Because what they know and who they talked to may save thousands of lives. For us to say you cannot do that for the first time in the history of the country would be a colossal mistake. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM. So if the Department of Defense somehow intercepted information about an al-Qaida cell, let's say in Connecticut or South Carolina, could they be involved in suppressing that cell?

Mr. GRAHAM. As a team effort.

Mr. GRAHAM. But our military has the ability to defend us against al- Qaida attacks at home, such as they do abroad.

Mr. GRAHAM. So would the Senator agree with me that the current law is very clear that anytime an American citizen joins the enemy force, they can be held as an enemy combatant; that is the law?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. And they can be treated as an enemy combatant in accordance with our laws?

Mr. GRAHAM. If I may, I find the discussion fascinating. May I enter into the colloquy?

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair. As I understand it, the reason the Senator is having to do this is because President Obama, by Executive order, prevented the CIA and other agencies from using any enhanced interrogation techniques that have been classified in the past; is that correct?

Mr. GRAHAM. If I may, let me ask another question. All of us agree we don't want to torture anybody. Waterboarding is not the way to get good intelligence. Not only is it not the right thing to do, it is just not the wise thing to do. But we believe we have gone too far the other way; that when the President said no interrogation technique is available to our intelligence community other than the Army Field Manual, does my colleague agree that, for the first time in American history, we are advertising to our enemies what we can do to them if we capture them, and no more can be done?

Mr. GRAHAM. Under the law as it exists today, an American citizen can be held as an enemy combatant. The question we are debating on the floor--Senator Feinstein is saying that in the future an American citizen who is deemed to have collaborated with al-Qaida or the Taliban or others could no longer be held as an enemy combatant for an indefinite period, which means we cannot gather military intelligence as to what they know about past, present, and future attacks. I argue we would be the first Congress in history to bring about that result and that now would be the worst time in American history to do that. If we cannot hold a citizen who is suspected of assisting al- Qaida under the law of war, the only option is to put them in the criminal justice system. Then we cannot hold them indefinitely, and we cannot ask about present, past or future attacks because now we are investigating a crime, nor should we be allowed to do that under criminal law. The point is that when a person assists the enemy, whether at home or abroad, they have committed an act of war against our citizens, and the Supreme Court has acknowledged that the executive branch has the power to hold them as an enemy combatant. The question is, Are we going to change that and say in the 21st century, in 2011, every American citizen who chooses to cooperate with al-Qaida can no longer be interrogated for intelligence-gathering purposes by our Department of Defense and our intelligence community; that they have to go into the criminal justice system right off the bat, where they are given a lawyer and are read their Miranda rights? If we do that, we are going to deny ourselves valuable intelligence. We would be saying to our citizens that we no longer treat helping al-Qaida as an act of war against the rest of us. If one suggested during World War II that someone who collaborated with the Nazis should be viewed as a common criminal, most Americans would have said: No, they turned on their fellow citizens and they are now part of the enemy. All I want to do is keep the law as it is because we need it now more than ever. I am sensitive to due process. There is more due process in this war. Every enemy combatant being held at Guantanamo Bay, captured in the United States, has to go before a Federal judge. The military has to prove their case to a Federal judge. There is an annual review process. That makes sense to me. What doesn't make sense to me is for this country and this Senate to overturn a power that makes eminent sense when we need it the most. It doesn't make sense to set aside a Supreme Court case that acknowledges that when an American citizen affiliates with al-Qaida, that is an act of war against the rest of us and to criminalize that conduct, denying us the ability to gather intelligence. If we go down that road, we have weakened ourselves as a people, without any higher purpose. To those American citizens thinking about helping al-Qaida, please know what will come your way: death, detention, prosecution. If you are thinking about plotting with the enemy inside our country to do the rest of us harm, please understand what is coming your way: the full force of the law. The law I am talking about is the law of armed conflict. You subject yourself to being held as an enemy of the people of the United States, interrogated about what you know and why you did what you did or planned to do, and you subject yourself to imprisonment and death. The reason you subject yourself to that regime is because your decision to turn on the rest of us and help a group of people who would destroy our way of life is not something we idly accept. It is not a common, everyday crime. It is a decision by you to commit an act of aggression against the rest of us. I hope and pray this Senate will not, for the first time in American history, deny our ability to interrogate and find intelligence from those citizens who choose to associate with the enemy on our soil, because if we do that, it will be a deviation from the law that has existed at a time when we need that law the most.

Mr. GRAHAM. Right. What we have done in the Military Commissions Act in 2009, civilians, American citizens cannot be tried in military commissions. It can only go to Federal court. But the point we are trying to make is it has been long held in this country that when an American citizen abroad or on the homeland decides to help the enemy, we have the right to hold them, not under a criminal theory but under the law of war because their effort to help the enemy, I say to my good friend from Illinois, is an act of war against their fellow citizens. This is so important. If we deny our country the ability to hold and interrogate an American citizen who has joined forces with al-Qaida, we lose the ability to find out the intelligence they may have to keep us safe. If the choice is that an American citizen who chooses to collaborate with al-Qaida must be put in the criminal justice system, meaning they will have criminalized the war, the Congress will have restricted executive branch power. To make it clear--please understand, I say to Senator Feinstein--the courts of the United States have acknowledged that the executive branch can hold an American citizen as an enemy combatant when they engage and assist the enemy. The courts of the United States recognize the power of the executive to do that as Commander in Chief. The question for us is, Do we want to be the first Congress in the history of the Nation to say to the executive branch that they no longer have that power given to them by the courts, inherent with being Commander in Chief, to protect us against enemies foreign and domestic. I argue to my colleagues, given the threats we face from homegrown terrorism, from al-Qaida groups and their affiliates, that now is not the time to change the law preventing our military intelligence community from holding an American citizen who is helping the enemy on the homeland and prevent them from gathering intelligence. I argue that the reason no other Congress has done this in past wars is because it didn't make a lot of sense. I argue that if a Senator came to the floor of the Senate during World War II and suggested that an American citizen who sided with the Nazis to sabotage American interests here could not be held as an enemy combatant, they would have been run out of town because most citizens would say anybody who helps the enemy--citizen or not--is a threat to our country. Unlike other wars, we do have due process that exists today that never existed before. No Nazi soldier was able to go to a Federal court and say: Judge, let me go. The reason I have agreed, and the courts have applied habeas review to enemy combatant determination, is this is a war without end. How does one become an enemy combatant? The executive branch makes the accusation. They have to follow the statutory criteria. This is a limited group of people in a limited classification. American citizen or not, if someone falls into this group, they can be held as an enemy combatant. But the executive branch has to prove to an independent judiciary that the case is sufficient, and under the law the judge has to agree with the military; we have an independent judiciary looking over the shoulder of the military in this war, unlike at any other time. So the government has to prove to a Federal judge, by a preponderance of the evidence, that this person is, in fact, an enemy combatant. If the judge disagrees, they are let go. If the judge agrees, we hold the enemy combatant, and they get an annual review process as to whether future detention is warranted. So we have robust due process. But please understand what the Feinstein amendment is about. It is about the Congress of the United States, the Senate of the United States, for the first time in American history, restricting the ability of the executive branch to hold an American citizen who is collaborating with the enemy and question them under the law of war. If we do that to ourselves, we will regret it. I don't want to be in the first Congress, in the times in which we live, to change the law to deny our intelligence community and the Department of Defense the ability to deal with American citizens who have decided on their own to become part of al-Qaida. The day one decides they are going to side with al-Qaida, they have committed an act of war against the rest of us, and the courts acknowledge they can be held as an enemy combatant, not a common criminal. The question for the Congress is, Do we want to undo that in the times in which we live? I plead with everybody in this body, get yourself educated about what the law is today. I ask Senator Levin, we have done nothing to change the law in this bill; is that correct?

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, it is.

Mr. GRAHAM. Does he agree with me that we need a legal system that understands the difference between fighting a war and fighting a crime?

Mr. GRAHAM. That is correct.

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator.

Mr. GRAHAM. Does the Senator agree with me that every enemy combatant, citizen other otherwise, held at Guantanamo Bay or captured in the United States has their day in Federal court through habeas proceedings?

Mr. GRAHAM. Does the Senator agree with me that the dangers our Nation faces do not justify changing existing law, denying this country the ability to gather intelligence even against an American citizen joined with al-Qaida, that that would be an unwise decision given the dangers we're facing?

Mr. GRAHAM. Some of these people have gone back to fighting and killed American soldiers?

Mr. GRAHAM. And the law of war allows the following: trial or detention or both. Is that correct?

Mr. GRAHAM. Every detainee not only gets their day in Federal court, the government must prove they have a solid case to hold them as an enemy combatant, and everyone gets a yearly review as to whether they are a continuing threat?

Mr. GRAHAM. Is the Senator familiar with competency hearings in the civilian court?

Mr. GRAHAM. So everybody held after judicial review for the first time in the history of warfare. Does the Senator agree with me that the annual review process that we have created by this law, this bill, the Defense Authorization Act, is something we have not done in other wars?

Mr. GRAHAM. In our civilian law, we can hold people who are a danger to themselves or others without a trial but with judicial oversight; is that correct?

Mr. GRAHAM. Would the Senator agree with me that it is very smart to evaluate whether we should allow someone to be let go and intelligence professionals should be able to make that decision as to whether the individual is a military threat, that that is a logical process?

Mr. GRAHAM. Does he agree with me that our courts understand that when an American citizen collaborates with an enemy of our Nation, that is an act of war by that citizen against his own country and the law of war applies, not domestic criminal law?