Objection to S.Res.469, Detainee Transfer at Guantanamo Bay
S.Res.469 is a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate on May 31, 2014, transfer of five detainees from the detention facility at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. (Portman and others)
Senator Levin objected to the request.
The unofficial transcript of the exchange is below.
MR. PORTMAN: I RISE TODAY TO PUT THE SENATE ON RECORD ON
SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT AND THAT IS SPEAKING TO THE DECISION
BY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO RELEASE FIVE TOP TALIBAN LEADERS
FROM GUANTANAMO BAY WITHOUT CONSULTING CONGRESS, AS REQUIRED BY
LAW. A DECISION THAT I BELIEVE ENDANGERS THE LIVES OF AMERICAN
PERSONNEL, NOT TO MENTION THE COUNTLESS AFGHANS AND THE SUCCESS
OF OUR MISSION IN AFGHANISTAN. IT'S BEEN WELL REPORTED IN THE
PRESS THAT THIS RELEASE WAS DONE WITHOUT CONSULTING CONGRESS OR
CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE AISLE, REPUBLICAN OR
BEFORE SUCH ACTION IS TAKEN, A REQUIREMENT THAT'S CONTAINED
BOTH IN AN AUTHORIZATION BILL CALLED THE 2004 NATIONAL DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION ACT, AND A SPENDING BILL, THE CONSOLIDATED
APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 2014, BOTH OF WHICH, BY THE WAY, MR.
PRESIDENT, PASSED CONGRESS WITH BIG BIPARTISAN MAJORITIES, BOTH
WERE BIPARTISAN BILLS AND THERE WAS A BIPARTISAN CONSENSUS
ABOUT HAVING THIS NOTIFICATION. DESPITE CEPHAL CHOSED-DOOR
BRIEFINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE ADMINISTRATION SINCE WE
LEARNED OF THE RELEASE, THE ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN UNABLE TO
PROVIDE ANY LEGITIMATE JUSTIFICATION FOR VIOLATING THE
REQUIREMENT AND FOR FAILING TO CONSULT WITH CONGRESS. I BELIEVE
THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT RAISES A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND QUESTIONS
WHICH SHOULD CONCERN EVERY MEMBER OF THIS BODY, BOTH SIDES OF
THE AISLE. IT'S NOT A PARTISAN ISSUE, NOR IS IT ABOUT WHAT KIND
OF SOLDIER SERGEANT BOW BERGDAHL MAY HAVE BEEN. THAT'S NOT WHAT
THIS IS B I
--THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. I TRUST THE ARMY WILL HANDLE
THAT MATTER. THIS IS ABOUT OUR ROLE IN THE U.S. CONGRESS AND
ABOUT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. IT IS ABOUT PROTECTING OUR MEN AND
WOMEN IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ. IT IS ABOUT MAKING SURE OUR
GAINS WILL NOT BE SQUANDERED, AS WE'RE SEEING TODAY IN THE
COUNTRY OF IRAQ. CONGRESS ENACTED THE BIPARTISAN NOTICE
REQUIREMENT TO SECURE THOSE INTERESTS AND PREVENT THE RELEASE
OF DANGEROUS TERRORISTS WHO WERE HIKELY TO REJOIN -- LIKELY TO
REJOIN THE FIGHT. IT REQUIRES THE PRESIDENT TO GIVE A DETAILED
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE RELEASE OF DETAINEES FROM GUANTANAMO BAY.
WHY SUCH A RELEASE IS IN THE COUNTRY'S NATIONAL SECURITY
INTERESTS, WHAT ACTIONS THE ADMINISTRATION WILL TAKE TO NOTIFY
US AND PROVIDE A JUSTIFICATION FOR THE RELEASE AND THE
CONDITIONS OF THAT RELEASE. I BELIEVE HAD THE PRESIDENT
FOLLOWED THE LAW, MADE THE DANGERS -- MAYBE THE DANGERS IMPOSED
BY THIS DECISION MAY HAVE BEEN AVOIDED ALTOGETHER. CONCERNS
WERE MADE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE. BECAUSE MAKE NO MISTAKE
THESE FIVE MEN WHO WERE RELEASED ARE DANGEROUS. DON'T TAKE MY
WORD FOR IT. THIS IS WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS SAID
REPEATEDLY. I WAS THERE IN A HEARING BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED
SERVICES COMMITTEE IN 2012. I WAS A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE AT
THAT TIME. CHAIRMAN LEVIN, WHO IS HERE WITH US TODAY, ASKED
SOME VERY GOOD QUESTIONS, INCLUDING QUESTIONS TO JAMES CLAPPER. WHAT DID MR. CLEARP SAY?
HE REITERATED A 2010 ADMINISTRATION ASSESSMENT THAT THESE FIVE
TALIBAN LEADERS, THESE SAME FIVE WHO WERE JUST RELEASED, POSED
A HIGH RISK OF RETURNING TO THE FIGHT. ON THIS VERY POINT,
DIRECTOR CLAPPER DID NOT EQUIVOCATE SAYING, "I DO NOT THINK
ANYONE HARBORS ANY ILLUSIONS ABOUT THESE FIVE TALIBAN MEMBERS
WHANGDZ THEY MIGHT DO IF THEY WERE TRANSFERRED." THIS WAS SWORN
TESTIMONY BEFORE OUR COMMITTEE. EVEN IF HE PRESIDENT ADMITS
THAT THERE IS, AS HE HAS SAID, "ABSOLUTELY A RISK THAT THESE
MEN WILL RETURN TO THE BATTLEFIELD" -- THE PRESIDENT SAYS THAT
NOW -- THESE MEN WERE SENIOR MEMBERS OF THE TALIBAN. THEY
INCLUDE THE TALIBAN DEPUTY DEFENSE MINISTER, THE DEPUTY
MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR, SOME WERE CLOSELY ASSOCIATED WITH
OSAMA BIN LADEN OR AL QAEDA. TWO WERE WANTED BY THE UNITED
NATIONS FOR WAR CRIMES. YET DESPITE THESE RED FLASHINGS WHICH
ACCORDING TO REPORTS IN THE PRESS WERE REITERATED DURING
INTERNAL WHITE HOUSE DEBATES OVER THE TRANSFER, PRESIDENT OBAMA
RELEASED THESE MEN ANYWAY WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE NOTICE PROVIDED
UNDER THE LAW. WE NEED TO KNOW WHY. WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT
SECURITY RISKS THESE FIVE INDIVIDUALS POSE. WE NEED TO KNOW
WHAT MEASURES WERE PUT IN PLACE TO MITIGATE THAT RISK. I DON'T
KNOW WHY ANY MEMBER OF THIS BODY WOULD OPPOSE GOING ON RECORD
SAYING THAT THE LAW WAS VIOLATED AND SEEKING ANSWERS TO THESE
GOOD QUESTIONS. I AM GOING TO ASK FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT ON A
RESOLUTION THAT I HAVE OFFERED AND THAT MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES
HAVE COSPONSORED CALLING ON CONGRESS THROUGH REGULAR ORDER TO
INVESTIGATE THE DECISION TO AUTHORIZE THIS RELEASE. THIS
RESOLUTION HAS A VERY NARROW PURPOSE. IT ONLY SEEKS TO ENSURE
THAT WHEN CONGRESS SPEAKS -- AND I REMIND YOU, THIS PROVISION
ON GUANTANAMO PASSED IN ON OVERWHELMING BIPARTISAN MANNER --
THAT WHEN THE CONGRESS SPEAKS, THE PRESIDENT LISTENS. NO MATTER
WHAT PARTY THE PRESIDENT IS FROM, OUR ENTIRE CONSTITUTIONAL
BALANCE DEPENDS ON ADHERENCE TO THE RULE OF LAW. BUT THIS IS
ABOUT MORE THAN THE PRESIDENT IGNORING CONGRESS. THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE ARE THE ONES WHO DESERVE THESE ANSWERS. WE'RE THEIR
REPRESENTATIVES. THAT'S WHY THAT PROVISION WAS PUT IN PLACE. SO
THAT WE REPRESENTING THEM COULD GIVE THE PRESIDENT BETTER
ADVICE. BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE THESE ANSWERS. SOCIETY
DO, BY THE WAY, OUR -- SO DO, BY THE WAY, OUR MEN AND WOMEN IN
UNIFORM WHO CONTINUE TO THOUGHT THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE EVERY
DAY. ALREADY SINCE THE RELEASE OF THESE DETAINEES EIGHT
AMERICAN SERVICEMEN HAVE LOST THEIR LIVES IN AFGHANISTAN. WE
STILL HAVE OVER 30,000 TROOPS IN THE THEATER, 30,000 AMERICANS
PUTTING THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE FOR US EVERY DAY. I THINK A LOT
OF THEM ARE WONDERING, WHAT WAS THE JUSTIFICATION?
WHY?
WHAT EFFECT WOULD IT HAVE ON THEM AND THEIR SAFETY?
ONE CAN HARDLY DOUBT THAT THE ADMINISTRATION'S DECISION TO
RELEASE THESE TALIBAN LEADERS WILL PUT EVEN MORE AMERICANS AT
RISK. AND WE SHOULD BE UNDER NO ILLUSIONS. IF WE TAKE NO
ACTION, I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS WILL BE THE LAST UNLAWFUL
TRANSFER OF DETAINEES FROM GUANTANAMO BAY. IF WE DON'T SPEAK
AND GO ON THE RECORD AND SAY, WAIT A MINUTE, WE HAVE A LAW
HERE, THIS IS WRONG, WE NEED A JUSTIFICATION, I THINK THE WRONG
MESSAGES WILL BE SENT TO THE ADMINISTRATION. CONGRESS DIDN'T
SEEM TO CARE THAT WE VIOLATED THE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, THE
AUTHORIZATION BILL AND WENT AHEAD. PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS MADE IT
CLEAR THAT CLOSING GUANTANAMO IS ONE OF HIS TOP PRIORITIES. I
UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT HE'S PROVIDED NO SUCH CLARITY ON WHAT HE
INTENDS TO DO WITH THE DANGEROUS MEN WHO ARE HOUSED THERE. MEN
LIKE KHALID SHEIKH MOHAMMED, HE'S THERE. WILL HE BE RELEASED?
INTO WHO'S CUSTODY?
THE TERRORIST KNOWN AS HUMBALI. RAM DID I BIN AL SHAH ABOUT A,
A HIGH-RANKING OPERATIVE. WE ALSO NEED TO REMEMBER WHY WE WENT
TO AFGHANISTAN IN THE FIRST PLACE. OF COURSE, UNDER 9/11, THE
COUNTRY HAD BECOME A HAVEN FOR AL QAEDA, A POWER BASE FOR OSAMA
BIN LADEN, AND A PLACE FROM WHICH TO PLAN AND LAUNCH ATTACKS
AGAINST US, AGAINST THE UNITED STATES AND OUR ALLIES. WE WENT
TO AFGHANISTAN TO SEEK JUSTICE FOR THOSE WHO DIED ON SEPTEMBER
11, BUT WE ALSO WENT TO REMOVE THE TALIBAN FROM POWER, TO FREE
THE AFGHAN PEOPLE AND MAKE SURE THAT IT NEVER BECOME A BASE FOR
TERRORISM. WE MUST NOT BE BLIND TO THE FACT THAT THE TALIBAN
AIMS TO REGAIN AS MUCH POWER AS THEY CAN IN AFGHANISTAN AND
PAKISTAN. THAT MEANS A RETURN TO THE SUPPRESSION OF WOMEN'S
RIGHTS AND MOST IMPORTANT THROIS AND OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, THE
COMPLICIT HARBORING OF AL QAEDA. WE HAVE JUST RETURNED TO THEM
THE LEADERSHIP TEAM TO HELP THEM ACHIEVE THAT GOAL. PRESIDENT
OBAMA TELLS US THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN IS COMING TO AN END. WE
NEED TO ENSURE THAT THAT END IS ONE OF SUSTAINABLE VICTORY, NOT
DEFEAT. THE DETERIORATING SITUATION WE SEE UNFOLDING BEFORE US
ON OUR TV SETS IN IRAQ TODAY DEMONSTRATES WHAT CAN HAPPEN WITH
WE RUSH TO THE EXITS WITHOUT PREPARING FOR AN APPROPRIATE EXIT.
TODAY THE BLACK FLAG OF RADICAL ISLAM FLIES OVER THE
SECOND-LARGEST CITY IN IRAQ AND OUR MILL AT THAT POINTS ARE
ADVANCING ON BAGHDAD, PROCLAIMING VICTORY IN IRAQ DID NOT MAKE
IT SO. MANY MADE IT CLEAR THAT IF WE FAILED TO MAINTAIN
APPROPRIATE FORCES IN IRAQ TO HELP THE GOVERNMENT TRANSITION
AND ESTABLISH ITS AUTHORITY, THE LONG-TERM STABILITY OF IRAQ
WOULD BE OPEN TO THREATS BY RADICAL GROUPS. WE CHOSE NOT TO
COMPLETE A STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENT WITH THE MALIKI
GOVERNMENT. PRESIDENT OBAMA DID NOT HEED THE WARPINGS FROM
THOSE WHO SAW THESE THREATS AND UNFORTUNATELY WE'RE SEEING SOME
OF THESE PREDICTIONS COME TRUE. WHATEVER WE DO IN AFGHANISTAN,
I HOPE WE LEARN FROM THE LESSONS OF IRAQ. THE DECISIONS TO
RELEASE HIGH-RANK MEMBERS OF THE TALIBAN WHILE THE FIGHT
AGAINST TALIBAN CONTINUES TO THIS DAY HAS SHAKEN THE TRUST OF
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THE TRUST. AFGHAN PEOPLE, AND IT OPENS THE
FACT THAT WHAT WE'RE SEEING IN IRAQ MAY BE A FORESHADOWING OF
AFGHANISTAN'S FUTURE. CONGRESS HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO GET TO
THE BOTTOM OF HOW THIS RELEASE HAPPENED AND TO ENSURE THAT IT
DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN. HYPOCRITE MY COLLEAGUES ON BOTH SIDES OF
THE AISLE WILL SUPPORT THE RESOLUTION THAT I'VE INTRODUCED SO
THAT WE CAN FULFILL THAT RESPONSIBILITY. MR. PRESIDENT, I SAID
THAT I WAS GOING TO OFFER A UNANIMOUS CONSENT RESOLUTION. I
WILL DO SO NOW. I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE ARMED SERVICES
COMMITTEE BE DISCHARGED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF S. RES.
469, THAT THE SENATE PROCEED TO ITS CONSIDERATION, THAT THE
RESOLUTION BE AGREED TO, THE PREAMBLE BE AGREED TO, AND THE
MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER BE LAID ON THE TABLE, WITH NO INTERVENING
ACTION OR DEBATE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS IS THERE OBJECTION?
THE SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN.
MR. LEVIN: MR. PRESIDENT, AND I DO INTEND TO OBJECT TO THIS
RESOLUTION. IT PREJUDGES THE VERY CONCLUSION THAT THE
RESOLUTION SAYS AND WANTS AN INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE, CALLS
FOR AN INVESTIGATION BUT THEN IT ALREADY CONCLUDES THAT THE
PRESIDENT VIOLATED THE LAW. THAT IS NOT WHAT I CALL AN
IMPARTIAL INVESTIGATION. THAT'S A RESOLUTION WHICH REACHES A
CONCLUSION WHICH IS PREJUDGING THE VERY INVESTIGATION THAT IT
CALLS FOR. NOW, THERE'S OTHER PROBLEMS HERE AS WELL. MY GOOD
FRIEND FROM OHIO HAS SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT VIOLATED THE LAW
BECAUSE HE DIDN'T GIVE 30 DAYS NOTICE TO THE CONGRESS. INDEED,
THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT PROVIDES FOR 30 DAYS
NOTICE. BUT IT ALSO AS A MATTER OF FACT THE PRESIDENT SAID WHEN
HE SIGNED THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT THAT IF THERE
WERE NECESSARY CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THERE WERE NEGOTIATIONS
GOING ON WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES OR FOREIGN PEOPLE IN TERMS OF
PRESERVING OR SAVING AN AMERICAN LIFE, THAT HE'S NOT GOING TO
BE BOUND BY 30 DAYS' NOTICE. HE SAID THAT AT THE SIGNING
CEREMONY. NOW, YOU CAN'T CHANGE LAW OF A SIGNING CEREMONY. BUT
WHAT YOU CAN DO AT A SIGNING CEREMONY IS WHAT THIS PRESIDENT
DID. AT THE VERY SIGNING CEREMONY FOR THE VERY ACT THAT THE
PRESIDENT IS RELYING ON, THE PRESIDENT PUT US ON NOTICE THAT
THERE MIGHT BE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH HE COULD NOT GIVE 30
DAYS' NOTICE TO THE CONGRESS. NOW, WHEN HE DID NOT GIVE 30
DAYS' NOTICE IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, HE DID IT ON THE ADVICE OF
COUNSEL, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TOLD HIM THAT HE HAS POWERS
AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF UNDER ARTICLE 2. THAT'S PART OF THE LAW
OF THIS LAND. THE LAW OF THIS LAND INCLUDES THE NATIONAL
DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE PRESIDING
OFFICER IS VERY MUCH AWAY OF THE FACT THAT THE NATIONAL DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION ACT OF WHICH HE IS SO IMPORTANT A PART IS PART OF
THE LAW OF THIS LAND. SO IS ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION,
WHICH GIVES THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF CERTAIN POWERS. AND THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SAID THAT HE COULD USE THOSE POWERS TO
NOT GIVE 30 DAYS' NOTICE BECAUSE IT COULD JEOPARDIZE THE LIFE
OF AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. NOW, MAYBE THERE'S THOSE THAT ARGUE
THAT'S OKAY. FOLLOW THE AUTHORIZATION LAW INSTEAD OF ARTICLE 2
BECAUSE THE AUTHORIZATION LAW SOMEHOW OR OTHER HAS PRECEDENCE
OVER ARTICLE 2, WHICH IT DOESN'T. ARTICLE 2 IS PART OF THE
CONSTITUTION. BUT THE AUTHORIZATION ACT ITSELF WAS SAID TO BE
SUBJECT TO ARTICLE 2 POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT WHEN HE SIGNED THE
VERY ACT. AND SO WHAT HAPPENED?
THE PRESIDENT DECIDED, BECAUSE OF THE EX-INCH ENSIS OF THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES, WHETHER YOU AGREE TO OR DON'T AGREE WITH THE
DETAILS OF THE DEAL -- THAT'S ONE ISSUE. PEOPLE WITH DISAGREE
WITH THAT ALL THEY WANT. ONCE THE PRESIDENT DECIDED HE WAS
GOING TO MAKE THAT DEAL AND SAVE THAT LIFE AND NOT JEOPARDIZE
THAT LIFE BY WAITING 30 DAYS, AT THAT POINT THE QUESTION IS,
WAS THAT ILLEGAL?
THAT'S WHAT A COURT COULD DECIDE, IF IT SO CHOSE, AS TO WHETHER
OR NOT A PRESIDENT COULD USE ARTICLE 2 POWERS IN ORDER TO ACT
QUICKLY TO SAVE AN AMERICAN LIFE. AND SO I THINK THAT
PREJUDGING THIS KIND OF AN ISSUE WITH THE KIND OF INVESTIGATION
THAT WOULD PREJUDGE IT -- BECAUSE THAT'S PART OF THE RESOLUTION
ITSELF -- IS NOT WHAT THIS SENATE SHOULD BE DOING. AND, BY THE
WAY, DURING THAT 30-DAY PERIOD, THE PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE HAD TO
OF NOT JUST WAITED 30 DAYS, HE WOULD HAVE ALSO HAD TO MADE ALL
KINDS OF DETAILED AND SUBSTANTIVE CLASSIFIED NOTEIFICATIONS. HE
WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE MADE CERTAIN KINDS OF FINDINGS, A
DETAILED STATEMENT OF THE BASIS FOR THE TRANSFER OF RELEASE, AN
EXPLANATION OF WHY THE TRANSFERS OF RELEASE IS IN THE NATIONAL
SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES, A DESCRIPTION OF ANY
ACTIONS TAKEN TO MITIGATE THE RISKS. HE WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE
DONE ALL OF THAT BEFORE HE WAS ABLE TO EXECUTE THE TRANSFER OF
AN AMERICAN CITIZEN FOR THE SAFETY OF THIS COUNTRY. NOW, THE
PRESIDENT DID DO ALL OF THOSE THINGS IMMEDIATELY AFTER HE MADE
THE DECISION TO AFNLGT SO WE GOT ALL OF THAT NOTIFICATION. THAT
IS REQUIRED BY LAW. BUT WE DIDN'T GET IT 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE.
BECAUSE OF THE JEEP DHAI WOULD HAVE BEEN CREATED TO AN AMERICAN
LIFE. AND AGAIN PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DISAGREE AS TO WHETHER OR
NOT THIS AGREEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN
BUT THAT'S A VERY DIFFERENT ISSUE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE
SHOULD PREJUDGE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE PRESIDENT, WHO ACTED
UNDER HIS ARTICLE 2 POWERS AND TOLD US HE MIGHT WHEN HE SIGNED
THIS BILL, ACTED ILLEGALLY. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS RESOLUTION
SAYS HAPPENED. THE PRESIDENT ACTED ILLEGALLY AND PREJUDGES AN
INVESTIGATION. AND I THINK FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS IT IS
INAPPROPRIATE FOR US TO ADOPT THIS RESOLUTION, AND SO I WILL
OBJECT.
MR. PORTMAN: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM OHIO.
MR. PORTMAN: IT IS UNFORTUNATE WE CAN'T FIND AT LEAST AT THIS
POINT BIPARTISAN AGREEMENT ON SOMETHING AS STRAIGHTFORWARD AS
THIS. TO MY FRIEND FROM MICHIGAN, I WOULD SAY A COUPLE OF
THINGS. ONE, THIS RESOLUTION DOES NOT PREJUDGE THE
INVESTIGATION. THE RESOLUTION DOES NOT TALK ABOUT THE
PRESIDENT'S ARTICLE 2 POWERS. IT VERY CLEARLY SAYS THE
TRANSFERS OF THESE DETAINEES VIOLATED THE NATIONAL DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION ACT LEGISLATION THAT YOU BROUGHT TO THE FLOOR AND
THE APPROPRIATIONS BILL. THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS. SO THAT IS CLEAR
BY THE VERY LANGUAGE IN THOSE BILLS, THAT IT DOES VIOLATE THOSE
BILLS. IT DOESN'T TALK ABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITIES THE
PRESIDENT MAY HAVE. IT DOES SAY THAT IT VIOLATES THE CLEAR
TERMS OF THIS LEGISLATION. IT DOES NOT PREJUDGE THE
INVESTIGATION, WHICH IS INTO WHY. WITH AGAIN THE INTENT OF
TRYING TO KEEP THIS FROM HAPPENING AGAIN. AND I DO THINK THE
PRESIDENT COULD HAVE USED REASONED JUDGMENT FROM PEOPLE WHO
HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR AWHILE, MAYBE EVEN SENATOR LEVIN, WHO HAS
STRONG VIEWS ON THESE NATIONAL SECURITY MATTERS AND WAS
INVOLVED EARLIER IN HEARINGS THAT I WAS IN WHERE UNDER OATH
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS TALKED ABOUT HOW DANGEROUS THESE VERY
MEN WERE. SECOND, SENATOR LEVIN IS CORRECT WHEN HE SAYS THE
PRESIDENT CAN'T CHANGE THE LAW, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING.
HE CAN'T CHANGE THE LAW. IF HE DIDN'T BELIEVE THAT THIS LAW WAS
APPROPRIATE, HE SHOULD HAVE VETOED IT. AND HE'S DONE THAT IN
THE PAST, AS HAVE OTHER PRESIDENTS, VETOED LEGISLATION THEY
DIDN'T AGREE WITH. I DO BELIEVE THAT UNDER ARTICLE 2, THAT
CHAIRMAN LEVIN IS CORRECT THAT THE PRESIDENT DOES HAVE CERTAIN
AUTHORITIES. AND THAT'S WHY WE WERE VERY CAREFUL WHEN WE
DRAFTED THIS LEGISLATION, THIS RESOLUTION, TO SAY THIS SAYS
THAT THE CONGRESS SHALL GO ON RECORD ESTABLISHING THAT UNDER
THE CLEAR TERMS OF THESE TWO LAWS THAT WERE PASSED BY THE
CONGRESS, SIGNED INTO LAW BY THE PRESIDENT, THE PRESIDENT DID
NOT FOLLOW THE TERMS OF THOSE LAWS. THAT'S CLEAR. THE
INVESTIGATION THEN IS INTO WHY. AND THE ARMED SERVICES
COMMITTEE WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT. BY THE WAY, TODAY
I KNOW MANY ARE CELEBRATING THE CAPTURE OF AHMED ABU KHATALLA,
ONE OF THE TERRORISTS WHO ATTACKED THE AMERICAN COMPOUND IN
BENGHAZI. AND I AM GLAD TO HEAR THAT WE HAVE CAPTURED HIM AND
UNDERSTAND HE MIGHT BE ON HIS WAY BACK TO THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA. IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE WE GOT NOTICE. I DON'T KNOW
IF THE CHAIRMAN WAS NOTIFIED. THAT WASN'T REQUIRED BY LAW, BY
THE WAY. IT'S JUST COMMON PRACTICE THAT THAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU
HAVE A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATION AND CONGRESS
THAT IT'S CONFIDENTIAL. WE WERE NOTIFIED OF COURSE WITH REGARD
TO THE BIN LADEN CAPTURE. I CAN'T IMAGINE THE BIN LADEN CAPTURE
WAS ANY LESS SENSITIVE OR ANY DIFFERENT IN KIND TO MAKE IT
SOMETHING THAT WE COULD DO NOTIFICATION ON AND COULDN'T DO IT
ON THE RELEASE OF THESE FIVE DETAINEES FROM GUANTANAMO. SO THIS
IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS VERY REASONABLE. WE'RE ASKING FOR
JUSTIFICATION NOT AFTER THE DECISION IS MADE. THAT'S NOT WHAT
THE LEGISLATION SAYS. IT SAYS BEFORE THE DECISION IS MADE SO
THAT CONGRESS CAN HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THIS WITH THE
PRESIDENT AND TO MAKE SURE THAT IN FACT WE ARE PROCEEDING
APPROPRIATELY WITH THESE VERY DANGEROUS DETAINEES AT
GUANTANAMO. I WOULD AGAIN MAKE THE POINT THAT SOME OF THESE
DETAINEES WERE -- DETAINEES AT GUANTANAMO RIGHT NOW ARE PEOPLE
WHO LIKE IN THE CASE OF THESE FIVE TALIBAN ARE CONSIDERED TO BE
EXTREMELY DANGER. I WOULD ASK THE QUESTION, IF CONGRESS IS ON
RECORD SAYING WE EXPECT THE LAW TO BE FOLLOWED HERE AND THE
PRESIDENT OUGHT TO NOTIFY CONGRESS BEFORE WE RELEASE THESE
PEOPLE, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH KHALID SHEIK HUMID?
WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN -- KHALID SHAKE MUHAMMAD?
WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH HUMBALI?
THESE ARE ALSO PEOPLE WHO ARE AT GUANTANAMO. THE PRESIDENT SAYS
HE WANTS TO SHUT IT DOWN. I THINK THE LEGISLATION THAT SENATOR
LEVIN AND OTHERS DRAFTED WHICH, BY THE WAY, WAS LEGISLATION
THAT CHANGED OVER TIME. IT EVOLVED. THE TPHOEUFGS -- THE
NOTIFICATION WAS A SLIGHT REQUIREMENT ON THE PRESIDENT COMPARED
TO THE PREVIOUS LEGISLATION WHEN I WAS ON THE ARMED SERVICES
COMMITTEE WITH CHAIRMAN LEVIN. THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WE
THOUGHT ABOUT. WE DECIDED NOTIFICATION WAS APPROPRIATE.
NOTIFYING CONGRESS AND PROVIDING DETAILED JUSTIFICATION, IT'S
NOT TOO MUCH TO ASK. AGAIN, MR. PRESIDENT, WE REQUIRE THE
PRESIDENT TO CONSULT WITH CONGRESS BEFORE RELEASING GUANTANAMO
DETAINEES. WE SPOKE WITH ONE VOICE HERE IN THE UNITED STATES
CONGRESS. THE PRESIDENT IGNORED THAT LEGAL REQUIREMENT. HE
IGNORED THE VOICE OF CONGRESS, IGNORED THE LAW. IF WE'RE NOT
GOING TO HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE, I DON'T KNOW WHO WILL. AGAIN,
WHAT DOES IT SAY ABOUT THE SEPARATION OF POWERS ENSHRINED IN
OUR CONSTITUTION, WHICH SIMPLY SAYS CONGRESS HAS A ROLE AS ONE
OF THE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT. NO DECLARATION, NO
INVESTIGATION, NO RECOURSE. I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE
HELPFUL IN TERMS OF ENSURING THAT BALANCE OF POWER CONTINUES
AND THAT, AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE THIS SITUATION RECUR AS THE
PRESIDENT IS TALKING ABOUT SHUTTING DOWN GUANTANAMO BAY AND
RELEASING OTHER DETAINEES. I HOPE MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE
OF THE AISLE WILL RECONSIDER THEIR COURSE OF ACTION TODAY AND
TAKE A CAREFUL LOOK AT THIS RESOLUTION WHICH WAS CAREFULLY
DRAFTED INCLUDING NOT TO IMPINGE ON THE PRESIDENT'S
CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS UNDER ARTICLE 2. I THINK THE STAKES ARE
SIMPLY TOO HIGH TO DO OTHERWISE. I YIELD BACK MY TIME.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN.
MR. LEVIN: MR. PRESIDENT, THANK YOU. AND I THANK MY FRIEND FROM
OHIO. MR. PRESIDENT, FIRST OF ALL, WHAT THE RESOLUTION SAYS,
LET ME READ THE RESOLUTION. "CONGRESS SHOULD INVESTIGATE THE
ACTIONS TAKEN BY PRESIDENT OBAMA AND HIS ADMINISTRATION THAT
LED TO THE UNLAWFUL TRANSFER OF SUCH DETAINEES." SO WHEN MY
FRIEND SAYS IT DOESN'T SAY, DOESN'T PREJUDGE THAT IT WAS
UNLAWFUL, BY ITS VERY TERMS IT SAYS "INVESTIGATE THE ACTIONS
TAKEN BY PRESIDENT OBAMA THAT LED TO THE UNLAWFUL TRANSFER OF
SUCH DETAINEES." THAT'S WHAT THE RESOLUTION SAYS. SECONDLY, THE
POINT THAT THE RESOLUTION MAKES NO REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 2. MY
FRIEND SAYS THAT, AND HE'S ACCURATE IN THAT REGARD. THAT'S THE
PROBLEM. WHAT'S MISSING IS WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS ADVISED HE
COULD DO, ACT UNDER HIS ARTICLE 2 POWERS, AND WHAT THE
PRESIDENT SAID HE WOULD DO WHEN HE SIGNED THIS BILL. THIRD, THE
FACT THAT WE WERE NOTIFIED OF BIN LADEN'S CAPTURE, I DON'T KNOW
HOW MANY OF US WERE NOTIFIED, BUT IT SURE WASN'T 30 DAYS BEFORE
HE WAS CAPTURED IF IT WAS AT ALL. THAT'S THE ISSUE HERE. NOT
WHETHER OR NOT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD HAVE NOTIFIED. AND, BY THE
WAY, I THINK HE COULD HAVE DONE A BETTER JOB OF NOTIFYING
CONGRESS. THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR
NOT HE HE ACTED ILLEGALLY, AS THE RESOLUTION SAYS HE DID,
BECAUSE HE DIDN'T FOLLOW THE 30-DAY NOTICE REQUIREMENT WHICH,
IN HIS JUDGMENT AND I THINK A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S JUDGMENTS,
INCLUDING MINE, WOULD HAVE JEOPARDIZED THE LIFE OF AN AMERICAN
CITIZEN. SO HE ACTED UNDER ARTICLE 2 POWERS TO AVOID THAT
JEOPARDY. AND THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 2 IN HERE. THERE
IS NO REFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
INFORMED THE PRESIDENT HE COULD ACT WITHOUT ABIDING BY A 30-DAY
PROVISION IF HE ACTED UNDER HIS ARTICLE 2 POWER TO SAVE THE
LIFE OF AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. THERE ARE MANY REASONS THAT THIS
RESOLUTION -- THERE'S MANY PROBLEMS THAT IT SEEMS TO ME THIS
RESOLUTION DOES NOT FAIRLY ADDRESS OR RESOLVE, AND THAT IS THE
REASON THAT I OBJECT. ONE OTHER THING, AND THAT IS MY FRIEND
FROM OHIO MADE REFERENCE TO JAMES CLAPPER WHO IS THE DIRECTOR
OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. DIRECTOR CLAPPER SUPPORTS THE DEAL
THAT WAS MADE RELATIVE TO THIS TRANSFER, AS DOES GENERAL
DEMSEY, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEF OF STAFFS; AND ADMIRAL
WINIFELD, THE VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS. I YIELD THE
FLOOR.
