[国会纪录：2006年9月27日（参议院）] [Page S10274-S10275]投票说明麦凯恩先生。主席先生，由于莱文议员提供的第5086号修正案的投票，我并不介绍。通过粗野声明，我想向参议院通知，我曾经出席过，我会投票反对这项修正案，该修正案试图打击待定立法，并在武装部服务委员会中插入报告的条例草案案文。参议员华纳，格雷厄姆和我撰写并支持该法案，据报告参议院武装部队委员会。然而，在过去的两周内，我们一直参与与白宫和代表院的谈判，并达成妥协。我支持的妥协立法不会以任何方式重新定义日内瓦惯例。它弥补了战争罪行法 - 目前只是违反普通条款第3条是战争罪行 - 通过枚举九个类别的罪行，构成了“严重违反普通条款3”的违规行为，因此是战争犯罪，可判处监禁或死亡。该条例草案授权总统解释日内瓦公约 - 他已经根据“宪法”的权力 - 至于什么构成非创业违规行为。这些解释必须在联邦登记册上发布，他们将与其他行政法规有同样的力量，因此可能由国会通过的法律裁责。 I am pleased with the agreement that we have reached with the administration and I support this legislation in the form pending on the floor. For this reason, if I had been present, I would have cast my vote against amendment No. 5086. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the timely passage of this legislation. In my view it is essential to the successful prosecution of our war against the terrorists. [[Page S10275]] Ever since the Supreme Court announced its decision in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, I have made clear that my three primary goals for legislation authorizing military tribunals were: (1) Adjudicating the cases of detained terrorists in proceedings that are consistent with our values of justice, (2) protecting classified information, and (3) ensuring that our military and intelligence officers have clear standards for what is, and is not, permissible during detention and interrogation operations. After discussing these issues with National Security Adviser Hadley and officials at the Department of Justice, I am comfortable in saying that this legislation accomplishes each of those goals. First, the legislation authorizes the President to establish military commissions for the trial of unlawful enemy combatants. Enemy combatants tried under this legal system will have the benefit of a comprehensive process that assures them of legal representation, access to witnesses and evidence, the ability to present a defense, and the ability to appeal any judgment to the Court of Military Commission Review, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, and, ultimately, to the Supreme Court. I dare say that some who may be tried by these military commissions will receive more due process and legal protection than they were ever willing to grant to others. Second, while ensuring a full and fair process, the legislation also recognizes the important role that classified information is likely to play in these trials. The legislation expressly provides the government with a privilege to protect classified information. At the same time, the bill provides a number of ways for the trial court to ensure that the defendant is sufficiently apprised of the evidence to be used against him. I think this bill strikes the right balance between providing a full and fair process, and protecting classified information. Third, and most important to me as chairman of the Intelligence Committee, the bill provides military and intelligence officers conducting detention and interrogation operations with clear standards. Why is this so important? Because, there is a consensus in the intelligence community that terrorist interrogations are the single best source of actionable intelligence against the plots of a determined enemy. Interrogation is a tool used by our brave men and women in the military and intelligence community to combat a continuing terrorist threat from those who are bent on attacking and killing Americans. The majority of useable and actionable intelligence against al-Qaida comes from terrorist interrogations and debriefings. This tool is vital to keeping Americans safe--it is irreplaceable and it must be preserved. Of particular note is the CIA's detention and interrogation program, which has been a supremely valuable source of information. This program has produced intelligence that has helped disrupt terrorist networks and prevent terrorist attacks. Furthermore, it has been carefully monitored to ensure that it complies with all our laws. But, the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan applied the Geneva Convention's Common Article 3 to unlawful enemy combatants. This threatened to shut down the CIA's detention and interrogation operations. The standard articulated in Common Article 3 is extremely vague. This standard leaves military and intelligence officers in the dark as to what is, and what is not, permitted in detaining and interrogating unlawful enemy combatants. Moreover, because under current law any violation of Common Article 3 is a criminal violation, our interrogators potentially could be subjected to criminal prosecution for otherwise lawful actions. Consequently, Congress must act to ensure that our military personnel and intelligence officers are not forced to operate, or be subjected to prosecution, under such a vague standard. It is our responsibility to provide clear guidance to military personnel and intelligence officers as to what is, and is not, permitted in interrogations. The standard must be clear enough so that our intelligence officers, who are making judgment calls in the field, can continue to operate. The legislation currently before the Senate provides that clarity. It expressly provides for what acts constitute grave breaches of Common Article 3 and what acts would be subject to prosecution. It further allows the President to promulgate regulations for lesser violations of treaty obligations. As a result, in passing this legislation, we will give the dedicated and honorable Americans on the front lines in the war on terror the clarity they need to fulfill their mission. To win this war and keep Americans safe, our troops in the field and our law enforcement personnel here at home need timely and actionable intelligence. We get that intelligence in many forms such as satellite imagery, intercepted communications, financial tracking and human intelligence, including interrogations. In the past months, many of these intelligence collection tools have been damaged by deliberate leaks of classified information. We can ill afford to lose any of these intelligence collection tools if we are to succeed. I am grateful that this bill will allow our Nation to continue its highly valuable interrogation programs. I support the bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we have had a very good debate. We have voted on one amendment. We have time remaining on the Specter amendment. We should be able to conclude that debate in the morning and proceed, I presume, to a prompt vote on the Specter amendment, and then proceed with the other two amendments. ____________________