PDF版本

法律问题围绕金博宝正规网址着军事委员会SYSTEM =======================================================================开庭前小组委员会的构成，公民权利，以及委员会关于司法HOUSE的公民自由REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ JULY 8, 2009 __________ Serial No. 111-18 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 50-861 WASHINGTON : 2009 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan, Chairman HOWARD L. BERMAN, California LAMAR SMITH, Texas RICK BOUCHER, Virginia F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JERROLD NADLER, New York Wisconsin ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina ELTON GALLEGLY, California ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California MAXINE WATERS, California DARRELL E. ISSA, California WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia ROBERT WEXLER, Florida STEVE KING, Iowa STEVE COHEN, Tennessee TRENT FRANKS, Arizona HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas Georgia JIM JORDAN, Ohio PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico TED POE, Texas MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois TOM ROONEY, Florida BRAD SHERMAN, California GREGG HARPER, Mississippi TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York ADAM B. SCHIFF, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida DANIEL MAFFEI, New York Perry Apelbaum, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel Sean McLaughlin, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel ------ Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chairman MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia Wisconsin WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts TOM ROONEY, Florida HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., STEVE KING, Iowa Georgia TRENT FRANKS, Arizona TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan JIM JORDAN, Ohio STEVE COHEN, Tennessee BRAD SHERMAN, California SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas David Lachmann, Chief of Staff Paul B. Taylor, Minority Counsel C O N T E N T S ---------- JULY 8, 2009 Page OPENING STATEMENTS The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties................ 1 The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties...................................................... 3 The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary. 4 The Honorable William D. Delahunt, a Representative in Congress from the State of Massachusetts, and Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties............ 6 The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, and Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.................................... 7 WITNESSES The Honorable Adam B. Schiff, a Representative in Congress from the State of California Oral Testimony................................................. 10 Prepared Statement............................................. 12 Lieutenant Colonel Darrel J. Vandeveld, former prosecutor, Guantanamo Bay Military Commissions Oral Testimony................................................. 16 Prepared Statement............................................. 18 Ms. Deborah N. Pearlstein, Associate Research Scholar, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton, NJ Oral Testimony................................................. 23 Prepared Statement............................................. 26 Mr. Thomas Joscelyn, Senior Fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Washington, DC Oral Testimony................................................. 42 Prepared Statement............................................. 45 Ms. Denise ``Denny'' LeBoeuf, Director, John Adams Project, American Civil Liberties Union, New Orleans, LA Oral Testimony................................................. 59 Prepared Statement............................................. 61 LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING Prepared Statement of the Honorable Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia, and Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties................................................ 9 APPENDIX Material Submitted for the Hearing Record........................ 113 LEGAL ISSUES SURROUNDING THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS SYSTEM ---------- WEDNESDAY, JULY 8, 2009 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Jerrold Nadler (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Nadler, Conyers, Delahunt, Johnson, Sherman, Jackson Lee, Sensenbrenner, Franks, King, Gohmert and Smith (ex officio). Staff Present: Heather Sawyer, Majority Counsel; Sam Sokol, Majority Counsel; David Lachmann, Majority Subcommittee Chief of Staff; and Paul Taylor, Minority Counsel. Mr. Nadler. This hearing of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties will come to order. I will now recognize myself for a 5-minute opening statement. Today the Subcommittee examines the military commission system and, more importantly, how we as a Nation can work together productively to clean up the terrible legacy of the Bush administration's detention policies in a manner that provides us with a legitimate legal framework going forward. One question which arises immediately in view of the apparent Administration position, as stated yesterday by Department of Defense general counsel Jeh Johnson that we can hold indefinitely even people acquitted in the military tribunal, is what is the purpose of the military tribunal in the first place; indeed, what is the purpose of any court hearing if the judge can say you're acquitted and remanded for indefinite detention? What's the purpose of a trial in that case. Over the past 7 years, approximately 800 individuals have been detained at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, with some 500 already having being released before President Obama took office in January. In those 7 years only three detainees were convicted of terrorism offenses by military commissions. Approximately 240 individuals remain in Guantanamo. Most of these men have been held for at least 4 years, some have been detained for more than 6 years, all without being charged or tried or convicted of any crime, a blot on American justice by any standard. In addition to Guantanamo we've also detained individuals in other parts of the world, including Afghanistan. Some of these cases are fairly straightforward; some are not. But for each of these cases, we need to have a means of determining whether the individual is a combatant, lawful or otherwise; whether they are guilty of a crime; and whether they are a threat to the United States. We must decide how to deal with these individuals in a manner that ensures that our Nation is protected from those who would do us harm, and that is consistent with our laws, our treaty obligations and our values. This is the United States of America, and we have traditions and beliefs worth fighting for and worth preserving. The problem will not go away simply because we have closed Guantanamo. We are still fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are still battling terrorists around the world. We will continue to have to intercept and detain individuals who have attacked us, or who have threatened us, or who we believe, perhaps mistakenly, to do so. We need to be sure that however we handle these cases, we do not conduct kangaroo courts. Remember what it is we are trying to do here. We need to sort out who among these detainees are truly dangerous, who have truly done something for which they must be detained and who has not. These detainees are accused terrorists. While the previous Administration was fond of reminding people that the detainees were the worst of the worst, the Bush administration, in fact, released a vast majority of them, approximately 500 in all. Presumably they did not believe they were releasing the worst of the worst. The people who we have detained because they were turned over to us by someone with a grudge or by someone who wanted to collect a bounty, and who have, in fact, committed no offense against us, do not belong in detention. We have an obligation to determine who should and should not be in detention, and to afford fair trials to those who we believe have committed crimes, and to release all others. This is especially important if our government plans to seek prison sentences or to execute those convicted. This debate has been dominated by a great deal of fear- mongering. That is no way to deal with a problem of this magnitude. As much as some people would like to drop these detainees down a hole and forget about them, that is simply not an option legally or morally. It is also not necessary. We are not the first country in history to have to deal with potentially dangerous people. Indeed, this is not the first time this country has had to deal with potentially dangerous people. I can assure my colleagues who are terrified that some of these detainees might be brought to the U.S. that we can handle it. We have got a few such guests in my district in New York in secure facilities, and we know how to deal with them. People are not panicking in the streets, and no one has been harmed. We would never tolerate this sort of detention policy from any other nation, especially directed against our citizens, and we should not accept it in ours. I do not want to underestimate the enormity of the challenge both from a security standpoint and a legal one. Some of these people are extremely dangerous, and some of them have done some truly terrible things. We need to be sure that we are protected from harm. It is also true that the Bush administration's rampant lawlessness has erected legal obstacles to pursuing some of the cases that need to be prosecuted. To give a prime example, the use of torture, as military prosecutors have told us, may have made some prosecutions impossible in all but the most farcical of trials. This is an unnecessary obstacle, but a real one. We cannot ignore it; we have to deal honestly with it. I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today, and I hope that you will be able to provide some guidance as we seek a legal regime to deal with our problems going forward. Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time. I would now recognize our distinguished Ranking Minority Member, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner, for his opening statement. Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Between 1993 and 2001, this country took the approach of prosecuting terrorism in courtrooms as criminal defendants rather than fighting them on the battlefield as foreign enemies. That approach was a disaster as during those years less than three dozen terrorists were neutralized, and 3,000 innocent Americans and people who were in this country as guests were killed during the 9/11 attacks. Today it appears the Obama administration is increasingly retreating to this failed approach. The Justice Department has already struck a sweetheart deal with the first enemy combatant to be tried on U.S. soil. That terrorist, Ali al-Marri, is a longtime member of al-Qaeda, who admitted to plotting attacks with cyanide gas at U.S. dams, waterways and tunnels, but he only stands to receive at most a paltry 15 years in jail under the plea agreement reached by the current Administration. The Attorney General has also announced the prosecution of another known terrorist named Ghailani, who served al-Qaeda as a document forger and explosives trainer at a terrorist camp and a bodyguard for Osama bin Laden until he was captured by the military in 2004. But he will only be prosecuted for his involvement in the separate bombing that occurred in the 1990's. His prosecution literally assumes that 9/11 never happened. That is apparently just a prelude of things to come. As described in the Los Angeles Times, the FBI and Justice Department plan to significantly expand their role in global counterterrorism operations, part of a U.S. policy shift that will replace a CIA-dominated system of clandestine detentions and interrogation with one built around prosecutions. This new approach reportedly entails reading more and more terrorists Miranda rights, including the right to remain silent, that will deny us vital information to thwart future attacks. For example, the Wall Street Journal recently reported that the Administration's Office of Legal Counsel concluded that detainees tried by military commissions should be given constitutional protections against self-incrimination over the objections of the Defense Department. Although Attorney General Holder denied it in a recent hearing, President Obama's own Solicitor General admitted that the physical presence of detainees in the U.S., even if they're just detained here for trial, will lead to their being granted greater constitutional rights. That admission came in the form of a brief submitted to the Supreme Court by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who opposed a court's authority to order foreign terrorists released in this country. In her brief she repeatedly recognized the critical distinction the Supreme Court has drawn between an alien who has effected an entry into the United States and one who has never entered. Indeed, Solicitor General Kagan cautioned the Supreme Court not to blur the previously clear distinction between aliens outside the United States and aliens inside this country or at its borders. This basic distinction, she continued, serves as the framework on which our immigration laws are scrutinized, and repeatedly has been recognized as significant not just under the Constitution, but also as a matter of statutory and treaty law. All this is happening because the President made an ill- informed decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility within a year. Soon after he made the mistake of signing that order, the President's own Defense Department made an independent assessment of the conditions at Guantanamo Bay and found no such evidence of alleged abuse. His own Attorney General, upon returning from his own trip to Guantanamo, said that the facilities there are good ones. In stark contrast to the fine facility at Guantanamo Bay is the nature of the detainees it houses. These detainees include al-Qaeda financial specialists, organizational experts, bomb makers and recruiters. As has been reported, camp officials have had to adapt to a detainee population that remains violent. There are up to 10 assaults a week on guards. Some throw urine or feces. When guards deliver food through a cell door, inmates try to pull their arms in and break them. Over a year ago Judge Royce Lamberth, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, issued an unprecedented statement imploring guidance from Congress on these difficult subjects in the form of legislation that should come sooner rather than later, but the Democratic Majority has not acted. In the meantime, Republicans, myself included, have introduced the Enemy Combatant Detention Review Act, which would prevent Federal courts from ordering the government to release known terrorists into the United States. Republicans have also introduced the Keep Terrorists Out of America Act, which requires the Governor and State legislature to consent to any release or transfer of a detainee into their State. But neither of those bills nor any others on the subject have been brought up for a hearing. Mr. Chairman, terrorists are exploiting the current legal chaos as we speak, and Congress needs to act now. I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Nadler. I thank the gentleman, and I would recognize for 5 minutes the distinguished Ranking Member of the full Committee Mr. Smith of Texas--excuse me, the Chairman of the full Committee having waived statement at this time. Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are here today because the President made a rash decision after only 1 day in office to close the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility within 1 year. Just 2 weeks ago this Committee voted not to require the Administration to produce documents about its policy of giving Miranda warnings, including the right to remain silent, to terrorists detained in Afghanistan. The American people still deserve this information. Now President Obama wants to give known terrorists at least some of the constitutional rights of citizens on trial in the U.S. Once terrorists are given additional constitutional rights, such as the right to remain silent, of course they do just that. The result is no interrogations, no information and possibly more attacks. Just ask 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. When he was captured in 2003, he was not cooperative. According to President Clinton's CIA Director George Tenet, he said, I'll talk to you guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer, but he wasn't read any Miranda rights, and his interrogation went forward whether he wanted it to or not. As a result, Tenet said, the information we obtained from him saved lives and helped defeat al-Qaeda. As Tenet wrote in his memoirs, I believe none of these successes would have happened if we had had to treat this terrorist like a white-collar criminal, read him Miranda rights and get him a lawyer, who surely would have insisted that his client simply shut up, end quote. A Wall Street Journal article pointed out that, quote, military prosecutors have said involuntary statements comprise the lion's share of their evidence against dozens of Guantanamo prisoners who could be tried, end quote. The Justice Department says there has been no change in overall policy, but several of the individuals responsible for conducting the interrogations of detainees told Congressman Mike Rogers that a change of policy is exactly what has occurred. These reports that detainees are increasingly being told they have a right to remain silent is disturbing not only for its policy implications, but also because it appears to violate one of President Obama's own policy statements. In a 60 Minutes interview last March, President Obama said, quote, now, do these detainees deserve Miranda rights; do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter down the block? Of course not, end quote. Further, as Thomas Joscelyn, one of today's witnesses, has pointed out, since only the most dangerous detainees remain at Guantanamo, there is a clear danger that those released will return to terrorism. According to Reuters News, one out of every seven terrorism suspects formerly held at the U.S. Detention site at Guantanamo Bay are confirmed or suspected of having returned to terrorism. The total of 74 has more than doubled since May 2007, end quote. The day after the President signed the order closing Guantanamo Bay, I introduced H.R. 630, the Enemy Combatant Detention Review Act. This legislation would prevent Federal courts from ordering the government to release known terrorists into the United States and protect sensitive intelligence on terrorists from being disclosed in court to prevent our foreign enemies from being able to evade detention and conceal future plots. Since then I, along with other Members, have also introduced H.R. 2294, the Keep Terrorists Out of America Act, which requires the President to notify Congress 60 days before transfer or release of a detainee occurs, and to certify that such a transfer or release will not result in the release of any detainee into the United States or otherwise pose a security risk to the United States. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening statement, and I will yield back. Mr. Nadler. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Nadler. The gentleman is recognized for what purpose? Mr. Conyers. I reluctantly seek to void my yielding of my time. Mr. Nadler. The gentleman's waiver is waived. Mr. Conyers. Okay, and I thank you very much. I would like to yield---- Mr. Nadler. And the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Conyers. I would like to yield briefly to Bill Delahunt, who serves with great distinction on the Foreign Affairs Committee as well as this Committee. Mr. Delahunt. I thank the Chair, and I will be very brief. I think that the decision to close is the right decision, and I think for multiple reasons. I think when one surveys the opinion of the rest of the world, we can't quantify the loss in terms of collaboration with the United States in terms of dealing with terrorism, in dealing with terrorists. And there's a whole array of consequences that have been caused by the symbol of Guantanamo. Of course, one could visit Guantanamo today or even a year ago and see a sparkling facility. In my former career I happened to be a prosecutor. I was a State's attorney in greater Boston. I'm very familiar with prisons. They look great when they're all spiffed up. But that's not really what the issue is. And by the way, I know my friends on the other side are aware of the fact that we have facilities here in this country that I would submit are as secure as anything that Guantanamo can provide. They are called supermaxes. And maybe we ought to take a field trip and see what a supermax is really like. It would be good to maybe kick the tires, as the phrase goes. But I think the real issue here is do we really believe in due process, do we believe in the search for the truth, or do we want to take political advantage of heinous acts that have been perpetrated upon this country? You know, due process is a concept that is, in my judgment, fundamental to a viable democracy. And due process, when you strip all the legalese and the legal definitions, is nothing more than a search for the truth. That's what it's about. And I hear the term ``known terrorists.'' Well, who is going to tell us who the known terrorists are? Mr. Conyers. Would the gentleman allow me to reclaim---- Mr. Delahunt. I yield. I yield to the gentleman for a minute. Mr. Conyers. I just---- Mr. Delahunt. Because we--go ahead. Mr. Conyers. No, no. You got a minute. Go ahead. We're all colleagues, and we're having a very animated discussion in Judiciary, as is customary. I yield another minute. Mr. Delahunt. Well, I thank the Chairman. But ``known terrorists?'' Who makes the determination as to who ``known terrorists'' are? In the Subcommittee that I chair on Foreign Affairs, the Subcommittee on Oversight, we had several hearings on the so-called combatant status review tribunals, and it was the military that stood up and said they were a sham. So if that's what constitutes due process, and that's what constitutes a conclusion that we can reach as to an individual that he is a ``known terrorist,'' you know, that just doesn't cut muster if you're a believer in the concept of due process. No one is saying, well, let them go; no one is saying that, of course not. But we've had a process that I would suggest has failed the American people and has failed us in terms of dealing with terrorism. What happened to those 500 that left? I heard my friend from Texas talk about how 71 have returned to the battlefield. Boy, I see different statistics. They're not from Reuters, they're from, you know, surveys that were done by people who are intimately involved in this particular issue. But let's have a process that we can be sure of that we've made a valiant effort to search for the truth, and I dare say we're getting there. With that I yield back. Mr. Conyers. Well, I thank the gentleman, and I hope he's feeling better now that he's made this dispassionate description of why he thinks we're here today. And I tend to agree with him. I had not chosen to make opening remarks because I want to hear Adam Schiff, but when the Chairman Emeritus, my good friend Jim Sensenbrenner, said that the war against terrorists in the court was lost and cost 3,000 American lives, I had to take some time to rise to defend the former President of the United States George Bush. I don't think he conducted such a war, and I choose to defend him in that regard. He didn't do any such thing at all. And then my dear friend, the Ranking Member from Texas Lamar Smith, began his excellent comments, which I always listen to carefully, with the assertion that President Obama made a rash decision to close Guantanamo the first day that he was in office. But candidate Obama campaigned on this same issue for more than a year. And you may be interested to know that so did John McCain, who said he believed we should close Guantanamo. In Los Angeles he argued that the United States cannot go it alone in the world and must respect the views of valued allies. He went on to say our great power does not mean that we can do whatever we want whenever we want. And so on March 27, 2008, both candidates asserted that Guantanamo should be closed. And I thank you for your generous use of the time. Mr. Smith. Will the gentleman yield just for 1 minute? Mr. Conyers. Which Chairman? Mr. Smith. You, sir. Mr. Nadler. Without objection, the gentleman will be granted 1 additional minute. Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I yield to my friend the Ranking Member. Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate your comments, and I thank you for listening to my opening statement, as I do yours. I just wanted to point out that even the President, after he made the decision, actually and subsequently said that he wished he had studied the issue a little bit more closely. I thought that was a candid and appreciated admission on his part that the issue is far more complex than even he thought, and as we all had discovered as well. I just wanted to make that point. Mr. Conyers. I appreciate that very much, because I wish that the President would examine the issue of health care a little bit more carefully. I will be happy to agree with you on that point. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Nadler. I thank the gentleman. In the interest of proceeding to our witnesses, and mindful of the Members' busy schedules, I would ask that other Members submit their statements for the record. Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to submit opening statements for inclusion in the record. [The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:] Prepared Statement of the Honorable Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia, and Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties
     __________纳德勒先生。如果没有异议，主席将被授权宣布听证会的休息，这希望我们只有在地板上有票。正如我们提出目击者的问题，主席将在小组委员会的资历人员中承认成员，其中大多数和少数群体之间交替，条件是当会员在他或她的转向到来时存在。在其他成员有机会提出问题后，将在其转弯开始时不出席的成员。主席保留适应不可避免的会员的权利，或者只能在我们和我们在一起。我现在想介绍我们的第一次见证。代表亚当席夫代表加利福尼亚州第29区，是本委员会的成员。他还在拨款委员会和常设选择委员会上担任智力委员会。在代表家庭服务之前，国会议员Schiff于驻加州第21届第21届第21届第21届参议院参议院，参议院司法机构，参议院司法委员会和艺术联合委员会担任第21届第21届会议区的4年学期。在为加利福尼亚立法机构提供服务之前，代表席夫夫在洛杉矶的洛杉矶办事处举行了6年，最有明显地检测有史以来第一批FBI代理人被引起的间谍活动。 He is a graduate of Stanford University and Harvard Law School. As you know, your written statement will be made part of the record in its entirety. I would ask that you now summarize your testimony in 5 minutes or less. To help you stay within that time, there is a timing light at your table. When 1 minute remains, the light will switch from green to yellow, and then red when the 5 minutes are up. And that will also apply to our next panel of witnesses, and I won't have to read that again. Mr. Schiff. TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ADAM B. SCHIFF, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for providing me with this opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on this important issue. Since al-Qaeda and Taliban detainees first arrived at Guantanamo in 2002, Congress has failed to adopt a framework for detention and prosecution of unlawful combatants that could pass constitutional muster. During the years that immediately followed the establishment of Guantanamo, the then-Majority in Congress was not willing to confront this difficult issue and was comfortable with delegating these hard decisions to the executive branch and eventually to the courts. I want to commend the Chairman of the Subcommittee and the full Committee Chairman for their leadership in convening this hearing today. Earlier this year the President took the important step of indicating that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay will be closed within a year. The poorly thought-out prison and the torture that took place there have called into question American adherence to the rule of law and discouraged our allies from cooperating with us. Apart from Guantanamo, however, a number of difficult questions still remain. Any post-Guantanamo system to detain unlawful combatants must meet our national security needs and also provide adequate due process to minimize the likelihood of error. Congress must be involved in the formulation of this new system, and changes should not be made solely by Executive Order. When a suspected terrorist is captured on a foreign battlefield, the accepted laws of war allow us to hold an unlawful or unprivileged combatant for the duration of the war and to prosecute them for crimes. Two determinations have to be made: Whether the person is an unlawful combatant, and whether the person has committed criminal offenses. The question confronting us now is who should make these decisions and how? The Bush administration established tribunals to determine whether someone at Guantanamo was an unlawful combatant and military commissions to handle any prosecutions. The current Administration has indicated their intention to continue using the military commissions after making a number of changes to the rules. Notwithstanding the changes announced by the Administration, I believe the commission system has proved so flawed and its due process so inadequate and discredited that in the case of the detainees at Guantanamo, it should be completely junked. Some have called for the creation of a new national security court to try detainees, and others have advocated moving all detainees into the Federal criminal courts. I propose an alternative that I believe better balances the national security needs of the country with our adherence to the rule of law. Earlier this year I introduced H.R. 1315, the Terrorist Detainees Procedures Act of 2009, legislation that would make use of the military courts-martial to prosecute detainees who are unlawful combatants. Military courts-martial have a long history of dispensing justice without compromising military operations. Cases are tried before military judges using a set of due process protections provided for under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, UCMJ. Almost any wartime offense could be tried in a military court-martial, and their use would allow us to show the world we're giving detainees the same procedural protections we give our own servicemembers who are brought up on court-martial charges. Military courts-martial are also well equipped to provide for the safeguarding of classified information and to deal with unavailable witnesses or involuntary statements in a manner that is fair and provides due process. The military courts-martial framework does not currently have a mechanism to make initial determinations of whether someone is an unlawful combatant, but this can be easily changed by Congress, and my legislation would make such a change. Specifically it would create a new status review procedure for all detainees currently held at Guantanamo to determine whether each individual was properly designated as an unlawful combatant. A panel of three military judges would be convened in the military courts-martial to conduct the reviews. This process, which replaces the previous combatant status review tribunals, would follow the same established pretrial investigative procedures used before charges are brought and referred to a court-martial under article 32 of UCMJ. The prior status review tribunal proceedings were so flawed that the threshold decision has to be remade to determine whether individuals are, in fact, unprivileged combatants. I believe this new review can take place and should take place before an independent factfinder, and therefore should occur separate and apart from the current review of cases by the Administration. After the new status determination is made, my legislation would require any person determined to be an unlawful combatant to be either tried in court with a preference for the military courts-martial, transferred to a NATO-run detention facility or another country, or held in accordance with the law of armed conflict until the cessation of hostilities related to the initial detention or such time as they're no longer deemed a threat. Finally, my legislation will require those determined not to be unlawful combatants and not suspected of violating any law be transferred to the person's country of citizenship, place of capture or different country, as long as there are adequate assurances that they will not be the subject of torture; or be released. Mr. Chairman, I urge the Subcommittee to examine the courts-martial framework as an option that can both restore confidence in our detention regime while ensuring our national security needs are met. I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. Mr. Nadler. I thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Schiff follows:] Prepared Statement of the Honorable Adam B. Schiff, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank you for providing me with the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee today on this important issue. Since al Qaeda and Taliban detainees first arrived at Guantanamo in 2002, Congress has failed to adopt a framework for the detention and prosecution of unlawful combatants that could pass constitutional muster. For years the Majority in Congress was not interested in addressing, or even holding hearings on this issue, and was comfortable with delegating these difficult decisions to the executive branch and eventually the courts. I want to commend the Chairman for his leadership in convening this hearing today. Earlier this year, the President took an important step by indicating that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay will be closed within a year. The poorly thought-out prison, and the torture that took place there, have called into question American adherence to the rule of law and discouraged our allies from cooperating with us. Apart from Guantanamo, however, a number of difficult questions still remain. Any post-Guantanamo system to detain unlawful combatants must meet our national security needs and also provide adequate due process to minimize the likelihood of error. Congress must be involved in the formulation of this new system, and changes should not be made solely by Executive Order. When a suspected terrorist is captured on a foreign battlefield, the accepted laws of war allow us to hold an unlawful (or unprivileged) combatant for the duration of the war and to prosecute them for crimes. Two determinations must then be made--whether the person is an unlawful combatant, and whether the person has committed criminal offenses. The question confronting us now is: Who should make these decisions, and how? The Bush administration established tribunals to determine whether someone at Guantanamo was an unlawful combatant, and military commissions to handle any prosecutions. The current Administration has indicated their intention to continue using military commissions after making a number of changes to the rules. Notwithstanding the changes announced by the Administration, I believe the commissions system has proved so flawed, and its due process so inadequate and discredited, that it should be completely junked. Some have called for the creation of a new national security court to try detainees and others have advocated moving all detainees into the federal criminal courts. I have proposed what I believe is a far better solution. Earlier this year, I introduced H.R. 1315, the Terrorist Detainees Procedures Act of 2009--legislation that would make use of the military courts-martial to prosecute detainees who are unlawful combatants. Military courts-martial have a long history of dispensing justice without compromising military operations. Cases are tried before military judges using a set of due process protections provided for under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Almost any wartime offense could be tried in a military court-martial, and their use would allow us to show the world that we are giving detainees the same procedural protections we give our own servicemembers. Military courts- martial are also well-equipped to provide for the safeguarding of classified information and to deal with unavailable witnesses or involuntary statements in a manner that is fair and provides due process. The military courts-martial framework does not currently have a mechanism to make initial determinations of whether someone is an unlawful combatant, but this can easily be changed by Congress--and my legislation would make such a change. Specifically, it would create a new status review procedure for all detainees currently held at Guantanamo to determine whether each individual is properly designated as an unlawful combatant. A panel of three military judges would be convened in the military courts-martial to conduct the reviews. This process, which replaces the previous Combatant Status Review Tribunals, would follow the same established pre-trial investigation procedures used before charges are referred to a court-martial under Article 32 of the UCMJ. The prior status review tribunal proceedings were so flawed that the threshold decision has to be remade to determine whether individuals are in fact unprivileged combatants. I believe this new review must be before an independent fact finder and therefore should occur separate and apart from the current review of case files by the Administration. After the new status determination is made, my legislation would require any person determined to be an unlawful combatant to either be tried in court, with a preference for the courts-martial avenue; transferred to a NATO-run detention facility or another country; or held in accordance with the law of armed conflict until the cessation of hostilities directly related to the initial detention, or such time as they are no longer deemed to be a threat. Finally, my legislation would require that those determined not to be unlawful combatants and not suspected of violating any law, be transferred to the person's country of citizenship, place of capture, or a different country, as long as there are adequate assurances that they will not be subject to torture; or be released. Mr. Chairman, I urge the Subcommittee to examine the courts-martial framework as an option that can both restore confidence in our detention regime while ensuring our national security needs are met. __________ Mr. Nadler. I yield to myself to ask you a couple of questions. Granting all the premises and the desirability of doing exactly what you said, couldn't lawful and for that matter unlawful combatants accused of crimes against laws of war be tried in a court-martial today? In other words, why do we need legislation for this? Mr. Schiff. Well, there are two issues. One is what is the mechanism to make the initial determination are they an unlawful combatant? Mr. Nadler. That's the second question. Mr. Schiff. Well, I view it as a threshold question, because unless you determine through lawful process they're an unprivileged combatant, they're not subject to prosecution, they're a POW. So we don't currently have a status review tribunal, and the legislation will be necessary to use the courts-martial for that process. Now, can these detainees be tried before military courts- martial? I think the answer is yes. Mr. Nadler. So, in other words, the bill does deal with the threshold question. Mr. Schiff. The bill deals with the threshold question, but it also sets out a menu of options, including military courts- martial; including, in particular cases, the Federal criminal courts; including transfer to a NATO detention facility. So the bill includes really the whole range of options. But yes, you're right. In terms of if you had an adequate status determination, can you bring someone before trial in a military courts-martial, I think the answer is yes. Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Nadler. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized. Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, I have two questions. First of all, have you looked at the Geneva Convention to see whether that Convention would allow detainees and/or POWs to be tried before a military court under a court-martial act? Mr. Schiff. I believe it would. Mr. Sensenbrenner. How so? Mr. Schiff. Well, I believe there's nothing in the Geneva Convention that precludes us from trying an unlawful unprivileged combatant. They are subject to prosecution, they're not a POW. Nothing in the Geneva Convention that I'm aware of precludes their prosecution in any appropriate forum. Mr. Sensenbrenner. Now, my second question is do you disagree with the Obama administration that it does not want the Military Commissions Act repealed, but they want to amend it by simply tweaking some of the evidentiary rules that govern proceedings before military commissions? Mr. Schiff. Depending on how substantial the tweaks are, you could make military commissions identical with military courts-martial if you adopt the UCMJ, for example. Some of the rules that they are proposing move the military commissions in the direction of the due process you find in military courts- martial. They don't go the distance. And because I think in the case of Guantanamo the military commission established by the Bush administration has been so discredited, I think that we're better off moving to a different venue. But to answer your question, depending on how far they're willing to go in terms of the rules, if they make the military commissions look like the military courts-martial, that would come close to satisfying the concerns that I have. Mr. Sensenbrenner. It seems to me from what you've just said is that you ought to give those who are defendants before whatever procedure is utilized more rights, such as the rights that are given soldiers who are being court-martialed, rather than what the Obama administration is proposing. Do I hear you correctly on that? Mr. Schiff. No, you don't, because what the Obama administration has said is that in some cases they are going to bring people before military commissions; in other cases they are going to bring people before Federal district courts. In the cases where they bring people before Federal district courts, that would be a much greater level of due process than what I am proposing in the military courts-martial. Mr. Sensenbrenner. But the Bush administration had the same choice of whether to bring a detainee before a military commission or before a Federal district court, haven't they? Mr. Schiff. Did the Bush administration have that choice? Mr. Sensenbrenner. Yes. Mr. Schiff. They did have that choice. And what they chose to do with that choice is largely bring people before military commissions that were so flawed that none of the convictions were upheld. Few could actually get through the process. And I don't think any successfully were prosecuted by the military commission. So you would have to look at what the Bush administration did as a pretty abject failure in terms of bringing these people to justice. Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well, I thank the gentleman for recognizing me. I'm not sure that what my distinguished colleague is proposing would be any more successful. And I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Nadler. I thank the gentleman. We'll now turn--I thank the gentleman for his testimony. The gentleman is excused with our thanks. We will now turn to the second panel. In the interest of time, I will introduce the witnesses while they are taking their seats. Lieutenant Colonel Darrel Vandeveld, and I hope I got that pronunciation correct. Lieutenant Colonel Vandeveld. You did. Thank you. Mr. Nadler. Lieutenant Colonel Darrel Vandeveld is with the Judge Advocate General's Office of the U.S. Army Reserve and was with the Guantanamo Military Commission. He is a senior deputy attorney general for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, currently assigned to the Erie Regional Bureau of Consumer Protection. He received his B.A. in philosophy and his J.D. from the University of California. I won't read his long list of declarations except to note that he was awarded the Bronze Star and the Iraq Campaign Medal. Deborah Pearlstein is an associate research scholar in the Law and Public Affairs Program at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. She received her J.D. from Harvard Law School, where she was the articles editor of the Harvard Law Review. Ms. Pearlstein clerked for Judge Michael Boudin of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and for Justice John Paul Stevens. From 2003 to 2006, Ms. Pearlstein served as the founding director of the Law and Security Program at Human Rights First, where she led the organization's efforts in research, litigation and advocacy surrounding U.S. detention and interrogation operations. She was recently appointed to the ABA's Advisory Committee on Law and National Security. In addition to her law degree, Ms. Pearlstein holds an A.B. from Cornell University. Thomas Joscelyn--and I hope I got that correct--Thomas Joscelyn is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where he is also the executive director of the Center for Law and Counterterrorism. Most of his research and writing is focused on how al-Qaeda and its affiliates operate around the world. For the past 2 years, he has conducted a major study of the detainees held at Guantanamo. In 2006, Mr. Joscelyn was named one of the Claremont Institute's Lincoln Fellows. He holds a B.A. in economics from the University of Chicago. Denny LeBoeuf is the director of the ACLU's John Adams Project, assisting in the defense of the capitally charged Guantanamo detainees. She has been a capital defendant for over 20 years, representing persons facing death at trial and in postconviction in State and Federal courts, and she teaches and consults with capital defense teams nationally. Ms. LeBoeuf was the founding director of the Capital Postconviction Project of Louisiana and is a member of the 2003 committee that formulated the ABA guidelines for the appointment and performance of defense counsel in death penalty cases. From 2006 to 2007, she was chair of the Orleans Parish Public Defenders Board, coordinating the reform and restoration of indigent defense in post-Katrina New Orleans. She holds a J.D. from Tulane University and a B.A. from Hunter College. I am pleased to welcome all of you. Each of your written statements will be made a part of the record in its entirety. I would ask that you now summarize your testimony in 5 minutes or less. I already explained about the lights. I don't have to repeat that. And before we begin, it is customary for the Committee to swear in its witnesses. If you would please swear and raise your right hand to take the oath. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. You may be seated. I will now start by recognizing for 5 minutes our first witness Lieutenant Colonel Vandeveld. TESTIMONY OF LIEUTENANT COLONEL DARREL J. VANDEVELD, FORMER PROSECUTOR, GUANTANAMO BAY MILITARY COMMISSIONS Lieutenant Colonel Vandeveld. Thank you, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Sensenbrenner, and Members of the Subcommittee. I do want to thank you all for inviting me to testify today on the issues surrounding the military commission system, including what I consider to be the mistaken proposal to revise and revive the--what I view as the irretrievably flawed military commissions at Guantanamo Bay. Before I begin, I do want to mention very briefly that yesterday I watched the Senate Armed Services Committee Webcast, and I noticed that everybody seemed to be dressed in dark blue suits, including Senator Levin, who I met in Baghdad in 2006, and for a very brief, fleeting, shining moment, I thought I was going to witness a memorial service for the Military Commissions Act. After 5 seconds I realized that was not the case, and that the Committee took up its business in a very professional manner. In any event, Chairman Nadler did introduce me. I do want to mention, I have served in Iraq, I have served in Afghanistan, I have served in Africa, I have served in Bosnia, all since 2001. I'm a reservist. All told I have served 4\1/2\ years on Active Duty; since 9/11, 2 years--over 2 years in combat zones. But most importantly for purposes of this hearing, I did serve on Active Duty as a prosecutor in the Office of Military Commissions in Guantanamo Bay from May 2007 through December 2008. I went to Guantanamo with this experience, this combat experience, this experience on Active Duty firmly embedded in mind, and I went there with a purpose. And my purpose was to prosecute as many detainees as I possibly could, prosecute them within the bounds of the law as aggressively as I could, and to exact the punishment, the most profound punishment that I could, even the death penalty if warranted. And so I believed the President when I went there and thought I was prosecuting the worst of the worst. Obviously when I got there, I experienced a profound change of heart and mind when I realized through firsthand observation and through my own actions that what I was seeing at Guantanamo was not at all consistent with our core values of justice and due process of law. I want to offer a single, straightforward message. The military system, military commission system, really is beyond repair. There have been three trials in 7 years when you add the military tribunals. One of them was a politically enforced guilty plea, one involved a detainee who boycotted his trial, and the final one was probably the rebuke of a lifetime to the prosecutors at Guantanamo, the Hamdan case, which finally did come to trial and resulted in a sentence, an effective sentence, of 5 months. Hamdan has now been released. He's back in Yemen doing what, I don't know. From my own perspective, though, I was assigned to prosecute several cases. At one point I was responsible for one-third of all the prosecutions at Guantanamo. One in particular led to my change of heart and my decision to ask to be relieved from the commissions. Unlike what some may have been told, I didn't resign; I asked to be reassigned either back to Afghanistan or Iraq to finish out my term, because one of the tenets of being a soldier is that soldiers don't quit, and I was not going to quit. But I was prosecuting somebody called Mohammed Jawad, who remains in custody to this day. I was presented--I see I'm running out of time, so I'll be very brief--I was presented with what I thought was the entire evidence in the Jawad case. And as I searched through the evidence and the documents, it became clear to me, as it would to any experienced prosecutor, that the file was not complete. There were references to documents that didn't exist. There was a video recording of a confession that should have been in the file that was not. I searched for this evidence, and ultimately what I did find was evidence that Jawad had been mistreated not only at the Bagram Theater Internment Facility where he was hooded, slapped, shackled, pushed down a flight of stairs. While he was at Guantanamo, he was subjected to the so-called ``frequent flyer program'' where he was moved every 2\1/2\ hours for 14 days, in violation of a direct order of the Commander of Joint Task Force Guantanamo at the time. And so it was a result of these realizations which came over time that turned me from what I would call a true believer into somebody who felt truly deceived by the commissions. And that is why I left, and that is why I am testifying today. Thank you. Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman I ask unanimous consent that the Colonel be given 2 additional minutes. Mr. Nadler. Without objection, the colonel will be given 2 additional minutes to amplify his testimony. Lieutenant Colonel Vandeveld. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. I didn't come to this conclusion about Mr. Jawad lightly. In fact, I was assisted by a very able defense counsel named Major David Frakt from the U.S. Air Force. He's a Harvard law graduate. He's a professor at a law school in California. And it was really through his tutelage for somebody who was disinclined to believe his assertions and through his repeated requests for information that I began to uncover this mistreatment of Mr. Jawad. And in particular what I discovered was that the evidence against Mr. Jawad consisted principally of two confessions: one taken by the Afghans when he was apprehended in December 2002, and then another one which was taken from him shortly, within hours, by U.S. forces after they received custody of Mr. Jawad, for want of a better way to put it. In fact, what developed was that the first confession, the Afghans held a gun to Mr. Jawad's head and told him they would not only kill him, but they would track down and kill members of his family if he didn't confess. The video recording of the subsequent interrogation by the U.S. interrogators disappeared. I sent out a servicewide inquiry. It turned up to be--turned up nowhere. After I left the commissions, my request to be reassigned denied, the military judge in the case suppressed those two confessions as having been the product of torture. So today Mr. Jawad is in custody 6, 7 years after the fact with virtually no evidence against him. His only hope for release is the grant of a habeas petition which is pending before the Federal district court, and--and I'll conclude with that except by saying that if--I'm out of time. Mr. Nadler. Finish your statement. Lieutenant Colonel Vandeveld. I was going to say, I have children of my own, and Mr. Jawad was a juvenile at the time. I could not countenance in good conscience the treatment that Mr. Jawad suffered at the hands of my fellow servicemembers, and I was appalled. And I would ask that, if anything results from these hearings, that steps be taken to make sure that juveniles and the excesses that have occurred in the past never occur again. Thank you. Mr. Nadler. I thank the gentleman. [The prepared statement of Lieutenant Colonel Darrel Vandeveld follows:] Prepared Statement of Lt. Col. Darrell Vandeveld Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Sensenbrenner, and Members of the Subcommittee, I want to thank you for inviting me to testify on the legal issues surrounding the military commissions system, including the mistaken proposals to revise and revive the irretrievably flawed military commissions at Guantanamo Bay. I am a Lieutenant Colonel in the US Army Reserve Judge Advocate General's Corps. Since the September 2001 attacks, I have served in Bosnia, Africa, Iraq and Afghanistan. I have been awarded the Bronze Star Medal, the Iraqi Campaign Medal, the Joint Service Commendation Medal, and two Joint Meritorious Unit Awards. In civilian life, I am a senior prosecutor for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and since graduating from law school, I have tried well over one hundred criminal jury trials.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Obviously, the views I express are wholly my own, and should not be taken as representative of the Department of Defense, the Department of the Army, or, certainly, my civilian employer. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Most importantly for the purposes of this hearing, I served on active duty as a prosecutor at the Office of Military Commissions in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, from May 2007 to September 2008. I proudly went to Guantanamo to serve our country as a prosecutor charged with bringing to justice detainees who President George Bush had said were ``the worst of the worst.'' But I eventually left Guantanamo after concluding that I could not ethically or legally prosecute the assigned case. I became the seventh military prosecutor at Guantanamo to resign because I could not ethically or legally prosecute the defendant within the military commission system at Guantanamo. I am here today to offer a single, straightforward message: the military commission system is broken beyond repair. Even good faith efforts at revision, such as the legislation recently passed by the Senate Armed Services Committee, leave in place provisions that are illegal and unconstitutional, undermine defendants' basic fair trial rights, create unacceptable risks of wrongful prosecution, place our men and women in uniform at risk of unfair prosecution by other nations abroad, harm the reputation of the United States, invite time consuming litigation before federal courts, and, most importantly, undermine the fundamental values of justice and liberty upon which this great country was founded. It is my firm belief that if the United States continues to prosecute terrorism suspects through military commissions, past will become prologue. Inevitably, we will find ourselves once again with a discredited system, with a series of unfavorable rulings by federal courts, and with few, if any, successful prosecutions. My concerns appear to have been vindicated by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. As the members of this committee are no doubt aware, the Wall Street Journal reported last week that the OLC has issued an opinion finding that detainees tried by military commissions can claim certain constitutional rights, including the Constitution's prohibition on the use of statements obtained through coercive interrogations. Not only does this opinion bind the Executive branch to uphold a higher standard of admissibility of evidence than that afforded by either the current military commission rules or the Senate Armed Services Committee's legislation, but it also raises the specter of eventual invalidation by the Supreme Court of any prosecution of a detainee now held at Guantanamo. At the very least, the OLC opinion should caution legislators that the Senate Armed Services Committee proposal, which permits the use of coerced evidence, is likely to spur protracted litigation and result in even more delay. And at this point, we cannot afford to delay justice any longer. Seven years of detention without charge is long enough. It is time for government to charge the individuals it is going to charge before regularly constituted Article III courts or military courts- martial, and resettle or repatriate the others. Indefinite detention of those imprisoned at Guantanamo without charge is anathema both to U.S. constitutional values and to the rule of law. I was not always so skeptical about the capacity of military commissions to deliver justice. I entered my job at the Office of Military Commissions as a ``true believer.'' I had heard stories about abuse at Guantanamo, but I brushed them off as hyperbole. When one of the detainees I was prosecuting, a young Afghan named Mohammed Jawad, told the court that he was only 16 at the time of his arrest, and that he had been subject to horrible abuse, I accused him of exaggerating and ridiculed his story as ``idiotic.'' I did not believe that he was a juvenile, and I railed against Jawad's military defense attorney, whom I suspected of being a terrorist sympathizer. The case against Jawad seemed uncomplicated. He stood accused of carrying out a hand-grenade attack on two U.S. Special Forces soldiers and their Afghan interpreter in December 2002, under instructions from a domestic insurgent group. Jawad had confessed to his role in the attack on a videotape recorded by U.S. personnel. To me, the case appeared to be as simple as the street crimes I had prosecuted by the dozens in civilian life, and seemed likely to produce a quick, clean conviction, and an unmarred early victory for the prosecution, vindicating the concept of the Guantanamo Military Commissions. As I delved deeper into Jawad's case file, however, I soon discovered a number of disturbing anomalies. And when I attempted to bring these anomalies to the attention of my supervisors, they were harshly dismissive of my concerns and actually, on some unspoken level, began to question my loyalty, even though my combat experience exceeded both theirs combined. I began to realize that the problems with Jawad's case were symptomatic of the military commissions regime as a whole. Indeed, if any case was likely to be free of such anomalies, it should have been that of Mr. Jawad, whose alleged crime was as straightforward as any on the prosecutor's docket. Instead, gathering the evidence against Mr. Jawad was like looking into Pandora's box: I uncovered a confession obtained through torture, two suicide attempts by the accused, abusive interrogations, the withholding of exculpatory evidence from the defense, judicial incompetence, and ugly attempts to cover up the failures of an irretrievably broken system. Evidence from U.S. Army criminal investigators showed that Jawad had been hooded, slapped repeatedly across the face and then thrown down at least one flight of stairs while in U.S. custody in Afghanistan. Detainee records show that once at Guantanamo, he was subjected to a sleep deprivation regime, known as the ``frequent flier program,'' during which he was moved to different cells 112 times over a 14-day period--an average of once every 2\1/2\ hours, and that he had tried to commit suicide by banging his head repeatedly against a wall. Evidence from a bone scan showed that he was, in fact, a juvenile when he was initially taken into U.S. custody. Field reports, and examinations by US medical personnel in the hours after Jawad had been apprehended, indicated that he had been recruited by terrorists who drugged him and lied to him, and that he probably hadn't committed the crime for which he was being charged. In fact, the military had obtained confessions from at least two other individuals for the same crime. In this way, I came to realize that Mr. Jawad had probably been telling the truth to the court from the very beginning. I implored my supervisors to allow Mr. Jawad to reach a plea agreement, in hopes that he would soon be released and returned to Afghanistan, but they not only rebuffed my requests, they refused even to listen to my explanation of my rationale for the agreement. I then made the enormously painful decision to ask to be reassigned from the Commissions, and personally petitioned the Army's top lawyer, to return to Iraq or Afghanistan to serve the remainder of my obligation. I simply could not in good conscience continue to work for an ad hoc, hastily-created apparatus--as opposed to the military itself--whose evident resort to expediency and ethical compromise were so contrary to my own and to those the Army has enshrined and preached since I enlisted so many years ago. The military commissions cannot be fixed, because their very creation--and the only reason to prefer military commissions over federal criminal courts for the Guantanamo detainees--can now be clearly seen as an artifice, a contrivance, to try to obtain prosecutions based on evidence that would not be admissible in any civilian or military prosecution anywhere in our nation. The problems manifest themselves in at least three ways, each of which I witnessed during my time at Guantanamo and which would remain problematic under the present proposal. They are, first, the rules of admissibility of evidence, including the relaxation of restrictions on the admissibility of evidence obtained through coercion and of hearsay; second, the gathering and handling of evidence, including legal and institutional restrictions on the disclosure of sensitive or classified evidence to the defense; and third, institutional deficiencies, including the insufficient experience and qualifications of both judges and counsel, and the inadequate provision of resources to the defense. Each of these shortcomings, I believe, will prove persistent even in the face of the most ardent, well-meaning legislative repackaging. I will address each in turn. admissibility of evidence The rules of admissibility of evidence established by the Military Commissions Act were deeply flawed, and the Senate Armed Services Committee legislation would continue most of these flaws. In particular, I am deeply troubled to learn that the new legislation would continue to allow into evidence statements obtained through coercion. The impetus for this rule is obvious. The sad reality is that virtually every detainee--Mohammed Jawad is a salient example--has been subjected to torture and abuse repeatedly. Many of them are mentally ill as a result, some profoundly so. One reason coerced confessions are prohibited is moral repugnance; the other is practical experience, as they are unreliable. For some of the prisoners, such as some of the High Value Detainees, coerced statements may be corroborated by evidence that would be admissible. For others, only an unreliable coerced statement provides a tenuous theory of prosecution. Such cases should rightfully give any prosecutor pause. Disallowing evidence obtained through coercion would result in the evisceration of many of the cases that might otherwise, on the most tenuous of theories, have been prosecuted. Instead of recognizing this sad reality and resettling or repatriating those prisoners against whom the government has insufficient and tainted evidence, the present legislation, in effect, opts to continue the charade. Thus, in place of the ban on the use of coerced statements mandated by the Due Process Clause of the Constitution, the present legislation disallows only statements obtained through torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. These changes will only exacerbate the practical impossibility of achieving justice at Guantanamo. The ban on the use of involuntary statements or confessions as evidence against an accused is a fundamental principle of the American criminal justice system. The Uniformed Code of Military Justice bans as ``involuntary'' statements obtained ``through the use of coercion, unlawful influence, or unlawful inducement.'' That is the law that applies in every court-martial-- absolutely no coerced evidence may be admitted. In contrast, it is unclear what, precisely, constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under U.S. law. Indeed, the definition of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment has never been litigated before U.S. courts, and has, in the recent past, been the subject of discredited interpretations by Executive Branch attorneys.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ In 2005, for example, President Bush's Office of Legal Counsel concluded that CIA ``enhanced interrogation techniques,'' including waterboarding, walling, dousing with water down to 41 F, stress positions, wall standing, cramped confinement, nudity, restrictions of caloric intake down to 1,000 kcal/day, sleep deprivation for up to 180 hours, shackling, clothing in adult diapers, slapping and other techniques involving ``physical interaction with the detainee'' did not constitute cruel and inhuman or degrading treatment inconsistent with U.S. treaty obligations under Article 16 of the UN Convention Against Torture. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am convinced that all prosecutions based on coerced evidence will ultimately be overturned by the courts. Coerced evidence is banned from every courtroom in America. It is inconceivable that our courts will find that there somehow is an exception from the ancient protection against prosecutions based on forced confessions. I was also disappointed to learn that the Senate Armed Services Committee legislation would continue the military commissions' practice of allowing hearsay into evidence. President Obama has argued that such an expansive admissibility standard ``would be consistent with international standards, such as those employed in international criminal tribunals.'' Unfortunately, the President's statement is misleading at best. Although international tribunals in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and elsewhere do admit hearsay evidence, they differ fundamentally from military commissions in two significant ways. First, international tribunals use judges with experience in criminal law and procedure who are qualified to consider hearsay and determine its value. By contrast, the military commissions employ lay jurors who, once exposed to hearsay, lack the legal expertise to determine its probative value and discount it where appropriate. Second, judges in international tribunals issue detailed opinions in which they analyze each piece of evidence and provide an explanation of any corroborating testimony. Unlike the lay jurors in the military commissions, then, the professional judges at international tribunals must justify, in explicit terms, any reliance on hearsay. These rules of evidence represent significant departures from typical federal criminal court trials, courts-martial proceedings, and proceedings before international tribunals. As such, they will ultimately found to be unconstitutional and also will very likely be found to fail to comply with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which require trial by a ``regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.'' Language from Hamdan indicates that the Supreme Court might find these provisions problematic. In a portion of his concurring opinion endorsed by the majority,\3\ Justice Kennedy noted specific deficiencies in the commissions' rules of evidence, which, he argued, ``could permit admission of multiple hearsay and other forms of evidence generally prohibited on grounds of unreliability,'' including ``unsworn written statements,'' and ``coerced declarations.'' \4\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 634 (2006). \4\ Id. at 652-53 (Kennedy, J., concurring). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- gathering and handling of evidence The military commissions suffer from enormous problems surrounding the gathering and handling of evidence. The ``case files'' compiled the commissions' investigators and prosecutors are nothing like the investigation and case files assembled by military or civilian police agencies and prosecution offices, which typically follow a standardized format, include initial reports of investigation, subsequent reports compiled by investigators, and the like. But for the military commissions, there is no central repository for case files, no method for cataloguing and storing physical evidence, nor any other system for assembling a potential case into a readily intelligible format that is the sine qua non of a successful prosecution. While no experienced prosecutor, much less one who had performed his or her duties in the fog of war, would expect that potential war crimes would be presented, at least initially, in ``tidy little packages,'' at the time I inherited the Jawad case, Mr. Jawad had been in U.S. custody for approximately five years. It seemed reasonable to expect at the very least that after such a lengthy period of time, all available evidence would have been collected, catalogued, systemized, and evaluated thoroughly--particularly since the suspect had been imprisoned throughout the entire time the case should have been undergoing preparation. The obvious reason behind the shoddy preparation of evidence against Mr. Jawad is that it was not gathered in anticipation of any semblance of a ``real'' trial. With the government setting an extremely low evidentiary bar for continued detention without charge, with the focus on extracting information through coercive interrogations rather than on prosecution, and with the understanding that any trials will forego fundamental due process protections, there is little incentive for investigators to engage in the type of careful, systematic gathering of evidence that one would find in a typical civilian trial. In the case of Mr. Jawad, these incentives proved manifestly perverse; they allowed for the prolonged detention and abusive treatment of a juvenile who is very likely innocent of any wrongdoing. It took enormous amounts of time and effort for me to gather the evidence in Jawad's case, which was scattered in various locations throughout the military bureaucracy. Certain crucial documents had been tossed into a locker at Guantanamo and promptly forgotten. Crucially, none of it had been disclosed to the defense. Despite my best efforts, I was never able to locate some key pieces of evidence, such as the videotape of Jawad's initial confession to U.S. forces--which, incidentally, the commission has ruled was obtained through torture. Another persistent problem with the military commissions is the excessive restrictions on the disclosure of classified or sensitive evidence to defense counsel. Over-classification and protective orders can make it almost impossible for defense attorneys to formulate a viable case. Defense counsel are no less professional than their counterparts in the prosecution, and there is no reason that the military commission rules should deny them access to this information, once granted the appropriate security clearances. They can and should be trusted not to share such information with their clients as the law requires. As it stands, names of potential defense witnesses are routinely redacted from discovery materials, and protective orders hinder the defense's ability to ascertain such witness's identities through its own investigation. Over-broad protective orders impair information sharing among defense team members and create unnecessary delay, and over- classification makes it impossible to pursue any investigation based on information from the client, including such simple pieces of information as the names and addresses of family members. Beyond such legally-mandated restrictions, institutional shortcomings also inhibit the discovery process. The chaotic state of the evidence and the absence of any systematic, reliable method of preserving and cataloguing evidence make it nigh impossible for prosecutors to comply with the discovery obligations mandated by their rules of professional conduct, even in a case as seemingly uncomplicated as Mr. Jawad's. institutional deficiencies The military commissions suffer from numerous institutional deficiencies, which undermine the pursuit of justice and have created a kind of ``circus'' atmosphere at GTMO. First, the military judges who preside over the military commissions will not always possess the requisite experience in handling high-profile cases. They have spent much of their professional lives processing the various low-level and low-ranking servicemembers, in proceedings where defendants typically treat judges with an enormous degree of deference. These judges have scant experience in actually controlling courtrooms or the detainees. The detainees, on the other hand, are not in the slightest intimidated by the military judges. They view them as lackeys of an illegitimate system. Still, the judges at Guantanamo have displayed a remarkable independence that has clearly confounded the architects of the commissions system, who evidently believed that both the military judges and the commissions panel members would serve as little more than an ``amen chorus,'' witlessly endorsing every pronouncement, however thin, false, or ill-conceived, by the prosecution.\5\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ These judges--Col. (Ret.) Ralph Kohlmann, despite his earlier published misgivings about the tribunals (see Kohlmann, R., Forum Shoppers Beware: the Mismatch between the Military Tribunal Option and United States Security Strategy, concluding, ``even a good military tribunal is a bad idea.'' [Paper written for the Naval War College, 1 March 2002, available at http://www.uniset.ca/misc/kohlmann.html.]), COL (Ret.) Peter Brownback, CAPT (Ret.) Keith Allred, and COL Stephen Henley, the Chief of the Trial Judiciary at Guantanamo and for the US Army--distinguished themselves by their very independence, rejecting prosecution arguments regarding jurisdiction (rulings overturned by the politically-constituted Court of Military Commission Review, in a decision, United States v. Khadr, that even the proponents of the commissions recognize would not survive scrutiny in a regularly- constituted court and have hence sought to amend the MCA of 2006 to address this inevitable outcome; in COL Henley's case, he ignored what must have been the condemnation of his colleagues to hold, as described above, that Jawad's confessions had been obtained through torture. Judge Allred also adopted the only plausible definition of what constitutes a ``war crime,'' incorporated this traditional definition into his instructions to the panel in United States v. Hamdan, with the result that the panel acquitted Hamdan of the principal charge against him, conspiracy to commit violations of the law of war. The panel also delivered the prosecution the rebuke of a lifetime when, after the prosecutor asked for a thirty-year sentence, they adjudged an effective sentence of approximately five months. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The habeas rulings alone show the unspeakable travesty--the shame-- of holding so many of these innocent prisoners for so long, without charge, without access to lawyers, or even without access to the very ``evidence'' sought to justify their prolonged imprisonment. A second, critical institutional deficiency is the inadequate provision of resources to the defense. I was pleased to see that the Senate Armed Services Committee report references the recent Memorandum for the Attorney General and General Counsel of the Department of Defense from the Office of the Chief of Defense Counsel at the Commissions, which calls for the provision of more resources to defense counsel, ending the practice of giving the prosecution input on defense resources, and ensuring that at least one ``learned'' defense counsel is assigned to all capital cases. Such reforms represent the bare minimum required for these trials to meet ABA standards on this issue, and should be adopted. But these changes cannot be simply recommended, they must be mandatory. Before concluding, I would request that the members of this subcommittee engage in the kind of role reversal that senior military officers routinely consider. Imagine that U.S. soldiers captured on the battlefield were, today, being subjected to the type of trial proceedings that we plan set up through these military commissions. Imagine that our service members had been tortured or abused, and that the commissions hearing their cases allowed into evidence statements obtained through coercion. Imagine that defense counsel were thoroughly under resourced and prohibited even from viewing information critical to their cases, and that exculpatory evidence was hidden. Imagine that the evidence against our soldiers was so weak, and had been gathered and compiled in such a shoddy and disorganized manner, that the commissions allowed hearsay into evidence--to be analyzed not by professional judges but by lay jurors--just to ``make sure'' that any and all prosecutions were successful. How would our government react to such trials? I imagine the uproar would be close to deafening. I am convinced that even the well-intentioned changes made to the military commissions by the Senate Armed Services Committee legislation will create a real risk that, in the future, American men and women in uniform will be subject to a farcical trial regime of this nature. By declining to uphold the fair trial rights of the terrorism suspects in our custody, we place our own soldiers at risk. The answer to this conundrum is simple and time honored. We do not need military commissions. They are broken and beyond repair. We do not need indefinite detention, and we do not need a new system of ``national security courts.'' Instead, we should try those whose guilt we can prove while observing ``the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples''--in other words, using those long-standing rules of due process required by Article III courts and military courts-martial--and resettle or repatriate those whom we cannot. That is the only solution that is consistent with American values and American law. __________ Mr. Nadler. Ms. Pearlstein is recognized for 5 minutes. TESTIMONY OF DEBORAH N. PEARLSTEIN, ASSOCIATE RESEARCH SCHOLAR, WOODROW WILSON SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, PRINCETON, NJ Ms. Pearlstein. Thank you. Subcommittee Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Sensenbrenner, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important subject. I, like countless others in the civilian and military legal and security communities, have argued that the military commission as created by the Bush administration and codified by Congress in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 were a failure both as a matter of policy and law. I strongly hold that view today. Yet while I continue to doubt that the use of a new military commission system going forward is a wise or necessary course of policy, and I explain why I believe that to be the case in greater detail in my written statement, I've long said and continue to believe that it is possible to conduct military commission proceedings for certain crimes in a way that comports with U.S. and international law. Ensuring that any commission to be employed meets those standards is now a key responsibility of Congress. In this brief statement I would like to highlight some of the key changes that will be essential for Congress to pursue if it is to bring the Military Commissions Act of 2006 in line with prevailing U.S. and international law. Based on a preliminary review, I believe the Levin bill addresses some, but not all of these concerns. As my written testimony details, the MCA, the Military Commissions Act, leaves in place a structure and set of procedural rules that in key respects fall short of existing U.S. and international law. President Obama's announcement signaling his intention to rely on commissions going forward recognized these deficits in part, and the changes the President has ordered, most importantly the absolute prohibition as evidence of statements that have been obtained from detainees using torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading interrogation methods, are a positive first step. The bill now circulating in the Senate authored by Senator Levin also includes some important positive modifications, as I understand the draft language. In particular it wisely removes language in the MCA that prohibited defendants from so much as mentioning the Geneva Conventions in commission proceedings. Whether or not the Geneva Conventions provide a plaintiff in a civil case a cause of action to get into Federal court, the Geneva Conventions are, at a minimum, available as a rule of decision in cases before the Federal courts. Such availability is mandated by the Constitution, declaring all treaties made to be part of the supreme law of the land and consistent with the Supreme Court's application of the Geneva Conventions in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The courts must and do have the authority to apply all applicable law in deciding cases or controversies properly before them. Nonetheless these changes do not suffice to bring the contemplated commissions fully in line with U.S. and international law. I would highlight in this brief moment two particular concerns here, although there are others. First, while the Levin bill appropriately excludes statements made under torture, it still fails to ensure that commission rules adequately reflect the degree of voluntariness required by the U.S. Constitution for evidence to be admissible in criminal court. U.S. criminal trials in civilian court as well as in courts-martial have long prohibited the admission of involuntary statements at trial. Such statements have been recognized as inherently unreliable, and use at trial has been understood to create perverse incentives for detaining authorities to apply coercion beyond that authorized by law. Involuntary statements are constitutionally inadmissible, and they have no place in trials under color of U.S. law. Second, although the Levin bill is not entirely clear in this respect, provisions authorizing the review of commission decisions by civilian courts must not circumscribe the jurisdiction of the Federal review courts to exclude either questions of fact or issues of law. Particularly given the article I status of the commissions, it is essential that article III judicial review, review by the independent Federal courts, be as thorough as possible. The review should extend to questions of fact, subject to respect by the court to the extent commission findings have the power to persuade. And the scope of legal review should include the Constitution, laws and treaties of the United States. While correction of these and other provisions I outline in my written statement would go some distance toward correcting the remaining legal failings of the commission system, they do not of themselves constitute an affirmative case for why prosecutions in the military commissions instead of in the article III courts is a wise course of action. On the contrary, I believe that case remains to be made. Neither do such changes in law suffice to justify renewed faith in a system that has, as we've just heard, proved to date to be far worse in practice than one might have imagined based only on its inadequate rules on paper. As the President himself noted in his recent speech at the National Archives, instead of serving as a tool to counter terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al-Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained. The military commissions have understandably been tarred with the same brush. The burden is now on the United States to demonstrate that any commission proceedings going forward can and should be fairly viewed as more legitimate than those past. For these and other reasons set forth in my written testimony, I continue to believe that trial and article III courts must remain the rule for prosecuting violations to criminal law. The use of any new commission system should remain exceptional and strictly limited in scope and duration to the narrow purpose that it is intended to serve. As ever, I'm grateful for the Subcommittee's efforts and for the opportunity to share my views on these issues. Mr. Nadler. I thank the lady. [The prepared statement of Ms. Pearlstein follows:] Prepared Statement of Deborah N. Pearlstein
      
       
        
         
          
           
            
             
              
               
                
                 
                  
                   
                    
                     __________纳德勒先生。我现在认识到Joscyn先生5分钟。托马斯·乔奇，高级研究员，民主国家，华盛顿特区辩护基金会基金会，DC先生。谢谢你。我要感谢小组委员会的成员今天在这里邀请我。军事委员会的作用是一个重要的及时的讨论话题，特别是奥巴马主席决定如何处理未来的被拘留的案件。所以我很感激有机会呈现我的观点。军事委员会制度只是奥巴马政府目前正在考虑试图恐怖主义嫌疑人的选择之一。在我看来，它将采取一些工作来使委员会正常运作。正如这里的证人和小组的几名成员在此文件所记录的那样，只有一些佣金已经从头到尾完成了他们的工作，我会说这些委员会也有混合结果。 For example, Salim Hamdan, who swore bayat, the ultimate oath of loyalty, to Osama bin Laden, and who served the terror master as a bodyguard and driver, received only a minimal sentence, 5\1/2\ years, for his devotion to al-Qaeda. Hamdan was even granted time served. Common criminals in the U.S. frequently receive longer and less lenient sentences. Hamdan was subsequently transferred to Yemen, a country that is home to one of the strongest al-Qaeda affiliates in the world and has a poor track record when it comes to keeping tabs on known al-Qaeda terrorists. So the commissions have been far from perfect. This is not to suggest that there is a perfect system for trying terror suspects. There are flaws with each of the available options, including trials in Federal courts. The Federal courts have been uneven in their rulings. For example, the court's decision in Parhat v. Gates omitted key facts. Parhat is an ethic Uyghur from Western China. He was recently released to Bermuda. Parhat and his fellow Uyghurs held at Gitmo challenged their detention, and a court found that there was no basis for holding them. However, the court's decision was fatally flawed. The court ignored the fact that Parhat, as well as at least seven of his fellow Uyghurs, openly admitted that they were trained by a known al-Qaeda terrorist named Abdul Haq in a camp at Tora Bora, Afghanistan. The Obama administration's Treasury Department has subsequently designated Haq a senior al-Qaeda terrorist. Abdul Haq was not even mentioned in the Parhat decision. So the courts are far from perfect, too. I could go on with more examples of flawed court decisions. I'm sure we can document more flaws in the commission system as well. But all of this is of secondary importance, in my view. The two most important reasons we detain terrorists are to prevent them from committing additional terrorist acts, and to gain additional intelligence about the terror network which thrives in the shadows. However the U.S. Government decides to proceed with the detainees' cases, it must make sure to protect the latter function in particular. Intelligence is our primary weapon in this long war, and without it we could quickly find ourselves blind to our enemies' designs once again. All one has to do to understand the crucial value of this intelligence is look at the detainee population at Guantanamo. Admittedly it's somewhat of a mixed bag and always has been. Because the detainees at Guantanamo are most likely the candidates for trial by a military commission, I would like to take just a few minutes to summarize the detainee population. The most lethal terrorists held at Gitmo are the 16 so- called, quote/unquote, high-value detainees. These terrorists are uniquely lethal and have been responsible for thousands of deaths around the world. Had they been left to their own devices, they would have surely murdered thousands more. To name just two of them, the ranks include Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the chief planner of the September 11 attacks, otherwise known as KSM, and Ramzi Binalshibh, al-Qaeda's point man for the September 11 operation. In my view, there is no material dispute over the high- value detainees' importance. From an intelligence perspective they not only had detailed knowledge about al-Qaeda's past attacks, but also extensive knowledge of al-Qaeda's ongoing operations at the time of their capture. We know that in the years following September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda plotted attacks across the planet, stretching from the continental U.S. to Southeast Asia. Numerous plots were disrupted because the so- called high-value terrorists were captured and interrogated. Much of the history behind their interrogations remains to be told, and there is, of course, an ongoing controversy over the manner in which they were questioned, but we know for certain that the high-value detainees gave up vital details on al-Qaeda's global operations, including during interrogations and sessions in which they were subjected to the harshest treatment. The reason we know this is because even the new Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, has written as much. To give you a sense of urgency surrounding these interrogations, consider the circumstances that existed at the time of KSM's capture. KSM was captured in Pakistan on March 1, 2003. At the time of his capture, two terrorists working for al-Qaeda and working for KSM were plotting in the New York area to plot attacks. This is just one example of the grave matters facing U.S. intelligence professionals at the time of KSM's capture. Similar examples could easily be provided for each of the other high-value detainees held at Guantanamo as well. And it is not just the high-value detainees that crucial intelligence undermines when they were initially detained. Detainees at Gitmo include safe-house operators, bombmakers, terrorist trainers and trainees, al-Qaeda recruiters, committed recruits who desire martyrdom, Osama bin Laden's bodyguards, experienced fighters, and numerous other operatives who served the terror network in a variety of other functions. These are just some of the types of other detainees held at Guantanamo beyond the 16 high-value detainees. There are good reasons to suspect that all of them knew important details about al- Qaeda's operations at the time of their capture. We now have the luxury many years later to debate how terrorists should be tried for their crimes. I think there are many important debates and arguments to be put forth in that regard, but we must remember that they did not stop on September 11. America has avoided being struck again, but this does not mean that they have stopped trying, and their attacks continue around the globe. Whatever course we choose from here on out, intelligence must remain of paramount importance. Thank you. Mr. Nadler. I thank the gentleman. [The prepared statement of Mr. Joscelyn follows:] Prepared Statement of Thomas Joscelyn
                      
                       
                        
                         
                          
                           依恋
                            
                             
                              
                               
                                
                                 
                                  
                                   __________纳德勒先生。我现在认识到勒伯夫女士5分钟。丹尼斯证词``DENNY'勒伯夫，导演，约翰·亚当斯项目，美国公民自由联盟，新奥尔良，路易斯安那州勒伯夫女士。早上好，主席纳德勒和小组委员会的成员。谢谢你邀请我作证对此误导努力重振军事委员会的法律和道德含义代表美国公民自由联盟。国会不应该改革委员会。我们不要被它的新颖性非常需要正义，新伪劣的另一个系统。通过设计和定义，关塔那摩的在押人员审前军事委员会不能完成其中的任何一个合法的司法系统的目标。军事委员会审判的一些支持者的既定目的是提供一个论坛，信念更可能比在联邦法院，并用证据来正确地是不可接受的联邦法院。最特别的是，这些支持者希望使用酷刑和虐待获得的语句。 Such trials will not be or look fair. They will not be or look competent. And they cannot produce reliable verdicts. Perhaps, worst of all, no judgments under the military commission will ever truly be final. As director of the ACLU's John Adams' Project, I have attended and observed nearly all of the capital pretrial proceedings in the 9/11 conspiracy case at Guantanamo Bay. I can say without hesitation that as bad as the military commissions appeared on paper, they are far worse in practice, and that I am not alone in that judgment. In 20 years of defending indigent capital crimes in the deep South, I have not seen the blatant unfairness, the wholesale result-oriented injustices that I have witnessed in these proceedings. Two areas in particular display this unfairness. Resources. Extreme disparity in resources between the government and defense are the norm in the commission. Military prosecutors have free access to all the resources of the Department of Justice, while military defense lawyers, many of whom are here today, have the assistance of civilian counsel only because the ACLU and the NACDL provide it. That includes routine requests that are dismissed or denied for ordinary resources. Almost no independent experts, investigators, or specialists have been granted in any of these cases. Far worse in the death penalty case, with no capital counsel provided and no attempt to comply with the ABA guidelines required by the Supreme Court in capital cases. Across the board, a total failure of the commission process in providing even a semblance of the tools needed for an adequate defense. Access to counsel is another area. Year-long delays in security clearances, denial of the request for secure phone calls between clients and their attorneys, forced hooding and sensory deprivation during transport to attorney-client visits which discourage such meetings, overclassification of the defendants' accounts of them, mistreatment, refusal to assure prompt correspondence and provide a privilege team for declassification all combine to create nearly insurmountable barriers between clients and their lawyers. Let me speak to the appearance of inadequacy at the commission proceedings. Despite repeated requests and the fact that 9/11 was the most investigated crime in the history of the United States, few investigative documents have been provided in the discovery to the defense, fortifying the perception that no real trial was ever contemplated. Not 1 day, not 1 hour has gone by without significant translation problems. The commission is unable or unwilling to provide even minimally adequate translations in capital cases to non-English-speaking defendants, some whom act as their own lawyers. An entire day was lost while the court and prosecutors debated with JTF-GTMO on how to order a cell extraction on one of the defendants who had been diagnosed as psychotic by Guantanamo doctors. Such cell extractions and the forced hoodings make it look as though mistreatment is still occurring, and the day lost to debate was a direct result of the denial of adequate opportunity for defense lawyers to communicate with their clients. At the end of the day, the military judge called the proceedings, quote, a learning experience. I thought, it shouldn't be a learning experience. We shouldn't be making this up as we go along. It is supposed to be a capital trial conducted by a country ruled by laws. These cases belong in article III courts. We have nothing to fear from our own courts. No matter how many cosmetic changes are made, the military commissions will always be a second-rate court system set up for illegitimate purposes. When verdicts and perhaps death sentences are rendered by such a court, they will be tainted forever. They may well be reversed by article III courts, and when that happens, it will not be the voices of the defendants or the defense lawyers decrying the cruel folly, it will be the voices of the families of 9/11, the citizens of this country and our allies around the world who want this process to end, as Congressman Delahunt said, ultimately with truth emerging from a fair trial. The military commissions cannot provide that. Mr. Nadler. I thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. LeBoeuf follows:] Prepared Statement of Denise ``Denny'' LeBoeuf
                                    
                                     
                                      
                                       
                                        
                                         
                                          
                                           
                                            
                                             
                                              
                                               
                                                
                                                 
                                                  
                                                   __________纳德勒先生。我们在5分钟内认出自己，开始提问。我的第一个问题——请简要回答这些问题，因为我在5分钟内有很多问题。Vandeveld中校，你们听到Joscelyn先生和其他一些人反复说“已知的恐怖分子”，并将关塔那摩的许多人定性为恐怖分子。如果他们没有被审判，我们怎么知道他们是恐怖分子？范德维德中校。主席先生，没有办法知道这一点。当他作证时，这让我想起了“有记录的帮派成员”这个词，我作为检察官经常听到这个词。当我进一步询问时，记录在案的帮派成员只不过是一名警官进入一个电脑系统，有人认为有人是帮派成员。纳德勒先生。那就没办法知道了？范德维德中校。没有审判就无法知道这一点。纳德勒先生。非常感谢。Pearlstein女士，今天上午--昨天，国防部副总顾问Jay Johnson在参议院作证说，如果出于某种原因，他没有因军事法庭漫长的监狱系统而被定罪，也就是说，他是一名恐怖主义嫌疑人，“我认为我们认为我们有能力拘留此人。”换句话说，他们声称有能力无限期拘留某人，即使他们被判无罪。如果被拘留者通过军事委员会系统或常规法庭或军事法庭被判无罪，他们还能被拘留吗？如果是，依据是什么？如果答案是肯定的，为什么还要为任何形式的审判闹剧而烦恼呢？佩尔斯坦女士。简单的回答是，这取决于是否根据使用军事力量的授权和战争法授权对他们进行拘留。这些都是目前正在积极诉讼的问题，我们可以谈谈法院到目前为止的判决。我想说的是，在某些情况下，我可以想象情况会是这样，特别是对于那些曾经是纳德勒先生的人。所以你可以想象情况会怎样？佩尔斯坦女士。根据AUMF和战争法授权的持续拘留，特别是涉及阿富汗持续冲突的个人。但我认为这些情况比奥巴马政府认为的更为有限。但是，对于你的第二个问题，如果我们可以继续拘留其中一些人，我们为什么要审判他们呢？我想有两个答案。一是我们不能继续拘留他们。我怀疑有一小部分人我们可以合法地继续拘留。传统上，第二个答案是，如果武装冲突明天结束，幸运之神向我们微笑，我们可能会想——其中一些人实际上犯下了战争罪、谋杀平民、酷刑等等。我们希望将他们关押的时间远远超过阿富汗战争的持续时间。他们应该被判处10年、20年、30年的监禁。这就是为什么。现在，我向你们承认，听到即使经过审判也可能继续拘留的说法令人深感不安，但事实上，我认为，在某些有限的情况下，这是对法律的正确陈述。纳德勒先生。我们会回到那个话题上。此外，佩尔斯坦女士，昨天和今天的问题是，如果军事委员会的审判在美国而不是在关塔那摩或其他地方，例如伊拉克或阿富汗进行，被拘留者是否会获得更大的宪法权利。根据审判地点、拘留地点，向被拘留者提供的权利和宪法权利是否有所不同？佩尔斯坦女士。我早些时候听到的说法是，如果审判在这里进行，关塔那摩被拘留者将得到比关塔那摩更多的正当程序保护，我认为这是不正确的。我认为，关于宪法适用性的观点在布梅迪尼裁决中并不存在，肯尼迪法官和法院多数人在该裁决中承认，宪法权利延伸到个人，甚至延伸到域外拘留的个人，只要适用这些权利不会不切实际或不正常。纳德勒先生。那么，个人的实际位置不会影响他们的宪法权利，除非是在罕见的不可能的情况下？佩尔斯坦女士。我认为，关于申请军事委员会的审判权，无论这些审判是在关塔那摩还是在美国进行，都没有什么区别。纳德勒先生。还是巴格拉姆？或者这有什么不同？佩尔斯坦女士。我认为这个问题是由布梅迪尼的最高法院决定的。但如果适用这些审判权，特别是包括----纳德勒先生在内的审判权并非不切实际或反常。那么我们必须——佩尔斯坦女士。应用它们。纳德勒先生。非常感谢。I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished Chairman of the full Committee. Mr. Conyers. Just briefly. I wanted to inquire of Attorney Pearlstein that there might be cases--you suggest that no trials were appropriate, but they should be locked up for a much longer period than the war. I presume you mean the war in Afghanistan or Iraq. But under what basis? Ms. Pearlstein. I want to be clear in what I am actually contending. My view is if people can be tried either under ideally in the article III courts or, if lawfully constituted, military commissions, they should be tried, period. The authorization for the use of military force has been construed by the Supreme Court in--as informed by the laws of war to authorize the detention of people engaged in armed conflict in Afghanistan in limited terms. Now, it is unclear how much farther that decision by the Supreme Court, the Hamdi decision, which came down in 2004, extends. But the district courts so far in the Guantanamo litigation have broadly embraced a somewhat limited view that the Administration has advanced, more limited than what the Administration has advanced, that it is possible, given the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, and even broader--although it remains to be seen-- that some of these people can lawfully be detained under the combined authority of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed in 2001 and the laws of war. Mr. Nadler. Reclaiming my time, and this will be the last question on that point, that is for someone who is fighting. Is there someone who is simply picked up or sold by some clan to us for bounty or whatever--someone who claims he wasn't fighting, wasn't a combatant, does there have to be some sort of due process to determine whether, in fact, this person just happened to be walking through the street? Ms. Pearlstein. Absolutely. Mr. Nadler. What is that? Ms. Pearlstein. To be clear, the authority that has been recognized is recognized only as pursuant to the procedural protections afforded---- Mr. Nadler. And what proceeding is that? Ms. Pearlstein. Well, with respect to the Guantanamo detainees, they all now have a constitutional right to habeas corpus, to a review of their status. Mr. Nadler. So anyone who we claim the authority to detain under the AUMF has a right to habeas corpus and, therefore, to a determination of their status? Ms. Pearlstein. The Supreme Court has held that with respect to those held in Guantanamo. The case is now about whether habeas extends to those held, for example, at Bagram, Afghanistan. But at a minimum, those people are entitled to substantial process under the interpretation of the AUMF that the Supreme Court has already given and what the Geneva Conventions---- Mr. Nadler. And have we given that process to people at Bagram or anyone else? Ms. Pearlstein. My view is that the process we have given to people at Bagram is insufficient under the prevailing standard. Mr. Nadler. Thank you. I now recognize the distinguished Chairman Emeritus of the Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin, for 5 minutes. Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chairman for yielding me this time. What we are hearing today is a continuation of the assault by the American political left on the entire institution of Guantanamo Bay and the people who have been sent to Guantanamo Bay. And apparently, from what I have been hearing, the witnesses that the Majority has brought before the Committee think that the Obama administration seems to have sold out the desire to close Guantanamo and disperse those who have been detained at Guantanamo to wherever. Let me say that I heard from Ms. Pearlstein that there wouldn't be any more rights given to people who were transferred from Guantanamo to elsewhere or were tried before some other type of a procedure. But that is in direct contradiction to the brief that Solicitor General Kagan filed with the Supreme Court. I guess the concern that I have is that there has been a track record of people who have been released from Guantanamo going back home and continuing their battled ways. Yesterday foxnews.com had a story, ``Former Gitmo Inmate Leading the Fight against the U.S. in Helmand,'' which is in Afghanistan. The man's name is Mullah Zakir, who is also known as Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul. And one defense official said that, explaining why Zakir was released from GTMO to Afghan custody and then in 2008 into society, quote, ``We were under incredible pressure from the world to release detainees at GTMO. You just don't know what people are going to do. He was no worse than anyone else being held at Guantanamo Bay,'' the official said. So I think the fact that very few foreign countries are wanting to resettle these folks is an indication that they have complained about Guantanamo from a, quote, ``world perspective.'' But when the time comes for burden sharing and dealing with these folks and perhaps trying them, other countries seem to have dived under the table and said, ``No, that is your problem, Americans.'' I just looked at what has happened to the Uyghurs who have been resettled in Bermuda. On June 17, the Royal Gazette, which is the newspaper in Bermuda, quoted the police commissioner as describing them as high risk. Now, what are we doing to countries that are friendly or territories that are friendly, since Bermuda is still a British colony? And I guess the question that I would like to ask, having said all of this, is directed to you, Mr. Joscelyn, is why does it make sense to release a person who has been described by American officials as members of terrorist organizations to another country when the position of the United States itself is that a person should not be allowed to travel to the United States? Mr. Joscelyn. Well, with the Uyghurs in particular, we are asking about their--I have always said I do not consider those guys to be, quote/unquote, the worst of the worst. I do not consider them to be the most dangerous guys who were at Guantanamo. However, when you get into their files, and you get into the admissions that they made at their combatant status review tribunals and their administrative review board hearings, a sizable number of them admitted that they were trained by a senior al-Qaeda terrorist, as designated by the Obama administration, Abdul Haq. So when you ask why does it make sense to release these type of guys to our allies or free them to our allies and not tell the full story of who they are and not make sure that there is some sort of full accountability and full transparency on who these guys are, I would say it doesn't make sense. Just to double back to the Taliban commander, the search commander in Helmand Province that you mentioned, Congressman, Rasoul is a good example of a guy who downplayed his ties to the Taliban while in detention. He is the guy who said that he wasn't really a Taliban member or a fighter or anything of the sort. When he was released, and when he assumed his--and he is the Taliban's antisurge commander in Afghanistan, so he is tasked with fighting U.S. and British troops in Southern Afghanistan. When he basically announced that role, and when the Taliban announced that role, they also taunted us and said basically Rasoul all along was a confidante of Mullah Omar, the head of the Taliban. In fact, he was always a high-level Taliban leader. So this is the type of thing that happens with these detainees. A lot of times what you will hear are people saying the detainees don't deny, as if that means they are not terrorists or they are not a threat. Here's a good example of a guy who tried to downplay his ties to the Taliban, and, in fact, he was a Taliban leader all along. Mr. Sensenbrenner. And this was the guy that was released from GTMO to the Afghans because of, quote, world pressure, unquote, that was ginned up by people who disagree with the American policy in fighting terrorism. Am I right on that? Mr. Joscelyn. That's what the intelligence official in the Fox News piece said, yes. And just to add quickly, a lot of the pressure actually--and this is pretty interesting and probably not a topic to get into fully here today, but a lot of pressure sometimes comes from former detainees who themselves are actually al-Qaeda terrorists. And just recently an al-Qaeda terrorist who--you know, he was released above the objections by the Bush administration, above the objections of the CIA, DIA, FBI, and Department of Homeland Security. This guy's name is Moazzam Begg. He was orchestrating an al-Qaeda video game for the XBox 360 in which detainees at GTMO would shoot their way out of the facility and kill American soldiers, who they called, quote/unquote, just mercenaries. But this type of pressure a lot of times comes from corridors that are very unsavory and comes from, in fact, our enemy. I would just clarify that. Mr. Sensenbrenner. Point made. And I yield back the balance of my time. Ms. LeBoeuf. The characterization of Moazzam Begg is so far from the reality accepted by any--I mean, it boggles the mind. Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well, ma'am, I think you are willing to believe anything that appears in the press that these folks say. And I think what Mr. Joscelyn has said very clearly is that anybody who does that does that at the risk of the---- Mr. Nadler. The gentleman will suspend. If the gentleman wants to comment, I will grant him a minute to comment. Mr. Sensenbrenner. No. I am done. Mr. Nadler. I will grant myself a minute to comment. Mr. Joscelyn makes unsupported allegations against people based on anonymous sources. I would point out that the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2008 said, with regard to the Uyghurs, or with regard to one of them at least, quote. ``It is undisputed that petitioner is not a member of al-Qaeda or the Taliban; that he has never participated in any hostile action against the United States or its allies,'' unquote. This was in the case of Parhat v. Gates, 532 F.3d 834, at page 836, a 2008 case. I would also just make one comment that I hope that Mr. Joscelyn may address himself to this or some others at some point in the further questioning. I am not going to ask the question now because it is not my time, but I want to make the comment that Mr. Joscelyn made a lot of statements about how we have got terrible people at al-Qaeda--terrible people at Guantanamo, which I assume no one disagrees with; that some of them are certainly terrible, maybe all, maybe not, some of them are certainly terrible; but didn't say a word about what we ought to do. And the question that I think this hearing was called to address is what should our--what should our--not policy. What should we do going forward? Should we have military tribunals? If we do, should the military tribunals have this set of procedures or that set of procedures? If we don't have military tribunals, what should substitute? And Mr. Joscelyn, aside from saying there is a lot of bad people there, which clearly there are, didn't say a word of any of this. And I would like to hear at some point what he thinks, given the fact that we need intelligence, and there ought to be people there, what we ought to do. We can't simply say we think they are bad people, somebody thinks they are bad people; therefore, lock them up forever without some sort of due process. That is not American. Mr. Sensenbrenner. Give Mr. Joscelyn a chance to answer your barrage. Mr. Nadler. By unanimous consent, I'd be happy to give him time to answer. It wasn't my time. Mr. Joscelyn. I think probably part of the reason for the issue just brought up is because I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not well versed in all legal aspects of all the legal wrangling. My perspective is always from intelligence first and defeating the enemy, and that is the perspective I come from. So what I tried to highlight in my testimony is that, from that perspective, from that of an intelligence analyst who studies these matters and spent thousands of hours studying the Guantanamo detainees, there are frequently facts left off the table in any of the venues that are being considered for trying suspects. And what I would say is that whatever process we move forward with--and I am not going to solve this answer for the U.S. Government; obviously, there are many Subcommittees and Committee hearings on this. There is a substantial political debate on how to handle all this. I'm not going to be able to wave a magic wand and give everybody a solution to this. Mr. Nadler. In other words, you have no suggestions. Mr. Joscelyn. No. I would say that--basically what my colleague Andy McCarthy has suggested at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which is a national security-style court where intelligence is protected, and there are clear rules and guidelines for whoever goes to that court is a reasonable guideline. But I say that as a non-lawyer. Ms. LeBoeuf. We don't need a suggestion of a system of courts if all you need to do is characterize people as known terrorists, if you want to say that somebody is the worst of the worst, if you want to say that somebody has been shown to be demonstrated. Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Next, I now recognize the distinguished Chairman of the Committee for 5 minutes. Mr. Conyers. Well, I think this is quite a revealing hearing. Mr. Joscelyn, you are not a lawyer by admission, but you are respectful of judicial proceedings and decisions, I presume. Mr. Joscelyn. Certainly. Mr. Conyers. And you do follow them in this area in which you rely on intelligence for quite a bit of your point of view. As a matter of fact, you may want to know that we have Members on the Judiciary Committee who are not lawyers who handle themselves quite well among a sea of lawyers. And in the Senate, the Judiciary Committee, the same thing applies. So you are not suggesting that your comments derive from the fact that maybe some of these folks up for trial fooled the courts, the Federal court system, are you? Mr. Joscelyn. I am suggesting that in certain instances you can point to facts that are left off the table, and I don't know why that is. I can't tell you what was going on in the courts' mind. I can just tell you that, as an analyst, I know when a high-level al-Qaeda terrorist is identified by the detainees as the guy who trained them, that is an important fact that should make it into the record. That's all. Mr. Conyers. It should be. Did you read the record? Mr. Joscelyn. I read as much as I could. Mr. Conyers. Okay. My congratulations. You may have--oh. Do you have access to classified documents? Mr. Joscelyn. No. And that is--you know, the bottom line there, too, is I have always admitted that there is a certain line where there is a certain amount of information I can't review as an outsider, but I would say, like the decision that I was just referencing, the information that I was getting at and talking about was not classified. It was available in the unclassified files. Mr. Conyers. Thank you. Then the citation that Chairman Nadler made about referring to a Federal appeals court, did you have some question or suspicion that they didn't quite get it right and understand the nature of the person who was before them? Mr. Joscelyn. Again, I think that basically there were certain facts that you can see in the unclassified record which I think are important facts and recognizes they are important facts by--you're talking about the Parhat decision? Mr. Conyers. You're referring--yeah. Mr. Joscelyn. And which have been recognized as important facts that didn't make it in the case. Keep in mind that the group that trained these guys at Tora Bora, you know, publishes its Jihadist videos on the Web, and you can download them and see what this organization is. So--and this is not--to me, from an intelligence perspective and an analysis perspective, there is really no dispute over what this group is or who some of these guys are. But again, I have said over and over--I am not saying that we are going to lock them away and throw away the key. I am not saying they are the worst of the worst. I'm just saying let's get the facts right. That's all. Mr. Conyers. Well, then that means that you question not only the courts, but also the government lawyers trying the case, because you can see into it that obviously some things were hidden from the process and the court that should have been brought out about how potentially dangerous this person was. Is that not correct? Mr. Joscelyn. You know, basically I can't tell you exactly why these facts didn't make it in the court's possession. I don't know what the prosecution put forth to the judge. Mr. Conyers. You have said that. Mr. Joscelyn. But the bottom line is, again, it's just all I'm trying to do is establish a basic factual---- Mr. Conyers. Let me ask you about the two Supreme Court cases. Do you think that there were things that the Supreme Court didn't know about in these two cases that ruled against our military commission procedures? Were there instances there that made you come to some concerns that you are now expressing about other cases? Mr. Joscelyn. You know, sitting here today, I don't have any examples to offer you of anything that the Court must know, no. Mr. Conyers. But do you feel that something may have been left out? Mr. Joscelyn. I don't feel one way or the other. I would have to review them in depth. It is an empirical question to me, not a---- Mr. Conyers. You have a lot of talent. I would like to recommend law school to you at some future time, if you-- because you seem to be very interested in trying to ascertain the truth in court and in trials. And it seems like somebody is missing something in the cases you reviewed, either the government lawyers or the judge itself. I ask for 2 minutes more. Mr. Nadler. Without objection. Mr. Conyers. Now, this hearing--I am a lawyer, so I don't want to be confused by what information is coming toward me, but, look, you don't have any answers as to what we should do. But Attorney Pearlstein, whose testimony I was very eager to receive, she says there may be times when you have to just lock them up forever. I mean, forget--maybe we can justify it under the laws of war, or maybe there is something else, but people could be so dangerous that although there are no charges that can be brought, that they may have to be kept. And I would like to turn to our ACLU counsel to help me fathom what her two fellow witnesses are trying to impart to the Judiciary Subcommittee this morning. Ms. LeBoeuf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, what keeps getting confused in this discussion is that should Congress continue down the road that it began in 2006 after the failure of an executive attempt to create military commissions by reforming the one that isn't good enough that was created in 2006, all to take care of a problem that will not occur in the future, this is not a prospective problem. We are not taking statements under torture anymore. We are not going to do that anymore. Trying to have cases where the trials are dependent upon evidence, some of which was obtained under torture or cruel and inhumane and degrading treatment, is a problem, and it's a problem that should not be solved by creating an entirely new set of judicial procedures which will have no--the problem of novelty and the problem of ultimate--the loss of finality that I talked about, and that will produce the kind of show trial that we see at Guantanamo. So the solution has to be one case at a time in Guantanamo for the retrospective analysis. Of course, neither the ACLU nor anyone who depends on Geneva's---- Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a sufficient amount of time for the witness to make her statement. And then, in all fairness to Attorney Pearlstein, I mentioned her name, she certainly has got some comment. Mr. Nadler. Without objection, Ms. LeBoeuf, we will give you enough time to finish your answer, and Ms. Pearlstein to make a comment. Mr. Conyers. That's all. And I won't ask any further questions. But I---- Mr. Nadler. Ms. LeBoeuf. Ms. LeBoeuf. The Administration agreed and the Geneva requires that a court that affords the judicial guarantees recognized as indispensable by civilized people, so that means no indefinite detention. That is off the table. It means no coerced statements. That should be off the table. Taking a look practically, one on one, at the cases that remain in Guantanamo where there are tainted pieces of evidence is, I believe, going to reduce down to a very small set the really problem cases, and we don't know until we have trials. That is what trials are for. The Parhat case that Mr. Joscelyn keeps referring to wasn't a trial, it was a habeas proceeding. The government came in and said, we don't need a trial; we agreed that there's not enough evidence to have kept those people. We should never have picked them up in the first place. So looking at these cases from the point of view of real- world litigators who look at real-world courtrooms, as Colonel Vandeveld and I and the other lawyers in these military commissions can tell you, is that the cases--one by one we take a look at these cases. We will find a way to try them. That is what our trials do. We have Federal courts that try terrorist-- the terrorism cases have proceeded. Mr. Nadler. Ms. Pearlstein. Ms. Pearlstein. Thank you. I want to try to be very clear. I do not believe indefinite detention is lawful under any law. I do not believe that detention purely on the basis of some assessment of dangerous is lawful under any law. I do not believe that coercion, coerced testimony, torture, et cetera, are lawful under any law. What I do believe is, for example, that if there is somebody at Guantanamo currently who was a commander of Taliban forces in battle against the United States in 2002, and I take it that it may be there is some small number of people who fit, for example, that description, that person is, in my view, a classic prisoner of war as that term is defined under the Geneva Conventions, as contemplated, I suspect, even by Congress in the Authorization for the Use of Military Force it passed in 2001. In my view, it is a reasonable and perhaps appropriate interpretation of those two bodies of law, the Authorization of the Use of Military Force together with the Geneva Convention, to recognize that that person's detention is permitted until the end of the conflict in Afghanistan, period. That is what I am suggesting. Mr. Nadler. Thank you. The gentleman from Arizona Mr. Franks is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Franks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this Administration has made many risky decisions related to terrorism. I an completely convinced that they do not understand the fundamental mindset and philosophy and ideology that animates jihad. And I am afraid that a lot of the discussions that we have today will be revisited in the future, and I am afraid that jihad will certainly disabuse the Administration of some of their naivete in the future. I hope sincerely with my heart that my fears are unfounded and that I am totally wrong. However, the proposals covered in this hearing require a great deal of risk. They require us to make ourselves more vulnerable to terrorists, in my opinion. Binyam Mohammed was released by the Obama administration to England earlier this year. Mohammed was a would-be accomplice of the would-be dirty bomber and now convicted terrorist Jose Padilla. Mohammed planned to carry out mass murder attacks in American cities. As has been reported, Mohammed is an Ethiopian-born Jihadist. As terrorist researcher Thomas Joscelyn, the gentleman that I think has acquitted himself very well today, has documented, Mohammed joined al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and met personally with Osama bin Laden and other top al-Qaeda figures. He received extensive, sophisticated terrorist training, and in 2002, when he was finally apprehended in Pakistan, he was almost certainly en route to the United States to conduct attacks with Jose Padilla, who has been convicted since then of terrorist offenses. Padilla is a notorious--Padilla is notorious as the alleged dirty bomber because he, along with lesser known Mohammed, studied the possibility of constructing and detonating a radiological bomb in an American city. And as Mr. Joscelyn recounts, Mohammed and Padilla, quote, ``explored a wide range of possible targets and modes of attack from striking U.S. subways to setting apartment buildings on fire using ordinary gas lines.'' Just a short answer, Ms. Pearlstein, if you would. Do you dispute any of the factual assertions that I just quoted regarding Binyam Mohammed? Lieutenant Colonel Vandeveld. Actually, sir, may I address that? Mr. Franks. No, sir. I asked her the question. Lieutenant Colonel Vandeveld. All right. I just want to point out, I prosecuted Binyam Mohammed, and I know the facts a little bit better than most people. Mr. Franks. All right. Do you dispute any of the facts, sir? Lieutenant Colonel Vandeveld. I do. Definitely. Mr. Franks. Which ones? Lieutenant Colonel Vandeveld. First of all, the dirty bomb plot was nothing more than downloading a satirical article written by Barbara Ehrenreich and others from a Web site and was dropped in the subsequent refiling of the charges. Mohammed was a drug addict. He is one of life's losers. If you have ever had any connection with him at all, you would understand he wouldn't pose a threat to anybody. The idea that he was going to America, as you put it, almost certainly to conduct terrorist activities is not borne out by the facts. I wish I could get into those because--but I can't because of national security considerations. But the idea that Mohammed is one of the worst of the worst or that he---- Mr. Franks. I didn't say that. Lieutenant Colonel Vandeveld. Yeah. Well, I know. Mr. Franks. You haven't disputed any of the facts here at all, to make the point, but let me continue. Ayman Saeed Abdullah Batarfi was cleared for release by the Justice Department, but he has not yet been released because a country willing to accept him has not yet been found. And, according to other reports, U.S. Justice Department has decided to release yet another detainee from Guantanamo, a Yemeni named Ayman Saeed Abdullah Batarfi. Based on Batarfi's own freely given testimony, he was certainly not an innocent swept up in the post-9/11 chaos of Afghanistan, as his lawyers claim. There are at least three aspects of Batarfi's testimony given before his administrative review board hearings at GTMO that are noteworthy. First, Batarfi admitted that he was an employee of al Wafa, a charity that has been designated a terrorist organization. Al Wafa is discussed in brief in the 9/11 Commission Report as an al-Qaeda front. Second, Batarfi admitted that he met with a Malaysian microbiologist and authorized the purchase of medical equipment for this individual. This microbiologist is most certainly Yazid Sufaat. Batarfi denies knowing if Sufaat was working on anthrax when they met in 2001. Third, Batarfi admitted that he met with bin Laden in the Tora Bora mountains in 2001, and he admitted that he had purchased cyanide, but claims it was for dental fillings. He admitted that he stayed at various al-Qaeda and Taliban guesthouses, but says he didn't realize that they were facilities associated with Mr. bin Laden at the time. Mr. Joscelyn, would you like to expand on any potential challenges you think the release of some of these terrorists represents to America? Mr. Joscelyn. Well, you know, I think that part of the problem here is that when you hear people talk about these guys, you hear--a lot of times you hear just the most selective version of facts that fits their case as if their defense lawyers are presenting it. And what I try to do in my research is just try and flesh out the whole picture and say, here's what these guys have admitted to even in the tribunal sessions or administrative review board hearings. Here's what the government says it knows about them from either those sources or other sources. And the bottom line is each one of these cases that you have outlined and each one of the cases, I think, at Guantanamo, as the Obama administration is rightfully doing, it requires an individual judgment. So I think that basically there has to be judgment made on each one of these cases, how it is handled, what measure of due process is given to the detainees, and how to proceed going forward. So I don't want to provide a catch-all for all the detainees. I think that you don't want to say they are all the worst of the worst. You don't want to say that they are all going to be detained indefinitely. I am not here saying that. What I am saying is that basically, like the terrorists you just outlined that have been cleared for release, there are troubling facts that count against them, and there are substantial facts, and that has to weigh into any decisions made about them. Mr. Franks. Mr. Chairman, it is a difficult situation that we face, but the challenge is here, the real problem here, is that the assertion that the Bush administration got it all wrong. And yet probably, when it is all said and done, the Obama administration will have to face some facts that, because of the challenging circumstances of this, that we'll have something like GTMO or some other detention facility with some type of military tribunal; or the terrorists will be very happy that we have changed it over and given them additional rights. With that, I yield back. Mr. Nadler. Thank you. And since that comment was, I think, directed at me, let me just make one comment here, and that is that all these facts about these individual cases which may or may not be true, I don't know, are interesting, but not, in my opinion, terribly relevant to this hearing. We all admit that there are guilty people at Guantanamo. Some people assert there are innocent people at Guantanamo also. The question before--and not just Guantanamo, in detention elsewhere. The question of the hearing is what procedure a military tribunal, a court-martial, an article III court, a commission--how should we handle the situation, not whether there are bad people. We know that. Mr. Delahunt. Would the Chair yield for a question? Mr. Nadler. Well, I now recognize the gentleman for 5 minutes. Mr. Delahunt. Okay. Well, I wanted to get extra time. I thought I would sneak it in. You know, I hear we are willing to accept; other countries are willing to accept. I've had conversations in my capacity as Chair of the Oversight Subcommittee on Foreign Affairs, and there are countries that are willing to accept. They are waiting for the United States to accept. That, I would suggest, is logical. Mr. Joscelyn, you are an advisor to Mr. Gingrich, correct? Mr. Joscelyn. I wouldn't say I am an adviser to Mr. Gingrich. I sent him one memo. It was an advisory memo. Mr. Delahunt. But you indicated in a story that he relied on your research. Mr. Joscelyn. Right. Mr. Delahunt. On your analysis. So maybe an advisor, but you send memos to him. Would you agree with his statement that the Uyghurs should all be sent back to China? Mr. Joscelyn. You know, that is a tricky topic. That is what Pakistan did earlier this year. Mr. Delahunt. No. I am asking you the question. Mr. Joscelyn. I understand. Mr. Delahunt. Do you agree with the gentleman that you have given advice to that it is not an American problem; the Uyghurs should be sent back to China? Mr. Joscelyn. Not necessarily. Mr. Delahunt. You disagree with that. Mr. Joscelyn. I never argued that. I never argued that they should all be sent back to China. Mr. Delahunt. I am glad to hear that, because clearly since you are a student of China and the Uyghur Autonomous Province, you know what is happening there now. Mr. Joscelyn. Sure. Could I have one comment? Mr. Delahunt. No. I ask the questions, you give the answers, because we do have limited time. You know, I would make the distinction between facts as you recite them and assertions. But I really want to be clear, because I think it is important in terms of your testimony, that your analysis is based upon unclassified information. Did you at any time have access to classified information as it relates to the Parhat case, to the Uyghurs in general? Mr. Joscelyn. No. Mr. Delahunt. You did not? Mr. Joscelyn. No. Mr. Delahunt. Okay. You are aware that the Court did. Mr. Joscelyn. Sure. Mr. Delahunt. You are aware that the Bush administration did. Mr. Joscelyn. Sure. Mr. Delahunt. You are aware that the Obama administration did. Mr. Joscelyn. I would assume so. Mr. Delahunt. You are aware that the Department of Defense did. Mr. Joscelyn. Sure. Mr. Delahunt. And they cleared them for release back in 2003; is that a fair statement? Mr. Joscelyn. I don't know that they cleared all of them for release in 2003. I think there were different circumstances. I am not sure. Mr. Delahunt. You are unsure of that fact. Okay. Do you know how the Uyghurs were apprehended? Mr. Joscelyn. The basic outline of the details I can recall offhand, yes. Mr. Delahunt. Okay. Tell me. Mr. Joscelyn. Was they left Tora Bora, Afghanistan, during the bombing campaign there in 2001 and crossed the border into Pakistan. Or I believe they were sold over to Pakistani authorities for bounty. Yes. Mr. Delahunt. They were sold. Mr. Joscelyn. I can't 100 percent verify that. Mr. Delahunt. You can't verify that. But do you know the amount was that they were sold for? Mr. Joscelyn. I do not. Mr. Delahunt. If I said $5,000, would you disagree with me? Mr. Joscelyn. No. Mr. Delahunt. So, per Uyghur, it was $5,000. Could you tell me how the Pakistanis made an assessment as to whether they were terrorists or not? Mr. Joscelyn. How the Pakistanis themselves made the assessment? Mr. Delahunt. Right. Mr. Joscelyn. No. Mr. Delahunt. You can't do that. Mr. Joscelyn. I don't have any sources in the Pakistani Government that can tell me that, No. Mr. Delahunt. Neither do I. In terms of--you're aware, of course, that the Uyghurs are a persecuted minority. Mr. Joscelyn. Absolutely. Mr. Delahunt. And that recently the Chinese Government has suggested that a woman by the name of Rebiya Kadeer is responsible for fomenting the unrest that is presently occurring in Northwest China. Mr. Joscelyn. I recognize that China has made that accusation, yes. Mr. Delahunt. Are you aware that Ms. Kadeer was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize on three different occasions? Mr. Joscelyn. I was not aware of that. Mr. Delahunt. And they are suggesting that she is responsible for the unrest. Are you familiar with the Department of State records, human rights report on the treatment of the Uyghurs by the Chinese? Mr. Joscelyn. I am--I remember reading some. I don't remember if I read the whole report. Mr. Delahunt. What was the conclusion? Mr. Joscelyn. Certainly China has abused human rights routinely in Western China. Absolutely. Mr. Delahunt. So we can agree on that. Mr. Joscelyn. Absolutely. Mr. Delahunt. Are you aware of the fact that Communist Chinese intelligence agents were invited by the United States Government during the Bush administration to Guantanamo to interview the 22 Uyghurs that were there? Mr. Joscelyn. I have seen that report. And I don't know the exact details surrounding it, but I have seen that report. Mr. Delahunt. You don't know about that? Mr. Joscelyn. I don't know exactly what happened or transpired during that session. No. I have seen the report. Mr. Delahunt. Could I have an additional minute? Mr. Nadler. The problem is that there are 3\1/2\ minutes left on the vote on the floor. Mr. Delahunt. I will wait for the second round then. Mr. Nadler. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired. The Committee will stand in recess until the votes on the floor. There is a 15-minute and two 5-minute votes. There are 3\1/2\ minutes left. The Committee will stand in recess. I ask the Members to return as soon as the last vote is completed. Thank you. The Committee stands in recess. [Recess.] Mr. Nadler. The Committee will come to order again. I thank the witnesses for their indulgence of our recess for the votes on the floor. Hopefully we will be able to conclude the hearing before there are more votes on the floor. And with that, I will recognize the gentleman from Texas Mr. Gohmert for 5 minutes. Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate the witnesses. I know everybody's motivation here is out of an intention to preserve America that we hold dear. Civil rights are so critical, and I appreciate the protection of those. We have had some problems with that in recent years. But when it comes to those who are part of a group who have declared war unto us or against us, it changes everything. And I keep hearing people talk about--including some of you all--referring to this American tradition of due process. And my friend from Massachusetts had indicated you can bring these guys into supermax prisons here in the United States, and we wouldn't have to worry about them escaping. And I think he is right about that, but there are other problems, too. These guys are good at recruiting terrorists, and when you have a potential virus that can kill the body, you shouldn't voluntarily bring that virus into the body so you can determine whether or not it may be lethal. That is not the way to do it. If you can examine it outside the body, that is the way to go. So when we--and I heard witnesses say we have had commissions with mixed results. Well, Obama stopped commissions that were ongoing in the middle of the trial. You talk about tough on somebody. Talk to those families of victims who were hoping they would get closure, and this President stopped those in the middle of them. And I would readily admit, I believe that when President Bush created his own commissions without coming through Congress that it was--as the Supreme Court later said, that was not proper constitutionally. So it came through this body, and we had the commission set up, and that was a more appropriate way to do it. And then, as Chief Justice Roberts pointed out in his dissent in the Boumediene case, the Supreme Court didn't take yes for an answer. And then they didn't take yes for the answer, and that is why Justice Scalia said you are trying to create criminal justice requirements for due process on the battlefield. This is going to cost American lives. I couldn't believe Scalia had the nerve to say that. I like the guy so much. But he is right, you can't require our people in harm's way to go out and have people shooting at them and think, uh-uh, I had better go get the forensic kit and do DNA testing and look for hair, fingerprints, look for casings. You are fighting a war. The American traditions are due process when people have declared war against us. And let me just read you. This is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. You want to talk about interpreters, he didn't need one. This guy is smart. He is well versed in the Qur'an, and I would hope that you have read this. He filed it on behalf of himself and the four other defendants. But some of his quotes were: ``In God's book, he ordered us to fight you everywhere we find you, even if you were inside the holiest of the holy cities, the mosque of Mecca, the holy city of Mecca, and even during sacred months. In God's book, verse 9, al Tawba: Then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them and besiege them and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush.'' He goes on. He says: ``So our religion is a religion of fear and terror to the enemies of God: the Jews, the Christians, pagans. With God willing, we are terrorists to the bone. So many thanks to God.'' He said: ``We will make all of our materials available to defend and deter and egress you and the filthy Jews from our country.'' He says also: ``We fight you and destroy you and terrorize you. The jihad in God's cause is a great duty in our religion. We have news for you. The news is you will be greatly defeated in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that America will fall politically, militarily, and economically. Your end is very near. And your fall will be just as the fall of the towers on the blessed 9/11 day. We will leave this imprisonment with our noses raised high in dignity.'' These are people who have declared war on us. That is a different standard. And I know a little about military justice, too, having been 4 years involved in it. I know a little about article 32, general court-martial. I have appealed capital murder convictions. I have been a prosecutor, a judge, a chief justice. So I know a little bit about this stuff. But when you are talking about people who have declared war against our way of life, that American tradition of due process is different. And 5 minutes is just not much time to do anything, but let me read you, going back to the very start of the American tradition of due process. George Washington, when he was fighting the Revolution for liberty, he said: ``As the season is now fast approaching when every man must expect to be drawn into the field of action, it is highly necessary that we should be preparing our minds as well as everything necessary for it. It is a noble cause we are engaged in. It is the cause of virtue and mankind. Every simple advantage encumbered to us and our posterity depends on the vigor of our exertions. But it might not be amiss for the troops to know that if any man in action should presume to skulk, hide himself, or retreat from the enemy without the orders of his commanding officer, he will be instantly shot down as an example of cowardice.'' Even if he were going to the latrine or something, they weren't going to have a trial, they were going to shoot them, because liberty is at risk. And when your liberty is at risk, we have the constitutional duty to provide for the common defense. And I am afraid history will judge us forcefully someday as it has all great civilizations that fail by saying they lost the stomach to defend their liberty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Nadler. Does the gentleman have a question for any of the witnesses? I will indulge him with the extra time. Mr. Gohmert. I do appreciate that. I would like to ask, do any of you feel that the trials of Nuremburg also violated the American tradition? Lieutenant General Vandeveld. No. But they were obviously distinct, because they were created by treaty among the Allied Powers. They were presided over by judges who were trained in the law. And even though they had allowed for hearsay, the opinions had to be carefully explained. And they were in a much better position to evaluate the use of hearsay than would, say, a commissions panel. The other thing I wanted to say---- Mr. Gohmert. So were they not part of the American tradition? Lieutenant Colonel Vandeveld. They were part of the international tradition. But the other thing I did want to say---- Mr. Gohmert. You realize how many things were violated, you all talked about are violated with what's being done now, right? You obviously are familiar with the trials at Nuremburg. Lieutenant Colonel Vandeveld. Yes, of course. Mr. Gohmert. And you understand they didn't provide a lot of the rights that you're saying are absolutely part of our American tradition of due process, right? Ms. LeBoeuf. They did not accept coerced statements. They did provide counsel and all resources necessary for defense counsel. They did--and curiously---- Mr. Gohmert. Are you aware of all the things they didn't provide though? Ms. LeBoeuf. The system was not--there certainly are not-- no--to my memory, there is nothing that was not provided in Nuremberg that I think would now be characterized or then be characterized as indispensably--to civilized nations as an indispensable--as a part of the justice system. And the comment about Nuremberg that is relevant to the military commissions trial is the one made by General Hartman, Thomas Hartman, the discredited former legal counsel to the convening authority, who said to the prosecutors: These military commissions at Guantanamo will not be like Nuremberg. There will be no acquittals. You cannot set up a system to guarantee conviction. Mr. Nadler. Thank you. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am troubled by the fact that the Members or the witnesses who were selected by the--on this side of the aisle are all legal practitioners, if you will. They are lawyers, and they have a deep and healthy respect for the rule of law. And I know that you do also, Mr. Joscelyn. But I really think that it would have been great had the other side selected someone who was a lawyer who could support the status quo or defend any allegations that these military commissions have not--have, in fact, been very--they have been good. So we don't have that today. I do appreciate you for being here, Mr. Joscelyn. And you are an intelligence analyst; is that correct? Mr. Joscelyn. I would say intelligence and counterterrorism analyst. But, yes. Mr. Johnson. Okay. And so I respect your views, even though I will say that you did make allegations against kind of like a broad brushstroke against everybody being held in detention in Guantanamo, and with no evidence other than what you say admissions that the detainees have made. And I don't think, as most lawyers would agree, that these kind of statements that are rendered under duress and are rendered after being tortured are reliable. I don't think they are. They are inherently unreliable. And so what I do want to ask, though, is, Ms. LeBoeuf, you are opposed to the military commission scheme that is already set out. And you are also, Lieutenant Colonel, is that correct? Lieutenant Colonel Vandeveld. Yes, sir. Mr. Johnson. And what would be the alternative that you would recommend? Lieutenant Colonel Vandeveld. My alternative, if I may go first and I will be as brief as possible, is to urge those who can be tried in article III courts--and I understand the interagency task force established by President Obama's Executive Order is still conducting reviews. The reviews were supposed to have been completed in May; now the deadline has been extended to July. I heard general counsel Jay Johnson testify yesterday that they may not even be done by the end of the year. And so if they can be identified for trial in article III courts, they should. But many of those who are culpable or may be culpable at Guantanamo are foot soldiers, people who were captured in the process of planting roadside bombs and the like. They can be court-martialed. Mr. Johnson. And none of these people have been able to give a--they have been so low-level, the overwhelming majority of them, that they were not able to even produce a location for Osama bin Laden after being repeatedly tortured. Lieutenant Colonel Vandeveld. That's correct. Those who were his bodyguards dispersed after the bombing began in October 2001. And obviously we received no actionable intelligence from them at the time. Mr. Johnson. Okay. I'm going to stop you right there. I wish I had more time, but I want to get back to Ms. LeBoeuf. Ms. LeBoeuf. Thank you, Congressman. I think that the answer is trials in Federal courts, in article III courts, as the Obama administration said in its order in the first week, are the way to go, and that the practical--or rather the hypothetical problems that are raised again and again are simply not--they dissipate when you take a look at these cases, when litigating lawyers get in a room and take a look at the evidence. And the statement by the 9/11 conspirators, alleged conspirators, read by the Congressman from Texas, you know, led me to think that's not a coerced statement, that's a voluntary statement. It seems to me that a prosecutor wouldn't have a real tough time convicting somebody based on that sort of evidence. I mean, I don't want to suggest that any conviction is an assured thing. I'm a defense lawyer. But the evidence--the process in Federal court has proven itself to be capable of trying, protecting all the evidence, identity of friendlies and intelligence operatives, to put the evidence on, to do it in a nuanced way. Juries don't see classified evidence, and neither do the defendants. We've convicted a bunch of people. They're already locked up. Mr. Johnson. Well, what about the issue of national security secrets being revealed in a civilian trial setting? Ms. LeBoeuf. That hasn't happened. We have the Classified Information Procedures Act, CIPA as its known, that has proven itself again and again to be a flexible and successful tool for assessing whether or not classified evidence can be introduced in a court of law. And we've had case after case after case. Mr. Nadler. The time of the gentleman is expired. I now recognize the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all the witnesses for your testimony. I missed some of it, as you well know, and I regret that, but we have multiple duties on this Hill. One of the things that comes to mind to me is the questions or challenges as to the credentials of one of our witnesses Mr. Joscelyn. And it occurs to me this question: Mr. Joscelyn, or anyone in the panel, but especially you, would you know that whether if the President of the United States were to appoint you to the Supreme Court of the United States, would there be any qualifications that you would be missing that would disqualify you from such a role? Mr. Joscelyn. From the Supreme Court of the United States? Mr. King. Yes. Mr. Joscelyn. I would be the last person to be expected to be appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States. Mr. King. You would be ahead of me, Mr. Joscelyn. But you don't have to be a lawyer to be appointed to the Supreme Court. Mr. Joscelyn. That may be. I don't know either way. Mr. King. That's my point. So for someone to be indicted for not being a lawyer, however that might be used within the vernacular of this Committee, I think is something that most of the American people would object to that concept. We have an awful lot of smart people that can bring a lot of information to bear that have not graduated from law school or passed the bar. Mr. Johnson. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. King. I would yield. Mr. Johnson. Okay. Just a short statement. I'm not in any way downgrading or low-rating laypersons, but we have a defense lawyer, we have a prosecutor, and we have a--I mean, we have three lawyers here. And my only point was that we should try to do harder on your side to bring people who match the requirements of this hearing. Mr. King. Reclaiming my time. And I appreciate his point, and I hope he appreciates mine, that I simply want to illuminate the other side of the argument. I don't contend that the gentleman doesn't have an argument. I just illuminate the other side, which is that one could be appointed to, and some have been appointed to, the Supreme Court, confirmed and served honorably in that capacity and not as lawyers. So I make that point. Then I look at the times that Congress has tried to comply with the decisions of the Supreme Court and have passed first the Detainee Treatment Act, and then we saw the Hamdan case, and then we did the Military Commissions Act. Then we saw the Boumediene case. And this Congress has gone through, jumped through a lot of hoops to try to accommodate some judgments of the Supreme Court. And, in fact, we had article III, section 2 strip the Court, the Supreme Court, of having any jurisdiction over such acts, and yet--and directed the exclusive appeals to go to the D.C. Circuit where the D.C. Circuit found with the Congress and with the bill that was signed by the President at the time. And so I wonder sometimes if the Supreme Court should go back and look at article III, section 2. Justice Scalia in his opinion in the Hamdan case wrote that the cases of article III, section 2 stripping are legion in the history of the United States, a very well-founded principle. And I want to make the point that we are here jumping through more hoops in an attempt to try to accommodate the necessity for national security at the same time we are attempting to accommodate a Supreme Court that I think has outstepped its bounds more than once with regard to these issues that have to do with the detainees. And furthermore, Guantanamo Bay would not be an issue if it hadn't been for the fact that Amnesty International, a lot of other organizations around the country and the world had decided to make it a political issue. I'm among those who have been down to visit Guantanamo Bay, as has Mr. Johnson, and we are--what I saw down there was a location that most people who are incarcerated anywhere in the world would want to trade with them; air-conditioned cells, private rooms, menus with nine different items a day to choose three squares from, Korans for everybody who wants one, no Bibles for anyone because it ticks off people who want a Koran. The list goes on and on and on. And so we are in the business here now of trying to accommodate a political issue, and I believe that President Obama has made a decision, and it was 2 days after he was inaugurated that he signed the Executive Order, and it has been since developed to be more complicated. Now we're trying to jump through it. But the Military Commissions Act, to give authority to another Committee to sort these inmates out, the worst of the worst, and we have records of recidivism. And I have in my hand a press release from just last July 7. It's a Fox News article. Mullah Zakir, who was, I guess, a former inmate of Guantanamo Bay, was released because apparently he was not a risk, and now he rns out to be a commander for the Taliban in Afghanistan. And, you know, he was no worse than anyone else being held at Gitmo is what one official down there said. Well, now he is a commander of the Taliban. One in seven recidivism rate roughly is what we saw when we turned the people loose who were the least risk to the American people. And now we have the worst of the worst. And the gentleman Mr. Joscelyn has evaluated these 242 remaining detainees. I would ask unanimous consent for an extra additional minute, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Nadler. Without objection. Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. And this evaluation that I see shows that 227 out of 242 have exhibited signs that they are likely to go back into battle with the United States. So I don't know how we gain anything by handing someone over to a committee to be determined whether they're going to go to the United States where they can be released into the streets of the United States, or be tried under the Commissions Act, which I'm actually for that, and I'm for doing it at Gitmo. But handing them over to NATO, I'll just tell you that in the end there will be innocent people who will die at the hands, and are, I think, today, dying at the hands of those that have been released from Gitmo. This is a political decision, not a prudent one, and there will be more that will, and among them---- Mr. Delahunt. Will my friend yield for a question? Mr. King. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts to a question. Mr. Delahunt. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I don't think there's any debate that there are some people that are guilty, and I don't believe there's a debate that there are some people who are totally innocent. What do we do about those that are totally innocent and are currently detained or have been detained? What's the gentleman's answer to that query? Mr. King. According to this chart that I'm looking at, those that don't show indications, that would be about 15. And I think we adjudicate them all through the review tribunals, the combat review tribunals. And if they are determined under that to be not guilty of the charges brought before them, then we have to repatriate them back to a country that will take them, most likely their country of origin. Mr. Delahunt. Let me ask you this. If their country that they would be repatriated to practices systematic torture, and in cases such as China, for example---- Mr. King. The Uyghurs. Mr. Delahunt. The Uyghurs, there is a high likelihood that they will be executed. If we do not accept some, why should we expect other nations to accept any? Mr. King. Well, I would say to the gentleman from Massachusetts that any other nation that makes that argument, and some of them have made that argument, any nation that--we are facing this. Germany, for example, has said until the United States accepts some, we won't accept any, because if they aren't safe enough to come to the United States, then they aren't safe enough to come to Germany. And that applies to a number of other countries in the world. And our argument then needs to be, well, if we have to accept them into the United States, why do we need anyone to accept these inmates from Guantanamo Bay? Mr. Nadler. If the gentleman will yield. On the assumption in a given case that someone is totally innocent. You can't hold them in jail forever if they are totally innocent, can you? Mr. King. These individuals were picked up on the battlefield. Mr. Nadler. No, no. Excuse me. Some of them were picked up near the battlefield, and some of them weren't picked up anywhere near the battlefield. Many of them were picked up on the battlefield, but by no means all. Mr. King. And reclaiming what time I might have, I would submit that we have a different understanding of the battlefield. Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the gentleman get an additional several minutes. Mr. Nadler. The gentleman is granted some additional time at the Chair's discretion. Mr. King. This will be my first experience being granted an undetermined amount of time. Mr. Delahunt. Well, we want you to have every experience possible. Mr. King. Let me just briefly compliment the gentleman from Massachusetts on his sense of humor, and now he's deploying it. But I would submit that the battlefield is a 360-degree battlefield. It's a different battlefield than the kind of battlefield that has lines of---- Mr. Nadler. Reclaiming---- Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Chairman---- Mr. Nadler. Ms. Jackson Lee is waiting, too. Reclaiming the Chair's time, or rather the Committee's time. We've heard your answer. Thank you. The gentleman's time is expired. The gentlelady from Texas. Mr. King. And I would be happy to yield back then. Mr. Nadler. Thank you. The gentlelady from Texas. Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ms. LeBoeuf, let me pose the question to you that had been framed by my colleague from Iowa, and the framing of it is that we don't care about the security of this Nation. I think the ACLU has heard that refrained quite frequently and have been challenged for what seems to be by some opinion as overreaching, using the Supreme Court to, in fact, provide insecurity for the United States. So help me understand, though you may have said it--I know that when it is repeated, more facts come to mind--the commitment that you thought you had with the present Administration, the previous announcement, and then ultimately the commitment that you want to have to keep that position; and what changes, secondarily, you would want to see in a military commission; and thirdly, how do you make the argument that you are not making this country less secure? I also will say to you that I, too, have been to Guantanamo on many, many occasions. I went to Guantanamo when tents were there. So it is a considerably more improved facility, which I would hold that this is American, meaning that this is who we are, these are our values, so we're not doing anything extraordinary. But I think the underlying premise has to be that we are holding individuals under a creation, a creature of ours, military commissions, and the issue is can we secure intelligence, can we secure America if we do something different? If you would start from the commitment and work your way through three questions that I have. Ms. LeBoeuf. Thank you, Congresswoman. I'll do my best, and I may need a refresher. I want to make sure I do answer them. First of all, ``safe and free'' is the slogan we have used from the beginning, because we need both. And safe means safe to be us. I find it interesting that the Congressman from Texas believes that if terrorists are locked up among American criminals, it will be the terrorists who recruit, when, in fact, perhaps it will be the criminals who were born and raised in a democracy who will recruit. One never knows. Ms. Jackson Lee. Might I interject, because my time is short. If you can go back to the original question. And I appreciate the overview as I gave you the overview. I would appreciate what was the commitment you had from the Administration. Ms. LeBoeuf. Well, I mean, the commitment we had from the Administration is the commitment that President Obama gave to the United States, to the electorate that Guantanamo would be closed. He also spoke against the military commissions. And when the military commissions were put on hold immediately after the Administration was--after the inauguration, which I witnessed from Guantanamo, we believed that that was going to be the end. Instead we have hearings next week. And while many Members of Congress have been to Guantanamo, I do not believe any Members of Congress have witnessed a military commission proceeding. Ms. Jackson Lee. And let me say that I probably have not witnessed it, but I have been briefed on it, and obviously I don't believe we have sat in on it. So let's go to the next question then. What changes do you want in what is now still existing in military commission beyond the elimination? There is an elimination, meaning to end, and what would you put in place? Ms. LeBoeuf. Congresswoman, I think that what's wrong with what the past Administration did and what this Administration seems to be starting to do is turning this upside down. You don't settle where these people belong by figuring out what end you want. You don't say, I want this guy to end up locked up for life, so therefore I'm going to look at the evidence and say maybe he would get acquitted in a Federal court, so I'm going to put him in a military commission where he can get less justice, or I'll put him away for life with no justice, no review, and call it preventive detention or indefinite detention under some other theory. That's what can't be done. Mr. Nadler. Would the gentlelady yield for a moment? Ms. Jackson Lee. I would be happy to yield to the Chairman. Mr. Nadler. Thank you. In other words, I was quoted as saying the following, and tell me if you think it's a just definition of what we seem to be going toward: that we're going to divide the prisoners into different classifications. Those who we have good evidence against will get fair trials. Those who we have weak evidence again, we'll give less fair trials. Those we have no evidence against, we'll just keep them locked up for preventive detention without any trial at all. In other words, we'll fit the process to the result and, in fact, have kangaroo justice. Is that a fair description of what we seem to be going toward? Ms. LeBoeuf. It's absolutely fair and far more eloquent than I was being. Thank you. Mr. Nadler. I thank you. And I thank the gentlelady, and I yield back to her. Ms. LeBoeuf. And your question about how to reform military commissions---- Ms. Jackson Lee. I'm sorry, I was getting ready to say so it's an upside down hybrid in essence. As the Chairman has indicated, there is a way of selection that has sort of intervening, I think, a nonstatutory, nonconstitutional process which is I'm just going to look at what I have and go eeny, meeney, miny, moe to a certain extent, because it is subjective to say what evidence is and who goes and who doesn't. But I would ask then on these military commissions would you believe that to be an effective going forward; would you believe that could be effective? Ms. LeBoeuf. No, in a word. Of course, theoretically the military commissions can be modified, can be amended to make them fair courts, but once they are truly fair, they're going to look just like Federal court, and then there's no reason to accept the taint of the past unfairness of military commissions. Why drag them down when there's no need? The only benefit that military commissions give you is that it's a second-rate system of justice, and you're going to get more convictions. If you want to accept that, then, you know, I mean, that answers itself. Yes, you can--the changes that are proposed are primarily cosmetic, particularly because of the burdens on defense counsel; not just resources, but choice of counsel. But if you proposed full change that would make this a Geneva-friendly--a real court of law, it would look like Federal courts. Why not put them in Federal court? Ms. Jackson Lee. And how do you protect America? This is my last question, Mr. Chairman, and I will yield back. How do you refute that we are releasing terrorists into our society? Ms. LeBoeuf. Well, the analysis that I have seen, not done by Fox News, but done by Seton Hall's very able academic committee, shows far smaller numbers of people who may be engaged in behavior that's inimical to the United States. Of the 500 people or so that the Bush administration released with no process whatsoever, it can be presumed that a few are making trouble, but that's a small few, and that's no reason to turn justice upside down. Senator McCain said it the best: It isn't about them, it's about us. Safe to be us, that's what we need. Mr. Nadler. The gentlelady's time is expired. Ms. Jackson Lee. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Nadler. Thank you. And before we conclude the hearing, unlike every other questioner who we indulged with a couple of extra minutes, we cut off Mr. Delahunt rather sharply before because we had to go for a vote. So I will recognize Mr. Delahunt for a few minutes now if he wishes to. Mr. Delahunt. Well, Mr. Chairman, this has been a very good hearing, and I'm going to have a hearing in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee where my intention is to invite many of the same witnesses. I would like to address some questions to Mr. Joscelyn. Can you identify Mr. Hasan Mahsum. Mr. Joscelyn. Mahsum, yes. Mr. Delahunt. Who is he? Mr. Joscelyn. He was a former leader of ETIM/TIP. That's the Eastern Turkistan Islam Movement/Turkistan Islam Party. And he reportedly died in northern Pakistan, I believe, in 2003. Mr. Delahunt. Right. Did he--was there information regarding any relationship that he would have had with al-Qaeda or the Taliban? Mr. Joscelyn. Mahsum's story is admittedly more murky than Abdul Haq's story, and that's why I focused my analysis on Abdul Haq. Mr. Delahunt. Well, let's focus on the gentleman who purportedly died. What do you know about him and any statements that he might have made regarding al-Qaeda and the Taliban? Mr. Joscelyn. Well, I mean, first of all, I don't know that he made any statements regarding al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Mr. Delahunt. You don't. Mr. Joscelyn. I don't know of anything he said specifically. Mr. Delahunt. You don't. Mr. Joscelyn. No. I mean---- Mr. Delahunt. You're not familiar with an interview that he gave on Radio Free Asia? Mr. Joscelyn. Are you talking about an interview where he denied any relation with al-Qaeda himself? Mr. Delahunt. That is exactly what I'm referring to. Are you familiar with it? Mr. Joscelyn. I didn't remember it offhand, but now you're reminding me of it. Mr. Delahunt. I'm glad I could refresh your memory. ETIM--first of all, let me ask you this. I noticed just now that your biography indicates you received your bachelor's degree in economics. Mr. Joscelyn. Right. Mr. Delahunt. How did you come to become an intel agent? Mr. Joscelyn. Well, I'm not an intel agent, I'm an intel analyst. Mr. Delahunt. I mean, an intel analyst, right. Mr. Joscelyn. It was an entrepreneurial endeavor after 9/11 that I started. Mr. Delahunt. Have you been to the Uyghur--the autonomous Uyghur territory. Mr. Joscelyn. I have not. Mr. Delahunt. Have you been to China? Mr. Joscelyn. No. Mr. Delahunt. Do you speak Mandarin? Mr. Joscelyn. I do not. Mr. Delahunt. Do you speak Uyghur? Mr. Joscelyn. No. Mr. Delahunt. Let's talk about ETIM and this camp. How big was the camp? Mr. Joscelyn. How big in what sense? Mr. Delahunt. How many men were there? Mr. Joscelyn. From what I've read, a few dozen at a time. Mr. Delahunt. A few dozen at a time, okay. It would appear from all of the transcripts that I've read that are unclassified that there's a consistent theme that those men that were there fled China because of persecution. Have you read similar statements coming from them? Mr. Joscelyn. I have read that some of them have said that, yes. Mr. Delahunt. Okay. Anyhow, let me just read into the record, Mr. Hasan Mahsum may have a relationship--this was a question that was posed to Mr. Parhat. Do you know anything about this? Mr. Parhat said, I don't think so. The people in Turkestan will not associate with al-Qaeda. Now, you're familiar with the form of Islam that the Uyghurs practice, correct? Mr. Joscelyn. I don't think there's one form of Islam Uyghurs practice, from my readings on the topic. Mr. Delahunt. Well, in terms of your readings, which one seems to receive the preference, if you will, by a vast majority of the Uyghurs? Mr. Joscelyn. Certainly not the Jihadist Islam as practiced by the ETIM. Mr. Delahunt. And ETIM, we had a hearing in my committee where scholars, Uyghur scholars, people prominent in the community, had never heard of ETIM. And there's still some--you used the term ``murky.'' Let me suggest that it's murky, but let's grant that there is an ETIM. We'll see you in front of my committee---- Mr. Joscelyn. I'll be happy to. Mr. Delahunt [continuing]. Where we will welcome you. And let me just say to you, Colonel, you have my respect. Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Nadler. I thank the gentleman. For what purpose does the Chairman seek recognition? Mr. Conyers. For the usual reasons, to have the last conversation with these very energetic and stamina-contained witnesses that have been with us today. Mr. Nadler. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. King. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Conyers. Oh, I'm sorry. Steve King has come in, unbeknownst to me. Mr. King. I would just ask if the Chairman would yield to an inquiry. Mr. Conyers. Of course. Mr. Nadler. Which Chairman? Mr. King. Well, I asked the Chairman of the Subcommittee actually. As I am watching this second round take place de facto, I would like to have the Chairman of the overall Committee have the last word. And so if we're going to do a full second round, I would appreciate the opportunity. Mr. Nadler. Yeah. I hadn't intended to do a full second round, but I could not say no to the Chairman of the full Committee, so let him proceed. And if you want to be recognized, I'll recognize you. Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Conyers. Well, thank you very much. I thought that there was going to be a second round. I merely wanted to go through these four excellent witnesses today, all with slightly different viewpoints. And I would like to ask Colonel Vandeveld his feelings now about the issues that are attempting to be resolved here. First, most people believe that the military commission should be abolished. Secondly, and this is my impression, secondly, many people don't think that they can be perfected. And this goes against some of the Senate proposals by my good friend, the senior Chairman of the Armed Services Commission, from Michigan. And third, there still seems to be some lingering problem that I'm sorry I haven't resolved since I heard it that there may be a justifiable reason to keep people in prison when we don't have any charges to bring against them; they're bad people, we think they may be bad people, or they were bad people and we can't prove it, whatever the reason. And from a distinguished member of the bar like Ms. Pearlstein, whose overall testimony I find quite important and relevant, I just have a little bit of doubt as this hearing closes down as to what kind of circumstances could there be that a person can't be tried in a Federal court or tried by a military court- martial? What is their problem, and what are your impressions about the comments? This is the period in which we allow you to reflect upon statements that you've heard from your fellow witnesses that you might want to share with us today that either interest you or concern you. Lieutenant Colonel Vandeveld. Thank you, sir. I was struck when Mr. King spoke about the difficulty Congress is having with complying with the Supreme Court's various orders regarding the commissions. In fact, there have been four Supreme Court cases, and the government's position has not prevailed in each situation. It seems to me that if Congress wanted to save--and I don't mean to be flip by saying this, but if Congress wanted to save itself a lot of work, it could simply abrogate the military commissions entirely, and that would permit military courts- martial to go forward, which have already been tested, which are well accepted. And as I say, those who, for security reasons or reasons of national security, protections of sources and methods, have to be tried under more stringent circumstances can be tried in article III courts. And so I see a system already in place, two systems already in place, for dealing with the detainees at Guantanamo. As far as preventive detention goes, prolonged detention, it's been my experience, based upon my review of evidence at Guantanamo, is that most of the evidence of someone's future dangerousness is derived either from statements by the detainees themselves who engage in braggadocio or fellow detainees who decide they want to curry favor with the prison officials and denounce somebody. I don't know of any reputable psychiatrist who would testify in any court of law that somebody--they could predict with certainty about someone's future dangerousness. And I'm always reminded in that respect of Dick Cheney's comments in 1985 when he was a Member of Congress that Nelson Mandela should be continued to be held at Robben Island because he was a terrorist. And he reaffirmed his commitment to that position after Mr. Mandela was awarded the Peace Prize in 1994. So clearly, if a decision like that is left up to the executive, there is also the possibility of human error. If it's left up to courts--and I'll be finished up in 2 seconds-- if it's left up to courts, then we find ourselves in the same position. As we know from cases like Judge Samuel Kent, judges are human, they make mistakes. We know from the 5-4 decisions that consistently come out of the U.S. Supreme Court that judges have an ideological bias, and I don't see how that's avoidable. So I would urge this Committee to abrogate entirely, repeal the Military Commissions Act and restart courts-martial and article III proceedings for those cases that need it, and I thank you. Mr. Conyers. I thank you very much. With the indulgence of the Chair, I would like to ask the same question of our ACLU counsel. Ms. LeBoeuf. I think it's been clear that the two lawyers at this table who have either witnessed or been at the commissions do not think that their continued existence is a wise course, that they cannot be made fair, and they cannot be made to look fair. We hear a lot about arrests on the battlefield and Miranda on the battlefield. This is a distraction. Most of the people at Guantanamo were not arrested in battlefields; they were arrested in apartments. And Miranda is not a question; voluntariness is the question. We can't hide from what the commissions were set up to do, not just try people with tainted evidence, but hide the details and identities of those who obtained that tainted evidence, to hide the details and the identities of torturers. And if that's the goal, the result will be illegitimate. There is no system under our law that permits us to put people--to deprive people of their liberty without process of law. You can't do it. In war, when it is a legitimate war, and there are prisoners of war, that's a different issue, the hypotheticals that Ms. Pearlstein gave, perhaps if it applies to anyone at all at Guantanamo, if indeed it is a legitimate war. But we can't back away from what we are set out to do here. And what I believe Congress has set out to do is figure out a way to assess the cases at Guantanamo with a system of law that we and our allies can rely upon, and that is doable. Mr. Nadler. The gentleman's time is expired. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Conyers. Would Steve King allow me just one? Mr. King. I would be happy to, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Conyers. You see, I feel very badly because I got the feeling intuitively that Attorney Pearlstein wanted to get in on the discussion since her ideas came up. And it seems unfair of me to ask them and not her. Ms. Pearlstein. Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Mr. Conyers. I thank Mr. Steve King of Iowa. Ms. Pearlstein. And thank you, Congressman, as well. I'll be brief. First, to clarify, I've also been to Guantanamo, observed the military commission proceedings. I spent a year and a half of my career working to get access to the commission proceedings and was in the first team of human rights observers to go to Guantanamo to observe them. And I could not concur more strongly with Lieutenant Colonel Vandeveld and Ms. LeBoeuf that the commissions to date have been, as I said in my testimony, a gross failure of law and policy. There is nothing that I have said in my written or oral testimony that should indicate to the contrary. In fact, I think I've been quite clear that I disagree profoundly that these commissions should be continued. What should be done with respect to the resolution of the cases at Guantanamo? I very much hope that with respect to the Chairman's characterization of the approach that we are on the way to taking is wrong, if that is indeed the approach, it would be not only contrary to law, but an embarrassment to the United States. What I think we should do, if I could wave a magic wand and set policy here, is divide the detainees into two categories with a very limited exception as I set forth for a third. Category 1 is that the people who should be prosecuted who have done something wrong should be prosecuted in article III courts. I continue to believe that's possible. The President and the Senate Armed Services Committee appeared to disagree with me, and that is why I have offered recommendations for, if they are to pursue the course of military commissions, how I think they can do that most effectively. A second category are the people that should be released or transferred, either because they have done absolutely nothing wrong or are not combatants of any kind. And even the Bush administration before it left identified some remaining 50 to 60 people who fit that category, and I understand those people are in the process of being released or transferred now. I believe that there is a limited, very limited, third category. A person who commanded Taliban troops in battle, for example, in 2002 could be transferred to the Afghans for continued detention, or I think could be transferred by the United States for continued detention. Do I think that's a wise course? I think it comes with tremendous strategic costs to the Administration and the United States in light of the policy course and the unlawful course we have pursued in the last 8 years. We are now behind the ball in protecting human rights internationally and abiding by our own law that not only jeopardizes and has jeopardized our relations with our allies, including our joint counterterrorism efforts, it has set us back a generation in combating terrorism around the world. Mr. Conyers. But those who have led combat as you described as a limited number, they can be treated as prisoners of war. Ms. Pearlstein. They could be treated--they should have and could have been treated as prisoners of war during the international armed conflict phase of the conflict with the United States and Afghanistan. If we continue to detain them in Afghanistan, my view would be that as a matter of policy it is wise to treat them as prisoners of war now. Mr. Nadler. The gentleman from Iowa continues to have the time. Mr. Conyers. I thank the gentleman. Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm always happy to hear the input as requested by the Chairman of the full Committee and the Subcommittee for that matter. And I would start this by saying I was struck by the analysis of Lieutenant Colonel Vandeveld that we have had four Supreme Court decisions on this case, on this subject matter, and that the government's position hasn't prevailed in any of them. I would submit that it clearly did with the cases that went before the D.C. Circuit. And in the cases where the Supreme Court overreached their jurisdiction and reversed the D.C. Circuit, yes, the final analysis prevailing, that's what I think the gentleman is referring to. But the point is that this Congress told the Supreme Court you didn't have jurisdiction, and they heard the cases anyway. And our Founding Fathers never imagined that the Legislature wouldn't be jealous of protecting its own power. And from my perspective, I received the Hamdan case on Thursday. It came out on a Thursday. I got my hands on the decision on Friday. I sat in my backyard on Saturday morning, and by 1:30 in the afternoon I came to a conclusion all written up with margin notes in red ink. But it was too late because the President and the respective Chairs of the Judiciary Committee and the House and the Senate and, I presume also at that time, Ranking Members had already made the statement we were going to try to comply with the Supreme Court. I think that this Congress has got to jealousy protect its constitutional power, or we end up with these kind of analyses that cause us to jump through these hoops. And I thought it was also interesting that Lieutenant Colonel Vandeveld then later on said that judges have ideological bias, and we can't get away from that. So I think that balances this. And I think you see it with a legitimate perspective. And I just add mine to your very legitimate testimony, and I appreciate the points you made. Mr. Conyers. Would the gentleman allow me to inquire? Mr. King. I would yield. Mr. Conyers. What would we do; after you wrote those notes in the margin of the decision, how would you take on the United States Supreme Court? Mr. King. I would tell them that we have given them direction that's consistent with the Constitution, and we have national security at stake. And it would have to be--the President of the United States would have to be in the same position, and consistently with that of the Legislature, and we would have to proceed. And we might pass a resolution that simply says national security and the Constitution are more important than the built-in bias potentially of the Supreme Court itself, and that they didn't have jurisdiction, and that we take an oath to the Constitution as well, not an oath to their interpretation of it as they amend it on the fly. The nine Supreme Court Justices are the last nine people on the planet that should be amending our Constitution. Mr. Conyers. You're saying, in other words, there ought to be a law. Mr. King. I just simply said a resolution, because we already passed a law, and the Supreme Court stretched across that, in my opinion. Mr. Conyers. Well, resolutions---- Mr. King. And I think the majority of the D.C. Circuit would agree with me. Mr. Conyers. Resolutions are statements of view without any--they carry no force. Mr. King. Reclaiming my time. Then I suggest that we proceed under the laws that we had passed that were legitimate, because national security is more important. And I would weigh that decision very, very heavily as well. Mr. Nadler. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. King. I hope we can extend the clock because I've got a point I would like to make. Mr. Nadler. I'll take only about 15 seconds. Mr. King. Sure. Mr. Nadler. In other words, what the gentleman is saying when you say we should proceed under the laws, et cetera, is that we should ignore the decision of the Supreme Court because we think it wrong? Mr. King. We have those circumstances that arise, yes. And I recognize the precedents that have been established for 206 years. However, I make the point that what is the Chairman and the Chairman of the Subcommittee and the full Committee, what's their alternative if the Supreme Court determines that they are going to make decisions that put the security of the United States at risk that are extraconstitutional decisions? Do we have no voice? Mr. Conyers. Are you suggesting that they are removable by some process? Mr. Nadler. Did the gentleman want to answer? Mr. King. Just continue the dialogue. Mr. Nadler. I'll answer in one sentence. Mr. Conyers. You can't answer for him. Mr. Nadler. No, he asked me a question. If the Supreme Court rules incorrectly, if it's a statutory matter, we can pass a statute. If it is a constitutional matter as this is, our only recourse is to amend the Constitution through the normal process of doing that. Mr. Conyers. Well, there is still yet another--I guess it's--I didn't know if I heard this in the tone of his remarks. Are you suggesting that they may be removed through some constitutional process? Mr. King. I didn't make that suggestion. What I'm really suggesting is there is precedent for what I have suggested. In the case of important national security issues, when the Court has made, in the collective judgment of the Congress and the executive branch, an extraconstitutional decision where we clearly, under clear precedent in article III, section 2, strip their jurisdiction, then I think we apply in the national security circumstances, put it up for a vote, and we use the Andrew Jackson rule: You made the decision, now you enforce it. That's my position. And may I now reclaim my time? Mr. Nadler. You can reclaim your time, what's left of it. Mr. King. And I would ask if a couple of minutes could be put on the clock. Mr. Conyers. I'll ask that he be given unanimous consent for as many minutes as you and I deprived him of. Mr. Nadler. I'll rule that as 2 minutes. Mr. King. That was exactly gentlemanly, and I appreciate that. And so recovering my time and reestablishing this line of questioning, the question was the point was also raised by Lieutenant Colonel Vandeveld on evaluating someone's future dangerousness. And it's an interesting expression, and I think it's an accurate one. But I know that the gentleman, Mr. Joscelyn, has evaluated each of these and each of these detainees. And I'm aware that there are on average about 20 attacks on our guards on any given day down at Guantanamo Bay. About half of the time they're throwing feces in the faces of our guards. The other half of the time, it's a physical attack designed to physically injure them. The worst thing that we do to punish them is reduce their outdoor exercise time down to 2 hours a day. And as far as I can determine there are no charges brought against them for assaulting our guards. But I wonder if, Mr. Joscelyn, if you've evaluated the number of inmates that have attacked our guards and if that's part of your calculus. Mr. Joscelyn. I have not evaluated those data. My analyses were primarily based on taking into account all of the unclassified material on each detainee and figuring out compiling sort of a biography on each of them, and that was sort of the heart of my analysis. I did not conduct a true future of dangerousness, future dangerousness study. That is not something I have done. Mr. King. And so I would submit this thought for the deliberation of the panel, and also the witnesses, because you're part of the brain trust here today, that if we had a statute that we could use to charge these detainees when they attack our guards, wouldn't we also then have the foundation by which we might be able to resolve some of the legal entanglement that we're in simply by bringing those charges against them and sentencing them under our charge that we would, I think, have to create here in this Congress of attacking our guards? I mean, I walked amongst a group of inmates just this past week who were incarcerated in the United States. There was no problem. I could walk among them, talk to them, turn my back on them, and no one had any sense of alarm. But our guards dare not do that because they're attacked every day. Not a day goes by at Guantanamo Bay. Is there anyone on the panel that would like to address that idea? Mr. Nadler. The gentleman's time is expired, but I'll permit someone on the panel to answer that question. Ms. LeBoeuf. If any of the--most of the detainees, particularly the high-value detainees, are under protective order that prohibits any word being spoken about the conditions of confinement. So had they said anything about any attacks witnessed or perpetrated against guards to their attorneys, their attorneys would be prohibited from saying it to anyone else. Mr. Nadler. Thank you. The gentleman's time is expired. I now recognize myself for my second round since we took a second round. Colonel Vandeveld, very quickly, because I want to have a number of other questions, if someone lays a roadside bomb in Afghanistan, is that an act of war, or is that a crime, and why? Lieutenant Colonel Vandeveld. In order for a crime to be a crime of war, it has to be either directed at a protected person---- Mr. Nadler. No, no. Assuming someone tries to kill American soldiers, is that a crime, or is that an act of war? Lieutenant Colonel Vandeveld. That's a matter of debate. In my opinion, it is not an act of war. Mr. Nadler. Why? Lieutenant Colonel Vandeveld. Because the target would be lawful assuming that it was targeted against U.S. soldiers. Mr. Nadler. So it would be an act of war? Lieutenant Colonel Vandeveld. I'm sorry, it would be an act of war, but it wouldn't be a war crime. Mr. Nadler. That's what I'm saying. So that would be an act of war, it wouldn't be a crime. So the person who did that presumably, if captured, would be a prisoner of war, but would not be subject to criminal prosecution. Lieutenant Colonel Vandeveld. Correct, unless they had lost their combatant immunity by not wearing a uniform. Mr. Nadler. In a guerrilla war, if they're not wearing a uniform, that would be a crime then. Lieutenant Colonel Vandeveld. They would be subject to prosecution because they would not have combatant immunity. Mr. Nadler. Okay. Thank you. Now, I'm obviously disturbed by the discussion of the ability of the President to declare that someone who has been acquitted in a trial can be detained indefinitely nonetheless. Now, I presume--and I'm going to ask this of Ms. Pearlstein and of Ms. LeBoeuf--I presume that that is not pursuant to any power to detain people indefinitely on the grounds of potential danger, but it is pursuant, if it exists at all, to the ability of holding someone, of holding a combatant--or is the combat during a war, is that the source of that power? Ms. LeBoeuf. I think the Hamdi decision, Chairman, is-- clearly gives a limited and--although not specific, but some-- you know, there's an expiration date on it--a limited authority under the AUMF to hold nonpunitively, that is, not a punishment, you know, imprisonment, but to hold someone for some period of time because of their combatant status. Mr. Nadler. The period of time being while the war is on. Ms. LeBoeuf. That would be under traditional laws of war, certainly. But the Hamdi decision made--Justice O'Connor made this distinction between punitive detention and nonpunitive detention and said that Hamdan gave, as I say, limited authority in limited cases, and clearly indicated that that wouldn't last forever. Mr. Nadler. So when the President said that there's some people who are too dangerous to release, or if anybody proposed preventive detention because of someone's potential future dangerous conduct, there is no legal authority for that. Ms. LeBoeuf. No. Mr. Nadler. None. Ms. LeBoeuf. None. Mr. Nadler. And there shouldn't be. Ms. LeBoeuf. No, that's right. Mr. Nadler. Why not? Ms. LeBoeuf. Because we don't have magic balls. These aren't the witch trials. Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Ms. Pearlstein, would you address yourself to those two questions, please? Ms. Pearlstein. The President does not have the authority to detain people on the basis of dangerousness. Mr. Nadler. Does Congress have the power to give him that authority? Ms. Pearlstein. No, I don't believe it does, because I believe that detention on the basis of dangerousness alone is unconstitutional. Mr. Nadler. Okay. Ms. Pearlstein. The Supreme Court has never authorized a statute of that nature, and I think would be contrary to due process and most of the values that the United States stands for. Mr. Nadler. And if Congress had such a power, under what delegated provision of the Constitution--from whence in the Constitution might Congress derive such a power? Ms. Pearlstein. If Congress had such a power? Mr. Nadler. Is there any provision you can think of that someone could misinterpret to give us that power? Ms. Pearlstein. The foreign commerce clause. Mr. Nadler. The what? Ms. Pearlstein. The foreign commerce clause. For example, if we wanted to exercise extraterritorial authority to detain people on the basis of dangerousness, the only theory I can conceive of is the foreign commerce clause. Mr. Nadler. Now, what about--you did talk before about the ability to hold someone, and I presumed you meant--and the Chairman of the Committee asked about this before. I presumed you were talking about keeping somebody out of combat as a prisoner of war or analogous to that. Ms. Pearlstein. That's right. Mr. Nadler. And what authorities are there to that, and how is it limited, and to what extent? Ms. Pearlstein. What the Supreme Court held in Hamdi is that the authorization for the use of military force, the statute that Congress passed in 2001 authorizing the President to use military force, included with it some implied detention authority so that the President could detain, in Hamdi's case, somebody who was actively engaged, directly engaged, in hostilities against the United States in Afghanistan. Mr. Nadler. Now, the traditional situation--in World War II things were simple. If you found someone wearing a Wehrmacht uniform, holding a rifle, and you captured him in Normandy, then he was obviously a prisoner of war, and you put him in the prisoner of war camp for the balance of the war. If you pick up someone in Afghanistan who says, no, I live in this village, I'm not a combatant, I didn't have a rifle in my hand, or, I had a rifle in my hand, I was going out hunting supper, that's how I make my living, I hunt, or whatever, what process is necessary or legal or required to determine who is a legitimate--I don't know if we would call them a prisoner of war if he's not in uniform or a combatant. We have the authority to hold combatants for the duration of the combat, you've said, but is there some necessity for some sort of process to figure out if someone is indeed a combatant? I mean, I keep hearing my Republican friends talking about terrorists, and they should have rights, and they shouldn't have rights. And my constant question is, well, that may be, maybe terrorists shouldn't have rights, but someone has the right to have a fair process as to whether, in fact, they are a terrorist or, in this case, a combatant. So what process is necessary or is legal to---- Mr. King. Will the Chairman yield? Mr. Nadler. No, I will not yield at this point, not until I get an answer to this question. What process is necessary to determine whether someone is or is not, in fact, a combatant? Are we giving it that process, or are current processes adequate to that? Ms. Pearlstein. The answer to the second question is our current processes in Afghanistan are not adequate. Mr. Nadler. Excuse me? Ms. Pearlstein. Are not adequate. The answer to the first question is if we are talking about a circumstance of traditional international armed conflict, as was the case in 2002 in Afghanistan, the Geneva Conventions provide under article V that they're entitled to a hearing, a status hearing, to determine whether or not, in fact, they can be detained. And the Army has regulations providing how those hearings are to be carried out. And indeed, that was exactly what the Army did in Iraq in 1991 and in many other instances. Since the litigation post-September 11, 2001, it is now increasingly clear that those people also likely have, or at least some set of those people also likely have, some additional set of due process rights, including the right to habeas corpus. And the question of whether the Boumediene decision recognizing a constitutional right to habeas corpus of the Guantanamo detainees, many of whom were captured under those circumstances, extends to at least some of those people in Bagram now. Mr. Nadler. So is a habeas corpus proceeding a substitute or an adequate substitute for an article III proceeding? Ms. Pearlstein. I would certainly say that it is an adequate substitute. Mr. Nadler. That it is inadequate or adequate. Ms. Pearlstein. It is more than adequate. Mr. King. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. Nadler. I will in a minute after I finish this line. Ms. Pearlstein. I should be clear, the Supreme Court has not yet held that habeas is required under those circumstances. Mr. Nadler. So if habeas is not required, an article V proceeding would be required? Ms. Pearlstein. An article V proceeding would be required under any circumstance. Mr. Nadler. So anyone who is held in Guantanamo or anywhere else today for that matter, so if someone says that we want to hold this person despite the fact that he was acquitted in a military tribunal, let's say, or we want to hold this person who hasn't been tried in a military tribunal because he's a combatant, he is entitled either to habeas corpus or article V proceeding? Ms. Pearlstein. Are you talking about the circumstances in Afghanistan today? Mr. Nadler. In Afghanistan, in Bagram, in Guantanamo, anywhere. What process is necessary for someone whom we say, we're not charging you with a crime, we want to hold him as a combatant. Ms. Pearlstein. This gets slightly complicated, so if you would just indulge me a moment. There are two kinds of armed conflict recognized under international law; international armed conflict, state against state, U.S. versus Afghanistan, which most would say ended in 2003 with the transfer of sovereignty. There is also so-called noninternational armed conflict, which would be better described as transnational armed conflict. That is armed conflict between two parties where one party is not a state, but an organization, a substate, a failed state, et cetera. Mr. Nadler. A civil war. Ms. Pearlstein. Civil war classically, yes, absolutely. There is nothing in international law that precludes continued detention in a circumstance of noninternational armed conflict. Mr. Nadler. Without any process. Ms. Pearlstein. There is Common article III, which requires some basic standard of process, but it doesn't give much content to what that amount of process would be required. What is required is some separate affirmative authority. That is, there is nothing in international law that precludes continued detention, nor is there anything in international law that provides any state the authority to engage in continued detention. Mr. Nadler. My final question. From what you're saying now, to hold someone in a civil war in which we are supporting one side, the government, which is what we normally do, to hold someone as a combatant in that sort of situation, does Congress need to act to set up a proceeding or process, or is that process already in existence, and what is it? Ms. Pearlstein. My view is that Congress needs to not only specifically authorize detention--and the Supreme Court has now held at least to an extent the AUMF was that authorization, at least to the some extent--and to provide for an adequate set of proceedings. Now, some would say the CSRT might account for that because CSRTs aren't even--they don't even get CSRTs in Afghanistan. Others would say you need full-blown habeas. It might be that something in between would pass sort of scrutiny under this Supreme Court. But you need some level of due process protection. Mr. Nadler. Which you don't have if Congress doesn't act. Ms. Pearlstein. Or unless the courts--right now the courts--the district court with the Bagram case says that habeas extends to Afghanistan. Mr. Nadler. We'll have to see what the courts say. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The circumstances have changed a bit since I asked you to yield. I was very interested also in the testimony of the witness. So unless we are going to have a third round of questioning, I will just simply yield back. Mr. Nadler. I appreciate that. I am sure everybody appreciates that. I thank the witnesses for their participation and their patience. Without objection--first of all, I yield back. Without objection, all Members have 5 legislative days to submit to the Chair additional written questions for the witnesses, which we will forward and ask the witnesses to respond as promptly as you can so that their answers may be made part of the record. Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to submit any additional materials for inclusion into the record. And, again, thank you to the Members of the Committee, and thank you to the witnesses. The hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 1:44 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X ---------- Material Submitted for the Hearing Record