[国会记录：2010年2月25日（房屋）] [H908]通过GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]从国会记录[wais.access.gpo.gov] [Docid：Cr25Fe10-139]与孩子手套处理这个国家的敌人扬声器专业速度。根据房子的先前顺序，来自印第安纳州（伯顿先生）的绅士被认可了5分钟。印第安纳州伯顿先生。扬声器先生，有时我只是不明白这个地方。我们正在争夺将切断你的头部的人，谁将炸毁建筑物并用飞机杀死3,000人。他们会做任何他们可以摧毁美国的事情。然而，当我们通过一个情报账单时，我们想做我们可以用孩子手套对待他们的一切。它对我来说并不有意义。我们将在经理的修正案中明天投票的账单如下：它将在情报审讯中定义“残酷，不人道和有辱人格的待遇”，它将在监禁中提供最多15年的罚款 use of this treatment during an interrogation. They're talking about our CIA people who are interrogating a terrorist--an al Qaeda terrorist, a Taliban terrorist or somebody who is threatening the security of the United States. I want to read that again. It would define ``cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment'' in intelligence interrogations, and it would provide a penalty of up to 15 years in prison for the use of this treatment during an interrogation. Now, what intelligence agent in his right mind would go that extra mile to get information from a terrorist who had information about flying a plane into a building to kill a couple of thousand people? Because, if he used anything that didn't fit within this category, he could be jailed. He could be prosecuted and could go to jail for 15 years. That's insane. Then it goes on to say that it would also provide a criminal penalty of up to 5 years in jail for medical professionals who enable such activities. Look, I don't believe in torture, and I don't believe in mistreating human beings, but when you're talking about the security of the United States of America, that's number one. That is number one. When we take our oath of office here, we swear to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If these terrorists are enemies of the United States, we need to do whatever we can to make sure that we get information from them to protect this country. The people who are doing that job frontline are the FBI, the CIA, the DIA, and all of our intelligence agencies. To hamstring them makes no sense to me whatsoever. My liberal colleagues on the other side want to pat them on the head and give them Jell-O for lunch and do all the other crazy things that you should do. They're living better down at Guantanamo than the people in our prisons here in the United States--Americans. Yet we want to make sure that we treat them with kid gloves. Right now, we have three Navy SEALs who are going to be court- martialed because they captured an al Qaeda terrorist in Fallujah, in Iraq, a terrorist who dragged four American contractors through the streets, burned their bodies, tortured them, and hung them from a bridge. In addition to that, he cut the head off of Daniel Pearl, a newsman, and he put his head on a pike. You know, that guy, I'm sure, deserves a little extra sweet treatment, but I don't think so. Because he said he was hit in the mouth, had a bloody lip and got hit in the stomach, the three Navy SEALs who captured him are being court-martialed. It makes no sense. This place is going nuts. We ought to be doing everything we can to defend and protect this country, and that means doing whatever is necessary, with certain limits, to extract any information we can from a terrorist. For us to put language in there like we're going to give a 15-year penalty in prison for a CIA agent who goes a little beyond by using cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment--and, boy, I don't know how you'd define that--what CIA agent is going to want to take that risk? I just don't understand it, Mr. Speaker. We are in a war against people who want to destroy us and our way of life. They are willing to do all kinds of things--fly planes into buildings, do everything else, cut off heads, torture people. Yet we want to make sure we treat them with kid gloves. It makes absolutely no sense, and I will not vote for that bill tomorrow or anything that looks like it. ____________________ [Congressional Record: February 25, 2010 (House)] [Page H909-H910] INTERROGATION TACTICS The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, earlier today we heard some pretty imaginative accusations from my Republican colleagues when they were talking about an amendment I offered to the Intelligence Authorization Act. While my amendment is being removed from the manager's amendment up in the Rules Committee, I want to take this opportunity to clear up a few things. When President Obama took office last year, one of his first Executive orders was to extend the Army field manual's guidelines on interrogation tactics. Those guidelines prohibit interrogators in all Federal agencies from using brutal interrogations in any circumstance. That is the law today. So to get the facts straight, brutal interrogations are illegal right now. But this Executive order doesn't completely solve the problem. The President can't include criminal penalties in Executive orders, and current U.S. law doesn't outline what constitutes a brutal interrogation. My amendment would have expanded upon the President's Executive order to clearly define what constitutes a cruel, inhuman, or degrading interrogation so that it is unmistakable what kinds of techniques are unacceptable. It also creates criminal penalties for those who use those kinds of interrogations. And to be clear, I didn't invent [[Page H910]] this concept myself. The amendment was based on the Army field manual definition of acceptable and unacceptable interrogation tactics, which, as Senator John McCain has said, is effective 99.9 percent of the time. One of the most important things to remember about these kinds of interrogations is that they simply don't work. Brutal interrogations are not an effective tool to collect information, and what's worse, they actually may produce unreliable information. As former CIA official Bob Baer has said, ``What happens when you torture people is they figure out what you want to hear and they tell you that.'' An endless string of studies have shown us that when people's minds or bodies are subjected to the kind of trauma these brutal interrogations entail, their brains don't function properly. For example, during training exercises, American special operative soldiers have had difficulty remembering information after they'd been put through food or sleep deprivation. Why are the Republicans defending a tactic we know doesn't work? Interrogations like those hurt our reputation abroad. The world was horrified when they saw what American soldiers were doing at Abu Ghraib. As former Secretary of State Colin Powell has said, ``People are now starting to question whether we're following our own high standards.'' Brutality like that hurts our credibility and undercuts our reputation in the global community. I'm a veteran. I wear my Vietnam pin well and proudly. I served in the Navy. I'm passionate about protecting this country and keeping our soldiers safe. More than anything, this amendment was designed to protect them. Several soldiers have done a far better job than I can in explaining why we need laws like this. Retired Colonel Stuart Herrington said that cruelty in interrogations ``endangers our soldiers on the battlefield by encouraging reciprocity.'' The golden rule, if you will. Retired admiral John Huston has said, ``Getting our interrogation policies back on track will preserve our standing to fight for humane treatment of American soldiers who are captured.'' I couldn't agree more. Without clear laws that define acceptable and unacceptable interrogation practices, including criminal consequences for violating those laws, we are putting more Americans at risk of being treated with the same brutality. Just last week the two former Justice Department attorneys who crafted the legal justification for the use of brutal interrogations got off scot free. The Justice Department absolved them of their wrongdoing and only said they had ``exercised poor judgment'' and hadn't broken the law. They took advantage of a gap in our current law and provided legal cover for abuse during interrogations. My amendment would have ensured this kind of legal maneuvering never happens again. As the President said when he issued his Executive order last year, ``We are willing to observe core standards of conduct not just when it's easy, but also when it's hard.'' ____________________