6 December 2001
Source:
US Department of State
International Information Programs
Washington File
_________________________________
06 December 2001
(Says Congress should play a bigger role in formation) (1690) Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy says Congress has an important role to play in any plans by the Bush administration to use military tribunals in the campaign against terrorism. Leahy said he feared that the military tribunals envisioned by President Bush may go beyond traditional American military justice, which provides for open trials, the right to a lawyer and judicial review. Leahy's committee has been conducting a series of hearings on the powers and aggressive investigative tactics being exercised by the Justice Department following the September 11th terrorist attacks in the United States. "Defining those circumstances where military tribunals serve our national security interests is no easy task, and Congress has contributions to make to this discussion," Leahy said in opening remarks December 6 before the committee began hearing testimony from Attorney General John Ashcroft. Leahy said there are circumstances where military tribunals used to try terrorists are appropriate, but many issues and doubts remain about how to proceed with them. "It should be beyond argument that such an authorization, carefully drawn by both branches of government, would be helpful in resolving this doubt and in lending credibility to their use," he said. Following is the text of Leahy's remarks as prepared for delivery: (begin text) Attorney General Ashcroft, welcome. In the 12 weeks since the September 11 attacks, Americans in law enforcement have been working tirelessly to protect the public, to capture and thwart terrorists, and to bring them to justice. For its part, Congress too has moved promptly on several fronts, including our expedited consideration and enactment of the anti-terrorism bill two months ago. In the two months since your last appearance before this committee, terrorism also has reached Congress's doorstep. That is why we are meeting in this room today, and not in the Hart Building, which remains closed. Last week the Justice Department witness appearing before this committee described Congress as a "full partner" in our nation's anti-terrorism efforts. That is how the Founders and our Constitution intended it. The partnership of our two branches of government working together produced an anti-terrorism bill that was better than either branch acting alone would have produced, and with greater public confidence in the result. America works best when all parts of our government govern together. As we continue our discussion of important and difficult questions about the means to be used in the fight against terrorism, let no one, friend or foe, mistake this for anything other than what it is: a principled discussion of policy approaches, and a constructive assessment of the effectiveness of those approaches, undertaken by partners in our country's efforts against a common enemy. Tomorrow is the 60th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Many have compared the galvanizing effect of that attack to that of the atrocities committed on September 11. Today, as 60 years ago, government at every level is under great pressure to act. Our system is intended to help make sure that what we do keeps us on a heading that achieves our goals while holding true to our constitutional principles. The Constitution does not need protection when its guarantees are popular, but it very much needs our protection when events tempt us to, "just this once," abridge its guarantees of our freedom. The need for congressional oversight and vigilance is not, as some mistakenly describe it, "to protect terrorists;" it is to protect ourselves and our freedoms, something in which each and every American has a stake. It is to make sure that we keep in sight at all times the line that separates tremendous government power on the one hand and the rights and liberties of all Americans on the other. It is to make sure that our government has good reason before snooping into our bank records, our tax returns or our e-mail, or before the government listens in as we talk with our attorneys. It is to make sure that no one official, however well intentioned, decides when that line is to be crossed, without good reason for that decision. Whether the Administration's recent unilateral actions are popular or unpopular at the moment, as the oversight committee for the Department of Justice, we accept our responsibility to examine them. This is our role under the Constitution, this is our duty, and we will not shrink from it. So, too, is congressional oversight important in helping to maintain public confidence in our system of laws. In our society, unlike in so many other nations, when a judge issues an order, it is respected and carried out because the public has faith in our system and its laws. The division of power and the checks and balances built into our system help sustain and earn the public's confidence in the actions taken by their government. The consent of the governed that is at the heart of our democracy makes our laws effective and sustains our society. I commend Senator Schumer, the chair of the Administrative Oversight and the Courts Subcommittee, and Senator Feingold, the chair of our Constitution Subcommittee, for holding their hearings earlier this week, and for the constructive contributions to those hearings by Senator Hatch, Senator Sessions, Senator Durbin, Senator Feinstein and others. They were acting in the finest tradition of the Senate and this country. During the past week of hearings and public debate, this oversight process already has contributed to clarifying the President's order to establish military tribunals. It now seems that the President's language that ostensibly suspends the writ of habeas corpus, the language providing for secret trials, and the expansive sweep of the President's November 13 order were not intended; instead the Administration's intention is to use procedural rules more like those used in our courts and our courts martial. Over the last week it has become clearer that, as written, the President's order outlines a process that is far different than our military system of justice. American military justice is the best in the world and includes open trials, right to counsel and judicial review. It also appears that the risks of pursuing "victor's justice" are beginning to be understood more fully as the initial conception of the order is being reformed and clarified. I commend the members of this committee for their contributions to that process. Last week, Senator Specter wrote an article expressing his concern that the Administration had not demonstrated the need for the President's extraordinarily broad order on military commissions. Others, Democrats and Republicans, moderates and conservatives, have expressed concern about the broad powers asserted by the Administration and about the manner in which it has asserted them -- bypassing both Congress and the courts. Last Wednesday's hearing allowed the Committee to hear firsthand from legal experts across the spectrum on these questions and to assist in clarifying the Administration's intentions and actions. There are circumstances where military tribunals are appropriate. I agree with the constitutional experts and others who have testified before the Committee that military tribunals can have a role in our prosecution of the campaign against terrorism. However, many issues remain about how to proceed with such tribunals in the best interests of our national security. Ultimately, the question is not only whether our government has the right or the power to take certain actions and in certain ways, but whether the means we choose truly protect our security. Defining those circumstances where military tribunals serve our national security interests is no easy task, and Congress has contributions to make to this discussion, as we already have. To many, the constitutional requirement that military tribunals be authorized by Congress is clear. To others, it is not. To everyone, it should be beyond argument that such an authorization, carefully drawn by both branches of government, would be helpful in resolving this doubt and in lending credibility to their use. Several members of the Committee of both parties have been crafting ideas for such an authorizing resolution to clarify these issues, and I invite you to work with members of the Committee in exploring a consensus charter for tribunals. It is never easy to raise questions about the conduct of the Executive Branch when our military forces are engaged in combat, even when those questions do not concern our military operations. The matters we are examining concern homeland security, our constitutional rights, and preserving the limits on governmental authority that form the foundation of our constitutional democracy. These are questions that go to the heart of what America stands for, to its people and to the world, when we are put to the test. These are questions that we need to debate openly and thoughtfully. This committee hopes to cast the light of reasoned public inquiry on the Administration's actions, especially on sweeping unilateral actions that might affect fundamental rights. Ultimately, taking a close look at assertions of government power is one of the best ways to preserve our freedoms and ensure our security. None of us in elective or appointive positions in government has a monopoly of wisdom or of patriotism, and under our system, neither do any of us have a monopoly of authority. The Framers of our Constitution had great confidence in George Washington and certainly did not expect him to abuse his power. But they did not entrust their liberty to his, or to any government's, good intentions. Instead they provided for a system of checks and balances, including congressional oversight, judicial review and openness to public scrutiny. This committee will be vigilant in seeking to preserve those fundamentals of our American constitutional system. We can be both tough on terrorists and true to the Constitution. I look forward to hearing from the Attorney General. I want to thank him again for appearing today and hope that he will be able to stay to answer the questions of all senators.
06 December 2001
(Speaks at Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on terrorism) (2660) Washington - Senator Orrin Hatch (Republican, Utah) says the vast weight of legal authority, as demonstrated in a series of hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee over the past two weeks, confirms the constitutionality of the military tribunals proposed by President Bush as part of the administration's efforts to defend the United States against terrorism. Speaking before Attorney General John Ashcroft testified at a December 6 hearing, Hatch said there is "absolutely no basis" for believing that the Department of Justice, which Ashcroft heads, has initiated any systematic policy to deprive detainees of their constitutional rights. "Certainly, the American people are not interested in watching us quibble about whether we should provide more rights than the Constitution requires to the criminals and terrorists who are devoted to killing our people," Hatch said. "They are interested in making sure we protect our country against terrorist attacks." Following is the text of Hatch's statement: (begin text) As you know, I was pleased to co-author, with you, the letter we sent to our good friend and former colleague, the Attorney General, asking him to come before this Committee to describe for us, and for the American people, some of the recent initiatives undertaken by the Administration to protect Americans from terrorist attacks. And I am gratified that General Ashcroft readily accepted our invitation and has taken time from his critical duties to be here today. Before beginning my statement, I would just like to correct the record on one score. At the time we sent our letter to [Attorney] General Ashcroft, it was widely misreported in the press that I was displeased with the Attorney General, and had "demanded" his appearance before the Committee. Nothing could be further from the truth. I joined the letter to [Attorney] General Ashcroft requesting his appearance because I believed it would be helpful to us, and to the American people, for the Attorney General to come before us and provide us with an update on the Department's efforts to combat terrorism and bring to justice those who helped to perpetrate the barbaric attacks of September 11th. After we sent the letter, Mr. Chairman, you made some comments to the press in reference to the letter that were critical of the Attorney General. Because I was a co-signatory on that letter, your subsequent statements were attributed to me as well. So that there will be no mistake, I would like to say here, in the presence of the Attorney General, that I have been extremely pleased with the degree to which he, and the Department as a whole, have been responsive to this Committee's oversight requests. Not only did the Attorney General promptly respond to our invitation to testify, he and the Department have diligently and thoroughly responded to all of the many questions and document requests that have been sent to them by this Committee throughout the year. And the Department has not just been responsive to our oversight efforts, they have been proactive as well. Last week, when the first in this series of DOJ oversight hearings was convened, the Department of Justice was not invited to testify. Commendably, the DOJ reached out, saying that they believed it was appropriate, given the fact that they were the subject of the hearing, that they also be participants at the hearing. Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff made himself available, and provided testimony last week that, I think we can all agree, was very helpful to the Committee. The same thing happened this week, when the Department was again not invited to testify at Tuesday afternoon's oversight hearing. Again, the Department reached out to us, and offered Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh as a witness. And again, I think we can all agree, Mr. Dinh's testimony greatly contributed to the work of this Committee. I must say, the candor and responsiveness exhibited by this Department of Justice in its dealings with this Committee is a refreshing departure from the responsiveness of the previous Administration to our oversight requests. As you all know, I was Chairman of this Committee for the last six years of the previous Administration, and I can tell you that getting responsive answers from the Department of Justice during that period was like pulling teeth. Whether we were examining the previous administration's pardoning and release of 11 convicted terrorists affiliated with the FALN, or the campaign finance irregularities probe and the famous conflicting views within the Justice Department on whether to appoint a special-counsel to the Elian Gonzalez matter, to the last minute pardons ....and so on. I must say, given this previous experience, Attorney General Ashcroft's candor and responsiveness to this Committee are all the more commendable. I would like to thank him for his honorable service to this country as Attorney General. I know this nation is a safer place due, in large part, to his tireless, honest efforts to rid us of crime. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to see, and supportive of, this Committee exercising its oversight authority over the Department of Justice. I trust that we all agree as to the reason why it is important that we exercise this oversight function: it is, or at least it should be, to help the DOJ more effectively carry out its duties, and to ensure that it does so consistently with Congressional directives. I hope that we can also agree, however, that there is a point at which aggressive oversight by this Committee becomes counter-productive. Certainly, we do not want to reach a point where the senior leadership at the Department spends all of its time responding to inquiries from our Committee regarding the terrorism investigation, and none of its time actually tracking down terrorists. And, I know some might try to argue that this a partisan criticism. Well it is not, it is a bipartisan concern. I should note that one of our Senate Democratic colleagues yesterday properly observed in a press release that, "They need to get off his back and let Attorney General Ashcroft do his job. Military tribunals have been used throughout history. The Supreme Court has twice upheld them as constitutional. Now, we're at war, and we're talking about using military tribunals only for non-citizens. Why in the world would we try our own soldiers with this system of justice but not some foreigner who is trying to kill us? It's crazy. These nit-pickers need to find another nit to pick. They need to stop protecting the rights of terrorists. This is about national security. This is about life and death." Now, I don't mean in any way to suggest that we should not be performing appropriate oversight, or to suggest ill motives behind this hearing today. My friends, in the last two weeks, we have heard from Justice Department officials, State Department officials, law professors, journalists, defense attorneys, and even an illegal alien from Yemen who was detained the week after the September 11th attacks with box-cutters in his possession. We have heard from two former Attorneys General of the United States, one from a Republican Administration and one from a Democratic Administration -- who, I might add, both testified that they saw no Constitutional problem with any of the actions that are the subject of these hearings. Some of our friends in academia have not been shy in their criticism of the Administration. One professor whom the Committee invited to testify at last week's hearing compared the United States government to certain authoritarian regimes in Latin America and the totalitarian regime in China. Nor were these public hearings the only opportunity that the members of our Committee have had to pose inquiries to the Department of Justice. Several members have submitted numerous additional written questions following last week's hearing. The last time the Attorney General appeared before this committee, Mr. Chairman, you alone directed 21 questions to him, with multiple subparts. By my count, over the last 2 months you have submitted 12 letters to Justice Department officials, requesting hundreds of pages of documents and posing dozens of questions. Which brings us to today. Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, a couple of weeks ago, I joined you in inviting the Attorney General to testify before us on these matters: I continue to believe it is appropriate to have General Ashcroft testify here today. These are important topics, and I know that General Ashcroft welcomes the opportunity to address any concerns that may be raised by the members of the Committee. [Attorney] General Ashcroft, I want to thank you, and particularly the men and women of the Department of Justice, for their Herculean efforts over the last week and a half, in responding to the oversight efforts of this Committee. We have had a lot of questions, and your responses over the past weeks have helped allay many initially alarmist and hysterical concerns. And let us not forget, these same men and women at the Department of Justice are the ones who are charged with the essential task of making sure that a day like September 11th never happens again. As we continue to hold these hearings, I would hope that we don't forget our own essential task of confirming the President's nominees to the positions so important to winning the war against terrorism, and to ensuring that we have justice and liberties. As you know, there has been increasing criticism from around the country for this Committee to take action on the President's nominees -- both for judgeships and for important posts in the Administration. Even the Washington Post, has criticized this Committee's failure to act on these important judicial nominations, particularly given the vacancy crisis we face in our judiciary today. As we all recognize, justice delayed is justice denied. This was not a digression, but I think that our duty to act on the President's nominees is at least as critical as our duties of oversight and I would simply hope that we will be as diligent in that role in the coming weeks and months as we are with our oversight responsibility. Mr. Chairman, what the hearings over the last two weeks have shown is this: the vast weight of legal authority confirms the constitutionality of military tribunals. And, if the issue to be analyzed is not the constitutionality of the tribunals, but rather the fairness of the procedures to be used, then any criticism is entirely premature, because the Administration has not yet promulgated the procedures that will be employed. Any questions to Attorney General Ashcroft on this topic would be particularly pointless, because it is Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, not General Ashcroft, who is charged with drafting the procedures. On the issue of detainees, what we have learned is that every person being detained has either been charged with a violation of U.S. law, or is being held pursuant to the decision of a federal judge to issue a material witness warrant. Each of the detainees has had access to legal counsel and has the right to challenge the grounds for his detention. Every detainee may, if he wishes, publicize his plight, through legal counsel, friends, family, and/or the media. While there has been anecdotal evidence that the system has not worked flawlessly in the wake of September 11th, there is absolutely no basis for believing that the Department of Justice has initiated any systematic policy to deprive detainees of their Constitutional rights. Now if my colleagues would like to grant additional authorities to the President or the Attorney General, to aid in this war, and to save American lives, then I am all ears -- as long as such powers are consistent with our Constitution. Mr. Chairman, a week ago the airwaves were filled with alarmist rhetoric, charging that the Administration's actions had trampled the Constitution. During the course of these oversight hearings, as expert after expert has affirmed the constitutionality of these measures, I have noticed a change in the tone of the criticisms being leveled at the Administration. The principal complaints we now hear are not that the measures are unconstitutional, but rather that the Justice Department has engaged in insufficient consultation with Congress, or with this Committee, before announcing them. I have a couple of observations on this topic. First, let's put this issue in perspective. We are at war. We are battling an enemy committed to the absolute, unconditional destruction of our society. The principal means that the enemy employs toward this goal is the killing of our civilians in their homes and their places of business. To the extent that this war is being waged on American soil, the Attorney General is one of our leaders in this war. I would hope that, in this time of crisis, we could all check our egos, and for the good of the country, look at the merits of these proposals rather than the manner in which they are packaged. I'm not saying that we don't have a solemn obligation to assess the Department's actions to ensure that they are both effective and sufficiently protective of our civil liberties. But do any of the members of this Committee really believe that, in this time of crisis, the American people -- those who live outside the Capital Beltway -- really care whether the President, the Secretary of Defense, or the Attorney General took the time to pick up the telephone and call us prior to implementing these emergency measures? I implore my colleagues let's keep our focus where it matters -- on protecting our citizens. Certainly, the American people are not interested in watching us quibble about whether we should provide more rights than the Constitution requires to the criminals and terrorists who are devoted to killing our people. They are interested in making sure we protect our country against terrorist attacks. To those of you who say that our input is necessary to make sure that these measures are done right, I say: look around, look at the actions of the President, what do you think is happening? President Bush could have proceeded as President Franklin D. Roosevelt did in 1942. He could have privately called the Secretary of Defense and had him start working, confidentially, on procedures for military tribunals. Three months from now, President Bush could have announced: we have captured some terrorists in Afghanistan, we will try them by military tribunal, and here are the procedures for the tribunals that have been established by the Secretary of Defense. President Bush did not proceed that way. Instead, he -- responsibly in my opinion -- announced that he wanted military tribunals to be one option for trying unlawful combatants against this country. He publicly tasked the Secretary of Defense with drafting the procedures to be employed. Since then, this Committee, the Armed Services Committee, numerous law professors, and just about every pundit with a microphone or a typewriter have each expressed their opinion as to how those procedures should be written. That is consultation. And to show how serious the President is about this process, he reserved to himself the ultimate designation as to who will be tried in military tribunals -- unlike FDR, who delegated the decision to members of our armed forces. Mr. Chairman, there is no real question remaining as to the constitutionality of the Administration's initiatives to date. I thank you for your dedication to oversight, and I am hopeful that today's hearing will proceed as a fair examination into the Administration's actions to stop terrorists and save American lives. I thank you for this hearing and I thank the Attorney General for his willingness to be present and for his responsiveness to our oversight requests.
06 December 2001
(Rights of detained are being protected, he says) (2880) U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft says efforts by the Justice Department, as well as a proposed military tribunal, have been crafted to target terrorists, while attempting to save lives. "Our legal powers are targeted at terrorists. Our investigation is focused on terrorists. Our prevention strategy targets the terrorist threat," Ashcroft said in prepared testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee December 6. "Our efforts have been carefully crafted to avoid infringing on constitutional rights while saving American lives." The Senate Judiciary Committee has conducted a series of hearings on the powers and aggressive investigative tactics being exercised by the Justice Department following the September 11th terrorist attacks on the United States. Ashcroft testified December 6 on measures that have been taken by the Bush administration to counteract terrorism, authorized in part by anti-terrorism legislation sought by the president and passed by Congress since the attacks. Ashcroft said that currently the U.S. government has brought criminal charges against 110 individuals, of whom 60 are in custody, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service has detained 563 individuals on immigration violations. "We have engaged in a deliberate campaign of arrest and detention of law breakers," he said. "All persons being detained have the right to contact their lawyers and their families. Out of respect for their privacy, and concern for saving lives, we will not publicize the names of those detained." The Justice Department is monitoring conversations of 16 of the 158,000 inmates now in federal custody and their attorneys because these communications are suspected of facilitating acts of terrorism, he said. Nevertheless, he said each prisoner has been told in advance that his conversations will be monitored. "Information will only be used to stop impending terrorist acts and save American lives," Ashcroft said. And Ashcroft said the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are seeking to question a limited number of individuals who are visiting the United States on passports from countries with active al-Qaida operations. "We are forcing them to do nothing," he said. "We are merely asking them to do the right thing: to willingly disclose information they may have of terrorist threats to the lives and safety of all people in the United States." Ashcroft also told the Judiciary Committee that he and FBI officials have met with members of Congress and their staffs on more than 100 occasions since September 11th to keep them informed of actions being taken in the 87-day-old investigation. Following is the text of Ashcroft's remarks as prepared for delivery: (begin text) Testimony of Attorney General John Ashcroft Senate Committee on the Judiciary (NOTE: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFTEN DEVIATES FROM PREPARED REMARKS) December 6 Mr. Chairman, Senator Hatch, members of the Judiciary Committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify today. It is a pleasure to be back in the United States Senate. On the morning of September 11, as the United States came under attack, I was in an airplane with several members of the Justice Department en route to Milwaukee, in the skies over the Great Lakes. By the time we could return to Washington, thousands of people had been murdered at the World Trade Center. 189 were dead at the Pentagon. Forty-four had crashed to the ground in Pennsylvania. From that moment, at the command of the President of the United States, I began to mobilize the resources of the Department of Justice toward one single, over-arching and over-riding objective: to save innocent lives from further acts of terrorism. America's campaign to save innocent lives from terrorists is now 87 days old. It has brought me back to this committee to report to you in accordance with Congress's oversight role. I welcome this opportunity to clarify for you and the American people how the Justice Department is working to protect American lives while preserving American liberties. Since those first terrible hours of September 11, America has faced a choice that is as stark as the images that linger of that morning. One option is to call September 11 a fluke, to believe it could never happen again, and to live in a dream world that requires us to do nothing differently. The other option is to fight back, to summon all our strength and all our resources and devote ourselves to better ways to identify, disrupt and dismantle terrorist networks. Under the leadership of President Bush, America has made the choice to fight terrorism -- not just for ourselves but for all civilized people. Since September 11, through dozens of warnings to law enforcement, a deliberate campaign of terrorist disruption, tighter security around potential targets, and a preventative campaign of arrest and detention of lawbreakers, America has grown stronger -- and safer -- in the face of terrorism. Thanks to the vigilance of law enforcement and the patience of the American people, we have not suffered another major terrorist attack. Still, we cannot -- we must not -- allow ourselves to grow complacent. The reasons are apparent to me each morning. My day begins with a review of the threats to Americans and American interests that were received in the previous 24 hours. If ever there were proof of the existence of evil in the world, it is in the pages of these reports. They are a chilling daily chronicle of hatred of America by fanatics who seek to extinguish freedom, enslave women, corrupt education, and to kill Americans wherever and whenever they can. The terrorist enemy that threatens civilization today is unlike any we have ever known. It slaughters thousands of innocents -- a crime of war and a crime against humanity. It seeks weapons of mass destruction and threatens their use against America. No one should doubt the intent, nor the depth, of its consuming, destructive hatred. Terrorist operatives infiltrate our communities -- plotting, planning and waiting to kill again. They enjoy the benefits of our free society even as they commit themselves to our destruction. They exploit our openness -- not randomly or haphazardly -- but by deliberate, premeditated design. This is a seized al-Qaida training manual -- a "how-to" guide for terrorists -- that instructs enemy operatives in the art of killing in a free society. Prosecutors first made this manual public in the trial of the al-Qaida terrorists who bombed U.S. embassies in Africa. We are posting several al-Qaida lessons from this manual on our website today so Americans can know our enemy. In this manual, al-Qaida terrorists are told how to use America's freedom as a weapon against us. They are instructed to use the benefits of a free press -- newspapers, magazines and broadcasts -- to stalk and kill their victims. They are instructed to exploit our judicial process for the success of their operations. Captured terrorists are taught to anticipate a series of questions from authorities and, in each response, to lie -- to lie about who they are, to lie about what they are doing and to lie about who they know in order for the operation to achieve its objective. Imprisoned terrorists are instructed to concoct stories of torture and mistreatment at the hands of our officials. They are directed to take advantage of any contact with the outside world to, quote, "communicate with brothers outside prison and exchange information that may be helpful to them in their work. The importance of mastering the art of hiding messages is self-evident here." Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we are at war with an enemy who abuses individual rights as it abuses jet airliners: as weapons with which to kill Americans. We have responded by redefining the mission of the Department of Justice. Defending our nation and its citizens against terrorist attacks is now our first and overriding priority. We have launched the largest, most comprehensive criminal investigation in world history to identify the killers of September 11 and to prevent further terrorist attacks. Four thousand FBI agents are engaged with their international counterparts in an unprecedented worldwide effort to detect, disrupt and dismantle terrorist organizations. We have created a national task force at the FBI to centralize control and information sharing in our investigation. This task force has investigated hundreds of thousands of leads, conducted over 500 searches, interviewed thousands of witnesses and obtained numerous court-authorized surveillance orders. Our prosecutors and agents have collected information and evidence from countries throughout Europe and the Middle East. Immediately following the September 11 attacks, the Bureau of Prisons acted swiftly to intensify security precautions in connection with all al-Qaida and other terrorist inmates, increasing perimeter security at a number of key facilities. We have sought and received additional tools from Congress. Already, we have begun to utilize many of these tools. Within hours of passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, we made use of its provisions to begin enhanced information sharing between the law-enforcement and intelligence communities. We have used the provisions allowing nationwide search warrants for e-mail and subpoenas for payment information. And we have used the Act to place those who access the Internet through cable companies on the same footing as everyone else. Just yesterday, at my request, the State Department designated 39 entities as terrorist organizations pursuant to the USA PATRIOT Act. We have waged a deliberate campaign of arrest and detention to remove suspected terrorists who violate the law from our streets. Currently, we have brought criminal charges against 110 individuals, of whom 60 are in federal custody. The INS has detained 563 individuals on immigration violations. We have investigated more than 250 incidents of retaliatory violence and threats against Arab Americans, Muslim Americans, Sikh Americans and South Asian Americans. Since September 11, the Customs Service and Border Patrol have been at their highest state of alert. All vehicles and persons entering the country are subjected to the highest level of scrutiny. Working with the State Department, we have imposed new screening requirements on certain applicants for non-immigrant visas. At the direction of the President, we have created a Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force to ensure that we do everything we can to prevent terrorists from entering the country, and to locate and remove those who already have. We have prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law individuals who waste precious law enforcement resources through anthrax hoaxes. We have offered non-citizens willing to come forward with valuable information a chance to live in this country and one day become citizens. We have forged new cooperative agreements with Canada to protect our common borders and the economic prosperity they sustain. We have embarked on a wartime reorganization of the Department of Justice. We are transferring resources and personnel to the field offices where citizens are served and protected. The INS is being restructured to better perform its service and border security responsibilities. Under Director Bob Mueller, the FBI is undergoing an historic reorganization to put the prevention of terrorism at the center of its law enforcement and national security efforts. Outside Washington, we are forging new relationships of cooperation with state and local law enforcement. We have created 93 Anti-Terrorism Task Forces -- one in each U.S. Attorney's district -- to integrate the communications and activities of local, state and federal law enforcement. In all these ways and more, the Department of Justice has sought to prevent terrorism with reason, careful balance and excruciating attention to detail. Some of our critics, I regret to say, have shown less affection for detail. Their bold declarations of so-called fact have quickly dissolved, upon inspection, into vague conjecture. Charges of "kangaroo courts" and "shredding the Constitution" give new meaning to the term, "the fog of war." Since lives and liberties depend upon clarity, not obfuscation, and reason, not hyperbole, let me take this opportunity today to be clear: Each action taken by the Department of Justice, as well as the war crimes commissions considered by the President and the Department of Defense, is carefully drawn to target a narrow class of individuals -- terrorists. Our legal powers are targeted at terrorists. Our investigation is focused on terrorists. Our prevention strategy targets the terrorist threat. Since 1983, the United States government has defined terrorists as those who perpetrate premeditated, politically motivated violence against noncombatant targets. My message to America this morning, then, is this: If you fit this definition of a terrorist, fear the United States, for you will lose your liberty. We need honest, reasoned debate; not fear mongering. To those who pit Americans against immigrants, and citizens against non-citizens; to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty; my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists -- for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil. Our efforts have been carefully crafted to avoid infringing on constitutional rights while saving American lives. We have engaged in a deliberate campaign of arrest and detention of lawbreakers. All persons being detained have the right to contact their lawyers and their families. Out of respect for their privacy, and concern for saving lives, we will not publicize the names of those detained. We have the authority to monitor the conversations of 16 of the 158,000 federal inmates and their attorneys because we suspect that these communications are facilitating acts of terrorism. Each prisoner has been told in advance his conversations will be monitored. None of the information that is protected by attorney-client privilege may be used for prosecution. Information will only be used to stop impending terrorist acts and save American lives. We have asked a very limited number of individuals -- visitors to our country holding passports from countries with active Al-Qaida operations -- to speak voluntarily to law enforcement. We are forcing them to do nothing. We are merely asking them to do the right thing: to willingly disclose information they may have of terrorist threats to the lives and safety of all people in the United States. Throughout all our activities since September 11, we have kept Congress informed of our continuing efforts to protect the American people. Beginning with a classified briefing by Director Mueller and me on the very evening of September 11, the Justice Department has briefed members of the House, the Senate and their staffs on more than 100 occasions. We have worked with Congress in the belief and recognition that no single branch of government alone can stop terrorism. We have consulted with members out of respect for the separation of powers that is the basis of our system of government. However, Congress' power of oversight is not without limits. The Constitution specifically delegates to the President the authority to "take care that the laws are faithfully executed." And perhaps most importantly, the Constitution vests the President with the extraordinary and sole authority as Commander-in-Chief to lead our nation in times of war. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, not long ago I had the privilege of sitting where you now sit. I have the greatest reverence and respect for the constitutional responsibilities you shoulder. I will continue to consult with Congress so that you may fulfill your constitutional responsibilities. In some areas, however, I cannot and will not consult you. The advice I give to the President, whether in his role as Commander-in-Chief or in any other capacity, is privileged and confidential. I cannot and will not divulge the contents, the context, or even the existence of such advice to anyone -- including Congress -- unless the President instructs me to do so. I cannot and will not divulge information, nor do I believe that anyone here would wish me to divulge information, that will damage the national security of the United States, the safety of its citizens or our efforts to ensure the same in an ongoing investigation. As Attorney General, it is my responsibility -- at the direction of the President -- to exercise those core executive powers the Constitution so designates. The law enforcement initiatives undertaken by the Department of Justice, those individuals we arrest, detain or seek to interview, fall under these core executive powers. In addition, the President's authority to establish war-crimes commissions arises out of his power as Commander in Chief. For centuries, Congress has recognized this authority and the Supreme Court has never held that any Congress may limit it. In accordance with over two hundred years of historical and legal precedent, the executive branch is now exercising its core Constitutional powers in the interest of saving the lives of Americans. I trust that Congress will respect the proper limits of Executive Branch consultation that I am duty-bound to uphold. I trust, as well, that Congress will respect this President's authority to wage war on terrorism and defend our nation and its citizens with all the power vested in him by the Constitution and entrusted to him by the American people. Thank you.
06 December 2001
(Ashcroft justifies tribunals before Judiciary Committee) (1060) By Ralph Dannheisser Washington File Congressional Correspondent Washington -- Antiterrorism measures put in effect by the Bush administration may well be legal and constitutional, but could use some legislative fine tuning to make sure they don't open the door to abuse of civil liberties, key members of the Senate Judiciary Committee say. Members outlined their views on administration plans for trying suspected terrorists by military tribunals and monitoring the conversations of some accused individuals with their lawyers -- as well as the detention of hundreds of individuals for alleged immigration violations -- as they questioned Attorney General John Ashcroft at a December 6 hearing. Some civil rights groups have argued that the new administration measures violate rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. But Ashcroft told the committee that the controversial measures are needed to thwart terrorists who are "waiting to kill again." "One option is to call September 11 a fluke and to live in a dream world that requires us to do nothing different," he said. "The other option is to fight back." He promised "full and fair proceedings" in the projected military tribunals. Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (Democrat, Vermont) set the tone for the committee hearing when he told Ashcroft he planned to introduce a bill authorizing the president to establish military tribunals to try terrorists, but only those captured abroad and accused of having connections with the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon near Washington, D.C. "Ultimately, the question is not only whether our government has the right or the power to take certain actions and in certain ways, but whether the means we choose truly protect our security," Leahy said. He invited Ashcroft -- a former senator -- to join with committee members in "exploring a consensus charter for tribunals." Citing the need for congressional oversight, Leahy argued that the point is not "as some mistakenly describe it, to protect terrorists" but rather "to protect ourselves and our freedoms." The Constitution, he declared, "does not need protection when its guarantees are popular, but it very much needs our protection when events tempt us to, 'just this once,' abridge its guarantees of our freedom." The argument for cautious application of the new approaches introduced by the administration -- even if they are constitutional -- was expanded upon by Senator Herb Kohl (Democrat, Wisconsin). Kohl said that congressional insistence that basic civil liberties be protected, even as the war on terrorism is pursued, "does not indicate a lack of trust or patriotism." Rather, he said, "it demonstrates the strength and durability of our democracy." The senator said that certain "basic principles" must be respected if military tribunals are used. A clear understanding is needed of who will be subject to the tribunal, Kohl maintained. Additionally, defendants must be granted the assistance of counsel, the standard of proof must be at least as high as "guilt by clear and convincing evidence," a unanimous vote of the jurors must be required to impose the death penalty, and the system must guarantee the defendant the right to a meaningful appeal, he said. Citing the impact U.S. actions could have abroad, Kohl observed that Americans are outraged "when we hear about Americans abroad who are subject to foreign or military courts," or "when we hear that the Americans on trial may not get an attorney, an impartial jury, or a fair chance to defend themselves. "We should never open our country to that kind of criticism from abroad," Kohl said. Ashcroft, for his part, sought to quiet concerns that the administration's new approaches could be employed broadly enough to put civil liberties at risk. "Each action taken by the Department of Justice, as well as the war crimes commissions considered by the president and the Department of Defense, is carefully drawn to target a narrow class of individuals -- terrorists," the attorney general said. Noting that the U.S. government defines terrorists as those who commit premeditated, politically motivated violence against noncombatant targets, Ashcroft declared, "My message to America this morning, then, is this: If you fit this definition of a terrorist, fear the United States, for you will lose your liberty." Ashcroft's comments were warmly endorsed by Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, the senior Republican on the committee, who said two weeks of hearings have shown that "the vast weight of legal authority confirms the constitutionality of military tribunals." Like Ashcroft, he argues that any discussion of the fairness of the procedures to be used would be both premature -- since the administration has yet to spell out those procedures -- and misdirected, if addressed to Ashcroft, "because it is Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, not (Attorney) General Ashcroft, who is charged with drafting (them)." Press reports earlier December 6 that the Justice Department had barred the FBI from checking its record of criminal background checks to see whether any of some 1,200 people detained after the September 11 attacks had bought guns set the stage for a lively exchange between Ashcroft and Senator Charles Schumer (Democrat, New York). Ashcroft, a staunch defender of the right of Americans to own guns, insisted in response to questioning by Schumer that current law does not permit use of the background check information in investigating individuals. An incredulous Schumer declared that the administration, eager to push all other law enforcement approaches, appeared to become "weak as a wet noodle" when it came to an issue of gun ownership. He cited reports that 34 detainees had, indeed, purchased guns illegally. The senator, long a supporter of gun controls, said he believes that the administration already has full authority to use the database -- called the National Instant Check System. But just to make sure, he said, he would swiftly introduce legislation to clarify the point. Ashcroft avoided answering repeated inquiries by Schumer as to whether he would support such a bill when offered. "If you send me the legislation, I'll review it. If you pass the legislation, I'll enforce it," he said in response to two different formulations of the question.