September 28, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E2095 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS INTRODUCTION OF H.R. 7056, THE Two: What is the best system to prosecute ‘‘enhanced interrogation’’ practices—or tor- INTERROGATION AND DETEN- suspected terrorists quickly and effectively? ture—simply do not work. Such practices are TION REFORM ACT Three: What will be the nature of our detention no more likely to yield actionable intelligence regime? Where, under what authority, with than traditional methods and, in fact, in many HON. DAVID E. PRICE what rights, and for how long may suspects be cases, are more likely to yield false informa- tion. OF NORTH CAROLINA detained? All of these questions will require As Rear Admiral John Hutson, a former IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES fresh thinking and creative solutions. Debate surrounding the first question has Navy JAG, has explained, ‘‘torture doesn’t Friday, September 26, 2008 largely focused on whether or not the United work. All the literature and experts say that if Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam States should engage in so-called ‘‘enhanced we really want usable information, we should Speaker, during the presidency of George W. interrogation’’ practices, which often amount to go exactly the opposite way and try to gain Bush, many of us have watched with horror as torture. The Bush Administration has adopted the trust and confidence of the prisoners. Tor- the Administration has pursued policies—sup- policies authorizing aggressive interrogation ture will get you information, but it’s not reli- posedly to help fight an ill-defined war against practices that many of us would interpret to able. Eventually, if you don’t accidentally kill terrorism—that shock the conscience and un- constitute torture or inhuman treatment, plac- them first, torture victims will tell you some- dermine the values fundamental to our under- ing our nation in clear violation of the constitu- thing just to make you stop.’’ Even the Army Field Manual on Interroga- standing of what it means to be an American: tion, U.S. law, and international treaty obliga- tion states that ‘‘the use of force is a poor torture; disappearance; indefinite detention. tions. The question these practices have technique, as it yields unreliable results, may Historians will view the excesses of this era posed is whether, and when, such practices damage subsequent collection efforts, and can are justified in the name of national security. with the same scorn as the Alien and Sedition induce the source to say whatever he thinks Most basically, the use of torture violates Acts and the reign of McCarthyism. Even in the interrogator wants to hear.’’ hindsight, however, it will be difficult to under- notions of human rights and dignity that in the Both moral and practical arguments thus stand how these policies could have gained American political and legal tradition have lead to the same conclusion: the use of torture even tacit approval from so many. been regarded as inalienable and have pre- and cruel or inhuman practices is the wrong Many of us have resisted these policies, empted other considerations. The constitution way forward. questioned them, opposed them, and con- explicitly prohibits ‘‘cruel and unusual punish- But the question of torture is only the begin- demned them. We have, in the last two years, ment’’ and requires that no individual ‘‘be de- ning of the debate, not the end. For far too begun the monumental task of dismantling prived of life, liberty, or property, without due long, public debate focused our attention only them. process of law.’’ The constitution does not limit on the abuses of ‘‘enhanced interrogation,’’ ig- We also have begun a second, equally the application of these protections to Amer- noring—to our peril and to the detriment of our daunting effort: to identify policies that will ad- ican citizens or to cases that do not involve counterterrorism efforts—the equally important dress our very real security challenges without potential terrorism or other dangers. Torturing questions regarding our ability to effectively compromising our fundamental values and our an individual inflicts cruel and unusual punish- detain and prosecute individuals involved in standing in the world. Simply put, global ter- ment upon an individual without granting him terrorism. A long litany of policies undertaken rorism presents a serious and evolving threat, or her due process of law. by the Bush administration in the service of its and it demands new thinking about the tools The Bush Administration, by contrast, has war on terrorism—indefinite detention, habeas we must use to confront this threat. taken a utilitarian moral approach in justifying corpus exceptions, special military tribunals, On September 24, along with nine original the use of torture. Utilitarian approaches judge and so on—are as morally questionable as the co-sponsors, I introduced H.R. 7056, legisla- an action according to its ability to achieve the practice of torture. tion aimed at generating more robust debate greatest good for the greatest number of peo- Yet, too often, we have engaged in pas- about the nature of the threat of terrorism and ple. Should torturing a single individual prove sionate ideological debate about whether the tools we must apply to address it. My leg- to save the lives of hundreds or thousands of these policies are morally justified, when we islation focuses specifically upon the Bush Ad- others, the action of torturing could be might first ask the simple question: do they ministration’s most disgraceful and disturbing deemed justifiable. When vetoing an Intel- work? legacy: its architecture of law and practice in ligence Authorization bill including prohibitions While Supreme Court justices and legal the realm of detention, interrogation, and pros- against torture, for example, President Bush scholars have debated the legality and moral- ecution of terrorism suspects. argued, ‘‘if we were to shut down this program ity of the Bush administration’s justice system My legislation recognizes, however, that a and restrict the CIA. we could lose vital for terrorist suspects, reaching an array of dif- progressive response to the Administration’s information from senior al Qaeda terrorists, ferent conclusions about the theoretical validity regressive policies cannot be limited to ‘‘don’t and that could cost American lives.’’ of Guantanamo Bay, the military commissions do that’’—don’t torture, don’t hold detainees At least two of the factual premises of the system, and the like, few would attempt to argue that this legal regime actually works. indefinitely, and so on—but must offer a new utilitarian argument are highly problematic. To wit: the administration’s controversial vision that is responsive to the challenges and While advocates often present the case in military tribunal system has yielded exactly opportunities of the current context. I hope my terms of a dramatic choice to torture one in two convictions in the seven years since 9–11, proposals will spark new ideas that will lead to order to save many, the truth is that torture including one off a guilty plea. In the same a new, more ethical, and more effective ap- and abuse have been applied far more widely time span, the civilian justice system that the proach to battling global terrorism. than to a few unique individuals. The argu- tribunal system supposedly improves upon The question of how best to organize and ment might be stronger if torture were a has delivered over 145 convictions. If our ob- mobilize the instruments of our national power unique exception applied in a singular and jective is a speedy, effective instrument for in fighting global terrorism, especially with re- critically urgent circumstance—the ‘‘ticking bringing terrorists to justice, the tribunal sys- gard to interrogation and detention of terrorist bomb’’ scenario. The case begins to fall apart, tem fails miserably to deliver. suspects, is particularly pertinent as we pre- however, when torture is officially sanctioned The denial of habeas corpus rights meets a pare to determine the direction and leadership policy, available at the discretion of interroga- similar fate when examined from a practical of our country for the next four years. tors. standpoint. This denial has led to numerous In my view, there are three major chal- What of the claim that violating human lawsuits bogging down the judicial process lenges the next president will have to address. rights and liberties might serve some greater and has undermined the moral high ground on One: How can we most effectively approach good? Even if one acepts such moral rea- which U.S. antiterrorism efforts previously human intelligence collection, a task that in- soning, it is based on false assumptions. Sev- stood. In short, the denial of such rights simply cludes determining the most effective and eral current and former practitioners of interro- does not work to benefit our efforts in com- most ethical ways to conduct interrogations? gation have persuasively argued that so-called bating terrorism. ∑ This ‘‘bullet’’ symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor. Matter set in this typeface indicates words inserted or appended, rather than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor. VerDate Aug 31 2005 05:47 Sep 29, 2008 Jkt 069060 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 0626 Sfmt 9920 E:\CR\FM\A26SE8.095 E28SEPT1 wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REMARKS E2096 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks September