WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor Wednesday regarding the upcoming Supreme Court case on Guantanamo detainees:
“Yesterday the Supreme Court announced it would hear a case that has critical ramifications for our ability to detain foreign nationals safely outside our borders during wartime at the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The case also provides insight into the best place to detain and try foreign terrorists.
“The case involves a group of ethnic Chinese Uighers who are detained at Guantanamo Bay. The Uighers won their habeas corpus petition to be released from custody. Many of these Uighers, however, had received terrorist training in the Tora Bora Mountains of Afghanistan —including weapons training on AK-47 assault rifles—at a camp run by the head of a group that our State Department has designated a terrorist organization, and that the United Nations has listed as a group associated with “Usama bin Laden, al Qaeda, or the Taliban.”
“Not surprisingly, it has not been easy to find countries eager to accept the Uighers into their civilian population. So the Uighers sued to be released into the United States. Federal district court Judge Ricardo Urbina granted the Uighers’ request and ordered them released here. It did not matter to Judge Urbina that the Uighers did not have an immigration status, or that they had received military style weapons training, or that they had associated with a terrorist group. He was persuaded by their argument that justice required that they be released here.
“Fortunately, the D.C. Circuit reversed Judge Urbina. It ruled that even though the Uighers had won their habeas petition, they did not have a right to be released into the United States. In other words, it ruled that even if the government had to release them, it did not have to release them into Alexandria, or Annandale, or Falls Church, or anywhere else in Northern Virginia that the Uighers might like to go.
“The D.C. Circuit’s ruling is important to national security in general and to the debate over where we should try foreign terrorists in particular. The D.C. Circuit noted that the Supreme Court has held that foreign nationals without property or presence in the United States have fewer legal rights than foreign nationals who are present on American soil. The D.C. Circuit also noted that the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that a sovereign has a right to control its borders, and that means it has a right to bar from being released into its territory foreign nationals whom it has not admitted onto its soil.
“In short, because these detainees remain at Guantanamo, outside our borders, they have fewer legal rights than they would have if they were brought within our borders, including a right to be released into our civilian population.
“We don’t know how the D.C. Circuit would have ruled if the Uighers had been present on U.S. soil. But we do know a couple of things. First, the D.C. Circuit’s reason for not releasing them into the United States was that they had not been brought into the United States. Second, other foreign nationals who have committed murder and other serious crimes who were in the United States have been released here when our government could not transfer them to another country, either because they did not want to go to another country or because other countries did not want to take them.
“The administration and its defenders in the Senate say that because we have tried terrorists in civilian court before, we should do so again. And they say there is no problem with us doing so because the administration would never release detainees into the United States, by which they really mean to say that the administration would not intentionally release detainees into the United States. Both assertions miss the mark.
“First, whether we can try terrorists here is not the issue; the issue is whether we should try terrorists here. Before he became Attorney General, Michael Mukasey was a noted federal trial judge who presided over civilian trials of terrorists, like the trial of the so-called “Blind Sheik,” Omar Abdel Rahman, for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He has written that there are very good reasons why we shouldn’t try terrorists in civilian court, including the additional legal rights terrorists will receive if they are brought here. I ask unanimous consent that Attorney General Mukasey’s recent op-ed on this topic be placed in the record at the end of my remarks.
“Second, once the administration brings detainees into the United States, it is no longer simply a matter for the administration. It is no longer just about what it will or will not do. It’s also about what a federal judge will or will not do. As we saw with Judge Urbina and the Uighers, a judge may very well agree with the legal arguments of Guantanamo detainees and order them released into the United States.
“Those risks do not exist if the Obama administration does not bring Guantanamo detainees into the United States, and instead tries them at the modern, multi-million dollar courtroom at Guantanamo Bay, under the very military commission rules that it has now re-written to its liking—and which we will soon vote on when we consider the Defense Authorization Conference Report.
“The Supreme Court should affirm the D.C. Circuit’s decision and let the political branches maintain control over our borders, including deciding whether and how foreign nationals outside our borders may be admitted within them. If it does, it will bring clarity to the debate over whether terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay ought to be transferred to the United States. And that clarity is this: if you want certitude that foreign terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay are not released into the United States, then don’t bring them here in the first place.”
###
“Yesterday the Supreme Court announced it would hear a case that has critical ramifications for our ability to detain foreign nationals safely outside our borders during wartime at the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The case also provides insight into the best place to detain and try foreign terrorists.
“The case involves a group of ethnic Chinese Uighers who are detained at Guantanamo Bay. The Uighers won their habeas corpus petition to be released from custody. Many of these Uighers, however, had received terrorist training in the Tora Bora Mountains of Afghanistan —including weapons training on AK-47 assault rifles—at a camp run by the head of a group that our State Department has designated a terrorist organization, and that the United Nations has listed as a group associated with “Usama bin Laden, al Qaeda, or the Taliban.”
“Not surprisingly, it has not been easy to find countries eager to accept the Uighers into their civilian population. So the Uighers sued to be released into the United States. Federal district court Judge Ricardo Urbina granted the Uighers’ request and ordered them released here. It did not matter to Judge Urbina that the Uighers did not have an immigration status, or that they had received military style weapons training, or that they had associated with a terrorist group. He was persuaded by their argument that justice required that they be released here.
“Fortunately, the D.C. Circuit reversed Judge Urbina. It ruled that even though the Uighers had won their habeas petition, they did not have a right to be released into the United States. In other words, it ruled that even if the government had to release them, it did not have to release them into Alexandria, or Annandale, or Falls Church, or anywhere else in Northern Virginia that the Uighers might like to go.
“The D.C. Circuit’s ruling is important to national security in general and to the debate over where we should try foreign terrorists in particular. The D.C. Circuit noted that the Supreme Court has held that foreign nationals without property or presence in the United States have fewer legal rights than foreign nationals who are present on American soil. The D.C. Circuit also noted that the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that a sovereign has a right to control its borders, and that means it has a right to bar from being released into its territory foreign nationals whom it has not admitted onto its soil.
“In short, because these detainees remain at Guantanamo, outside our borders, they have fewer legal rights than they would have if they were brought within our borders, including a right to be released into our civilian population.
“We don’t know how the D.C. Circuit would have ruled if the Uighers had been present on U.S. soil. But we do know a couple of things. First, the D.C. Circuit’s reason for not releasing them into the United States was that they had not been brought into the United States. Second, other foreign nationals who have committed murder and other serious crimes who were in the United States have been released here when our government could not transfer them to another country, either because they did not want to go to another country or because other countries did not want to take them.
“The administration and its defenders in the Senate say that because we have tried terrorists in civilian court before, we should do so again. And they say there is no problem with us doing so because the administration would never release detainees into the United States, by which they really mean to say that the administration would not intentionally release detainees into the United States. Both assertions miss the mark.
“First, whether we can try terrorists here is not the issue; the issue is whether we should try terrorists here. Before he became Attorney General, Michael Mukasey was a noted federal trial judge who presided over civilian trials of terrorists, like the trial of the so-called “Blind Sheik,” Omar Abdel Rahman, for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He has written that there are very good reasons why we shouldn’t try terrorists in civilian court, including the additional legal rights terrorists will receive if they are brought here. I ask unanimous consent that Attorney General Mukasey’s recent op-ed on this topic be placed in the record at the end of my remarks.
“Second, once the administration brings detainees into the United States, it is no longer simply a matter for the administration. It is no longer just about what it will or will not do. It’s also about what a federal judge will or will not do. As we saw with Judge Urbina and the Uighers, a judge may very well agree with the legal arguments of Guantanamo detainees and order them released into the United States.
“Those risks do not exist if the Obama administration does not bring Guantanamo detainees into the United States, and instead tries them at the modern, multi-million dollar courtroom at Guantanamo Bay, under the very military commission rules that it has now re-written to its liking—and which we will soon vote on when we consider the Defense Authorization Conference Report.
“The Supreme Court should affirm the D.C. Circuit’s decision and let the political branches maintain control over our borders, including deciding whether and how foreign nationals outside our borders may be admitted within them. If it does, it will bring clarity to the debate over whether terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay ought to be transferred to the United States. And that clarity is this: if you want certitude that foreign terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay are not released into the United States, then don’t bring them here in the first place.”
###