Mr. President, we in this country have the highest standards of conduct in our legal system, and our military has the highest standards of behavior as they deal with prisoners with whom they come in contact.
Have problems occurred? Yes, they have. Has that occurred in every war we have ever been involved in, that any nation has ever been involved in? Unfortunately so. But I want to take a few minutes now to express my deep feeling that we do not have a program of systematic abuse of prisoners going on by our U.S. military; that they are maintaining the discipline of our troops; and that they are, day after day, subjecting themselves to personal risk--not firing randomly or rapidly but hesitating to make sure innocents are not injured, and have complied with the most extensive set of requirements dealing with prisoners that any nation and army has ever had in the history of the world. Our military has taken disciplinary action time and time and time again if anybody violates those standards.
We should all remember that event that made a good bit of news when a fine Army colonel was in a combat area taking fire and captured an enemy, and to save the lives of his troops, as his soldiers later testified, he fired a gun beside the head of a captured prisoner in order to frighten him and see if he would provide information that might be of value in saving the lives of the American soldiers he commanded. He was kicked out of the Army for it. The news media did not discover this occurrence. The military did and acted upon it.
We all heard about Abu Ghraib, and the sick and unacceptable behavior that went on in that prison. But I remember distinctly that within one day of the information being brought to the commanders of our soldiers in Iraq, an investigation was commenced. Within 3 days, they had made a public announcement to the world that there had been allegations of abuse in Abu Ghraib and that an investigation was ongoing. And it was months--2 or 3 months--later that these pictures came out.
Why do I say that? I say that because the military took the allegations seriously from the beginning. They were not reacting to the release of pictures that embarrassed them. Rather, they immediately initiated the investigation about what happened on this midnight shift by these soldiers who lost discipline in Abu Ghraib and abused prisoners in a way that is unacceptable to us. Those guards, have all been tried and convicted. The Wall Street Journal, just a couple of days ago, published an op-ed entitled ``The `Torture Narrative' Unravels.'' It noted that the trial and conviction of PFC Lynndie England, who was sentenced as the ``leash girl'' for her activities there, ``was relegated to the innards of newspapers.'' That did not make any big news--the Army's professional, proper response to a lack of discipline. The op-ed goes on to note that ``by one of the greatest leaps of logic ever seriously entertained in our national discourse, those memos''--that were written by the Department of Justice in analyzing what the President's proper powers were with regard to the detaining of enemy soldiers, who are not lawful combatants--that it was ``one of the greatest leaps of logic ever seriously entertained in our national discourse'' to say that memos as part of a discussion in the Department of Justice of the United States had anything to do with those soldiers in Iraq carrying out that abuse.
But that is what was alleged. It was during a campaign season, I understand, and it resulted in calls for the resignation of Secretary Rumsfeld and, I guess, to call for the removal of the President of the United States before the election.
We had one Senator, whose name is known all over the world, say: ``Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management, U.S. management.'' I submit that was a slander on our troops and our soldiers who are in harm's way because we sent them there. We asked them to go there to defend the legitimate national interests of our country. We put them at risk, and when we say things about them that are not true, to suggest to the world that we have systemic abuse in our military. Those charges place them at greater risk. It makes it harder for us to negotiate peace treaties with people who are suspicious of us. They believe these things. When we have Members of the House and the Senate and political leaders in our country making irresponsible and unfounded charges against the military, that they are systematically abusing prisoners, it is wrong. It ought to stop, and I feel strongly about that.
Oh, we remember those comments, when all the pictures of the abuses were leaked and were made available. They said higher-ups were involved, it went all the way to the Secretary of Defense, and that these people were using interrogation techniques according to some memo written somewhere, and that it was all part of poor leadership and mismanagement, and our military discipline was not being maintained. Remember those comments? It could not be just the lower-ranking soldiers; ``why don't you prosecute the higher ups?'' We heard Senators saying that time and again.
It just was not so. This is what the Wall Street Journal article said. They quote the judge when PFC Lynndie England was before the court. The judge asked her this: ``You feel that by doing these things you were setting conditions for interrogations?''
Remember that allegation, that the abuses of these prisoners were carried out to set them up, to prime them to be interrogated by the Army interrogators or other interrogators, and that this was part of a systemic plan to soften up the prisoners so they could be interrogated? So the judge asked her under oath--she could use this as a defense:
You feel that by doing these things you were setting conditions for interrogations?
Her answer:
No, sir:
So the judge responded:
So this was just a way to embarrass them?
Referring to the prisoners.
And she replied:
Yes, sir.
Or consider the testimony of SP Jeremy C. Sivits. He pled guilty, too, as I recall. This is what Sivits said about their behavior in that prison:
Our command would have slammed us. They believe in doing the right thing. If they saw what was going on, there would be hell to pay.
I will say right now, every one of these Senators who has been complaining that this misbehavior in the prison was a direct result of some sort of approved interrogation techniques by the Secretary of Defense or the President or the Department of Justice, and they were overruling JAG officers somewhere in doing these things, is not so.
I was a prosecutor for quite a long time. I am telling you, when you have somebody being prosecuted and you are accusing them of a crime--I know the chairman has been a prosecutor--and they have an excuse or defense, don't they say it? They say: It wasn't my fault; they told me to do it; I was following orders. These people did not say that. They took their medicine, they were tried and convicted or pled guilty, and many are serving a very long sentence in jail for that misbehavior.
It embarrassed the soldiers. I had soldiers tell me: This is an embarrassment to me. We worked our hearts out to make Iraq a better place, and this was an embarrassment to us. It undermined our ability to do our job. They were angry with these people who misbehaved. They were glad to see them prosecuted. It galls me that we have people suggesting this was the policy of our Army. It is not correct.
We had the complaints about Guantanamo Bay, that there were systematic abuses going on down there. By the way, we have had over 25 hearings in this Senate and in the House dealing with prisoner abuse. We have had more hearings on this issue than we have had on how to win the war. In addition to that, there have been 10 major reviews, assessments, inspections, and investigations. I mean major reviews. We had those generals and admirals who conducted the reviews before our committees. We interviewed them, and we made them explain their reports. Mr. President, 16,000 pages of documents have been delivered to the Congress, and 1,700 different interviews were conducted. Detentions, operations, enhancement, oversight training--all those issues were brought up. There are 390 criminal investigations completed or ongoing.
People who are responsible for misbehavior are being held to account. If I thought our military was not responding well, I would be very concerned. I have seen law officers involved with a bad criminal, and that person runs and they chase him and have to wrestle him down. They are so pumped up sometimes they do more to that person they have apprehended than they should. Maybe they beat them. You have to contain the felon, but sometimes you go too far. I have seen abuse cases filed against them. It breaks your heart sometimes because you know the police officers lost control in tough conditions and went too far, but they have to be disciplined because we do not allow that in our country.
The same is true for our soldiers. It is easy for us to talk about what it is like being out in combat, having your life at risk. Some of us might lose some of our discipline, too. We don't excuse it. We understand it.
The activities at Guantanamo have been proven to involve only two or three incidents that have been indefensible, and action has been taken concerning those. Also, we have had tremendous evidence of how good the conditions are there, how well they are being fed, their full rights to conduct their religious expression openly and freely, and the other things that have gone on.
Now we have a letter pop up from a Captain Fishback who has made allegations concerning the 82nd Airborne. I don't know the full details of it. I will quote a small portion. We heard all these complaints that say that he has submitted proof of systemic abuses in the prisons. This is a New York Times article, and the New York Times has made a full-time effort to try to root out and expose and publicize any misbehavior that has occurred there. They have gone too far, sometimes, in my opinion. But this is what the New York Times says:
Captain Fishback said he had seen at least one interrogation where prisoners were being abused.
I don't know what ``abused'' means. I am a former prosecutor. What does ``abused'' mean? Did they shake him? Did they respond to being spit on by prisoners, as many of our guards have been? Did they injure him in some way? I think if they were beaten, he would have said they were beaten. He didn't say that. He used a far more general term, that they were ``abused.'' Then he goes on to say that he was told about other ill-treatment of detainees by his sergeant. ``Ill-treatment,'' what is that? He didn't say they were beaten, shot, killed, wounded, or tortured.
An investigation is being undertaken of these allegations. It is odd, though, when asked to name the sergeants and the people who conducted the activity so they could follow up and investigate and make sure people who did wrong were disciplined, Captain Fishback refused to disclose the names of the sergeants, one who left the Army and the other who has been reassigned because he did not want to reveal his identity. It is hard for the Army to investigate if the guy making the complaint, telling Human Rights Watch and the New York Times all these points, will not tell the Army what actually occurred.
I am dubious, for complex technical reasons, of the amendment that has been offered today and which we will vote on later tonight because I am not sure it makes good legal sense to have a law that is a moving law, it seems to me, that complies with the Army regulations. Army regulation is going to change, and you have a law and the law is going to change while the regulation changes? A statute is supposed to be permanent. As a lawyer, I am troubled by that. I don't think this is a necessary action. I don't intend to vote for the amendment for that reason and a number of other complex reasons.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona has asked that I apologize for disparaging Captain Fishback in my earlier remarks. I do not believe I did so in any way. The Captain has a distinguished record in the military. Nobody questions that.
I did note, however, that his allegations contained in the New York Times article said that he had:
..... seen at least one interrogation where prisoners were being abused and was told about other ill treatment of detainees by his sergeants.
In my statement I simply raised the question of what ``abuse'' meant precisely, and whether, by implication, if this was a basis for a charge, as the newspapers were making and others were, that there was systematic abuse of prisoners--which I do not believe to be the case.
I did note that, when asked to name the individual sergeants who admitted they had been misbehaving or that bad activities had occurred, he refused to give those names.
If something is in error about that--I simply quoted from the New York Times--I would be pleased to apologize. But I think those in this Senate who have accused the up-and-down members of the chain of command of the U.S. Army, the U.S. Marines, and Department of Defense of promoting policies to abuse prisoners, they ought to think about whether they should apologize. I believe that accusation is false.
I thank the chairman and I yield the floor.
