Video: Congressman Murphy Discusses Legislation on the Treatment of Detainees in Battle. (5/22/08)

Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment from the great State of New Jersey. I rise because this debate is personal to me.

Madam Chairman, as a paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne Division, I saw American heroes at their finest, gaining vital intelligence the right way. We have all seen images of what happens when young soldiers are left without clear leadership at the top. Simply put, the treatment of detainees is a strategic imperative to every serv ice member wearing the uniform and every American we took an oath to support and protect.

In the first Gulf War, over 100,000 Iraqi soldiers surrendered to American forces because they knew that they would be treated humanely by the American forces. Thousands who did not hide behind street corners with RPGs or IEDs.

The treatment of detainees is what set America apart as a global leader, and it is how we begin to restore the reputation squandered by President Bush and the tragedy of Abu Ghraib.

Madam Chairman, there is nobody in this chamber who supports the vigorous interrogation of suspected terrorists more than me, but it must be done the way that reflects the greatness of America and in a way that protects our fighting men and women. Madam Chairman, this amendment helps do just that.

One of my heroes, General Colin Powell, once said: The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.

Will this amendment fix all our problems? Of course not. But it certainly is a start. I urge my colleagues to vote for the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. HUNTER. I am going to yield to Mr. Thornberry, but first let me just say this. I respect the gentleman who just made the statement who has been in Iraq. But my son was in Iraq, also, and on two missions, two tours, and Afghanistan. And one important fact that I think comes out when you talk to folks who have been there is the exigency of the battlefield. That is the need to do things quickly, to be creative, to be able to move quickly to save the lives of your comrades and to carry out your mission.

Now, let's think about this. You have to videotape interrogations. What happens if you have got people coming in, moving in a pincer movement against a particular area, maybe some buildings, maybe you have got some machine gun fire, and you have been hitting IEDs, and you capture somebody and you have got people in movement. And you have to bring up then the video cameras to interrogate before you can have a successful interrogation. And what if you don't have video cameras? You are going to have people who are deterred from being able to do that because they are going to be worried that somehow they are going to be found in violation of the rules.

Now, we have got a letter here from the Under Secretary of Defense who says that the Defense Department very strongly opposes this requirement to video record all intelligence interrogations. They say: This requirement runs contrary to sound Defense Department policy, which relies upon careful selection and empowerment of the chain of command to execute the mission. Currently, commanders video record interrogations only after determining that the environment is conducive and the recordings will add value to the mission.

I might add that if you have interrogations, especially if you have got special operators who are out among the population and you lose one of the recordings, then you expose them to enormous risk.

So the idea of making this not discretionary and mandating it I think doesn't make a lot of sense.

Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. HUNTER. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman, and then I will yield to Mr. Thornberry.

Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Madam Chairman, I have great respect for the gentleman from California, and that he is also a paratrooper. But, Madam Chairman, I would suggest that those were my same concerns. In that letter we address those concerns that the Under Secretary said; that in forward operating bases in the environment, there is no mandate in this bill that would require them to videotape the interrogations. It is only at the strategic level in theater, only where they go.

In my case in al Rasheed, Baghdad in 2002, 2004, Madam Chairman, we would interrogate them at a forward operating base, then we would bring them up to the Baghdad airport, then they would go to somewhere else. It would only be at that higher level, not at the forward operating base. And we put that language in this bill to address those exact concerns.

So although I respect greatly the service and the commitment of the gentleman from California and his concerns, those concerns were addressed in this bill. And that is why I support our amendment.