Transcripts For CSPAN Guantanamo Bay Prison 20150208

Content of our character. It is an exciting opportunity. It is what unites us. I dont think there is any partisan aspect. They are our best hope for the future. Thank you for the opportunity to be with you today. [applause] people stay in their seats. Thank you so much. [indiscernible] next, the Senate Hearing on guantanamo. After that, the National Prayer breakfast. Then, the munich security conference. On newsmakers, presented of adam smith will discuss authorization for use of military force against isis. Newsmakers, sunday at 10 00 a. M. On thursday, the Defense Department testified before the Senate Armed Services committee about the future of the guantanamo prison. Jack reed is ranking member. This is two hours. Senator mccain, the chairman has asked me to call to order. He is currently at the National Prayer breakfast. That is not finishing as promptly as anticipated. What i am going to do is ask that senator mccains Opening Statement beeps submitted for the record and at this time call on the panel for the testimony. When the testimony is concluded, we will begin around a questioning. Thank you very much. Thank you for letting me testify today on the Detention Center of Guantanamo Bay. Im generate 22nd, 2009 president obama signed executive order, 1392, which ordered to closure of the detention bay in guantanamo, cuba. Through that rigorous effort, a certain number of detainees were approved for transfer, a certain number were designated for continued detention. Since then a periodic review board has begun to review the status of those debt and detainees not eligible for transfer. When the president came into office six years ago, there were 242 detainees at guantanamo. Today, because of the work of the task force, 122 detainees remain. Of these, 54 are eligible for transfer. 10 are being prosecuted or being sent its being sentenced. Secretary hagel has approved the transfer of 44 detainees, a 11 were transferred in 2013. Five of whom have been transferred this year. A great majority of these transfers authorized under section 1015. I want to make a point about the facility this is a National Security imperative. The president and his Security Team believe that the continued operation of the facility weekends weekends wakeneakens National Security. Each show the victims in an orange jumpsuit. 40 retired military leaders wrote this committee and stated, it is hard to overstate how damaging this has been and continues to be. It is a critical nationalist National Security issue. We have been told by our friends and the greatest single action we can take is to close guantanamo. Major general joseph, former head, and 37 other retired leaders. Many other leaders recognize the need to close the facility. In 2010, general betray us stated, i have been on the record for a well over a year saying that it should be close. Figures across the spectrum have made clear that guantanamo poses risk to our National Security and should be closed. Secretary hagel also supports the closure. President bush concluded that the facility was a propaganda tool for our enemies, and a distraction for our allies. I will now briefly address some of the concerns. Detainees have been transferred to nine different countries. Key features of the process that leads to the decision to transfer leads to rigorous information regarding the detainee. The willingness of the country to implement and maintain security measures. Those were completed by professionals across the government. We also have the ic look at that issue. Finally, each decision to transfer has been subject to sex principles. Six principles. Under section 1035 the secretary may approve the transfer if he determines that it is than the National Security interests of the United States and actions have plan to be taken to mitigate the risk. A primary concern that we have regarding the potential transfer is whether the detainee will return to the fight or reengage and acts of terrorism. We take that possibility very seriously. The most recent, public data was released last september. The data is current as of 2014. There is a lag of current reporting. The office of the directory of National Importance categorizes it in three ways. Before obama signed the executive order and the total after january 2, 2009. This is how the data breaks down. The total number is 17. 3 confirmed reengaging. 12. 4 suspected every engaging. Before generate 2009 those transferred in the last administration the numbers show called confirmed 14. 9 suspected. The data after january 2009 shows that 6. 8 percent confirmed. 1. 1 suspected. In other words, the rate of reengagement has been much loads lower for those transfers since 2009. Of the detainees transferred over 90 are neither suspected or confirmed every engaged. This will mitigate the threat. One additional point about the data the confirmed reengage in a vast majority transfer before 2009. 48 are either dead or in custody. We vast majority transfer work in close quarters with our partners. I cannot discuss the specific things in an open session. I can tell you we have the ability to monitor travel. Before a transfer we have detailed specific conversations. In order to many great the risk. Let me talk about the periodic report process. It established to protect the continuing threat to u. S. National security. We will provide your staff with more information about the process and detainee risk assessment. Six date deep detainees have been made eligible for transfer. To of the detainees made eligible have been transferred want to kuwait, what the other two saudi arabia. Efforts are being made to expedite this process. In ourin our view, this legislation would ban most transfers from guantanamo for two years. It reverts to the previous certification regimes the nda a. It results in court order transfers, transfers pursuant to previous agreement. In addition, it adds proposal to limit transfers based on outdated information. We believe that any decisions on transfers should be based on individual assessments. It would effectively block process. The proposed legislation bars transfers for seven years. 47 are eligible for transfer, to have charges referred. A ban on transfers is unnecessary because we are not seeking to transfer any. In light of the recent further deterioration, since the president s moratorium was listed two years ago, in favor of a casebycase analysis, not a single detainee has been transferred to yemen. Those transferred, have been transferred to five other countries. We are seeking to find other countries to help. Our plan to close guantanamo has three elements. First, we continue the process of transferring 54 detainees. Second we will continue the prosecution of the detainees in the military process. Third, we will continue and expedite the process. When we have concluded these three, it is likely that several detainees cannot be prosecuted because they are too dangerous. They will remain in our custody. Ultimately, closing the Detention Center will require to us consider official options including transferring some to a secure facility in the United States. The department of justice has concluded that in the event they are transferred to the u. S. , the authorities provide robust protection of National Security. We understand that such transfers are currently barred. The government is currently prohibited in prosecuting any and United States. The president has consistently opposed these restrictions to curtail the population. You asked us to address what happens when someone is captured on the battlefield. It will be handled on a casebycase basis. When a nation is engaged in hostility, detaining the enemy to keep him off the battlefield is permissible. In some cases, those detained will be transferred. In others, they will be transferred to the United States for federal prosecution. Some cases may be appropriate for detention. The president has made clear we will not add to the population at the Detention Center of Guantanamo Bay. I would note that president bush works towards closing quintana know. He worked hard to achieve that objective. We are closer to that golden many may think. Of the nearly 800 detainees since 2002, a vastly majority have already been transferred including more than 500 detainees transferred by the Previous Administration. The president and the National Security Administration Believe it should be closed. We believe the issue is not whether to close, it is how. Thank you. Let me do something i neglected to do prior to that. Im a little rusty. Secretary mckeon to have a statement . I believe im next. Thank you for the opportunity to appear. I will begin on discussing the support to the transfer process. Specifically, the analysis of the committee provides. Could you adjust your might. Im sorry. Its aimed at the potential transfer of detainees at the detention facility. Two echoes echoed bryans remarks, we take it seriously. It works to keep decisionmakers informed of developments especially with threats to the United States. It is felt regionally in the middle east and north africa it is largely characterized by smaller scale attacks. Accordingly, the analysis on current detainees focuses most intently and closely on the date detainees to threaten u. S. Interests overseas these assessments aimed to provide an understanding of the detainees background, current mindset, or any links the propose a threat to our interest. We also take into account the threat to the United States. Intelligence Committee Products do not state whether the detainee poses a high, medium, or low risk assessment. We believe it is shaped by a number of factors. In addition to this individually focused analysis, they also provide analysis over the destination countries. Now brian also mentioned reengagement. I would like to discuss our role in monitoring possible reengagement. Once a detainee is transferred they are monitored for indications of reengagement. We work closely with liaison partners. A formal and structured process would draw on apartners. Different agencies. We determined whether to designate a former detainee as reengage. When we have a preponderance of information, we can determine if they are involved in in surgeons activities. We can confirm a detainee is suspected of reengaging if there are reports of the individual in such activities. It is important to note, for the purpose of these destination engagement and propaganda activities does not by itself qualify as terrorist activity. It is also the case that some former detainees have been asked added to this list. Just to quickly run through the numbers. 107 17. 3 of the 620 detainees have been confirmed of reengagement in terrorist activities as of 2014. We also assessed 12 were suspected of reengagement. Of the 88 transfers that of occurred since 2009, 6. 8 of those transferred have been confirmed every engagement, with another 1 suspected. The next unclassifiedthe next unclassified report is expected in early march. We will update those numbers and they will reflect the most recent activity. I will expect those numbers to be in line with the trends i have outlined. I will stop there and i look forward to your questions. Thank you. Thank you member read. Thank you having me here today to discuss this topic. I appreciate all of your efforts and focus on this matter. May i also extends my personal thanks to the men and women of the armed forces. I appreciate all of youri look forward to answer your questions. Thank you for your statement. It is distinct and to the point. Succinct and to the point. With the presumption that when the chairman arrives, let me ask some questions to my colleagues. You have all testified that the trendline is going down significantly and secretary, you see this continually in terms of recidivism. That is certainly what were seeing in the data. It is probably too soon to say. We feel good about where we are with those. As you analyze these individual cases are you using it to inform your judgments Going Forward the circumstances that the country goes back to this is a continuing learning experience you feel you are getting more judgments about the usefulness determined in the individual we take a close look at not just the individual being transferred but the assurances that the country agrees to sign up to. To uphold the agreement. They help us with those assessments. There is a check on the assurances given by these various countries so that we are confident that they have the capacity and will to keep up their end of the bargain. We continue to monitor compliance with agreement through various means. Let me go to one of the major points that you means made, specifically, the continued operation of one no gives our adversaries propaganda points with respect to recruitment retention, magnifying their operations. Yes. From the you director of National Intelligence perspective who is asked to weigh in. What underpins all of his decisionmaking in this regard is an analytical judgment in which he has made to closing guantanamo, outweigh the risk incurred by individual detainees. He is made that cancellation. The fact that guantanamo features terrorist propaganda and recruitment. We assess that are terrorist adversaries are trying to recruit. I sold has used it in its english language magazine. The al qaeda affiliate in yemen has used it. This specific issue which we are going to have to face is also concern about the medical facilities. You have a and aging possible population of individuals. We put in language that would allow for the temporary transfer because of the medical condition of an individual to a more appropriate facility on a temporary basis facility, on a basis in the United States. This was not ultimately adopted. But is that something that concerns you, Going Forward, just in it is. I was down to visit. I had a conversation with the commander about this, his concern is is quite expensive. They have to bring in specialist to treat these individuals from the states. And i think we would prefer, if we could, on a shortterm basis, as you indicated in your legislation, bring them to the United States for said Specialist Care as needed. Thank you very much. Senator tillis, please. Thank you for the five taliban members who are released, with a subject to review . They were not sir. Why . I was not in the department at that time, sir. I would have to go back and ask that question. As you know, it was part of an exchange for Sergeant Bergdahl. So the assessment of their risk level didnt go through the processes that were established . No. I didnt want to leave you with that impression. The statute that you have given us requires the secretary still to make the determination prior to any transfer of the national National Security interest in mitigation of the risk. I dont believe you were there at the time, but why do you think that the department decided not to notify congress as per the statutes . Sir perhaps, whats the legal basses basis for that . Well it would be malpractice for me to try to opine on it. My understanding is the department of justice and mr. Preston, general counsel of the department, and turbid the president s powers because of the security risks and safety of Sergeant Bergdahl necessitated proceeding without a 30 day notice. I am happy to give you a more refined legal answer, because im not the person to do that for the department another for ghanistan nationals, i believe back in december, why did the administration not require continued detention of these four. Sir, these individuals had, i believe, been approved for transfer in 2009 by the did that go to the periodic review . No. They were already cleared approved for transfer by the 2009 task force, sir. Another question. I had with respect to the process. I noted that a detainee is entitled to having council which present the bully means the information that a periodic review board uses to determine or to make a determination is available to the council. Is that same Information Available to the public, or to the congress, on the periodic review cases that have gone through . Sir, with the periodic review board, the detainee has a right to a personal representative who is a military officer. He can employee. Private counsel, and if that person is given clearance, we can share certain classified information. Weve tried to have some measure of transparency with the prb progress in releasing information about hearings on the department website. Thank you. Could you elaborate on what they director of National Intelligence i mean, thats what this is all about is it more dangerous for the National Interest to keep guantanamo open because of its use of the recruiting tool, or is there a greater risk of the people being released reengaging . Give me your thinking on that. Is that the question . Sure. Happy to answer that, senator king. Because the director of National Intelligence does have a voice in the process to approve the transfer, he does look at a detainee specific background. That ground before going to go on todd amo, background during the course of detention at guantanamo and anything we know, as i said, about the environment into which he might be transferred. At the same time, though, as i said earlier, he has that underlying analytic judgment that the director of National Intelligence has made, has been very clear about. There is a cost in terms of our National Security that were bearing because of the continued operation of guantanamo, in the context of recruitment and potential radicalization of future terrorist adversaries. There is a cost in terms of our National Security that were so the weighing process that he goes through looks at both factors. That does not mean in all cases he will look at detainees and say, continuing to operate guantanamo creates too big an obstacle for him to oppose a transfer. It is still the case that there are some detainees that he would consider too dangerous to return in a transfer, almost, unless there were extraordinary and range andit disposition overseas. So that calculus that has been made, is not a single cookie cutter calculus. It is an underlying assessment. If this is one of the key questions, it sounds like it is. I would appreciated if you or some of the witnesses could supply to this committee, data supporting evidence of this recruiting factor. Rather than a reference to what somebody said or something, but a real set of materials, written materials, the way its being used, because it teams to me that one of the most important questions we had. And if were going to decide to close the facility or collectively, the United States government is going to decide to close because facility, based upon that, we better know that its real, and not just a perceived threat. Is the administration contemplating further executive order to close the facility beyond what the current process how the current process operates . I am unaware of any contemplation of an additional executive order. Were working on the three lines of effort, transfers, prb process, and im blanking on the third one. But there is no further, you dont know of any other contemplation of additional executive exercise of executive authority to simply close the facility . Im not sure were operating under the president s executive order from 2009. The question that bothers me is, if we decide its ok to close it, there are still dangerous people. And we hold these people in the United States under the law of war . And the second question is, how does the law for analysis work if the war, which is the war in afghanistan, is officially over . Is that undermine the legal analysis . In other words, we could bring some very bad guys here, put them in max security prisons, and then suddenly find that they are subject to heavy us and we dont have enough evidence to convict them. You understand where going . I do sir. On your second question, the detainees are already subject to pay be us. They can file a haven if petition in the d. C. Circuit pursuant to Supreme Court rulings. Others no difference between guantanamo and someplace in the ad states in that legal regard . Thats correct. As to the question of the Legal Authority to continue to hold them, we are relying on the 2001 a you enough. Aumf. If we reach a point where it is repealed by congress or they decided it was no longer sustainable based on the situation in afghanistan, then we would have an authority issued. No question. Thank you. Mr. Chair, thank you and welcome back. Other members that were at an attendance of the breakfast will be coming in. Thank you for the witnesses. Thank you senator reed for proceeding. Ill would my questioning until senator sullivan. Thank you, mr. Chair and thank you, gentlemen. Mr. Rasmussen congratulations on your recent appointment. So i want to follow up on senator kings questions. Theres a little discussion here about guantanamo how it potentially weakens National Security that you made in your testimony, at the same time, i think we would all agree that allowing no imperative terrorist back on the battlefield to engage our troops, citizens, also weakens our National Security. I think that that is one of the big concerns. Back on the certainly this committee and members of congress. And im certain also members of the administration. So from a Broad Perspective of of the remaining gitmo detainees, how many are currently assessed to be higher medium risk . Senator, i dont have those numbers of my fingertips. If youre referring to the assessments that were done by gtmo back in the last decade my impression is, snowing knowing the population of that which was already transferred using those categories, i think we have transferred most of those who are low risk. I dont know the precise data. I mean, of the current remaining detainees, we dont have a handle on who is high or medium risk right now should mark i do not have that my fingertips. As both i and nicholas rescues and explain sir, when we bring forward a case for possible transfer, we look at the totality of the evidence, what the detail he had done on the battlefield, how they behaved at guantanamo, what their current what our assessment is of their intentions, so its not just to look at the assessments that were done. Mr. Secretary, youre not answering question. If you do have the information and submitted. Its important for this committee to know who is low risk, medium risk and high risk. I just dont have the numbers at my fingertips. I think it is safe to say that many are in the medium to high risk category. It would be important for us to know that as we move forward. Yes sir. Senator tellis touched on this issue of the notification of congress. I think a lot of people were disturbed by that. Just by reading it in the paper. Can you, again, if you dont have a here, perhaps with your attorney generals help, provide a detailed legal reasoning of why a very simple statutory requirement for notification of congress on the release of the taliban five is not undertaken . Because i think one of the things that is troubling is there is a lack of trust here. Theres a lack of trust on the numbers. Theres not certainty on what the endgame is. And when a simple request, its the law, one of the things that is a more broad concern with the administration, is the view certain statutes as advisory. Maybe they need to do them maybe they dont. Its is a clear directive from the congress in the law, this is ministration violated. As far as i can tell, there is no good explanation. I read about the many press. They seem to change. It would be very important to get a definitive expiration from this a ministration on why they violated that statute. To me it seems like a clear violation. Can we get that . Certainly. I believe they did a review on the legal issue in the department. And probably the department of justice provided a detailed explanation of our position. I think we have provided it to the committee. If we have not, we will submit it. One other thing. I understand there was an mo you between the taliban five, that they have a my understanding, a oneyear restriction with regard to their activities and movements area after year, are they free to go and do whatever they want, returned back to afghanistan . I think again, thats a concern not only for this committee, but for the mac and people. Youre correct about the one your matter, sir. The agreement between our two governments is classified. We briefed it to your staff. I want to get into that in a closed session, about what happens after one year. Thank you, mr. Chairman. A recent department of justice report noted there are a number of revisions that would render guantanamo detainees to the a u. S. One of the most difficult scenarios involves what happens if the judge orders i release of the detainee because the laws of war no longer permit their detention. In that case, if a detainee cannot be read repeats created repatriated to their home country or third country, the u. S. Could face the need to keep that detainee in the u. S. So where does that individual go . Sir, if we come to that position, which i think were some ways away from that day, we will its a very good question and we will have to plan for that possibility. We dont expect that would happen, if we brought the detainees here ive heard some say, and immigration Detention Center. I think the people want a better answer. If we were to bring them to be United States, i dont think we would roll the dice on losing the authorities to detain them. Additionally, what is your assessment of the risk involved . As we look through this whole process, this is one of those conundrums that we have to have an answer to. Whats your assessment of the risks on that, sir . Im not an immigration lawyer, sir. Im probably not qualified to give you an answer on that. I do know, and i believe the Department Justice report speaks in some Homeland Security department analyzed all of these issues in some detail. We are, of course, currently barred from bringing the detainees to the United States. I understand. But if they do come here thats i was on nature to guantanamo recently, and this is one of the subjects that we talked about, and said, you know, i think before you get all the answers on this, you need an answer on this, or if theyre in the unit u. S. And this happens, what do you do with the person at that point . I understand. If and when we get to that point where we propose an option to bring them to the United States, we will have an answer. I think we need an answer. In terms of other than the taliban five, how many 30 day congressional notifications meeting requirement of the fy 14 and daa has been sent to the committee in the past year . I dont know the number. In all the other cases, the 30 day notice was provided. And theres some concern that the detainees are being transferred its on an assessment from more than four years ago, by the Guantanamo Review Task force. As we look at this, the periodic review board process was created , in part, to really update this. Do you know what has caused the slowness of this . Do you find that to be true, and you know what has caused the slowness of this . I want to separate two things here, sir. If someone has already been cleared by the 2009 task force and we find a place to which we contract to them, and a package is brought to the secretary to make a determination, we have an updated assessment on the individual. Were not relying solely on the 2009 tired task force work. The prb is looking at people who were not previously cleared taking another look at whether we should continue to hold them or they can be approved for transfer. We had it took some time to stand up to the prb process. And its gone a little bit slowly, but were trying to pick up the pace. Classics from that trip, which was a little bit a go, the question that has stuck with me is, what are we going to do with this person . We hope for the best, but we plan for the worst. From that trip,and so i think that is something that has to be answered. And by the way, i think secretary, you chose showed great wisdom and your choice of colleges when youre younger as well. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, all three, for dealing with what i think is a very difficult issue. An issue of great National Importance. I want to go into the questioning, with that understanding. Senator donnelly, i had this conversation with president obama probably three years ago. I was supporting transferring the prisoners from Guantanamo Bay back to illinois in a mac security setting controlled by the military. And we worked through, what would happen . All these people have had a be as hearings, are entitled to heavy as hearings. No one is at guantanamo today without a federal judge finding that the governments evidence is sufficient to hold them as a combatant. So you transfer them back to United States, do you create new legal rights . We had a statute that would govern that, to make sure they just wouldnt walk out the door. We actually went through that process. The problem is, you got to admit that were at war. You got to tell our friends on the left that these are not just common criminals and they will be governed by the law. Its unfortunate we could not close that discussion, because i think it would have been better for all of us. My goal is to keep people in jail that represent a National Security threat to the United States. Common sense would tell us that if youre still in Guantanamo Bay, after all these years youre probably a high risk thats not the rule of law exclamation those people excavation they were already cleared exclamation this country is disgusting summation point i think you may get his wish. I am a military lawyer. I really want to conduct the war within the values of our country. I want to be tough on the enemy but also follow principles that have guided us on well, like the Geneva Convention and treating people under the law for consistently with the requirements of the law of war. But would you agree with me that anybody left in Guantanamo Bay today is probably a higher risk threat . We wouldnt have kept them that long. Common sense tells you, if youre still in jail after alis ears, you had numerous review board, youre probably dangerous in the eyes of the people who say you should still be there. I agree that some of them pose risk. No. No. Im not talking about some risk. Im talking about obvious common sense. Several of these were approved for transfer or six years ago. We just have not found a place to send them. Well, is that, what percentage of the population falls in that category . Is around 50. Ok. What percentage that were cleared six years ago, that you cant find a place to put them . 54. 54 out of how many . 122 remaining. So the rest of them, would you agree that they are high risk . Several of them are under prosecution, so definitely in those cases. Take them off the table right . And the remainder have previously been determined to be held and should be held under law a detention area did and we didnt have a prosecution option. Ok. 50 people who we got no place to send them. The rest of them represent a high risk to the country. As i said, we are taking a look at the process they wouldnt still be there. Are you going to create a new review process that is politically motivated to find a reason to let these guys out or are you going to go with pass judgment. I dont think these guys are getting better. Do you agree that with the Obama Administration we are at the end of hostilities and that at the release of the taliban five . Were not at the end of hostilities in afghanistan. Well, they said the reason we transfer the taliban five is because you traditionally swap prisoners when hostilities are over. Therefore, we get our guy back because the wars over and we released by the big commanders of the taliban. I agree with you, the concept that the end of possible it he justifies the transfer of these five is ridiculous. So i dont know why the admins ration would say that, do you . Well, i agree with you, sir hostilities are not over. Great. Lets go forward as a committee. No one should be transferred because of the concept of the end of hostilities. Second, if you have any deficiency in Legal Authority to hold these people, as you please inform the congress of what you need that you dont have . And i bet you, and a bipartisan fashion, we can provide it to you. And yes. Do you feel like you have a deficiency to take . Not today. Do you feel like you have a deficiency in the near future . In afghanistan, not in the near future. In a couple of years we may. Well the couple of years is in the future. I challenge you to send to us legislation that would deal with the problem thats two years away, because i want to get ahead of the war on terror, not always play catchup. Thank you for your service. Thank you, chairman. And i actually want to return to this point return to the point that i think not only senator graham made that centered donnelly made area there are some of these folks who will never be transferred, never be released, that are clearly a real risk. And at some point, a for going to close guantanamo, we need to do something with them. And so i would suggest to you that if you dont have adequate Statutory Authority to ensure their detention should they be transferred to some sort of a highsecurity facility in the continental United States, i would suggest that you spell out what kind of authority you need and ask this body for that authority, because at some point were going to have to deal with that situation. I want to return to the statistics quickly the data, and make sure i understand those correctly. I have heard repeatedly, again and again, from not only colleagues but in the press of 30 , 33 , recidivism. I want to make sure i understand and that you are very clear about the data. If i understand your testimony since the interagency review process was put into place, that since that time, the recidivism data suggests you reduced that from 33 in the Previous Administration and now 6. 8 , with another 1. 1 potentially suspected. Is that an accurate trend . Is that what your testimony speaks to . Sir, ill let mr. Rest reasons because this, because the data is owned by the Intelligence Committee. Senator, i think the 30 number comes from the two numbers both brian and i cited and are prepared remarks. That is the assessment of the community that, of the 620 detainees, regardless of when who had been transferred from guantanamo, i little over 70 of them had been confirmed by the Intelligence Community of having reengaged in terrorist activities. 17 confirm. Another 12 , a little over 12 fall into these is acted of her engagement category that i mentioned earlier. In aggregate, that would be 30 of the total population of folks. And if you just look at post interagency review if you break out just the number of detainees who have been transferred since the 2009 interagency process in which the director of National Intelligence is played a role, that number is 6. 8 confirmed with 1. 1 or one detainee suspected. Thats an ongoing number. We own and the rest of the congress a march update on that. We very much look forward to that. Obviously any level of recidivism is unacceptable. But that is immense progress. I want to touch on the cost of this facility, again, the fiscal cost. We have spent about 5 billion on this facility since it opened in 2002, on average about 493 million each year for the last five years. And in 2014, the american taxpayer spent more than 3 million per guantanamo detainee. Compare that with about 78,000 that it costs to house a prisoner at colorado super maximum prison. So i would ask either of you given the austere budget environment we are in today, and i hope we do something on this committee about that, and the myriad of very real threats, are we spending those tax dollars in a way that gives us a maximum security return for our investment . Mr. Rasmussen, i would ask your opinion on that as well. Im probably better deferring to my Defense Department colleagues on that, because, again, in terms of operation of the facility and the costs associated, that falls squarely in d. O. D. s budget lane. It goes back to the relative risks that we were talking about before, that senator king brought up. Senator, the numbers sound right. The number i have for fiscal 14 is about 400 million on guantanamo, and the number ive always heard about the cost of one person at super max is around 80,000. No, the president has taken the view that this drains our resources and that we could secure these prisoners for much less. Were not focused primarily on the costs. Were focused more on the National Security. We view that it is a risk to our security to keep guantanamo open. But the cost issue is also there. Thank you. Senator cotton . Mr. Mccain, in early december the members of the Intelligence Committee sent secretary hagel a classified letter about the guantanamo five. I cant discuss the contents of that letter here. But its been almost two months now. Wed like to receive a response to that letter, before proceeding with mr. Carters confirmation. Can you talk to the secretary and see about getting us a prompt response to that letter . Sir, certainly. And i know the answer should be coming shortly. For reasons that are not clear to me, though the letter was dated in early december, i think we only received it in the department about three and a half weeks ago. Okay. Mr. Rasmussen, you said in your Opening Statement that antiamerican incitement or statements does not necessarily equal recidivism or reengagement. Does it violate the memorandum of understandings that we have however, with the receiving countries . I cant speak in this session about the specific understandings we have with our with the partners, countries with whom we have worked to transfer detainees. But one of the key features of any of those agreements is, of course, monitoring ongoing activity by the detainees, which covers a wide range of factors and would certainly include all manner of their activities. My comments in my prepared statement just spoke to kind of a definitional threshold for what would constitute reengagement for the purpose of a threat assessment. We consider antiamerican incitement by islamic terrorists pretty serious business, dont we . Absolutely. Anwar alawlaki would say we consider it very business, wouldnt he . Absolutely. Mr. Mccain, you said earlier, to senator graham, that the United States, the administration is barred from bringing guantanamo detainees to the United States mainland. Its also barred from releasing detainees without 30 days congressional notification. Why should the American People believe that that obligation will be any more respected than the prior notification was last year . Sir, the lack of notification in the bergdahl case has not been repeated. I dont expect it to be repeated. But my point is that all laws are created equal. Theres a law that prohibits detainees from coming to Guantanamo Bay. This administration has a habit of surprising the American People in National Security matters. What assurance can we receive that there will not be a guantanamo detainee on our shores tomorrow morning . Senator, what i can say, as to the 30day notice issue, our lawyers believed we had a valid legal reason for the action we took, and well get you that explanation. On the issue that you are asking, we are focused on transfers and the prb process. Im not aware of any conversations not to follow the current statutory bar. Now i want to explore the socalled risk balance between recidivism of released terrorists and the propaganda value that terrorists get from Guantanamo Bay. How many recidivists are there at Guantanamo Bay right now . Im not sure i follow the question. How many at Guantanamo Bay are engaging in terrorism or antiamerican incitement . They are pretty locked down. I dont think they are because they are detained. Because they only engage in that kind of recidivism overseas. Now lets look at the propaganda value. How many detainees were at Guantanamo Bay on september 11 2001 . Zero. How many were there in october 2000, when terrorists bombed the uss cole . Zero. What about 1998 when they bombed our the facility was not open there. 1979 when iran took over our embassy . 1983 when hezbollah bombed our embassy and Marine Barracks in lebanon . The answer is zero . Correct. Islamic terrorists dont need an excuse to attack the United States. They dont attack us for what we do. They attack us for who we are. It is not a security decision. Is it a political decision based on promises the president made in his campaign. To say it is a security decision based on propaganda value that our enemies get from it is a pretext to justify a political decision. In my opinion, the only problem with Guantanamo Bay is there are too many empties beds and cells there right now. We should be sending more terrorists there to keep this country safe. As far as im concerned, every last one of them can rot in hell. But as long as they dont do that, then they can rot in Guantanamo Bay. Thank you, mr. Chairman. On that happy note [laughter] lets i had really the same feeling that senator cotton had, for a lot of other years. Then i went to guantanamo with some other senators. And i came back changed. And i asked my chairman here and he gave me some insight that he had. And i know everybody is trying to form their own direction and their own thought process on this. I can only tell you what i saw. I would not ask, if your child was in the military, and a guard, in that detail, i would not ask anybodys children to be in that position, guarding in that type of a condition there because im seeing that the abuse that our prisoners have on our guards. I couldnt believe it. And i id like to see a few of them in the United States hardened prison, to see if theyd change their attitude just a little bit. I know we could do a little different job on them here than theyre doing over there. So all ive heard about propaganda, i have to agree with senator cotton on that. I dont think they need an excuse to attack america. To me, that doesnt hold water. What does is, 3 million per detainee and 80,000 to the hardened prisoners we have here. We have nobody escaping. We dont have anyone escaped from america. My understanding, and maybe you all can help me with this, because i have to form my own opinion on where i would be on this if we had to vote. Do you close it . Do you keep it . What do you do with the prisoners, the detainees, what do you do with the ones who are held for crimes and trials and things of this sort . I know theres a lot of legal things that are formulating these decisions. But theres got to be a way to do it to where you dont have them all in a cluster to where they can scheme and talk and plan and plot and then go right back into the fight. So have you all looked at, could we house them here . And do it and feel secured and safe . Because a lot of West Virginians and americans think, out of sight, out of mind. Keep them on the island, in prison, thats fine. But what i saw there, its not an atmosphere that our guards should be in or our military. Used along those lines. People with their talents shouldnt be used along those lines. If someone can comment on that could we do it here . Im sorry. I was at other committee meetings. Can it be done safely . And what do you do with detainees . Right now were paying somebody else to take care of them and a lot of them are going back into the fight. I think thats a problem. If one goes back into the fight, thats one too many, if we could have kept them off the battlefield, engaging any of our endangering any of our soldiers. They are prisoners of war give them the rights of a prisoner of war were going to give you your time to speak, too, honey. Or are they putting them in another prison because the public reports about each of these individuals have been that theyve been released not to other prisons, but to their families. Senator, on your question and the chairmans, many of the agreements we have with foreign governments are classified thats the short answer, sir, on why we cant get in the details. Well they are somewhere in between open release and a prison. The kind of assurances that we generally get are travel restrictions, some kind of monitoring, information sharing from the government on what they are seeing and monitoring the detainees themselves. In terms of the five transferred to qatar, what i can say is none have returneded to the battlefield. They are still in qatar. Theyre under a travel restriction. What i said about i think it may have been before you came in senator, after one year, we have said what happens after one year, wed like to talk to you in a classified setting. Could they be dispersed in maximumsecurity prison . It would be the zone situation in the sense that if they were still on trial. The 9 11 trial will probably go on for quite some time. If they are convicted and sentenced, they would still be in the military system. The short answer is, yes, we can do it here. It would still be a military prison. Asked my time is expired. Thank you very much. Thank you and chairman. My question would be yes or no, has any suspect it or confirmed detainee that has been released from guantanamo been involved in in attack that has killed a United States nato or Coalition Service member . Senator, i do not know the data by heart with those who every engaged. There are over 100. Numeral have to get that answer. I think that is very important to understand if any of these detainees are suspected or confirmed in attacking or killing us, our nato allies, or a Coalition Service member. I am surprised you do not know the answer. It was reported in the Washington Post that one of those allegedly involved in the attack in benghazi what i would like to understand is the 6. 8 the administration is touting they are doing so well, that confirm detainees that have reengaged. Is that number include the taliban and five number that has been reported to have engaged in reengagement . The number you are referring to is the 6. 8 number. It predates any consideration of the reinstatement status. The next report due out it was in early march and we will the in a position then to determine a free engagement has taken place. On may 31, of the 58 transferred, they transferred one of the members of the taliban five that backed the Northern Alliance in 2001, served as chief of staff of army in 2001 and is accused of war crimes. One of the commanders on the ground said it was the first and best news he had heard. He said it was like putting 10,000 more into the battle of the jihad. Now they have the right to live in to lead them. The right lion to lead them. The americans have the right to know if any of the taliban five have reengaged. That is my question i have for the people who have been released in the last month by the administration. I would like to ask you on november 5, 2014, 1 of the detainees was transferred to kuwait. What we know about him publicly is he was arrested in 2002 for being a member of al qaeda, in military trainings, nfl event of the most in were there any conditions put in this condition for release . Was he let go or put into another prison . Senator, there are security of assurances provided with every transfer. I cannot get into the specific of those here. I can do it in closed session. I think the American People have a right to know. Bias is classified . Why should an American People know the conditions under which people are released . Tax in our own system if we really someone from one facility to another why cant we know if they are being held again or if they are where they can post risk to other individuals . My time will go through on all of this, but if i went through again in november for transfers to georgia and some of the background publicly, one was assessed as a likely threat to the United States, one was assessed to be involved in attacks against coalitions what is believed to be affiliated with al qaeda and a high level and one is described as among the top 52 enemy combatants at gitmo who posted the most reengagement risk. I could go on and on about the background. In each of them, i would like to know, where they transferred to other jails where they cannot get back out, or where they transferred back to their families so they can reengage in terrorism . I think we deserve to know from the administration when they released someone i they just releasing them back where it makes it very easy for them to reengage in Terrorism Activity or are they putting them in another prison, has the public reports about each of these individuals is they have been released, not to other prisons but to their families. Many of the agreements we have with foreign governments are classifieds. That is the short answer. We cannot get into the details in this session although weekend brief you on that. They are somewhere between open relief and a prison. The kind of assurances we usually get our travel restrictions, monitoring informationsharing from the government, and monitoring the detainees themselves. As far as the five, what i have to say is none of them have traveled. They are all still in qatar. We have said publicly the restrictions are in place for one year. What happens after one year, we would like to talk to you about in classified session. I know my time is up, but i do not understand why the American People cannot be told the basic question when you are transferring someone who has been previously designated as one of the top enemy combatants posing risks to the United States of america, members of al qaeda, when they are being transferred how do you show the American People they will not reengage . That is basic information the American People need to know. Senator since we are going to mark up legislation on this issue in the next week declassification of that information could the a part of that legislation. The American People need to know the condition under which of out enemies of the United States of america and the conditions and constraints that may or may not be placed on them. Thank you mr. Chairman. The American People knowing more is a help of thing. This is a balancing act question. I take seriously the recidivism. I think, to say the concern about the propaganda of guantanamo is just a political argument the president has cooked up ignore us a lot of information. And an awful lot of opinions by very talented National Security individuals. The cia open Source Center study in january, released in january, says there have been at least 30 occasions since 2010 in which alqaeda and affiliates have referred to gitmo as justification for recruitment and violent jihad. Dni clapper sent us a note to the Intelligence Committee 2013 arguing closing gitmo would quote deny alqaeda leaders to the further their global jihadist narrative and cited the alqaeda magazines in inspire promoting the boston bombing and highlighting the ongoing detention of prisoners of gitmo as a reason to engage in jihad. 42 former generals signed a letter on january 29 to this committee stating the abuses that occurred at guantanamo have made the facility a symbol to the world of the United States that is unstrained by constitutional values. It strikes me that the propaganda value is not something that the president cooked up out of thin air. Its something our Security Professionals are telling us. And theyre telling us loud and clear, so we have to balance a risk. On recidivism let me ask you , this. Federal courts have convicted 556 people on terrorism related charges. From september 1 to december 13. 44 of those cases were tried in my state. Has anyone convicted of a terrorism charge in a federal court in the United States ever escaped . Sir, im not the expert on that but i do believe nobody ever escapes from super max prisons. If we are if wer concerned about recitivism, i would like to know for the record whether anyone convicted of the 556 terrorism convictions since 9 11 that have been done in the federal court system of the United States has anyone ever escaped . Ill submit that one for the record. Let me ask another question. Im told by somebody with more knowledge, the answer is no. I want it in record. I want it answered in writing and i want all Committee Members to have it. With respect to the taliban five, we were briefed in a classified setting about some information. I then saw this information in public. Stated by the secretary of defense in newspapers, he was quoted. But i want to ask this question for the record. Was there any evidence that any member of the taliban five had ever been engaged in violent activity against the United States or any u. S. Personnel when they were imprisoned at guantanamo. Not while they were at guantanamo, no. When they were in prison, was there any evidence that any of the taliban five had been engaged in any activity or planning to target u. S. Or u. S. Personnel . Sir, im told that information on this classified and wed have to talk to you about it in that setting or provide you a classified answer. Im upset about this for the same reason the chairman said we need information. I was told this in a setting that was classified, then i saw secretary hagel talking about it publicly, so im assuming its no longer classified, but i want to submit that question. Let me check that for you sir. I am not aware of the quotation from the secretary. Finally, with an important point for us, were all concerned about the efforts in dialogue with the white house to determine whether that should be revised. I just wanted to underline, the continued league ability to continued legal ability to detain at guantanamo does hinge upon the continuing viability of that aumf. And so, if it were to sunset or be repealed, a legal status of the guantanamo detainees would be at least questionable. Am i correct about this . Thats correct. So, in terms of our own work, its pretty important as we look at that. We need to take into account the effects of retaining the remaining detainees. The last thing i want to on the numbers, i mentioned that 556 people have been tried on terrorism or terrorism related charges in the federal courts of this country since september of 01 and not a single individual convicted has escaped. Am i correct that the military commissions have only conducted eight trials since 01 . That sounds right, but we can confirm that for you. Its been very few. Those who would argue this is something that cannot be dealt with through the article 3 courts of the United States that it withstood the test of time since 1787 are clearly in my view not looking at this data. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here today. This is a very, very tough issue and i would like to commend senator cotton for his passion on this subject. There are a number of members of this committee that have served this nation, as you do. And senator cotton has been a warrior on the ground in iraq. I have been a logistician on the ground in iraq, and all of us face uncertainty when we serve our country. Senator cotton most certainly deserves kudos for serving his nation at a very difficult time and in a very difficult situation when were looking at terrorists. So, his perspective is slightly different than my own but i think we feel the same way that whether it is someone who is kicking in doors and looking for terrorists and facing the threat of the enemy at close range or whether it is somebody that is driving trucks up and down the roads delivering supplies and worrying about ieds that are planted by these terrorists. Drivers, just revving by, doing what they can do to support our warriors, taking out a terrorists. Civilians here in the United States. Al baghdadi, before he was released in iraq, had stated ill see you guys in new york. And you know i do not have a doubt that either al baghdadi or one of his extreme terrorists will find their way back to new york or somewhere in this great country. They have an Amazing Network that reaches all around the globe. And what i do not want to see and all of us should be able to agree on this, that we do not want to see detainees from gitmo being released and returning to the fight. My sentiments are exactly like senator cottons. I could care less. They really should not be out there where they can threaten american lives or our nato allies, their lives, so, i would like to hear from you, generally, the types of activity that our detainees, just so everybody understands, the types of activities, our gitmo detainees were involved in before they were taken to guantanamo. Please explain to me so i know many people will watch this testimony today. They will hear the testimony. I would like to know what types of activities they were engaged in before they were detained. Anybody, please. Senator. Of the detainees remaining at guantanamo, they have been involved in a range of terrorist activities. The worst are the names like Khalid Shaikh mohammed, who planned several attacks including the 9 11 attacks. Thats the trial he is facing at the military commission. The one of the protagonists in the bombing of the u. S. S. Cole is also under trial in the military commission. The terrorist the people who are at guantanamo have engaged in a range of activities from being active on the battlefield to providing support functions to terrorist leadership. It runs the gamut. Nick may have more detail. I think brian has it just right. It runs the gamut from known Senior Leader terrorist figures exercising leadership figures in terrorist organizations. Some of the names he mentioned but also including the full range of individuals who have played a role in alqaeda plotting or in providing support activities or support to the taliban taliban. So, these are individuals who have murdered thousands of americans, been involved with the planning of murdering thousands of americans, service members, whether theyre here on United States soil as with the 9 11 attacks, the u. S. S. Cole, where they killed many of our service members, whether its innocent civilians in syria and iraq. They did not need Guantanamo Bay to be emboldened to do those activities. So i push back on the president and this administration in that they will kill regardless of whether they are at guantanamo or not. They are driven, they are terrorists. They will do that. Do you agree with that . Senator, i agree that terrorists are driven. What i would say about guantanamo in general and the view of the administration is there is certainly a risk to release, and we try to mitigate the risk and i think weve had some success in doing that. But we believe theres a risk in keeping guantanamo open. The military leadership of the country has said that, you have the letter from three dozen former military leaders who think it is a propaganda tool, that inspires recruitment of additional terrorists. I agree with senator cotton. Theres plenty of terrorists out there who dont need guantanamo to attack the United States or u. S. Interests, but we believe it serves as a tool that leads to greater recruitment of terrorist organizations. Well, that is the administrations point of view. I would beg to differ. I think they are going to do what they are going to do regardless of Guantanamo Bay and their imprisonment there. My time is expired. Thank you, gentlemen, very much. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator reed. Three quick questions. First, falling off this discussion of guantanamo as accelerator of terrorist activity or deterrents, mr. Rasmussen, you mentioned in your testimony, guantanamo is consciously used by a host of terrorist organizations for propaganda. Is that a fact . Purely just judging by anecdotal evidence and looking at the material the terrorist organizations put out. We see something in english language, we assess they are trying to reach potential terrorists or extremists here in the United States or western european countries, and we see the issue of guantanamo featured in that propaganda. Senator king asked a good question. We need to draw the line more tightly between anecdotal evidence of the way terrorists use this information and what we can say with more precision about recruitment efforts. But i would say this. The terrorist landscape we face right now is increasingly characterized by actors who are not necessarily affiliated or tied to terrorist hierarchy or leadership. Or leadership. They operate on their own in many cases. In many cases, they radicalize and mobilize themselves for violence on their own, so that particular type of prop, messaging activity that goes on from terrorist organizations uses many, many factors and guantanamo is one of them. Certainly not the only one. Other aspects of u. S. Foreign policy feature that as well. But i just would have to, its indisputable that this material does not further terrorist propaganda. Feature in terrorist propaganda. But we do owe the committee a , better understanding of the direct connection. Thank you. And quickly, mr. Secretary. Theres a discussion of the classification of the arrangement of the countries. Is it fair to say that its the other country that might insist much more on the classification of our own purposes as a cooperation than the United States . Is that a fair judgment . Thats a fair statement, yes, sir. Thank you. And finally, mr. Secretary, the issue, about the status of enemy combatants at the succession of hostilities. That would affect guantanamo and any other place than an individual is being held, if hostilities come to an end legally, than our ability to hold combatants is so, we would have the address this question regardless of whether guantanamo was open and closed. Is that fair . Thats correct. Senator rounds. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator reed hits exactly on the question i was going to ask. My question would be and if youve answered it already ill defer. What happens at the end of hostilities . What is the plan for taking care of the issues revolving that may still be there . Combatants held as enemy belligerants and may have to be released once hostilities cease. What is the plan to take care of the issue . What were working on now, i went through in my Opening Statement, but you were still at the prayer breakfast. To transfer those approved about 50 or so, those will take some time. And we have a periodic review board process that is reexamine reexamining several who were first looked at and determined to be held under law or detention authority. There is some number that we are unlikely to be able to release. At the end of the day as we run through this process. Weve got to look at all options. One would be the possibility of bringing remaining detainees back to the United States. We cant do that now because of the stature bans, so we would have to come to the congress to talk to you about that, repeal that and we were at the end of hostilities and the question of our authority, our ability to hold them was in question, we would, part of that conversation would be what is the authority we need from the congress to continue to hold those people. Can you give us some kind of a time frame as to when you would be making those requests . I cannot give you a time frame right now, no. Thank you. Thats all i have, mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses for being here today. For the record, in 2009, Legal Council of the white house came to my office and met with me and senator graham and said they wanted to close guantanamo. I said, fine, i do, too. Give us a plan. In the intervening years, there has never been a plan forthcoming from the white house and there isnt today. Yemen is descending into chaos. We dont know what to do with the present population. How many are capability. What do we want to do with the remaining 70. How many of the remaining detainees with assessed. We hire medium risk, we couldnt be told that today. Where would we send the detainees governed by state sponsors of terrorism or currently beset by instability or insurgency of groups like al qaeda or isil. Too dangerous to release, but incapable of prosecution. We have no plan for that. The administration, we hope will seek additional authorities to detain elsewhere such as the United States. And we dont know how to ensure there will not be a Court Marshall release of a dangerous terrorist that is in longterm detention in the United States which is the reason we need legislation. So, here we are, six years into the Obama Administration and we still havent complied with requirements of the ndaa. Nor do we have a concrete plan as to how to address the issues that i just described. Thats why six years later, we are having this hearing. And i again, urge the administration who just responded to senator rounds, you dont know when youre going to come forth with a proposal. We need a proposal and in its absence over six years, congress has acted. And we will continue to act. Unless we can work in close coordination with the administration to come up with a plan and one of those plans that is for us to make sure that these individuals who are judged too dangerous to return, are not allowed to. And accommodation is made for the continued incarceration of those individuals. I thank the witnesses for being here today. And senator ayotte, id like to make a final comment. Mr. Chairman, with permission, can i have a follow up questions . I dont know if anyone else is but im willing to direct that. I know you have to go. Senator manchin . Thank you. As we look at the taliban five i think the point made clearly they were top commanders in the taliban. I read you the quote about what one of the commanders on the ground said in helmand province. Like pouring 10,000 jihadists back into the fight, so you cant say they werent directly involved because they themselves only issued the commands to kill americans and didnt kill the americans themselves, the leaders are often more important than the foot soldiers asked to carry this out, so i dont understand the argument made with all respect from my college colleague in west virginia. These were top taliban leaders who themselves made many orders that were involved in killing us and our allies in afghanistan. I would like to ask admiral myers, we had general mat is general mattis, before the committee the other day, im sure you know the general. And one thing he said when he talked about our detention policy and he said that he did not understand, he was perplexed by our lack of detention policy. And in fact, when i asked him about it, he said that, maam first and foremost, i believe this, we go into a fight, weve not seen certain of ourselves not to hold prisoners. The people weve taken in the fight, do we take on the troops on p. O. W. Camps in texas, let them go back and get another shot in normandy . If an enemy wants to fight or be a truck driver, we didnt say to his radio operators could he be released because he didnt have a significant role. If you sign up with the enemy, they should know, were coming after you. If the president and commander in chief sends us out, youll be prisoner until the war is over. This is pretty much war fighting or not war fighting 3010 or advanced war. This is kind of 101, maam. My biggest concern, if our troops find they are taking someone prisoner, a second time, they will just and they have just scraped one of their buddies off the pavement and zipped him into a bag, the potential for maintaining the imperative we expect of our armed forces is going to be undercut if in fact the integrity does not take these people off the battlefield permanently if taken prisoner. In other words, they will take things into their own hands and under the pressures of warfare. Admiral, do you share general madisons concerns . We captured someone on the battlefield, then our men and women in uniform encounter them again after having seen their brothers and sisters in arms killed by this enemy, dont you think thats real concern and our men and women in uniform should never been forced to confront someone we had previously captured . Senator i do have the at respect for general mattis. I do not believe the moral of the men and women on the combat forces field have my impact whether its the same person the first, second time. I do not believe it is impacting the moral as far as those engaging in combat operations. Okay, but if we captured someone in battle, do you think our men and women in uniform should ever have to confront them again . Yes or no. We had them. We had them captured incarcerated. We released them. Do you believe they should ever have to confront them again . I do not believe anyone should have to confront them. However, as you have seen through history, thats not always the case and people have reentered the battlefield through the history of time. Well, theyre going to reenter the battlefield when theyre being transferred to thirdparty countries where theyre not even being incarcerated again and where there are few conditions on their confinement if any. I think this is something that is atrocious that in of our allies or anyone working with us should ever be force edd the problems we face here. The other question i would like to ask, if we get the head of al quaeda or or baghdadi, the head of isis, where, what will we do with them, where will we put them . I understand what my colleague from virginia said about article 3 courts. Will they be told they have a right to remain silent, miran diazed . Senator ayotte, our policy, if we detain new people on the battlefield is to examine them and follow a casebycase basis depending on all the circumstances. We would certainly interrogate them. If we had an article 3 case that we could build against them, we would pursue that. So, i guess where, where, where would you put al baghdadi . Do you know the answer . Do you know . In the first instance, we would interrogate them where . In sight, in c2, where we pick them up. After that. Or we could do it in another place. Weve done it with mr. Warsami on a u. S. Ship. So, a ship. And you can only keep someone on a ship for so long because its temporary. When we get the leaders of these terrorist groups, this is the problem ive been asking since i got in this is that the and ive been asking top levels of this administration for years. If we catch the head of alqaeda tomorrow, what do we do with them . And do you know what ive heard . Time and again. Were working on our detention policy, well get back to you. Its been years. And what worries me as we sit here to the chairmans point, so many questions remain unanswered, including having baghdadi or zawahari on the ship is not long enough to interrogate them to find out what they know about alqaeda, isis, to protect americans and there seems to be no plan for that. Senator, if we were to get one of these people you mentioned and we could build an article iii case, we would ultimately bring them to the United States in new york or virginia where these kinds of cases are normally prosecuted. If not, we would look at whether we could prosecute them through the military commissions process. We would certainly interrogate them for a time. Except you know of course once they go into an article 3 court, theyre entitled to rights, to a speedy trial, so we arent going to get a chance. Senator we would do the interrogation at the front end up with an interrogation team. And then if there was an option for federal Court Prosecution we would bring in a separate fbi team that had not an privy to the priority military or ic investigation to then build the case, so it would be a separate interrogation. We had them on ships because this administration is so adverse to putting anyone in guantanamo, theyd rather hold someone whos a terrorist on a temporary basis on a ship rather than make sure that we can have the opportunity for a lengthy interrogation. As you know, sometimes, it takes a long time to gather all the information that someone like the head of alqaeda or isis would know. Please answer. Yes. Senator. I dont think there has been any pressure on the intelligence professionals who do these interrogations to speed it up. And i believe although i would double check this for the record even after we went into the federal court system, mr. Warsami gave us plenty of information. Federal prosecutors have a lot of tools in encouraging cooperation, so, we are not without tools to get the proper information. The senators time really has expired. [laughter] senator sessions, and if youll close it down. Thank you. Well, thank you for those questions. It goes to what i believe we need to think about here. Mr. Rasmussen, was it al libi that was captured by a Commando Team in libya and taken to a ship . Thats correct. And wasnt that a high risk thing for americans soldiers . And they were sent in to capture him alive so that he could be interrogated . Because i believe the New York Times referred to him as the motherload of intelligence possibilities since he was involved all the way back to the towers activities of al qaeda. I defer to my pentagon colleagues. We assessed from intelligence perspectives that a figure like al libi would have tremendous knowledge. Thank you. I think thats why we put our people at risk to capture him. Mr. Mckeon. Isnt it true and ill just try to be brief and well wrap up. Isnt it true that a person connected with alqaeda, a person connected with isil and other terrorists, ill just say those, too. If captured, they qualify as prisoners of war . If they meet the standard for law or detention aurnd the muf and laws of war, yes, sir. And certainly, mr. Al libi would have qualified as that would issue authorization against alqaeda. Sir, i would say on the case of mr. Al libi, there is a preference to capture for the intelligence gain. But the judgment is made primarily by our military colleagues, whether that is feasible. Just trying to wrap up. I understand, sir. I just want to give you the whole picture. We all know that. So, the question, so, under the laws of war, a person whos unlawful, who is a prisoner of war, can be detained until the conflict is over on the general principles of war. Technically, sir, there are unlawful enemy combatants are not considered pows. They could be both, could they not . And see, i dont know why there would be any difficulty in having them qualify as both. Sir, this is where im getting out of my lane with the legal question. I ask somebody from our general counsels office. Generally, we dont consider them p. O. W. S. You also dont consider them as a difference between civilian prosecution and military detention and military commission trials either. In which case, you are dead wrong. If theyre taken for military trial, and testimony, if they can be prosecuted in an article 3 civilian court, they will be. Is that the policy were now operating under . What is the same is that all options are on the table and we would look at prosecution in both article 3 court or military commissions. But if we can do it in the article 3 process, i wouldnt say theres a preference. But we have a good ability to do that. You almost repeated what you said before, which is if we can prosecute them in article 3 court today, we will. Under considerable success and a lot faster pace than military commissions. If im prosecuting in federal court. Yes, i am aware of that server. I am aware of that, sir. Senator ayotte is correct. If brought in federal civilian court, they are immediately pointed a lawyer. If they or allies or conspirators have money, they can hire their own lawyer. Isnt that correct . Thats correct. And before they can be asked any questions, they are give n their miranda rights and told not to answer questions. Once they are in that system. But weve done the interrogations with our ic and military professionals before we put them into that system. They are not mirandaized. And if they have a lawyer the lawyer is going to tell them not to cooperate unless he tells them to for some reason. Isnt that correct . Thats what good lawyers do dont talk to the police until you and i talk and i approve of it . Thats what goes on in the real world. Then, the person charged in civilian court has a right to demand a speedy trial. He has a right to demand discovery of the governments case. He has a right to documents that could be relevant to his case. And he can ask for information that frequently in my experience, implicated the issues of National Security and intelligence and how its gathered and that kind of thing. Im sure mr. Al libi is going to demand information about how he was captured and how you had information about him. Hes deceased, sir. He was taken from the ship after how many days . I dont know how long he was i dont know how long he was on the ship. Mr. Rasmussen . It was a small number of days. But driven by his rapidly deteriorating Health Status and he could have been taken to any doctor. Any doctor could have been flown to guantanamo to treat him. But instead, when he was taken to a doctor in maryland as i recall, he didnt have to be put in civilian court. He could still be in military custody. So, if the person is taken to military custody and treated as an unlawful combatant or as a prisoner of war, they could be detained and interviewed over a period of months. And isnt it true that a person held in that condition is not entitled to a lawyer . I understand that. If you move to a trial and actually put them in a status of being prosecuted for unlawful acts against laws of war, then they do have to have an attorney. But you can hold them for months, could you not, and gradually build up a relationship with them and attempt to obtain more information over time . Thats correct. But thats not precluded in the criminal system. And as you know, as a prosecutor, sir, the federal prosecutors have a lot of powers to encourage cooperation. They dont have any more powers than the military process has. Thats just a myth you guys have been talking about. All the powers you have is a plea bargaining. They can be plea bargaining military commissions, too. And if you dont know that, ill tell you that. So, to me ill just wrap up. The vote is ongoing. There is absolutely no way that you can contend over a number of cases, as a matter of policy its better for the National Security of the United States that people be promptly taken to civilian court to be tried in civilian court rather than be held in military commissions and tried at our will. And as i understand it, if even after being detained in military detention over a period of a year or more, they could still be sent to civilian court for trial. But i dont think we want to try them in military court. But i would think we want to try them in military court. No, sir. I think we look at all options. In the last number of years how many have been sent for trial in military commission . Well, we have military commissions ongoing at guantanamo. And what i would say in terms of under this president , and in the recent months, years, people have been captured. Have any been sent to trial there . We have not added to the population at Guantanamo Bay. Thats correct. What i would say, sir, in terms of the efficacy of the two systems, because the military Commission System is essentially new because of the new statutory framework, these cases are dragging on, whereas in the civilian court system, were getting convictions and putting these people in prison fairly quickly. Well, they can be done that way in military commissions. The problems will be worked out. The judge is taking everything in the first impressions. Im sure they take more time. But had we been moving these cases forward for a long time, those issues would have been decided by now. And they have different issues. So ill wrap up. My time is up. I ju