ask him how he felt about the impact of the moussaoui trial on their community. so i think the suggestion that somehow it's a good solution to bring these terrorists to the united states and to mainstream them into the u.s. criminal justice system is simply misplaced. and if they are convicted, we don't have a good place for them. everybody cited the supermax facility. well, there's no room there. they're quite full. we have the perfect place for these detainees fob them to be detained and for them to be tried and ultimate decisions made. i share the view of the senator from illinois that the previous administration did not engage in those military try biewnals as rapid -- tribunals as rapidly as we all would like. they had lawsuits and other things that i would argue would slow them down. they're in the right place to be

incarcerated and the right place to have their cases disposed of. i know my friend from arizona wants to address this or another issue and so i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i will speak briefly and yield to the senator from arizona and be happy if he would like to ask a question or whatever and maintain a dialogue here. i will make this very brief. i have confidence in the courts of america. if i had to pick one place on earth to have a trial and to be sure it would be a fair trial with a fair outcome, it would be right here in the united states. maybe i've gone too far. maybe i'm showing my patriotism here, whatever it is. but i believe that. if you say to me we captured a terrorist somewhere in the world where would you like to have them tried? it would be right here. i believe in our system of justice. i believe in the integrity of our judiciary. i believe in our department of justice prosecutors. i believe in our defense system, our jury system, and i believe we have the capacity and

resources to try someone fairly, better than any place in the world. the senator from kentucky may not agree with that conclusion. he obviously thinks there is too much danger to a trial of a terrorist in the united states. how then does he explain 355 convicted terrorists now sitting in american prisons tried in our courts, sent to our prisons, safely incarcerated for years? that is proof positive that this system works. the senator from kentucky, the republican leader, is afraid. he's not only afraid of terrorism, and we all should be. we suffered grievesly on 9/11. but he's afraid our constitution is not strong enough to deal with that threat. he's afraid that the guarantees an rights under our constitution may go too far when it comes to keeping america safe. he is afraid of using our court system for fear that it will make us less safe, that it would be dangerous. he is afraid that the values that we've stood for under the

geneva convention and other agreements over the years may not be applicable to this situation. i disi adegree -- disagree. i have faith in this country and the constitution. and i believe that mr. ghailani will get a fairer trial in the united states than any place on earth. if he is found guilty of being come police knit the killing of over 200 innocent people and innocent americans, that he will pay the price he should pay. he will be incarcerated safely. this notion that we've run out of supermax beds, and that's the end of the story. the presiding officer, this is his home state of colorado where the florence facility is located, i would say to the senator from kentucky, that may be the supermax facility at the federal level, but there are other supermax facility that's can safely incarcerate convicted terrorists or serial murders, whomever. if there is one thing that

america knows how to do, we know how to incarcerate people. we do it more than any other nation on earth. we do it safely. the notion that there is only one place, guantanamo, where these detainees can be safely held, i think defies logic and human experience. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: thank you, mr. president. first of all i was going to interrupt and ask a question. but i simply confirmed with senator mcconnell, and i will state and the record can reflect the fact, i believe that senator mcconnell asked the question of where he would be released in he were acquitted. i don't believe that he asserted that he would be released into the united states. i just wanted to clear that up. obviously we can check the transcript and determine it. i think that was his intent because of the question that robert gibbs had posed. that is my understanding of it. we can resolve that. i would like to say a couple of other things.

first of all, i think it is important to have this debate. the senate had a debate some weeks ago and it is true that 90 senators voted against funding a -- a program to close the prison at guantanamo bay. and six senators voted in favor of moving forward with that. i appreciate the senator from illinois starchily defending the lonely -- starchily defending the -- staunchl defending the lonely six of but they also reflect the american opinion, according to a gallup poll, that the u.s. is against closing the guantanamo prison by three to one and they don't want the prisoners released in the united states. both sides have engaged in a little bit of rhetoric here. i would respectfully request my colleague from illinois to go

over what he said and perhaps come back tomorrow and think about rephrasing it. i don't think it is fair to characterize the position of the senator from kentucky of being fearful of trying people in the united states. fearful, for example, that terrorists -- fear -- afraid of giving terrorists rights and so on. i don't think that's the issue. i think the issue here is the question of whether or not as a general rule it is better to keep prisoners in guantanamo prison than to put them somewhere else. i, for one, don't fear trying some of these people who are appropriately charged and tried in federal court in the united states. but i would also say it is loaded with problems and headaches. and i think that my colleague from illinois would have to acknowledge that the trials that have occurred here have produced some real problems. these are really hard cases to try in the united states. you start with the proposition

that they're huge -- there are huge security concerns. it can be done. there will be huge security concerns with this alleged terrorist from tanzania, but it will cost a lot of money in the place where he is tried. and it will pose very difficult questions for the judge, for the people within the courtroom, and the parties to the -- the lawyers in the case, evidentiary questions and other questions that are illustrated by the case of moussaoui who was tried in alexandria. and we can all acknowledge that the government would say that was a huge problem for them. because it was difficult to use evidence in the case that had been acquired through confidential or classified methods and the case was ping-ponged between the district court and the court of appeals. it was a difficult, hard thing to do. and then there are the situations where cases have been tried in american courts an classified information has

inadvertently and in some cases not inadvertently been released, gotten into the hands of terrorists. let me just cite a few of these. not to make the case that it's impossible or a terrible idea, but also to refute the notion that it's a piece of cake. it's not. it's really hard and if you can avoid doing this, i think the better practice would be to try to do so. but on an occasional basis when you have a good federal charge, you've got the evidence that can back it up and you think you can get a conviction, there's nothing wrong in those few selected cases with doing it. but you can't say that all 240 of the terrorists at guantanamo qualify for that. very few of them do as the president said in his remarks. but let me note some of these cases, the famous case of ramzi yousef. here is a case by michael mukasey, the former attorney general and i quote -- "-- this is quotation from "the wall street journal".

the mastermind of the world trade center bombing and apparently testimony in a public courtroom about delivery of a cellphone battery was enough to tip-off terrorists still at-large that one of their communication links had been compromised. that link which had been in fact monitored by the government and provided enormously valuable intelligence was immediately shut down and further information lost. i'm not going to read the entire quotations here, but just some headlines. i mentioned the head line of gla moussaoui where sensitive material was leaked. here is the headline from a cnbc story, the said that, whoops, we gave moussaoui some downlts he should -- documents that he shouldn't have had. documents that government said should be classified. the east africa east embassy bombing trials which occurred

back -- this was after 2001 in september 26th is the "star ledger" story. the cost of disclosing information became clear after the trials of bin laden associates after the 1998 bombings. some indicated that the national security agency had intercepted cellphone conversations. shortly thereafter bin laden's organizations stopped using cell phones to discuss sensitive detail u.s. sources said there is another story about the same thing with the headline in "the new york times". there's another quotation about the trial of the blind sheik, a story we're all familiar with, michael mukasey, the former attorney general said this from "the wall street journal", in the course of prosecuting be a dell -- to turn over a list of un-- unindicted co-response

spirittors, within 10 days that reached bin laden. i will submit this for the record. the only point i'm making sheer that while it is possible to try these people in federal court, it is very difficult, and frequently results -- results in the disclosure of information that we don't want disclosed and i think it would be far better, if we can, to try these people in military commissions. the president has now said he will go forward with military commissions modified to some extent, and i think that that's a good thing for the trial of those who are suitable for that action. the president also noted, of course, that there are going to be a lot of these terrorists that cannot be tried. but are dangerous and need to be held. and the united states supreme court has affirmed the appropriateness of holding such peachle until the end of who's tilties. the president has indicated that he would, in fact, do that. and i think there's no question,

therefore, that we will be holding some of these people. the question is: where best to do it? this, i think, is the argument that -- my colleague and fellow whip, the senator from illinois and i have been having long distance. and i relish the opportunity when we can both get our schedules straight to literally have a debate back and forth about this. i think it is an important topic. i see now other colleagues are here and let me make one final point here and i hope to continue in this debate. because i think it is a better policy to keep guantanamo open and keep these prisoners there than to try to find some alternative. let me cite one statistic and then make my primary point here. according to the numbers i have, and i would be happy to share these with my colleague from illinois, with respect to the slots available in our supermax facilities, if i can find it here, there are about 15 high security facilities built to

hold 13,448 prisoners. those facilities currently house more than 20,000 inmates. the bottom line here is that that that's not necessarily -- that that's not necessarily a super solution either. did my colleague have a quick comment here because i want to make my main point here? all right. thank you. here's my main point. there are those very credible people who say, well, this is a recruitment symbol, guantanamo prison is a recruitment symbol. i have no doubt they're right. it is a recruitment symbol. several questions are raised by that observation. the first question is: even if it is false that there has been torture at guantanamo prison, obviously terrorists can believe false hoodz, should we take -- falsehoods, should we take action based on that falsehood?

the next question that has to be asked is: does this mean then that other terrorist symbol -- recruiting symbols need to be eliminated by the united states? and the third question is: would that eliminate their terrorism? what is it exactly that animate these terrorists? gitmo didn't even exist before some of the -- in fact before all of the worst terrorist attacks on the united states or u.s. facilities abroad. there was to this gitmo prior to 9/11. and, yet, you had all of the various attacks that occurred throughout the world leading up to 9/11 and 9/11 itself. they didn't need another reason to hate america. they didn't need another reason to be able to recruit people. they have all the reasons that they can dream up. i think the key reasons are is that they -- they fundamentally disagree with our way of life and they believe that it is in their -- that they have an obligation through jihad to either get the infidels, that's

all of us who don't agree with them, to bend at their will or do away with us. because they don't like our way of life. they don't like the fact that we have the culture that we have. they don't like the fact that we give equal rights to women. they don't like the fact that we have democracy. there are a lot of things that they hate about the western world generally and about our society in particular. these are obviously recruiting symbols and recruiting tools. so are we to do away with these things in order to please them? and even if we did, what effect would it have on their recruiting? do you think they would then say, okay, great, you've closed guantanamo prison, you've taken away women's rights, you're halfway home to us not recruiting anybody to terrorize you anymore. now if you'll only get rid of the vote and institute sharia law, we can start talking here. i don't think that is the way they're going to act. they're going to have grievances

against us no matter what. for us to change what we think is in our best interest simply to assuage their concerns because maybe they do use this as a recruiting tool, i think is to in effect hold our hands up and say in the war against these islamist terrorists, we have no real defenses because anything we do is going to make them unhappy. it's going to be a recruiting tool. and after all, we wouldn't want to give them a recruiting tool. i don't think it's too much of an exaggeration to make the point that i just made. one might say, well, obviously we're not going to give up our way of life. they're just going to have to deal with that. then they're going to keep recruiting. but we can at least get rid of guantanamo prison. that would at least remove one thorn. well, would it? would it make a difference? nobody knows that it would make a difference. and so, the key point that i make is -- and this is just a disagreement reasonable people are going to have, i guess -- i think guantanamo is the best place to keep these people.

others might -- my friend from illinois think that there are alternatives that are better and that under the circumstances we should make the change. again, i observe that the american people seem to be on the side of not closing it down and i don't think it all has to do with fear. continuing thaos do with the commonsense notion that this is not going to remove terrorist recruiting. and if it's better for us to keep them there, we might as well do that. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask consent to speak in morning business for five minutes. i see other members are on the floor. i will finish after five and yield the floor on this unusual we've debated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i respect my colleague from arizona, and i respect the fact we're on the floor together. this is a rarity in the united states senate that people with opposing viewpoints actually arrive at the same moment and have a chance to at least exchange points of view. i would say as follows: i don't know what motivates the mind of a terrorist. i think i have some ideas, and you do as well.

i don't know that we will ever be able to save every soul when it comes to those who are inclined toward terrorism. let's face reality, it's just like crime in this country. we all would like to see it go away, but we know intuitively some people are bad people and do bad things and need to pay the price for it. i think the same is true for terrorism. but when president obama goes to cairo, egypt, and appears to that's... that's all i've got time to think about right now. >> rafer, you guys are well-known for bounceing back from a very tough loss. are you just as effective at not getting too happy from a big victory? >> we've shown both. we've shown we can bounce back. we've shown we don't get too up. we don't get too down about the basketball game, win, lose or draw. but it's going to be crucial that we puts yesterday behind us and prepare for what's to come, game four. it's going to get tougher for us.

we assume they want to extend their lead in the series to 3-1. we want the catch back up 2-2. and it's going to be... it's not just physical. it's going to be a mental challenge out there tomorrow. >> michael? >> you were with stan his first year as a coach in miami. can you just talk about what it he was like then and if he's any different from now that you're with him a second time around? >> well, then it was his first as a head coach. it happened rather quickly for him. pat stepped down right before first game, and he was thrust into the position. i think now he has a clear understanding of the different personalities as a head coach as opposed to being an assistant, and i think he's adjusting to that. i think down in miami he had us all as the same person. he quickly found out that dwyane wade is totally different from rafer alston and rafer alston is

totally different from lamar odom and so on and so on. i think that's the way... one way i see his adjustment from then to now. and now he's more into being a little more uplifting as opposed to so negative as he was in miami. you see him rant and rave down the sideline, but i can tell you, the next day in practice and film session, he's more inspiring than he is... than what you see on the game floor. >> how much a role does he play in your ability to bounce back? what does it say to you after those tough losses, like a lebron shot or those plays in philadelphia? >> he is instrumental in a few ways. one, he tells us to keep believing, to understand that we're a good team. there's a reason we've gotten this far. and two, he's really big on taking the blame. you don't see that from a lot of

coaches. if he makes a mistake, as you mentioned, the lebron shot, the glen davis shot, he quickly takes the blame and tells us he's failed us. we quickly turn around and tell him, we're the guys on the floor. we should have made the adjustment out there, but that's the beauty of coach. he'll take the blame and come in and give us a better game plan. >> before you guys beat cleveland, there was all this talk it was supposed to be the kobe-lebron finals. then you get in, beat cleveland and lose the second game and there's all this talk the series is over. what are your thoughts on both of those things and how important was it as a team to... obviously the ultimate goal is to win this thing, but just to show everyone that, hey, we belong, and this is a real series. >> well, obviously we were disappointed going into the cleveland series because everybody just overlooked if series and said it was going to be cleveland and l.a.

we were very hurt by it, but, you know, that's just the way things are. all we have to do is go out and win games, and nor this series, we lost the first two ones. we didn't play as well as we needed to. we understood that, but we decided as a team that, you know, we weren't just going to give up. we deserve a chance to win a championship. and we've worked exteamly hard to get to where we're at today, so we weren't just happy with just making it to the finals and handing the lakers an easy championship. we believe that if we play our game and play our style of basketball, this should be our year to win it. but, you know, we have to go out there and take it, you know. it's been tough for us, but nothing in life is easy. we continue the play like we played last night, you know, and

understand that it's going to get harder, then, you know, at the end of the series, we should have a trophy. >> superman. still to come, we talk more magic and lakers as we head towards game four. the "aircheck" boys will be here next to join linda.

>> over on espn, the boston red sox will try to extend the longest winning streak to start a season against the yankees in nearly a century. after a 7-0 win on tuesday, the red sox have won first six games in '09. what's up with big papi? >> after hitting a homer in his first at-bat last night, david ortiz said he sleptsd betterment it was the same old papi, not the old papi. hitting coach dave magadan said the key was he wasn't trying to hit a homer on the 2-2 pitch. the problem, in his very next at-bat, on the 3-1 count, he tried the hit a homer and he popped it up. you learn from that and try to quit making the same mistakes. >> time to stay current here on espnews. and we do so this way. indiana fever forward yolanda griffith has suffered what might be a career ending tear of her left akill liz. patrick schuster was drafted in

the 13th round by the d-backs with the 396th overall pick, and the nfl is starting a spinal treatment program for retired players. coming up, much more on what webb down in game three. the magic are back in this nba finals. we'll have reaction as we look ahead to tomorrow night's game four. (announcer) what does greatness taste like? a miller lite. (announcer on call) ...he throws it across the field. he's got something! 30...40...50...he's got it! 40! he's got it! 20...10...he's got it! 5!...endzone! touch down! there are no flags on the field! it's a miracle!

(announcer) that's what greatness tastes like. triple hops brewed. great pilsner taste. miller lite. taste greatness. do you remember when making dinner meant finding just the right stick for your hot dog. when new every fork on the trail led to a new adventure? then keep the tradition going with great father's day gifts from bass pro shops. like a 22-piece bbq tool set for only $9.94 and a prowler t-40 trolling motor for only $129.99. and don't miss the family summer camp going on now with lots of free activities. ah, man, love that drinkability. drink-a what?

drinkability. it's what makes bud light so incredibly refreshing. it's like a wave of refreshment, gently washing over your whole body. it's getting bigger. here comes the refreshment. [ sfx: screaming, wave splashing ] whew. well that almost never happens. easy drinking, always refreshing. bud light. the difference is drinkability. [ sfx: hairdryer ] no hard feelings. i like to know exactly where you stand at all times. yeah, it works for us. yeah. hey, if they ranked "sportscenter" anchors, where do you think i'd be ranked? - i don't know. - come on. i'd rather not get into it. come on, pick a number between one and 10. well... i'm not sure you'll be in the top 10. i'm in the top 10, roger.