he argued for a -- quote -- "global gun control regime." now, i don't know exactly what he means by that. but if he means that the second amendment rights under the united states constitution of an individual american citizen to keep and bear arms are somehow affected by global gun control regimes, then i disagree with him very strongly. our rights as americans depend on the rights of the constitution and american law not some unratified treaties because of some legal theory of customary international law. on the matter of habeas corpus rights for terrorists in 2007 press fessor koh argued that foreign detainees held by the united states armed force anywhere in the world, not just enemy combatants at guantanamo are entitled to habeas corpus review in federal courts.

those are the rights reserved to american citizens unour constitution and -- under our constitutions and laws. if professor koh was correct, and he's not, this means that enemy combatants captured on the field in afghanistan and held at the air force base would be able to sue in the u.s. courts seeking their release. on this issue, fortunately, dean koh's radical views are not shared by the obama administration, which filed a brief recently arguing that habeas corpus relief does not extend to detainees at the air force base in afghanistan. do we really want a top legal adviser to the state department working to grant terrorists and enemy combatants, even more rights than they have now? there is the issue of military commissions, something that this

congress has spoken on at some length after a lengthy debate. professor koh's view of military commission also deserve our attention. military commissions, it turns out, have been authorized since the beginning of this country by george washington during the revolutionary war, abraham lincoln during the civil war, and frank lynn roosevelt during world war ii. and, yes, military commissions have been authorized by both our 43 and 44th president of the united states in the context of the war on terror. president obama has said -- quote -- "military commissions are an appropriate venue for trying to detainees in violation of the law of war." and i agree with him. of course, military commissions, as i alluded a moment ago, have had bipartisan support, and authorization by the united states congress, but somehow professor koh takes a more radical view. he believes military commissions

-- quote -- "create the impression of kangaroo courts." he said and they provide -- quote -- "ad hoc justice" and he said "they do not provide and can't provide credible justice" do we want the top legal adviser to the state department undermining both the will of congress on a bipartisan basis and the president during -- regarding time-tested practice of military commissions during war time? again, another example of professor koh's views that are really radical views certainly outside the legal mainstream. senators should also take a look at professor koh's views on suing or prosecuting lawyers for providing professional legal at vice in the service of their country. my position is clear, government lawyers -- i don't care whether they work in a democratic administration or republican administration, should not be

prosecuted or sued for doing their jobs in good faith. they should not be punished for giving their best legal advice under difficult and novel situations. even if it turns out that some lawyer somewhere later disagrees with that advice. as dean of the yale law school, professor koh has enabled and empowered a left-wing attempt to sue one of their own alumni, john yu, would worked at the office of legal counsel in the bush administration. the yale low school law clinic filed suit against onyu for legal advice he gave to policymakers during his service on behalf of the american people. i wonder, madam president, if professor koh is willing to hold himself to the same standard and agree that individuals can sue him for his official acts if he is confirmed as legal adviser to

the state department if later on lawyers and perhaps prosecutors disagree with that legal advice and say it was wrong. suppose professor koh gives legal advice to -- that certain get mow de -- gitmo detainees should be released and return to the battlefield, as many have, should family members be able to hold professor koh legally responsible in a court of law? or perhaps professor koh gives advice for military actions in afghanistan or pakistan. if that results in collateral damage, would those victims have standing in court to sue professor koh? do we want a top legal advisor in the state department so compromised by the fear of being sued or prosecuted that he cannot be trusted to give honest, good-faith legal advice to the secretary of state or the

president of the united states? perhaps most timely, given the civil unrest in iran and the senator from massachusetts was critical of the fact that i quoted in 2007 writing that pro -- of professor koh, but it is true from this writing and i'll read it in a moment. it appears that professor koh appears to draw a moral reequivalence between iran's political oppression and human rights abuses on one hand an america's counterterrorism policies on the other. in 2007 he wrote and i quote -- "the united states cannot stand on strong footing attacking iran for legal detentions when similar detentions can be and have been lodged against our own government. the iranian security forces who monitored the social activities, entered homes and office,

monitored telephone conversations and opened mail without court authorization was hard to square with our own national security agency surveillance programs. do we really want to confirm a legal advisor to the state department who can't see the difference between counterterrorism policies approved by the federal courts an by congress and the brutal oppression practiced by a theo regime? we have heard enough apologies for thing ass of the unitedin -e united states and the iranian theocracy. we don't need another voice in the administration whose first instinct is to blame america and whose long-term objective is to transform this country into something that it is not. for these reasons, madam president, i urge my colleagues

to oppose the nomination of harold koh as legal advicer to the -- adviser to the state department. i yield the floor and reserve the balance of my time. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. cornyn: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. cornyn: madam president, we would yield back the remainder of our time. madam president, i would ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the question is on the confirmation of the nomination of -- the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: