it's washington your way. >> the senate debated the annual defense spending bill today. it includes provisions giving the executive branch more powers to detain terrorism suspects. several senators proposed amendment toss remove the provisions from this bill. here's the debate on that subject beginning with senator rand paul of kentucky. this is an hour, 25 minutes. madison, the father of the constitution, warned the means of defense against foreign danger historically have become instruments of tyranny at home. abraham lincoln had similar thoughts saying "america will never be destroyed from the outside if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." during war, there has always been a

struggle to preserve constitutional liberties. during the civil war, the right of habeas corpus was suspended. newspapers were closed down. fortunately, these rights were restored after the war. the discussion now is to suspend certain rights of due process is especially worrisome given that we are engaged in a war that appears to have no end. rights given up now cannot be rights given up now cannot be >> we do well to contemplate thediminishment of due process knowing that these rights we n give up now may never be restored. my well-intentioned colleagues'c admonitions in defending provisions of this defense bill say that we should give up certain rights; the right to dur process. their legislation would arm the military with the authority to detain indefinitely without duen process or trial people suspected of an association with terror itch.

these -- terrorism. these would include americanns citizens apprehended on american soil. i want to repeat that. we are talking about people who are merely suspected of terrorism or suspected ofpect committing a crime and have been judged by no court. we're talking about americanuld citizens that could be taken from the united states and senta to a camp at guantanamo bay and held indefinitely. this should be alarming to everyone watching this proceeding today because it puts every single american citizen an risk. there is one thing and one thing only that is protecting american citizens, and that's our constitution. the checks we put on government power.ernm should we err today and remove some of the most important checks on state power in the name of fighting terrorism, well, then the terrorists have won.

this is an alarming, arbitraryrn power that is reminiscent ofnisc what egypt did with its e permanent emergency law. this permanent emergency law the allowed them to detain their owo citizens without a court trial. egyptians became so alarmed at that in the last spring that they overthrew their government. recently, justice scaliarece affirmed this idea in his dissent in the hamdi case saying where the government accuses a citizen of waging war against it, our constitutional tradition has been to prosecute him in federal court for treason. scalia concluded by saying theno system of separated powers haspa been freedom from indefiniteinit imprisonment at the will of the executive. justice scalia was, as he off does, following the wisdom of our founding fathers. as franklin wisely warned, those

whora give up their liberty for security may wind up with neither. and really what security doesne this indefinite detention of americans give us? the first and flawed premise both here and in the badly-misnamed patriot act is that our pre-9/11 police powerso were insufficient to stop terrorism. this is simply not borne out by. the facts. congress long ago made it a crime to provide or conspire tor provide material assistance to al-qaeda or other foreign terrorist organizations. material assistance includes virtually anything of value, legal, political advice,e, education, books, newspapers, lodging or otherwise. the supreme court sustained the constitutionality of this sweeping prohibition. we have laws on the books that e can prosecute terrorists before they commit acts of terrorism. al-qaeda add heretos may be detained, prosecutes and p convicted for conspiring to c violate the material assistancea

prohibition. in fact, we've already done this. jose padilla, for instance, waso convicted and sentenced to 17 years in prison for conspiring to provide material assistance to al-qaeda. the criminal law does require and can prevent crimes from occurring before they do occur. indeed, conspiracy laws inpros prosecutions in zell yang courts -- civilian courts have 9 been repeatedly revoked. in fact, from the busht, f administration michael chertoff, then head of the justicestic department's criminal division and later secretary of the department of homeland security, testified shortly after 9/11. he underscored the history of this government in prosecuting r terrorists in domestic courts has been one of unmitigatedsu success and one incc which the judges have done a superb job of managing the courtroom and not compromising our concerns abouts security and our concern about classified information. we can prosecute terrorists inou

our courts and have done so. it's the wonderful thing about our country, is that even thet most despicable criminal,l, murderer, rapist, terrorist, our court systems do work. we can have constitutional liberty and prosecute terrorists. there is no evidence that the criminal justice procedures have frustrated intelligence collection about internationalon terrorism. suspected terrorists have repeatedly waived the right to an attorney and silence. additionally, miranda warnings are not required when the purpose of the interrogation is public safety. the authors of this bill errantly maintained the bill would not enlarge the universe of detainees, people held indefinitely. i believe this is simply not the case. the current authorization for hl the use of military force confines the universe to persons implicated in 9/11 or who harbored those who were.pled t this new detainee provision will

expand the universe to include any person said to be part of or substantially supportive of al-qaeda or taliban. but remember, this is notemem someone who's been included at trial to be part of al-qaeda, this is someone who iseone suspected.d. if you are suspect in our country, you are usually accorded due process. you go to court, you're not a automatically guilty. you're accused of a crime.of a but we're now saying someone accused of a crime could be taken from american soil. an american citizen accused of a crime could be taken to guantanamo bay. these terms are dangerously vague. more than a decade after 9/11 the military has been unable toy define the earmarks of membership in or affiliation too either al-qaeda or other terrorist organizations. it's an accusation, and sometimes difficult to prove. some say that to prevent another 9/11 attack we must fight

terrorism with a war mentality and not treat potential attackers as criminals for combatants captured on the battlefield, i agree. but but these are people captured or detained in america, american citizens. 9/11 didn't succeed because we granted terrorists due process. inau fact, 9/11 did not succeed because al-qaeda was soda formidable, but because of humau error. the defense department withheldd intelligence from the fbi. no warrants were denied, the warrants weren't even requested. the fbi failed to act on repeated leads from its field agents who were in possession oe a laptop that may well have hadl information that might have prevented 9/11. but no judge ever turned down a warrant. our criminal system didn't failr no one ever asked for a warrant to look at maas sow by's computer in august, a month a before 9/11. these are not failures of our laws. these are not failures of our o

constitution. these are not reasons we should scrap our constitution and simply send people accused ofed terrorism to guantanamo bay, american citizens.s. these are failures of imperfect men and women in bloated bureaucracies. no amount of liberty sacrificed at the altar of the state will ever change that. a full accounting of our human failures by 9/11 commission has proven that enhanced cooperation between law enforcement and the intelligence community, notco military action or not giving ul our liberty at home is the key to thwarting international terrorism. we should not have to sacrificet our liberty to be safe. l we cannot allow the rules tollow change to fit the whims of thosw in the power. the rules, the binding chains of the constitution were written so that it didn't matter who was in power. in fact, they were written to protect us and our rights frompr those who hold power with good intentions. we are not governed by saints or angels. occasionally, we will elect

people, and there have been times in history when those who come into power are not angels.n that's why we have laws and rules that restrain what the government can do. that's why we have laws that protect you and say you are innocent until proven guilty. that's why we have laws that say you judge and a jury of your peers before you're sent off to some prison indefinitely. finally, the detainee provisions of the defense authorization bill do another grave harm to freedom. they imply perpetual war for the first time in the history of the unitedte states.mark no benchmarks are established that would ever terminate the conflict with al-qaeda,iban taliban or other foreign terrorist organizations. inza fact, this bill explicitly says that no part of this bill is to imply any restriction on the authorization of force. when will the wars ever end? when will these e provisions eno no congressional view is allowed or imagined. no victory is defined, no peace is possible if victory is made i

impossible by definition. to disavow the idea that the exclusive congressional power to declare war somehow allows a president to continue war forever at whim, i will offer an amendment to this bill that will deauthorize or the war in thethe iraq. we're bringing the troops home in january.ring is there any reason why we should have an open-ended commitment to war in iraq when the war is ending? if we need to go to war in iraq again, we should debate on it and vote on it. it's an important enough matter that we should not have an open-ended commitment to war inn iraq. the use of military force mustg begin in congress. our founding fathers separated those powers and said that congress has the power to declare war, and it's a preciour and important power.tant we shouldn't give that up to the president. we shouldn't allow the presidenw to unilaterally engage in war. congress should not be ignoredot or an afterthought in these matters and must reclaim its

constitutional duties.ts these are important points of fact. know good and well that someday there could be a government in power that is shipping its citizens off for disagreements. there are laws on the books now that characterize who might be t terrorist. someone missing fingers on their hands is a suspect according tog the department of justice. someone who has guns, someones, who has ammunition that is weatherproofed, someone who has more than seven days of food in their house can be considered a potential terrorist. if you are suspected by these activities, do you want to havew the government have the abilitye to send you to guantanamo bay for indefinite detention?on? a suspect, we're not talking about someone who has been tried and found guilty. a we're talking about someone suspected of activities. but some of the things that make you suspicious of terrorism are

having food, having more than seven days of food, missing fingers on your hand, having ammunition, havingng weatherproofed ammunition,roof having several guns at yourhavi house. is that enough? are you willing to sacrificee yo your freedom for liberty? i would argue that we should? strike these detainee provisione from thisse bill because we arel giving up our liberty. we are giving up ourwe constitutional right to have due process before we're sent to aoe prison. this is very important, i think this is a constitutional liberty we should not look at and blithely sign away to the executive power or to theexec military. so i would call for o support od the amendment that will strike the provisions on keeping detainees indefinitely, particularly the fact that we id could now for the first time send american citizens to prisons abroad. i think that is a grave danger to our constitutional liberty, and i advise a vote the strike these provisions from the bill. thank you, mr. president. i yield back my time.

>> the senator from arizona. >> i listened to the discussion by senator rand paul andd understand his theory. facts are stubborn things. 27% of those who have been released have been back in thebn fight. that's fact. that's fact. f and some of them have assumed leadership positions of al-qaeda. that's a fact. and the senator from kentucky te wants to have a situation prevail where people are released and go back in the fight and kill americans, that's -- he's right, he's entitled to that opinion.s but facts are stubborn things. and facts are 27% detainees who were released went back into the fight to try to kill americans. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum.of a >> mr. president? if i might have a moment to respond and suggest the absenced of a quorum? >> does the senator withhold hie

quorum call?ll the senator from kentucky. >> with regard to releasing the prisoners, i'm not asking that we release them. not i i think there probably have t been some mistakes of people o having been let go.at i what i'm asking for is only due process, and we release some of those people without any kind of process, so we did make a mistake. we due process doesn't mean and believe anything the processoesn doesn't mean necessarily that wn would release these people. due process often convicts. jose padilla was given 17 years in prison with due process. so i don't think it necessarily follows that i'm arguing for releasing of prisoners, i'm jusp simply arguing that people, particularly american citizens in the united states, not beciti sent to a foreign prison without due process.roce >> mr. president, in response to that, we're not arguing that m they be sent to a foreign not prison. what we are arguing is that they are designated as enemy combatants. and when they are enemy combatants, then they're subject to the rules and the laws of

war, and those -- and, again, iw point out the fact that there havehe been a number who have, o have been released who have reentered the fight, and that kind of situation is not something that we want to prevail. so, i mean, as i said, facts are stubborn things, and they are designated as enemy combatants and will be treated as suchmbat during the period of combat.ring >> will the senator yield for aa question? sen >> uh, yeah. >> my question would be under. c the provisions, would it be possible that an american citizen then could be declared e an enemy combatant and sent to a guantanamo bay and detained indefinitely? >> i think that as long as that individual no matter who they te are if they pose a threat to the security of the united states of america should not be allowed to continue that threat. and i think that's the majority of the american public opinion, especially in light of the facts

that i continue to repeat to the senator from kentucky. 27% of detainees who were released got back in the fight and were responsible for theespo deaths of americans. we need to take every stepd necessary to prevent that from happening. p that's for the safety and security of the men and women who are out there putting theiro lives on the line in our armedie services. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. or yield the floor.e >> thank you, mr. president. i rise this morning to speak ind favor of amendment number 1107, but first let me say that i know how hard chairman levin and ranking member mccain havean workedki to craft a defense authorization act that providesi our armed forces with the equipment, the services and the support that they need to keep us safe. and i want to thank, also, my colleagues from the armed services committee, a number of whom i see on the floor this morning for their diligence andh

their dedication to this important work. with that, let me turn to thet amendment itself, and i wanted m to start, mr. president, by thanking the co-sponsors of the amendment. and they include the chairwoman of the intelligence committee, senator feinstein, the chairman of the judiciary committee,he j senator leahy, and our colleague, senator webb, former secretary of the navy and someone i think we all respectry when it comes to national security issues.ne i and i also want to point out c that this amendment is a bipartisan amendment. senator rand paul joined as a co-sponsor this morning and gave, i think, a very compellinr floor speech just a few minutes ago.g f senators widen and durbin have alsoen recently co-sponsored ths amendment, and i want to recognize their leadership as well. so, mr. president, again, let me turn to the amendment itself. a growing number of our colleagues have strong concernsg about the detainee provisions in this bill. and at the heart of our concerno

is the, is the concern that we've not taken enough time to listen to our counterterrorism community.erte and have not heeded the warnings of the secretary of defense, the director of national intelligence and the director of the fbi who all oppose these provisions. equally concerning, mr. president, we have not had ar single hearing on these detainee matters to fully understand the imimplications of our actions. t my amendment would take out these provisions and give us in the congress an opportunity to take a hard look at the needs of our counterterrorism professionals and respond in aos measured way that reflects the a input of those who are actuallye fighting our enemies. specifically, the amendment would require that our defense, intelligence and law enforcement agencies report to congress with recommendations for any additional authorities or flexibility that they need ines order to detain and prosecute terrorists.

my amendment would then ask for hearings to be held so we can fully understand the views of relevant national securityer w experts. in other words, mr. president, r i'm saying let's ask ournd dedicated men and women who are actually fighting to protect americans what they actuallyy need to keep us safe. this is a marked departure in my opinion from the current language in the bill which wasna developed without hearings and seeks to make w changes to the s that t our national security professionals do not want and even oppose. as i've pointed out. like other challenging issues we face here in the united states s senate, we should identify the problem, hold hearings, gather input from those affected by oud actions and then seek to find the most prudent solution. s instead we have language in then bill, while well intended -- of that there's no doubt -- thatat was developed behind closed doors and is being moved ratherr quickly through our congress. the secretary of defense is warning us that we may be makine mistakes that will hurt our t

capacity to fight terrorism at home and abroad. the director of national intelligence is telling us that this language will create moregg problems than it solves. the director of the fbi is telling congress that thesete provisions will erect hurdles that make it more difficult for our law enforcement officials tt collaborate in their effort to protect american citizens. and the president's nationalpr security staff is recommending a veto of the entire defense authorization bill if these provisions remain in the a bill. now, with this full spectrum ofi highly respected officials and top counterterrorism professionals warning congress not to pass these provisions, we are being asked to reject their advice and pass them anyway. again, without any hearings or further deliberation. i don't know what others think,r but i don't think this is what the people in colorado expect us to do, and it's not how iow

envisioned the senate operating. the provisions would dramatically counterterrorism efforts by requiring law enforcement officials tote step aside and at the department of take on a new role they are nota pulley equipped for and doped not -- fully equipped for and do not want. and by taking away the flexiblea decision-making capacity of our national security team, by forcing the military to now act as police, judge and jailer, these provisions couldvisi effectively rebuild walls between our military, law enforcement and intelligence our communities that we've spent a decade tearing down. the provisions that are in the bill, to me and many others, appear to require that the dod ship significant resources awayf from their mission to serve ons all fronts all over the world. now, this has real consequences, mr. president, because we have limited resources and limitede a manpower. and, again, i just want to say i

don't think we'd lose anythingo by taking a little bit more time to discuss and debate these provisions. but we could do real harm to our national security efforts by f allowing this language to pass,u and that's exactly what our exa highest ranking national security officers are warning ui against doing.ce mr. president, you'll note i'm speaking in the broadest termsnt here, but i did want to speak to one particular area of concern just to give viewers and my colleagues a sense of what we face. the provisions authorize the indefinite military detention of american citizens who areitar suspected of involvement in terrorism, even those capturedse here in the our own country, in the united states. which i think should concern e each and every one of us. these provisions could well represent an unprecedented threat to our constitutionalur liberties.tuti so let me explain why i thinklan that's the case.

look, i agree that if the american citizen joins al-qaeda and takes up arms against the united states, thatp person should be subject to theo same process as any other enemy combatant. but what is not clear is what wc do with someone arrested in his home because of s.ed terrorist ties -- suspected terrorist ties. these detainee provisions would authorize that person's indefinite detention, but it misses a critical point; how do we know, mr. president, how dori we know that a citizen has committed these crimes unless they are tried and convicted? do we really want to open the door to domestic military policm powers and possibly deny u.s. citizens their due process rights? the -- if we do, if we do, i think that's at least something that's very worthy of a hearings and the american people shouldrg be made aware of the changes that would be forthcoming in the way we approach civil liberties. but since our counterterrorism

officials are telling us these provisions are a mistake, i'm t not willing to both potentially limit our fight against terrorism and simultaneously threaten the constitutionaltane freedoms americans hold dear. as i began my remarks, mr., president, i hope i projected my belief that we have a solemn obligation to pass the national defense authorization act. but we also have a solemn obligation to make sure that those who are fighting the warue on terror have the best, mostave flexible, most powerful tools possible. to be perfectly frank, i'm worried that these provisions will disrupt our ability to combat terrorism and inject untested legal ambiguity into our military's operations andou detention practices. we will hear some of our colleagues tell you not to worrf because the detainee provisions are designed not to hurt our

counterterrorism efforts. we all know that the best laid plans can be unintended consequences. hav and while i'm sure the drafters, of this language intended the provisions to be interpreted inn a way that does not causet problems, the counterterrorism community disagrees and hassagr outlined some very serious real-world concerns. stating in the language that there will not be any adverse effects on national security doesn't make it so.t these are not just words in a proposed law, and those thatpr will be chartered to actually carry out these provisions are urging us to reject them. shouldn't we listen to their serious concerns? shouldn't we think twice about passing these provisions? i've not received a single phons call from a counterterrorism a expert, a professional in the field or a senior military official urging us to pass these

provisions. we have heard a wide range of concerns expressed about the unintended consequences of enacting these detainees provisions, but not a single voice outside of congress telling us that this will help us protect americans or make us safer. and, mr. president, in addition to our national security team urging us to oppose theserg provisions, other important voices are also asking us to stop, slow down and consider sto them more thoroughly. the american bar association, th cross, the american legion and n number of other groups have also expressed a wide range ofid seriouse concerns. and, again, i want to underlinet although the language was crafted with the best of intentions, there are simply too many questions about theer unintended consequences of these provisions to allow them to move forward without further input from national security experts

through holding hearings and engaging in further debate. mr. president, i'm privileged to be a member of the armedvile services committee. i'm true hi honored -- truly horned. and as i've implied and i want to be explicit, i understand the importance of this bill. ostan i understand what it does forr our military which is why in sum what i'm going to propose with my amendment is we pass the ndaa without these troubling provisions, but with a mechanism by which we can consider insion depth what's proposed and at a later date include any applicable changes in the law. it's not only the right thing to do policy wise, it may very well protect this bill from a veto. a the clearest path towards giving our men and women in uniform the tools they need is to pass this amendmenast and thens send a cln national defense authorization act to the president. in the statement of sta administration policy, the president says the following,

and i should, again, mention ini the statement of administrationt policy there's a recommendation that the president veto theo t bill. quote: we've spent ten years since september 11, 2001, breaking down the laws between military and law enforcementween professionals. congress should not rebuildinte those walls and necessarily makn the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult. these are striking words.ficu they should give us all pause au we face what seems to be a bit b of a rush to pass these untested and legally-controversial restrictions on our ability to prosecute terrorists. so, mr. president, i want to begin to close, and in so doing, urge my colleagues to think about the precedent we would set by passing these provisions. we are being told that these detainee provisions are so important that we must pass them right away, without a hearing or further deliberation. however, the secretary of

defense at the same time along with the director of national intelligence and the director of the fbi are all urging us to reject the provisions and take t closer look.er do we really want to neglect the advice of our trusted national security professionals? i just, i can't think of anotheo instance where we would rebuffre those chartered with keeping usf safe. if we in the congress want toe constrain the military and givee our service members new responsibilities as these provisions would do, i believeoi we ought to listen to what the secretary of defense has had to say about it. secretary panetta is strongly opposed to these changes, and ie think we all know that before hl held the job he has now,as secretary of defense, mr. panetta, was the director of the cia. he very well knows the threats facing our country, and he knows we cannot afford to make any mistakes when it comes to keeping our citizens right. weht have to be right every tim, the bad guys only have to be

right once. so this is a debate we need to have, it's a healthy debate, buy we ought to be armed with all oh the facts and expertise beforese we move forward. the least we can do is to takes our time, be dill gent and hear from those who will be effected by these new, significant changes in how we interrogate and prosecute terrorists.rori so as i've said before, it concerns me that we would tell our national security leadership, a bipartisany national security leadership, by the way, that we would noty listen to them and that congress knows better than they do. it doesn't strike me that that's the best way to secure and protect the american people. that's why i filed amendment nurple 1107. i think my amendment is a commot sense alternative that will protect our constitutional principles and beliefs, willples continue to keep our nation safe. our the amendment has a clear aim which is to insure we follow a

thorough process and hear all views before rushing forward with new laws that could be harmful to our national security.atio it's straightforward, it's common sense, and i urge my colleagues to support the amendment.rt t mr. president, thank you for your attention. a i yieldtt the floor. >> mr. president? >> who yields time?: w >> mr. president -- >> senator from michigan. >> we have approximately a half hour on each side, i'm wondering howho much senator graham needs. >> ten minutes? is that too much? five minutes? >> you can do five minutes.o >> seven. [laughter] >> we have, i think, seven speakers on this side. try to do eight people? >> i'll try to be as quick as i can. >> [inaudible] >> okay. we have had plenty of just a long time from the sponsor of the bill, we've had -- we're going to have ten minutes from the senator from illinois, i yield to the senator from south carolina ten minutes. >> the senator from arizona will

control, if this is all right fo with the senator, half of our time. would that be all right? t >> without objection. >> thank you. can you let me know when fiveobe minutes has passed?than because there are a lot ofhen voices to be heard on this issue, and i want them to be heard. i'm just one.be and let me just start with my good friend from colorado. respect due, i know youru concerns, i just don't agree. i can remember being told by th. bush administration we don'tsh need the detainee treatment act. everybody said we didn't needid' it. but they were wrong. i remember being told by the vice president's office during p the bush administration, it's okay to take classified evidence, show it to the jury, the finder of fact, and not share it with the accused, but you can show it to his lawyer. s how would you like an american soldier tried in a foreign landf where they're sitting there in the chair wonder what the jury's talking about, can't even comment to their own lawyerir about the allegations against

them? i've been down this road with administrations. and we worked in a bipartisan fashion to change some things the r bush administration wanted to do, and i'm glad we did. and we're working in a bipartisan fashion to change some things thishang administration's doing, and iths hope we're successful because if we fail, we're all going to be worse for it. here are the facts. under this provision of mandatory military custody forir someone captured in the unitedfr states, if you're an americaneds citizen, that provision does not apply to you. but here's the law of the land right now. the if you're an american citizen suspected of being joint al-qaeda, being a member of al-qaeda, you can be held as an enemy combatant.. the padilla case in southh carolina where the man was heldl for five years as an enemy combatant went to the fourth fou circuit court of appeals, and here's what the court said. you can interrogate that person in an intelligence-gathering int situation. the only thing you have to do is provide d them a lawyer for ther

habeas appeal review.he so here's the due process rights. if our intelligence community, t military believe that anve american t citizen is suspectede being a member of al-qaeda,al the law of the land as it is today, an american citizen can be held as an enemy combatant and questioned about what role you play in helping al-qaeda,nga and you do get due process. everybody held as an enemy combatant here, at guantanamouat bay capture inside the united states goes before a federal judge, and the government has to prove by a preponderance of the evidenceer that the person is, n fact, an enemy combatant. there is due process. we just j don't hold someone and say, good luck, you have g to go before a judge, a federal court and prove your case as the the government. and here's the question for the country. is it okay to hold an american citizen who's suspected ofsusp helping al-qaeda underng a military control? you better believe it's okay. now, my good friend fromd colorado said this repeals the t

positive si come at the us the act. it's a prohibition on our military being used for law* enforcement functions, and it goes back to reconstruction. this is the central difference c between us. i don't believe fighting al-qaeda is a law enforcement u. function. i believe our military should be deeply involved in fighting these guys at home and abroad. and the idea somehow allowing our military to hold someone captured in the united states is a repeal of pass si come at the disact, you'd have to conclude that you view that as a law enforcement function where the military has no reason or right tohe be there. that's the big differencethat between us. i don't want to criminalize the war. to senator levin, thank you for helping this time around craft f bipartisan solution to a very real problem. the enemy is all over the world,

here at home, and when people take up arms against the united states and captured within the united states, why should we not be able to use our military ande intelligence community to question that person as to whati they know about enemy activity?w and the only way you can do that is hold them in military custody, and this provision can be waived, it doesn't apply to american citizens. but the idea that an american citizen helping al-qaeda doesn't get due process is justt a lie.s you go before a federal court. and the government has to prove that you are part of al-qaeda.th and let me ask this to my colleagues on the other side. ti what if judge agrees with the military community making the case?elli are you going to require us toa? shut down the intelligence-gathering process, read them their rights and put e them in federal court? the that's exactly what youourt want. and that will destroy our ability to make us safe.

if an american citizen is heldcn by the intelligence community, the military and a federal judge agrees that they are, in fact, a part of the enemy force, that american citizen should behoul interrogated to find out what they know about the enemy in a lawful way, and you should not require this country to criminalize what is an act of war against the people of the united w states. they should not be read their b mirandae rights, they should not be given a lawyer, they should a be held humanely in military custody and interrogated about why they joined al-qaeda and what they were going to do to all of us. so this provision not only is necessary to deal with dea real-world events, it is written in the most flexible way w possible, and to this administration the reason we're here on the floor today, it wast your idea to take khalid sheikho mohammed and put him in new york city and give him the rights of

a citizen and criminalize the war by taking the mastermind of 9/11 -- >> senator has spoken for five minutes.cer: >> thank you.n i will wrap up. so to senator levin and senator mccain, what they're accusing you of doing is not true. you're codifying a process thats will allow us to intelligently and rationally deal with people who are part of al-qaeda. not political disdepartments. po if you don't like president obama, we're not going to arrest you. that's a bunch of garbage. you can say anything you want ay about the president or me. you just can't join al-qaeda and expect to be treated as if it were a common crime. when you join al-qaeda, you haven't joined the mafia. you're not joining a gang. you're joining people who are preponderate on our destruction and our military threat. and if you don't believe that, vote for senator udall. if you believe al-qaeda represents a threat to us at home and abroad, give our intelligence and military

agencies statutory guidance anda authority to do things that need to be clear rather than uncertain. we're ten years into this war.ee congress needs the speak. this is your chance to speak. i am speaking today. here's what i am saying to my colleagues on the other side and to the world at large. if you join al-qaeda, youif suffer the consequences of being killed or captured. if you're an american citizen and you betray your country, y you're going to be held in military custody, and you're going to be questioned about what you know. you're not going to be given a lawyer if our national security interests dictate that you not be given a lawyer and go into the criminal justice system because we're not fighting a crime, we're fighting a war. there's more due process in this bill than any other time, in anr other war. i am proud of the work product. there are checks and balances in this bill we've been working one for ten years. the mandatory provisions do not apply to american citizens. they can be waived if they impede an investigation.f

we're trying to provide toolsg and clarity that have been missing for ten years. thisin is your chance to speak n the central issue ten yearsth after the war.af the attacks of 9/11. are we at war? are we fighting a crime? i believe we're at war, and the due process rights associated with war are in abundance and beyond anything ever known in any other war. what this amendment does, it destroys the central concept that we're trying to present too society and to the country, that we're facing an enemy -- not a common criminal organization -- who will do anything and everything possible to destroy our way of life. let's give our law enforcement and military community theand clarity they've been seeking, and i think now they will have. and to the administration, with all due respect, you have r engaged in one episode after epi another to run away from theun fact that we're fighting a war, not a crime.

when the bush administrationhe tried to pass policies that undercut our ability to fight this war and obtain our values, maintain our values, i pushed back. i i'm not asking any more of theim people on the other side than io ask of myself. when the bush administration asks me and others to do thingse that i thought undercut our values, i said, no. now you've got an opportunity to tell this administration we respect your input, but what we're trying to do needs to beer done not for just this time, but for the future. ladies and gentlemen, either fut we're going to fight this war to win it and keep us safe, or we're going to lose the concept that there's a difference between taking up arms against the united states and being a common criminal. in conclusion, khalid sheikh mohammed and all those who buy into what he's selling present a threat to us far different than any common criminal.

and our laws should reflect that. senator levin and mccain, you've created a legal system for the first time in ten years that recognizes we're fighting ' war within our values. i hope we get a strong bipartisan vote for the tools in this bill. with that, i yield. >> mr. president? mr. president?nt? >> the senator from colorado. >> how much time do we have remaining? >> the senator has 15 and a half minutes. >> before i recognize senatormr durbin for eight minutes, i want to just respond to -- >> how much time on this side? >> five minutes remaining. >> senator from south carolina'm broadly admired in the united states senate. if i'm ever in court, i want him to be my lawyer. i what i'm proposing wouldn't destroy the system that we have in place, a system, by the way, that's resulted in the

convictions of numerous terrorists with life sentences. what i am asking is to listen to those who are on the front lines and fighting against terrorists and terrorism who have said theo have concerns about this newe proposal and would like greater amount of time to vet it.ime and consider it.onsi i'd like the yield to the senator from illinois eight minutes. >> mr. president, um, i justnt, have unanimous concept request which senator durbin said i could interrupt him to make. i have two unanimous concept requests for committees to meet today during today's session ofd the senate. the approval of the majority and minority leaders, and i ask unanimous concept that these be agreed to and printed in theoffi record. >> is there objection? without objection. >> mr. president? >> the senator from illinois. >> mr. president, i have the? greatest respect for senator carl levin and senator john mccain, and i would say by and large this bill would not haveod

engendered the controversy that brings us to the floor today bur for this provision. because it is a critically important provision which has drawn the attention not just off those in the military community which they, of course, would expect in a defense authorization bill, but also the attention of those in the intelligence and law enforcement communities across the united states as well as the president of the united states. the provision which they includi in this bill is a substantial and dramatic departure in american law. when it comes to fighting it terrorism.rori i salute senator udall for u bringing it to the attention of the committee and now to the floor, that before we take this step forward we should reflect and pass the udall amendment which calls for the necessary agencies of law enforcement, intelligence and military to reflect on the impact of this decision.he not just on the impact on america's security, but on america's commitment to constitutional principles. this is a fundamental issue which is being raised here, and

itme should be considered ever o seriously. and we need to ask ourselves why ten years after 9/11 are we prepared to engage in a rewritee of the laws on fighting terrorism? thank god. we meet in this chamber today with no repeat of 9/11. through president george w. busd and president barack obama, america has been safe. yes, there are people who threaten us, and they always will. but we have risen to that challenge with the best military in enforcement, and without giving away our principles asrica americans. take a look at the provision in this bill which senator udall is addressing. who i'll tell you who opposes it, secretary of defense leonar panetta. who passed out of this claim per bear of 100-0 vote of confidence in his leadership has told us, l

don't do this. this is a mistake in this provision. secondly, the law enforcementaw community. from attorney general eric holder to the director of thehe federal bureau of investigation have told us this is a mistake to pass this measure. to limit our ability to fight terrorism. and the intelligence communityd as well.ty the director of national intelligence tells us this is ae mistake. so is it any wonder that senatoa udall comes to the floor and other others join him from both sides of the aisle saying before you make this serious change in policy in america, ask ourselves: have we consideredav the impact this will have on our nation's security, our abilitytn to interrogate witnesses and oui commitment to constitutional principles? when i take a look at the letter that was sent to us by the director of the federal bureauhf of investigation, robert mueller, i have to reflect on the fact that director muellerto was appointedr by presidentdent george w. bush and reappointed by president barack obama. i respect him very much.

he has warned the senate, do not pass this provision in the defense authorization bill.e it a may adversely impact, and i quote, our ability to continue ongoing international terrorism investigations. if this provision had been offered by a democrat under republican george w. bush, the critics would have come to the floor and said how could you possibly tie the hands of the president when he is trying to s keep america safe. the director of the federal dir bureau of investigation has mada it clear that the passage of this provision inhe this bill wi limit the flexibility of thelimi administration to combat terrorism. it'll create uncertainty for law enforcement, intelligence and defense, officials regarding how to handle suspected terrorists and raise serious constitutionai concerns. listen, all of those things are worthy of debate. deb were it not for the record that for ten years america's been safe, it has been safe because of a republican president and a

democratic president using the forces at hand to keep us safe. if we were coming here with some record of failure when it comes to keeping america safe, that'si one thing. but we have a record of positive success. and this notion that there is no way to keep america safe without military tribunals and commissions defies logic andie defies experience. since 9/11 over 300 suspected oe terrorists have been successfully prosecuted in article iii criminal courts in america.ica. yes, they've been read their miranda rights and, yes, they y have been prosecuted and sent to prison.ent the most recent being the underwear bomber who pled guilty just weeks ago in the article iii criminal courts. during this same period of time when it comes to military commissions and tribunals, how many alleged terrorists have been convicted? six. c the score, my friends, if you'r, paying attention, is 300-6.

president bush and president obama used our article iii p criminal courts effectively to u keep america safe, and in thosep instances where they a felt military tribunals could do it i best, they turned to them withue some success. and i might add to those who want to just change the law again when it comes to military tribunals, this is the thirdtrib try. twice we have tried to write the language on military tribunals and commissions. it's been sent, ultimately, across the street to the supremu court and rejected.ourt they told us, start over. do we want to risk that again? do we want to jeopardize the prosecution of an alleged terrorist because we want to test out a new legal and to constitutional theory? i hope not. n i ask unanimous concept that the letter from the director of the fbi be made part of the record and the congressional record. >> without objection. >> let me also say section 1031 of this bill is one that definitely needs to be changed, if not eliminated.

it will, for the first time inst the history of the united stateu of america, authorize the indefinite detention of american citizens in the united states. i have spoken to the chairman ot the committee who said he is open to language that would try to protect us from that outcome. but the language as written in the bill, unfortunately, will allow for the indefinite detention of i american citizens for the first time.r t the administration takes this seriously, we should too. they have said they'll veto the bill without changes in thisng particular provision. i hope that we will step backha and look at a record of success in keeping america safe and noti try to reinvent our constitution on the floor of the united states senate. i think we ought to give to every president, democrat and a republican, all the tools and all the weapons they need toy keep america safe. tying their hands on the floor of the united states senate may give us some satisfaction for a moment, but it won't keep america safe. i reserve the balance of my time. m >> mr. president?an >> senator from michigan.

>> mr. president, i yield myself tenof minutes. >> without objection. >> time on our side. there have been so many misstatements of fact that havet been made, it's hard to keep upo with them, but let me just take the last statement that theet senator from illinois made about changing military tribunal law. therear is no change in military tribunal law whatsoever which is made in this bill. now, i'm going to address the other misstatements that haveote been made by my friends andds colleagues, but that one's the most recent, so i want to just take on that one first. now, in terms of constitutional provisions, the ultimate authority on the constitution of the united states is the supreme court of the united states. and here's what they have said in the hamdi case about the issue which both our friends have raised about american citizens being subject to the law of war.

a citizen, the supreme court said in 2004, no less than an alien can be part of supporting forces hostile to the united states and engage in armed conflict against the united states.he u such a citizen, referring to an american citizen, if released, would pose the same threat of returning to the front during the ongoing conflict. and here's the bottom line for the supreme court. and if we just take this one line out of this whole debate, it would be breath, it would bet a breath of fresh air to cut through some of the words that have been used here thisee morning.n one line. there is no bar to this nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant. okay? that's not me, that's not senator graham, that's not senator mccain. not that's the supreme court of the united states. recently, there is no bar to this nation's holding one of its

own citizens as an enemy a combatant.n c >> would the senator yield for a question?ld t >> i'd rather -- >> okay. >> -- i'd rather not at this point.ot now, there's a number ofr o sections in this bill. my dear friend, senator udall, said these sections as though there's a whole bunch of sections which are at issue. there's really only one section which is at issue here, and that's section 1032, and that'sd the so-called mandatory detection section that has a waiver in it. it was written and approved by the administration. okay? section 1031, which my friend from illinois has just said isii an abomination, was written and approved by the administration. now, section 1031 is the authorities section.

this authorizes. it doesn't mandate anything with the waiver that 1032 does. section 1031, and now i'm going to use the words in the administration's own so-called statement ofdm administration o policy. this is what the administration says about section 1031. the authorities codified in this section already exist. so they don't think it's necessary, 1031. but they don't object to it. their words. the authorities in 1031 already exist. they do. a what this does is incorporate already-existing authorities from section 1031.

unnecessary in the view of theun administration?he yeah, but they helped write it, and they approved it.ed we made changes in it. we've made so many changes ines this language to satisfy the administration, i think it all comes down to one section, 1032. 1032 is the issue. not all the sections, by thes, way, which would be stricken by the udall amendment.ll the udall amendment would strike all the sections. but it really comes down to section 1032. and 1032 is the so-called mandatory provision which, by the way, does not apply to american citizens. i'd better say that over again.e senator graham said it, but let me say it over again. the most controversial provision, probably the only one in this bill, is section 1032. section 1032 says that thehat

requirement to detain a persont in military custody under thisin section does m not extend thedo citizens of the united states.ed i guess that's the second thinge that i'd like for colleagues to take away from what i say is s that section -- and senator and graham said the same thing -- section 1032, the mandatory section that has the waiver in it, does not by its own words apply to citizens of the united states.of it has a waiver provision in it to make this flexible, and the way in which 1032 operates is that it says that if it's determined, if it's determined that a person is a member of al-qaeda, then that person will be held under military detention. they are at war with us, folks. al-qaeda's at war with us.

they brought that war to our shores. this isn't just a foreign war. they brought that war to ourthey shores on 9/11. they are at war with us.ar the supreme court said, and i'm going to read these words again, there is no bar to this nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant. they brought this war to us, and if it's determined that even an american citizen is a member of al-qaeda, then you can apply the law of war. according that's not according to theng t armed services committee, our bill or any one of us. that's the supreme courts. speaking. who determines it? what we say to give the administration the flexibility that they want, thet, administration makes that determination, the procedures to make that determination. who writes those procedures?mina we don't write 'em. by explicitly the executive branch writes those procedures.

can those procedures interferere with an ongoing interrogation or investigation? no, by our own language it saysn theygu shall not interfere with interrogation. or intelligence gathering. that's all in here. the only way this could interfere with an operation of the executive branch is if they decided to interfere themselves in their own operation. they're given explicitly theon. authority to write the procedures. procedures. i think we ought to debate about what is in the bill, and what is in the bill is very different from what our colleagues who support the udall amendment have described. yes, we are at war and yes we should codify how we handle

detention, and this is an effort to do that, and as the administration says itself, we are not changing anything here in terms of section 1031, we are simply codifying existing law. the issue really relates to 1032. and that's what we ought to debate. debate. showed a somebody when it's been determined by procedures by the exit of branch can bece who determined as an enemy force who has come from this to attack uss as a member of a foreign enemy should that person be treatede f according to the laws of the was and the answer is yes. so t but should flexibility be in here so the administration can ca? provide a weaver even in that case? a yes. and finally about civilian triao

i happen to agree with my friene from padilla and he was a dear friend of mine.al civilian trials work but saysn civilian trials won't be used t even if it is determined that o somebody is a member of al it qaeda. not only doesn't it prevent civilian trials from being used, we explicitly provide that t civilian trials are available is all cases. it's written all in here. a i happen to like civilian trialy lot and participate in a lot of and we them a hnd they are appropriate. we have a good record in theaseu case that you mentioned it is as if the senator from illinois mention the, excuse me, thati kt case was a michigan case.it i know a lot about that case. it was the right way to go. many, man i prefer civilian trials in manl cases. this bill doesn't say that we

are going to be using military o commissions in lieu of civiliani trials. that is a decision that we leave it where it belongs in the executive branch. but we do one thing in this secn building section 1031, of which needs to be said. we are at war with al qaeda and people determine to be part of al qaeda should be treated as people who are at war with us. but even with that statement we give the administration a waiver.give that's how much flexibility we t give to the executive branch. ee how much time have i used,eside? mr. president?setor >> the center has three and a half minutes remaining. >> i yield the floor.. levin: ye >> how much time is remaining on both sides?the priding of >> the senatorfi from arizona hs just over fiveiv minutes. from and the senator from coloradoins

his eight minutes.mr. udl: mr. p >> the senatorre from colorado. >> i want to clarify for the wao record before i recognize i senator webb for five minutesthe that some here have claimed thes supreme court decision upheldiou the u.s. citizens captured of sh the united states. it did no such thing. he was captured in afghanistan,d not the united states, and the justice o'connor who offered tht opinion was very careful to say that the decision was limitedo - to, fought against the united states taliban. and of quote.mptant to i think it's important to be encluded as the record. m let me recognize and yield to senator webb for five minutes. >> senatorbb from virginia. >> thank you mr. president. i would like to say that i believe i've been the senator a from colorado has a good point

here and i say that as someone a who is a strong supporter of military commissions who in many cases has aligned myself with my good friend, the senator from south carolina and senator mccain as well as these issues it is not a jurisdictional issue, and it's not an issue about whether we should be under holding people wonder military r commissions under the right u cases or under military detention under the right cases. my difficulty and the reason s that i support what senator udall is doing is in thes statutory language itself.f this is someone who's spent alan number of years drafting this kind of legislation as a. council.i h i've gone back over the last two sections against each other,

1041, 1042 particularly, and i i am very concerned about how thir language would be interpreted as not in the here and now as wetat be the stability that we9/11, brought to the country sinceen. happen we would be under the sense of national emergency andr this language would bection. haterpreted for the broad t have this concern is that we are really talking here about the conditions under which our military would be sent into action inside our own borders, e and in that type of situation we need to be very clear, and we n must narrowly define how theysh would be used and quite frankly if they should be used a ballcen inside the borders and i think that is the concern we were.b.i.

hearing from people like in thef fbien and the secretary defensey and i am also very concerned about the notion of the citizen protection of our own citizenses and our legal residents fromtry. military action inside our own country. i think these protections should be very clearly stated, and in this language there is a lot ofa vagueness and what the senator from colorado was proposing iso, that we clarify these concepts,p that we take this provision out, clarify the concept. we're protections are in place in the country. we are not leaving the countryrg vulnerable. in fact i think we are going toy make a much more healthy legal system if we do clarify these t provisions. to that is the reason i'm here a on the floor to support what and senator udall is saying, and i e know the emotion and the energyo

senator levin has put into thisj i just happen to believe wean should do a better job of clarifying our language and i spent 16 years on writing inhat hollywood, and one of the thingg that came to me when i wasdanget comparing thhais is this is the kind of danger that you get wheh you get the fourth or the fifth are not fixing the whole thing. i greatly respect the legitimacn against section 1032, there aren questions happen to american citizens under an emergency, and let's take, for instance, what happe happened in this country after

hurricane katrina. it's not a direct parallel, bute you can see the extremes that ur people went to under a feeling of emergency in volatility. we had people who were deputized as u.s. marshals and the orleans and you could see them on cnn putting rifles inside people's g cars, stopping them on the makin street, going into people's houses and making the decisionsn later rescinded they are going to take people's guns away from them and the vagueness and a lot of the language will not guarantee against these kind of conduct on a larger scale if thd situation were more difficult and dangerous than it is today. len section 1031 which senator levie mentioned. it may be clear from theo administration, it's not thattaa clear to mebo when i talk aboutn person this isn't simply al al qaeda dqaepending on how you wat to interpret it in the time ofif

national emergency does as ancys person who is a part of or o substantially supported althat e qaeda, the taliban or associatea forces engaged in hostilities and the united states or itsanyn coalition partners including any person who's committed aerent a. belligerent act. we mighhtt be able to agree witt what that means here on the senate floor today but you don't know how that might beational mnterpreted in a time of national the emergency. i'm not being -- i'm not we shod predicting it will. i am saying we should have the certainty that will not. similar --onsumed fi >> the senator has consumed five minutes.mrcerns >> similar concerns also in revolved around th te definitios and terms of the applicability uned sta for the united states citizens w and the aliens when you go toesn the work requirement does not at sxtend to respect what about ann option? these are the type of concerns i have. we should have a language that

understand the provisions underg which we would be tusing of the united states military inside the borders of the united states, so i yield the floor. hashe senator from michigan four minutes.mr. n: >> 21 to yield to one of your -- >> i ask consent to yield twoldo minutes to the senator from new, hampshire, followed by the timet from senator levin for the ainator of connecticut's and rem remaining for the senator from remaining for the senator from georgia. fro >> without objection the senator ,rom new hampshire.k you specs before mr. president. i first of all one to thank andg

chairman leavening and ranking t member mccain and remindamendmt everyone that this particular amendment addressing the thebas provision passed overwhelminglye on a bipartisan basis from then armed services committee, and as the reason that we address thisw issue is because h we heard an a witness after witness in a series of months before thertmet service armed services committee from the department of defense to callis for example when i asked the command saying she lay would need some help on how toam answer what to do with a member of al qaeda who was captured in africa. this is an area thathat cried ot for clarification and that is a, the genesis of this amendment dment. which is a very important amendment.juriefly, just briefly, to issues. o number one, on a 1031. raise the argument that had been o raised about 1031, the statemend is a red as, this herring. this provision was drafted as

senator levin said very clearly based upon what thed. administration wanted and also codified the existing law on what the state of the 40 is in h the fact we are at war with al with ceda, and if people want to th' disagree with that that's w certainly a policy discussion we can have, but we were attackedit on our soil on 9/11 and this codified the fact we were not war with members of al qaeda. 1042 is the military custody provision. let's be clear on what it does ' and doesn't do. it number one, it's very clear on who it applies to. to it only applies to members of al qaeda or an associated force who are planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attackcoal against the united states oramen coalition partners. it does not apply to american ye citizens. we are only saying if you are a

to member of al qaeda and you want to attack the united states wet. are going to hold you in military custody.cases why? i prosecuted cases in the criminal system. we don't --wo have >> the minutes have expired.ayoe >> we don't want to have: to red right to remain silent.than that's thek issue here. thank you, mr. president. >> senator from michigan.senator >> three minutes to the senator from connecticut. fri s i thank my friend thean of td chairman of the armed servicese committee. mr. president i rise to opposent colorado has offered in some measure i think him for offering at because this has been an d important and good debate. s my own position stated briefly v on this is as senator levin said

we are a nation at war and asata such we were attacked on 9/11. we adopted in this chamber the authorization for the use oflose military force. that is about as close to thesie declaration of the war that we have done since the second world war, and the comparison is notab -- its exact because what happened to us on 9/11 was in t some ways even worse than whater wppened in december of 41 whene we were attacked at pearlpearl harbor. a nation of format that seizesbt those that have declaredorces themselves to be part of enemy forces and have attempted to attack the american people for y america should be treated as prison enemyer combatants as prisonersf war according to the law of the war. to me that is just a matter of principle. regardless of what statisticsut one could cite about how welle e prosecutions in the article 3 to

courts, that is to mean not e're ultimately the point. if we are of war the people whoo are to be treated as prisoners of war.ut in a fact, we are without a poly now has the senator said, and one of the main reasons i would close withse senator udall's proposal is he would remove thet sections of the current bill bac that create a policy and send us back to where we are now the forces in the field don't know a what to do if they capture a member of al qaeda.mr. presideni mr. president, if i hadf my way, the provisions in this proposalw on detainee's would not have thy weavers the president has or yor would simply say if you are al a apprehended, if you are a number of al qaeda in your captured or executing attacks against thi americans or allies in this format, you will put military nt custody and in your military tribunal. this is not adel law of the tora

jungle. law, this is according to american law and these are the same courts in which americannd of soldiers are trite when charges are brought against them, and oa course we have accepted all of the provisions of the geneva wat convention. but that was not the will of the armed services committee.a the armed services committee in a good reasonable bipartisan has compromise has created a system position, the initial position is to transfer these enemy it's a good compromise. tha it doesn't happen and not enough. i didn't get everything i'veeet wanted out of it but it's a lott better than the status quo andtt therefore ihe support the langue he b of ilthe bill and oppose the udl amendment i thank the cherry and floor. mrloor. >> center from georgia. >> i ask unanimous consent thatr a fellow be granted full

privileges during the consi consideration.cer: witut i rise today to urge my urge colleagues to oppose the ouendment which would eliminatew ehe bipartisan detainee bipartie provision that the chairman, the ranking member in committee members work detainees can be questioned fore intelligence gathering purposes. past few days from intellince administration officials but how the intelligence and law enforcement professionals need , flexibility. in fact, the director of the national intelligence wrote to the intelligence committee for f the need for a process that asni hege said in carriages entelligence for the det preservation of the avenues oftt detention and interrogation. age with that, i agree

wholeheartedly.s quo, the problem with the status quo, however, is that the administration refuses to use all of its wall full evidence oi detntention and interrogation available t to it, choosing instead only to use one coming into this article 3 courts. for nearly three years members e of congress have pressed the an administration to establish anty effective and unambiguous long-term detention policy butt they have refused. the intent behind these bipartisan provisions is subtlea we must hold detainee's for as information on the intelligence and law enforcement pro professionals need to take down terrorist networks and stopnd sp attacks.frankly, the bes frankly, the best place in myopf opinion for this is guantanamoes bay. but when it comes to gitmo the administration is no longerconco concerned about flexibility.hat instead, we hear that guantanamo is off the table. and in fact in the hearing wheni i asked the current secretary

defense prior to the takedown of osama bin laden when you capture them what would you read him an, he looked back and said i guess we would send him to guantanamo. we know that wouldn't have guant happened had anwe not taken him down. had w this is unfortunate because intelligence and law enforcement professionals including some atm high levels in the administration acknowledged privately that what reallyct inmpers intelligence cioollectia from detainee's is the tak administration's unwillingness to take the new detainee's to gutanamo for guantanamo for questioning. when the operators overseas ares unsure about where they would sure abo hold the capture detainee's that cause delay some sometimes missed opportunities and opetio- irmetimes --s exp >> the time is expired. "no v >> mr. president, i urge a noot vote on the udall amendment.

>> mr. president? >> senator from arizona. i would like to thank all of myw colleagues whoho are engaged anb think a very important debate.nd i would also like to say to my friend in michigan i have othe observed him on various issues on the floor of the senate and the armed services committee. he i have never seen him more in eloquent than i have observed in his statements today and erroughout this debate.th i also appreciate the fact that there are many in his conference who do not agree with the position taken by the chairman, and i especially and add my hearing a of that. i think that where we are -- sends >> the senator from michigan has

45 seconds.e. senator from colorado has won the net. ask t >> the senator from colorado to be allowed to minutes at least read tim >> without objection. again, >> the ranking member, the senac chairman of the senate armed hard work. i want to just close with a couple of points. interes o i wanted to in the interest of t clarifying the record point oute on the heels of the chairman's comment about the administratiot policies when it comes tofull st section 1031 that the fullhorits statement read because the authority codified in the admint section already exist the codif administration does not believed codification is necessary and poses some risks after a decade of soldiers prudent the congress must be careful not to open a tt new series of legal questions that will distract our efforts to protect the country.

second, mr. president, there are questions that continue to be raised to mengin section 1033 the chairman said that it's onlf 1032 that really is the focus oe the attention, but there's been3 questions raised about 1033 t there is language in 1033 that makes it clear we think it makea it clear that there's a provision that requires anyta receiving countries taking action to ensure that the an detaineey cannot engage in or terrorist activity if we are releasing more transferring. afa riwas in afghanistan recently ip dhaka run prison.here. we have 20,000 detainees. restrs some believe 1033 would restrics us from releasing thosen prisoners at blogger and as we g continue to draw down our efforts in afghanistan. one of the questions asked. finally, i listen to the passion that my friend from south carolina, senator gramm exhibited on the floor. we are all in this together.in we are going to prevail. we bad guys in the world are

not going to win. m makes the country strongsecute i different pointss of view on hoa we prosecute this war, and i believe the intent of what is the being suggested in these go and at provisions t is well and good aw at thee highest level but there- are many people we trust and inspect including the secretaryn defense, the secretary of the fi homeland security, the fbi who director who believe what will happen if you interpret thetualr language will not actuallyore, reflect what our intent is t therefore let's set this aside, send it to the president, take the next 90 days to hold hlhoroug provisions. i will be the first person toorf come to the floor if all of those individuals in our own prd isperts here tell us this is the right way to proceed to say let's put this into law but. let's not rush to take thesewe v steps. we've got something that is tros working. been

we have over 300 terroristsmanye prosecuted in the system who are in jail many of them will at let's not fixis something thatuw isn't broken until we've reallyi ,nderstand what the consequencen are and i thank again oure colleagues in the senate armedrd services committee this has beea an important debate and i yield the floor.the floo >> the senator from michigan.frc >> i also thank the friend from colorado for his contribution te the committee. he is a valuable member of thesn committee and no less valuable because he is offering an disagree w amendmentit which had the this e agreement. two quick points. one is the language the senator from mentioned from section 1033 is what was in last year's bill and is in the current law. the only difference is we of giving greater flexibility this year for the president by making it believable.

so our language is more flexibll than the current law. finally, in terms of the caselie the senator is correct. udall i believe senator udall saiden w this was an american citizen whn was captured in afghanistan and true, but the supreme court relied on the case which was an american citizen captured in rhode island and quoted thath case with approval when sayingto there is no bar to this nation-s holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant to readf the was the language american citizens captured in longs an island. if i have any time left i would yield eight and i yield the floor. >> rejected senator udall thank you atv to's amendment in the vote. we will have more live coverage of the debate over the defense program bill when the senate

returns at 10 a.m. eastern time. for more details on this week's agenda in congress will talk with a capitol hill reporter. >> the national journal house leadership reporter the u.s. house returning to work with a lot on their plate what is at the top of the agenda? >> at the very top of the agenda is the to do with an outstanding unresolved in the appropriations bill so that we are not included >> what is the plan for getting the remaining spending bills done because the date is december 16th, right? >> right. that's the date the current stopgap continue resolution expires for the agency on the unresolved bills. today it was all full steam ahead on trying to get a so-called mini bus, and on the

omnibus minibus at the end of all the bills and the one - measure that might be addressed being passed by the lawmakers before they go home to the holidays. >> ahead of that in this week the u.s. house has a number of legislative items to address back to dealing with the regulations what can you tell us about some of the regulatory bills? >> the house republicans are putting on the floor the entire regulatory bill including what they have done on the act to take on what they say are high-cost regulations imposed with administrations and president obama right now and would cost $100 million to get approved by congress. this and a couple of their antiregulation bills may pass the house but they are to die in the democratic senate.

>> it's been a week since the super committee, the joint deficit reduction committee said they couldn't come to agreement. in the wake of that water issues congress will have to address that will have to get done? >> they will have to decide what to do on the unemployment insurance, and of course this so-called fix the medicare payments to the medicare providers needs to be extended to $300 million. where that money might come from is focuses as much discussion right now and they're hoping some of these can be attached to the minibus to reduce the middle of talk in the senate is about the payroll tax cut and adding the 3.25% increase for wealthy

americans. is that going to come up for a vote in the senate and will the house have to deal with that as well? >> it will come up free vote in the senate and republicans are going to try to filibuster it. as a tax increase the middle class income earners are going to be hit with big increases while they absorb the cost of what has been going on with the super kennedy and discussions around here for a couple of years about how tax breaks should be divvied up and who should be bearing what sort of load, and it will play out to the very last hours if they go home for this christmas holiday. >> last but this brigety. there's lots of talk about undoing portions of the sequestration requirement that will kick in in january, 2013. is there going to be house and senate debate on that? >> certainly will be. if that occurs in the month of

december is uncertain and will be a lot of talk about it. as of now i don't think the leaders in the house want to pick on anything that is as significant as that until january when they come back. >> the the house covering the house for the national journal and you can read his work at the national journal.com. thank you for the update. >> thank you.

i will miss this job and have some regret when the congress is signed up but i will tell you this and maybe you were going to laugh. one of the advantages to me for not running for office is i don't even have to pretend to be nice to people why don't like

some of you may not think i'm good at it but i'm trying and the notion of being a lobbyist and try to be nice to people we don't like would be ridiculous. i would not be a lobbyist a don't intend to practice law also i might show up pro bono for a gay rights case my intention would be to do a combination of teaching and lecturing. last week the british government inquiry into allegations of phone hacking by newspaper reporters questioned several alleged victims of the practice.

the inquiry heard testimony from actress sienna miller and the author of the harry potter books j.k. rowling to read the rupert murdoch newspaper of the world ceased publication in july after revelations that its reporters hacked into the cell phones of celebrities and crime victims. this is just under four hours. >> thank you very much. could we come from the this is now live? it is, is it? thank you. >> just joining us as the order of witnesses we are going to hear from today as ms. sienna miller, mr. mark thompson and then mr. max mosley and j.k.

rowling. the first witness is ms. miller and i call ms. miller. >> why a from the evidence i shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. thank you very much. >> good morning. could you confirm to the inquiry please your full name? >> my name is sienna rosebud diana miller. >> and you have provided a contract for your solicitors and you have provided the inquiry was a witness statement. are you familiar with your witness stand? >> ibm. >> and the content of your statement correct to the best of your knowledge and belief?

>> is they are. >> i have said to almost all of the people who've given a evidence to me before how grateful i am to you for being prepared to take part in this exercise. i'm gerry conscious that you have strong views about privacy, and the very act of coming to give evidence exposes you and means you are talking about things which are quite key not to want to talk about. so i understand the difficult choice you have to make and i am very grateful. thank you very much. >> before i ask any questions i would like to ask you just -- >> good morning ms. miller. >> good morning. >> we have heard from a large number of witnesses who've already given evidence to this inquiry about the experiences they've had with press photographers and proxy, people

such as mccann, hugh grant and a number of others and people who gave examples of such things as photographers camped outside their homes, being stalked wherever they go, jumping out without warning and driving dangerously and so on. are these examples which are familiar to you in terms of your experience? >> yes, they are. >> can you given query just a little bit of an idea what you have personally experienced in that regard? >> at the time i actually now have an order against a proxy so my life it's changed dramatically but for a number of years, i was relentlessly pursued by about ten to 15 men almost daily, pretty much a daily and, you know, anything from being spat at or verbally abused i think that the incentive is really to get a strong reaction as possible, you

know, as other people have mentioned being jumped at saying things to get emotional reaction and they seem to go to any length to try to upset you which is really difficult to deal with. >> you've given some examples about being spat at and be used to get a certain type of photograph. i think nasa said with a certain types of caption added to it. what about -- we heard a lot about driving. have you had experience with driving around? >> illegal trading, overtaking, undertaking to read there was an incidence where a pregnant lady was nearly knocked down but this is a daily occurrence. people driving on motorcycles and vehicles while taking photographs and high-speed it causes you to drive dangerously and them to drive dangerously with little regard for anyone else on the road, and it's all in pursuit of relatively little.

they are just desperate to find out where you are going next regardless of whether it is a meeting or some kind of a mean evin. it's just -- i think there is something about the mistake which is very exciting for the proper nazi. >> it may sound like a bit of a silly question, but actually experienced it first hand can you give us an idea what it feels like to be the victim of that kind of pursuit? >> well, you know, it is terrifying. it's terrifying not only for the person experiencing a but family and friends with me and people driving cars. i would often find myself at midnight running down the dark street on my own what ten big man chasing me and the fact the cameras in their hand meant that was legal but to take away the camera would have you got? you have a pack of men chasing a woman and obviously it is a situation to be in. >> you've explained that when

you did about it is got an order from the court. that was in the summer of 2008, and i think you said, but just to be clear, what happened if anything as a result of getting the order? >> it went from having 20,000 people outside of my house to zero so i can now leave a relatively quiet and normal life which is in fantastic but was a struggle to get there. >> can i move on to another topic just dealing briefly it is obviously a matter now of record that you obtain and there has been the settlement that you obtain judgment against the news group newspapers in your action, and we have heard from, for a sample, bob fowler earlier this week about the fact that you having brought this action and other people having brought this action is what led to them being told themselves. was it an easy decision to take to bring the action against

them? >> no, not at all. i rest -- taking on the empire that was rich and more in packed full than i would ever be the demise of the evidence that came from the police and felt i couldn't not do something about it but it was a very daunting. >> can i ask given that you have had your can you explain why you were giving evidence to this inquiry? >> because you made me. [laughter] >> what do you hope to achieve by giving evidence? >> i hope some form of change comes. they are very respectful and fantastic in this country and of the same name as the press and given the grand differences between publications so i hope some change can come and that is where i'm actually happy.

>> it explains very eloquently being an accomplished actress were back in 2005 and 2006 in the concerns of the media intrusion. can i teach you to paragraph four of your statement, please? connect yes. >> where you describe the during this period almost every week extremely personal matters were being published including parts of private conversations. my question to you is how did that make you feel about those around you? >> initial yell i'm lucky i have a very tight group of friends and a very supportive family, and to this day no one has ever sold a story on me regardless of the fact several people even acquaintances have been offered

large amounts of money to do so, i felt very protected. but it is baffling how certain pieces of and formation kept coming out. and the first initial step which was to change my number and then i would change it again and again and i ended up changing three times in three months, and stories still continued to come out with a very private information on the very select group of people knew about and so naturally having changed my number and being pretty convinced of hacking even though that was my suspicion i hardly accused my friends and family of accused selling stories and the accused each other throughout. >> the same fema he picked up in paragraph seven of the witness' statement, where you describe one occasion you sat down with family and friends in a room and accused him of leaking stories to the press because a story had come out that only they knew

about. >> yes, there was one particular private piece of information only four people knew about and i had been very careful to not tell my mother, my sister and two of my closest friends only. and so yes on the accused people who would never dream of selling in any sort of information i accused some in that room of selling stories. >> you know now your phone was being hacked. >> the fact they had this information was as the result of accessing my phone has it is, and very few people around me. >> how does it make you feel now knowing that you are driven to make the accusations against your friends and family as a result of phone hacking. >> i really am angry, and i feel terrible, but it would even consider accusing people of the

trading for me like that but it just seems so intensely paranoid to assume you are being misunderstood somehow and considering i changed my number seven times and is the hut and i couldn't think of an alternative. but it is really upsetting for them and for myself that i accused them. >> what would you say to those who did this? >> it isn't appropriate in court. [laughter] i think it's understandable it's just outrageous. it's kind of unfathomable to feel that you are justifiable in be heading that way and the ramifications of people's lives is very rarely considered by what you were doing. i think the effect it had on my life was really damaging to me and my family and friends takes

us perhaps uniquely to paragraph five of your witness statement where you describe some of the other intrusions into your privacy. in particular you talk about journalists and photographers and the meeting places that you had arranged and only they knew about and you had managed them sitting outside of your house and convinced they were somehow listening to your private conversations. he touched on this a little bit older the but can i ask you perhaps to develop on just the skill of the impact on your life that these events had? >> to be honest it made it very difficult to leave the house. i felt constantly very scared, and intensely paranoid. i've kind of touched on it

already since we have a separate number that we would only speak to each other or on that number and subsequently had that number as well so every area of my life was under constant surveillance and i felt that and felt very violated and paranoid and anxious constantly >> and to tell us that you found a photographer telling them presumably being photographed at the surgeon circumstances but we are talking of the circumstances in which you are hoping to have some privacy. >> there was no existing circumstanced when i was to have reform of privacy, but overseeing certain situations that was impossible. what was more baffling is the fact people found out before i

even our life where i was going so that feeling of just people going absolutely everything about you was as i said before really intimidating and scary and confusing. i didn't understand how the new but i felt like i was living in some sort of a video game and people were kind of pre-empting every move i made obviously as a result of accessing my private information. >> believing on had now more broadly to the question of the photography, and one of the photographs taken of you and published accurately or were they altered? an example you would like to tell about? >> i think a story to tell a picture that is unique. speed the other way around. [laughter] >> [inaudible]

>> we were notified of this [inaudible] i have no objections. you were going on the u.n. charter territories. everybody is agreed then. it's not why would prefer to have have it happen. >> thank you. in this particular situation in the ambassador and all i was at the annual ball where many of the children were and many

people were donating money, raising money etc., and there was a very sick child i was pleased with in the corner of the room who was pretending to shoot me and i was pretending to buy. we were playing a game and somebody took a photograph in the mirror and cut the boy out of the photograph and said that i was drunk. obviously looking at these photographs the local most amusing. they look awful, shocking and they were aware at that time of the situation, the real situation i was in, so why of the inslee complained and i sued and won it was minuscule and irrelevant. a few days later but by that point the damage was done. if anybody in my line of work seize this photograph and hears about the hitting is the suggested at a charity event it's a detrimental to my career, to my reputation, and i think this is sort of the problem they

knew they were pursued and had to pay damages is not enough and the situations. >> this article should not go on the website there is no reason to do it and i'm not prepared to read that of which happened. >> if i read the apology that was later given by the newspaper in question that on saturday the 12th of march we printed pictures of sienna mother who is an ambassador for the starlight foundation at starlight of ill children. we sit her antics at the ease and would thereby set just she had behaved in an unprofessional manner. we are happy to make it clear that sienna was not drunk and

did not begun professionally. in fact in the picture she was on the floor playing with a seriously ill 6-year-old child. we have apologized to sienna. now if i can move, photography to the question of the phone hacking and to buy lines and the way also in which sources were per trade, you said in paragraph nine of the statement that the intrusive about your private life served to close friends appear to be closely linked to what you remember is being sent to you by your family and friends. did the fact that these articles being attributed to close friends see enough suspicion about your friends that you described earlier?

>> of course especially when the information coming out was similar to that which he said to specific people. >> and to those that wrote these articles under the bylines, do you think that it is ethical to give a full such addition to a story? >> no. >> not a difficult question to answer. >> if they'd been written by anonymous journalists they wouldn't print their names which is from that part unethical. >> if i can move on now to the time when you found out that you had been hacked and that paragraph 12 of your statement you say that you discovered it wasn't only you but lots of

people close to you put under surveillance and that they had created a project under your name. how did you feel when you found out that the intrusion had gone beyond you to those around you? >> i felt terrible. people had never done anything remotely public who had been under constant surveillance. it seemed very crude looking at the notes, these than receiving a stack of evidence with dates referring to very personal things in my life telephone numbers and my access numbers, pin numbers come across words to my e-mail that was used to make a e-mail in 2008 was on these notes.

and then as you sit, you know, and of my friends i think about ten phone number xin total so there is a web of surveillance which obviously makes it very easy to understand how they were getting all of this information from everyone close to me was being monitored and electronically listened to treat stomach and i ask you now that the litigation itself, just a few questions? first of all, what was your team and the taking action against the media? in the news group news, were you seeking financial compensation or did you have some other purpose? >> no it was not about financial compensation. i would rather not have gone through the litigation i've had to go through, and known of for financial being. i wanted to understand the extent of the information they had. i wanted to know who knew. who knew who had access to my

telephone number who had been listening to me. i mean it is that feeling of knowing people are talking about you behind your back or watching you and not being able to confront it is very frustrating so i wanted to get to the bottom of it. >> it was claimed successful. and did you think that the core procedures provided an adequate remedy for you? >> no i'm still waiting for the full disclosure which is the only thing i really want from the news international, and so far it has been very unsatisfactory what i have received. i will continue to wait for it but it's a long process so far. >> between you and news group news it may be right to tell you i've been told by counsel that the order is going to be complied with.

can we perhaps look at what was that was admitted in the litigation that you brought and could we have a document of the reference number which starts with 31105, and i'm looking at eight on the second page. this must be a wrong reference. >> no i don't think so. i think that's what you want. >> yes, that's exactly what i want. thank you. we see that then this is what was admitted in a nut shell - of

the civil proceedings, and perhaps i can read this meant that news corporation accepted the confidential and private information had been attained at the voice mail messages the confidential and private information had been published as a result and that there had been an invasion of privacy breaches of conflict and a campaign of harassment for over 12 months. news group accepted these activities should not have taken place in the articles that should not have been published. so there we have it in a nutshell. can i take you now please finally to the end of your statement in the 18, and in the conclusion to the witness' statement among other things, you make the point that the

actions at the news of the world had made your life hell and damaged a lot of your relationships meeting you nervous and paranoid. i don't want you to go into anything private that you don't want to say in public but are you able to give us some insight about the kind of damage that was done? >> it's really hard to quantify. it's more the state of mind that you are in as a result of that level of intrusion and surveillance and inception which is just complete eggs ied and pennoyer. and having watched the testimony of people this week there are far more severe cases and alarming what's happened in compare that to my life this was too much to deal with and i have to fight tooth and nail

constantly to gain the freedom i've managed to acquire now. it's just this kind of mistrust among all of us and it wasn't just me accusing people, it was my mother accusing people and people with using my mother. nobody could understand how the information was coming up. everybody was just very upset and confused and felt very violated by the constant barrage of information being published. it was impossible to leave any kind of normal life at that time and there was difficult for a young girl to estimate those are all of my questions. ..

bears the date the third first of october of this year and that you have signed the statement, is that true? >> yes i have. >> in relation to

yourselves. put it in these terms you were born in 1914. you are fluent in french and german. you went to christchurch oxford to read physics and then you i think qualified as abaris sister, is that right? >> that is correct. >> terms of your professional career, you didn't in fact practice full time in the bar. you did something else all together. formula one. tell us a little bit about that. >> while i was at the bar i used to race in club races, sort of a hobby. that grew and eventually i moved up into formula two which is category just below formula one and met people i halved been oxford with and we decided to start a company making racing cars. i so i gave up the bar after five years and entered the world of motor racing. >> what happened to cut a very long story short

because it was a very distinguished career, at one point you were president of fisa, which is part of the fia. then in 1991 you were, late 1993 you were elected president of the fia which is the federation national of automobile, the governing body of formula one? >> that is correct. >> and you remained in that role until your retirement in 2009. these, please give us a thumbnail sketch of all, what might be said your achievements in that role? >> well the, obviously the, fia's known because of motor sport, particularly formula one and up it is actually the world federation of all the big motoring clubs and so during the time i was there we expanded enormously the amount of activity concerning ordinary motoring.

i had a great deal of activity particularly in brussels to do with road safety and the environment. the main thing i did was i started with other people. the new car assessment program which was a crash test program to improve the safety of vehicles. that led to what can be called a revolution in the safety of road vehicles. and i think, contributed to saving of very great number about lives,00s in this country. thousands in europe. that wasn't just me. it was the organization which i headed but, that is a side of it that nobody talks about. they talk about a formula one motor sport. it was actually the road safety, plus the environmental things, things like trying to improving the, the emissions legislation so it was more effective. there was endless, list of things to deal with? >> road safety across the,

not trying to drive fast? simply trying to drive safely on the roads of countries throughout europe? >> exactly, sir, yes. it was, the roads for example in this country is halved in last 15 years and 30% of that according to research laboratory is due to improved vehicle safety and i think what we did was probably responsible for most if not all of that. so it is significant. >> the world of formula one of course is a glamorous world. would you say that you were someone who courted publicity, mr. moseley? >> no, never. i tried to get on and do my job i felt if you're running something like formula one, a bit like running a motel. if done properly you never see the manager my job was to make sure nobody got killed and secondly it was run as

fairly as it possibly could be in a very difficult technological environment. >> we should note that you received a in paris the only public function i think your wife attended that is correct? >> it is correct. that was entirely to do with road safety, rather than formula one >> up with might be forgiven on personal note this world is long way removed from the world in which your parents inhabited. is that a fair way describing it? >> that is. there was element of deliberateness about that the first time i took part in a club race and got somewhere off the grid people were standing around talking about the list of peel and somebody said, moseley, max moseley, he some relation of alf mosley the solicitor. i found a world where something is different. >> thank you. i mentioned we straightened

out the paragraph 10 of your witness statement. and the date is the 30th of march, 2008, mr. mosley. it is an article published in "news of the world". i'm going to getted heading. we'll not look at either of text. i will paraphrase one matter. certainly not going. to look foirt than that. the heading is -- >> no question of this article appearing anywhere? >> no. >> good. >> formula one boss has sex nazi orgy with five hookers. the article itself links you with your father, doesn't it? >> it does. of. the article appeared on the front page and pages 4 and 5 of the newspaper.

photographs appear which were the result of, i think a covert camera in the lapel of women e as she was called, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> can you tell us please about the timing? the article is not in the first edition of "the news of the world". it was in presumably the second edition. why do you think that was the case? >> i think that was to avoid any danger of me finding out about the article and asking for an injunction to stop it. from being published. >> that is implicit in what you said. the first you knew about the article when it was drawn to your attention? you were given no forewarnering by anyone? >> is that correct that is correct. i was first aware on 10:00 sunday morning. >> the article had two aspects. there was a personal aspect goes without saying. then overlaid on that there was the nazi-themed aspect.

>> yes. >> both enough to cause you concern but the nazi theme was particularly damaging, is that right? >> yes. i mean the other thing was straightforward invasion of privacy which i thought was outrage just and illegal but the nazi allegation was completely untrue and to me, particularly, enormously damaging. and. i was outraged by that. >> what happened, you can tell me if i got this right, it was on "the news of the world" website. video footage was placed is that correct? >> that's correct. >> and was it placed in a, put there in a way which it could be copied by others, to your knowledge or not? >> yes. my understanding is that there is software that prevents video being copied but they did not, for whatever reason employ that software so the video was then copied all over the world. >> i think initially the

video footage was removed by the "news of the world" at behest of your lawyers. they notified you they were going to put it back online. that prompted you to apply for an emergency injunction. have i got that right? >> think that's right, from memory. we asked them to take it down and then we applied for an injunction but they put it up again i think over the weekend even. >> yes. just moving ahead a little bit, mr. mosley, the precise chronology the application for emergency injunction was heard by mr. justice edy friday afternoon which was the fourth of april. >> correct. >> and his lordship indicated that he would reserve his judgment over the weekend, presumably deliver it on monday morning. have i got that right? >> that's correct. >> what happened over the weekend in relation to the footage? >> as i understand it, they then, well they then published a second story on the 6th of april. >> yes.

>> which purported to be a interview with woman e, the one who had worn the camera. we found out subsequently at the trial, the wrote the article, written it beforehand and took it up to milton kings and said i want you to sign this. this is 8,000 pounds. intimated if she didn't sign it her picture would be published unpixel eighted. >> let me understand this. the article is the previous weekend? >> yes. >> it comes on for injunction before mr. justice edy on the friday? >> yes. >> he reserves without granting relief over the weekend, is that right. >> that is right. >> and that is when you learned of his other activities? >> yes. >> thank you. and the second article is over that weekend on the 6th of april and you told us the circumstances in which it was published and the evidence and comments it was based?

in other words, no evidence at all? >> no. having the, what happened subsequently is that the woman who was supposed to have given the interview appeared on skytel vision and said that there was no truth in this nazi allegation at all. i should have said that the main purpose of the story on the 6th of april to try to stand up the nazi allegation but she actually first of all didn't turn up to give evidence at the trial and she wasn't prepared to perjure herself and went on television and said there was no truth whatever in the story. >> hang on i'm losing chronology. the trial is much late he had on. >> indeed, sir, yes. >> sky news was -- >> i made a muddle there. the sky news came after the trial. i'm so sorry. >> no. no. >> she didn't turn up after the trial and did . >> the facts are very much in your mind and i got them i think but i just want to be clear. >> even i'm getting a bit muddled. it is three years ago. >> let's take it slowly,

mr. mosley, because it is important to keep chronology in mind and not to rush too far ahead to the next bend or chicane. >> we can do without that, mr. jay. >> one aspect of the second article which you draw attention to paragraph 16 of your witness statement at the end, you don't have the article available even throughout. they made it clear that the tape was being sent to formula one chiefs is that correct? >> that's correct. >> your feeling was, and you developed this in paragraph 16, that the purpose of the second article was to threaten you, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> now the judgement given by mr. justice edy on the 9th of april which i think must have been a wednesday,

that doesn't matter but, in terms of summarizing it's, its outcome you were unsuccessful principally because the material was already so far into the public domain that there was no practical purpose mr. justice edy felt in granting future injunctive relief. is that a fair summary? >> i said the dam had burst and in another place he said he didn't want to be king knute. he said there was no point in giving an injunction. it was everywhere. >> what he should order there should be expedited trial of your private say -- private say claim is that correct? >> that's correct. >> the matter was very considerably expedited because the trial itself -- >> you're going a bit too fast, mr. jay.

let me understand it. justice edy took the view that there was no point in coping with something that already happened and therefore he refused you relief but he did, as i understand the, your evidence, observe there was no legitimate interest, element of public interest could be served by additional disclosure of the edited footage at this stage? >> that is correct. >> but he didn't grant relief in relation to that but as i understand what you said, that didn't stop "news of the world" just reposting everything again? >> yes. that's exactly correct. >> and then -- >> -- judgement. >> paragraph 36. >> on the internal numbering page 11, in the longer numbered 31208.

your lordship makes precisely those points. >> right. so then he orders an expedited trial. and the hearing date took place over four days, maybe five days. from the 7th to the 10th, and the 14th of july, 2008. >> yes. >> the judgment itself was delivered or handed down on the 24th of july, 2008? >> yes. >> we know that from page 14 which is the judgement which i will come in a moment. so this was all happening very rapidly in terms of the

usual course of litigation if i can so describe it. >> yes. >> deal with one point though. was it explained to you if you decided to take defamation proceedings rather than proceedings in breach of privacy or breach of confidence, that the legal process would be much longer? >> it was. i was told that would be about 18 months. and that, for me would have been really academic because what i needed to do was to establish very, very quickly that the nazi allegation was completely untrue. >> in terms of the choices which were available to you, on the one hand you were facing expensive litigation. that is obvious. >> yes. >> were you given any idea, i'm not going to ask you to talk about what you were advised in terms of whether you would win or lose but why were you given any idea

how much the litigation might cost before you embarked on it? >> yes. i mean, when i had my first meeting with counsel they explained to me very carefully that, first of all there is no such thing as certainty in litigation which i was already aware of obviously. that if i lost it would cost a million pounds or more. if i won it would still cost tens of thousands of pound. by taking the matter to court, the entire private information which i was complaining about would be rehearsed again but in public. all the press there with benefit of absolute privilege for anything that was said and that at the end of all of that, no judge could remove the private information from the public mind, indeed by going to court i was augmenting the degree to which the public was aware of it. but taking all that into account, i thought what they

had done was so outrage just, i wanted to get these people into the witness box and demonstrate that they were liars and the only way to do that was to put up with this extremely risky and unpleasant process which i then decided to do. >> were there any choice was to pack up your tent and beat a retreat presumably? >> indeed. of course first of all i felt that was the wrong thing to do because even if i went to some obscure village in the andes, within a week or two people would know about it thanks to "the news of the world" putting it on the internet. but i also felt that this was typical of some of the things they do and i was somebody who fortunately had the means and a little bit of legal knowledge and within 18 months would be free to concentrate anyway, i felt if i don't do it, i don't know who is going to

because the number of people they pick on were really bad case who got the means to fight it is very infinitesimally small. and it really, one of the terrible things is that unless you're very fortunate and happen to have a bit of money, you simply can't take this on as things stand at the moment. >> deal with a number of context wall points before we to the proceedings. the first point the dissemination around the world with the internet of course is obvious but you touch on this at paragraph 22 of your witness statement. indeed you point out this like in terms of the print media alone there was 790 separate articles written in various, various u.k.

newspapers and online between the 30th of march, 2008, and the 30th of june, 2008. these articles were all comment on the underlying article in "news of the world" presumably? >> indeed. and of course on the internet it was even more extensive. one example i've got very good and energetic lawyer in early dpl any and i -- in germany, they shut down 193 different sites which were repeating "the news of the world" story. not shut down the sites but got it removed from the site i should say. >> in the matter it telephone -- itself was of interest to the fia. they commission ad report from distinguished leading counsel here, mr. anthony skrifer in. his report as you made clear in your evidence exonerated you? >> yes. he said there was no basis whatever for the nazi

allegation. >> what i would like to deal with is paragraph 25. an edited video, copy of it was sent to the presidents at the fia senate? >> yes. >> by solicitors acting on "news of the world" at their instructions, is that correct? >> that is correct. they sent this and that was a matter of complaint actually in the french courts at a certain point because it was potentially criminal what they did. but they sent the, deliberately sent the entire video after inviting the fia to show it to all the members. >> and the inference which may be drawn is that they were putting some sort of political or other pressure on the fia to write you off, is that what you're saying? >> absolutely. i had the impression from the outset that as soon as i challenged the original

story, that the entire resources of news international, news group newspapers, were then deployed effectively to try and destroy me and obviously one way of attacking would be to send this thing to the, to the fia and try to get them all to look at it and hope they get rid of me. >> there was a vote of confidence that you won it? >> yes. one of the things i did quite at the outset i suggested to the party that deals with these things we should have a an extraordinary general assembly and invite the membership to vote because it seemed to me they voted me into the position and they were the ones entitled to tell me i should resign or i shunt resign. i called the general assembly. everybody that wanted to say something was allowed to do so. at the end they voted and i won by a substantial majority. >> in relation to the evidence educed at the civil

trial -- >> before you go onto that new top pick, mr. jay, i ask a question arising out of something you said two minutes ago, mr. mosley. you said your energetic lawyers in germany shut down 193 different stories on different sites? >> yes. >> is it only in germany you've taken such actions? >> oh, no, sir. i've done it in a number of different companies. there is publication going on in 22 or 23 countries at the moment. it is just an ongoing process because, i mean, i'm trying to do everything i can to get this material removed from the web and it is not easy. it is ongoing. it is very expensive. germany is actually the number one example because of the nazi thing it got very much picked up in germany. >> how many sites have you been able to close down? if you don't know exactly i'm trying to get a feel for the size of the exercise.

>> the order of magnitude, it is in the hundreds. i could probably, my lawyers could probably produce an exact figure. see one of the difficulties is that google have these automatic search machines. so somebody puts something up somewhere it will then, if you google my name it will appear and we've been saying to google, you shouldn't do this. this material is illegal. these pictures have been ruled illegal in english high court. they say, we're not obliged to police the web and we don't want to police the web. so we have brought proceedings against them in, actually in france and germany where the, where the jurisprudence is favorable and we're also considering bringing proceedings against them in california but the fundamental point is that google could stop this material appearing but they don't. or they won't as a matter of principle. and my position is that if the search engines were, if somebody were to stop the

search engines producing the material, the actual sites don't really matter because without a search engine nobody will find it. it will be a few friends of the person who post it. the really dangerous thing are the search engines. >> yes. well, that's part of the problem. >> indeed. >> yes. >> the evidence before justice edy this, is quite complicate and i'm going to just, because i may identify some highlights. otherwise the danger we'll get bogged down in detail which people will not understand because they haven't preread your witness statement. just a number of points i would like to bring out. the first point is the hidden pinhead camera which was on the lapel of the woman e. had she been given any

instructions by "the news of the world" which you can assist us with that, please, mr. mosley? >> she was because they had a reversal where he showed her how to fit it and how to work it and this rehearsal was actually recorded on the tape. i don't think they knew this to be fair to them. and the beginning of the tape is felbeck saying to her, when you get them to do the feed, get him to stand back three meters so you get it all in the shot. and it was quite clear to me that, when i saw this, that felbeck was trying to set the whole thing up at the beginning as a nazi episode. she of course never mentioned anything doing nazi. she knew had she done so everyone would be horrified. particularly the german girl with this, being a modern german person she would have been horrified. and but it is absolutely

clearly there. felbeck telling here to try to get me so do the sig highly. >> to be clear about it, you obtained the copy of the video footage as part and parcel of the disclosure in the civil proceedings? >> indeed. >> then the second point, and you always dealt with this, mr. mosley, this is paragraph 33, and this relates to the second article on the 6th of april, the follow-up article. when woman e was offered more money, 8,000 pounds you told us, so that we understand it in sequence, what is the significance of this, this point? what is the point you were driving at here? >> to me at least is significant is that they wanted a follow-up article because i had said this was untrue. they wanted really, really to put the boot in.

and so they wrote this article purporting to be by the lady and completely composed by felbeck. her to sign it, went back and rewrote parts of it. during the trial he was saying this was the result of numerous telephone conversations with her which i don't think anybody really believes. the judge asked him if he kept a note. of course he hadn't. not surprising. i don't think the conversation ever took place. he simply invented the entire article. >> in paragraph 34 and 35 you explain that within "the news of the world" this story was very tightly kept. in other words to a limited number of people to avoid the possibility of leaks. because, the risk of leaks would obviously cause a risk you might take proceedings for injunction, is that right? >> i think that's right. i think they realized

publishing the article was completely illegal and therefore if i find out about it and went to a judge, it would be stopped but knowing, therefore knowing it was i will illegal, they took elaborate precautions including the first edition you mentioned earlier making sure nobody on my account would find out. . .

the party will not on friday were please before you get angry with me i did ensure that your cases are blocked out to spare you any grief and soon the story will become history as life and the news agenda very quickly. there's a substantial sum of money available to the exclusive interview with us. the interview can be done anonymously and blacked out, too so it's pretty straightforward. can i read out the email the following day. just about the pictures that will form the basis of the article this week we want to reveal the identity of the girls

involved and this is the only follow-up we have to our stories. the preferred story however will be about your dealings and for that we have been extremely grateful and we turn to this and would grant you fault anonymity and pixel your face is on the photographs and secure a substantial sum of money for you and this allows much greater control as well as the anonymity of your names weren't used or pictures please don't hesitate to call me or e-mail me and then finally there was an e-mail about money and anybody reading that and indeed this is just an easy conclusion i think that this was close to being black male. is that so? >> i think so. i mean, what he was saying particularly in the last e-mail those if you don't cooperate, we will publish your pictures on

pixilated. these women that was terrifying because the idea that any of the family finding out their work they had a very significant positions. one was a very serious scientist and another one had a major position in health care another ran an office. only one of them was fairly anonymous, and they were all terribly at risk and the fall of this being published in the news of the world was terrifying. the only admirable thing is they did not succumb to it. >> i'm not going to deal with what happened. what i am going to do is the

judgment to navigate my way through it so one can understand his findings and his reason because his reasoning is important in terms of article 8 and the judgment starts with the numbers on page 14 and is a very lengthy judgment. >> certainly a judgment that repays the reading in full. >> first of all having set the scene on the numbers on page 24 consider the question was there

will and his conclusion was to the later point in the judgment nine which is page 31 the black male allegation. male allegation. and he is absolutely clear about that. page 32. he says this would appear to contain a clear threat to the women involved but unless they kurt lubber late it would be revealed. there was then some cross-examination on 85,

and he accepted they could be interpreted as a threat and the observation of related it's the end of what was paragraph 85 on the behavior. >> to estimate its the witness >> he works out the cross-examination is talking about blackmale and is their justification of the threats and looking it could be interpreted as a threat, and i accept that. i would love to know how else it could be.

>> mr. justice then asked his own questions with paragraph 86, and his questions directed to the obvious point while on this race it appears he is possibly blackmailing people and how he raised that with them. the answer was not in his view or perhaps the view of any objective reader satisfactory. but he said the bottom of page 33 this is effectively what answer which is clear that mr. am i lawyer doesn't come clear that anything objectionable about the approach to the two women is he didn't, this is a remarkable state of affairs so the massive to judge but the judicial criticism

there. >> coming from a high court judge i think it is quite impressive but almost sort of more impressive is that a few months later the try for the title of newspaper of the year, based on their groundbreaking view we believe the impact of our experience is always forward following have helped define the nature of the tabloid reporting and the case itself etc. is one of the fiercely debated stories of 2008 and they go on to say what a wonderful job they have done. then the high court judge has told them that they should have done something about this. it is completely symptomatic of their entire attitude. >> paragraph 87 vlore ship recalls the cross-examination of

the progress on this point. i'm not going to go through it with you, but the upshot was at the end of paragraph 87 that he didn't understand the point being put on the examination or pretended not to understand the cross-examination. >> it was i am giving a choice because that is what blackmail is given a choice between what they are blackmailing you into doing. >> the facts we need and to be absolutely clear the judge makes a finding there was no announcing -- >> just before you leave that, there is a point here because i go back to the words all the time. he said when it has been put to

this and offered to pay money for an anonymous interview and not to take anything from them so in that sense not at all that rot never crossed my mind i'm offering the choice and the judge goes on he genuinely did not see the point, yet the elementary could be applied to something which would not in itself be unlawful. so the question that is obviously going to have to be asked quite apart from any questions about it is whether that state of mind was limited to one reporter or one newspaper or the state of mind if others which we have in mind and he has been asked to deal with this. >> but my point is it's not just

him because one could reach conclusions about an individual which is all fine and dandy and don't go very far. the question is is this a pervasive perception? if it isn't the 1908. if it is then equally. estimate in the route to his conclusion as a matter of law we see whether we can chart a path to that and ask you to move forward to page 40 on paragraph 110. >> he is dealing here with the public interest issue was the public interest to justify the intrusion? we deal first with the point that i'm sure the news of the world is thinking about whether there was the underlining

criminality and he soundly objected that point. then paragraph 112 with the nazi theme point. and there are two aspects to this. the third is paragraph 123 where he finds that there wasn't and therefore self evidently there wasn't a nazi femur you couldn't even cap the size of the public interest. then in a speech to 100 to you consider the conclusion that there was the fleeing of them and maybe his conclusion was somewhat equivocal he didn't have to decide the point you may or may not have the case but he

made a finding of fact which you didn't. in the third public interest and it is an important one is under the heading to adultery that starts with paragraph 104. in the argument with which he was addressing whether there is a public-interest in revealing in the moral depraved or even to an extent the behavior. his lordship found that there wasn't really as a matter of law in particular paragraph 127.

his analysis of the cases and the case in the house of lords said given that there was the human rights in play and the right to privacy is not the journalists who undermine human rights above the ground everyone is naturally entitled to inspire moral or religious beliefs and the fact certain types of behavior wrong to those participating in the that doesn't mean that they in fact can help those the practice them or detract them for the right to live as they choose. the real point making is that given that we are in the demand privacy, the law does not concern itself with making a morrill adjustment with what occurred in the privacy. that is my understanding of what

justice is saying. do you follow that? >> i do. i think it is entirely reasonable because the problem is that if you can reach this because you have disapproved of someone is doing it will be all over the place because behavior covers when you start analyzing and vice versa so where would it stop and the rational thing is to say that provided this and in private and provide a ready's genuine consensus it is nobody's business and i think if i have understood him rightly stated the law to be precisely that, and another words john stuart mill attitude rather than the

disapproving attitude and i think the law recognizes if you are not doing any hand it to anybody should not be to whatever you would like and that is the modern view and they disapproved and the idea that it is the journalist of whose case is completely outdated and if that hadn't disappeared we would still be persecuting the gay community would be at risk for anybody else is her absolutely right that the press don't recognize that they do recognize it but it doesn't add met how

things should be. >> i think one has to be careful to distinguish the philosophical position which of course you are quite entitled to be giving us and mr. justice may or may not share that view but all he was doing is saying analyzing article 8 of the convention the concept of privacy means, and this is how the court interpreted it, that you do not conduct the judgment of what is occurring in the main just off limits to read some aggressive that completely and it makes absolute sense. >> i know of no case in strasbourg or domestically where it contradicts that part of mr. justice's meeting. it is called to one of the key

issues involving this inquiry. >> i think it is coming and if i may say so, had they got that wrong, that would have been a matter for the court to appeal and the fact that it didn't go to the court of appeal if you strongly suggests that we got it right. >> it is certainly if you're point. the only other point of principle we would gather from this judgment is 135. he decides the public interest and his lord should is making it clear and again right as a matter of basic law that is to the court to decide ultimately if the case comes to the court and journalists perception. >> that must be right as well.

>> the court has to have regard to editorial judgment in the discussion so far as those who express concern or merely just reading on. >> at the end of the day the obligation having fallen to the ground and the point there was no public interest justification and q1, is that correct? but to the exemplary damages he made probably as necessary to the law why but made findings of the fact which meant whatever the law was in the second

incidentally damages and the law you opportunities in the circumstances in a nut shell. >> that is correct. >> in terms of damage as the award was 60,000-pound which was and perhaps still is the highest award of damages in the privacy case. do you happen to know whether it still this? >> i believe it still is. awarded by the court? >> if i might i think i'm right in saying that since my case it has only been one full trial and that is the reason that we refer to it in the case which actually lost, but of course for the reasons i explained earlier that is quite eccentrically very determined before you bring the privacy action. >> we don't have many settled. we don't know how many have

settled. >> i think what happens is if somebody finds out there is an injunction which then usually will be granted if it is a good case and that is the end of the case. then of course from the injunction that feels fielder the information will be published and that is the and so to speak. so i think somebody being awarded damages certainly none of the settlements the i have heard of except of course the famous tayler and clifford settlement, but that is another matter and i think that there are other reasons. i haven't heard of large sums of money changing hands. >> mr. justice of the end of the judgment recognizes too obvious things. the first is no amount of damages can fully compensate you

for the damage done. that will always apply whatever the context. and second, he says in relation to you, he is hardly exaggerating when he says it is like it was ruined and this is the geniality of the point. >> you work all of your life to try to achieve something and doo try to achieve something and do something useful and when this came up i got to the age of 68 and i achieved things i was proud of any way to do and suddenly something like this happens and that's what you are remembered for and however long i live now, that is the number one thing people think of when they hear my name and of course really matters and sometimes if i could just make this point, it sometimes is yes it is the same with no personal injuries if you

have an entry the courts can do nothing they can only compensate you financially and of course that is true. the difference, the fundamental difference is if you could go to a high court judge and say i am about to have an accident can you please stop the accident because this is all you have to do is make an order it is inconceivable. the problem with accidents is every precaution is taken there's something happening, whereas any revelation of privacy can be stopped. the only thing that is essentials as if you know so you can go to a judge as soon as you know about then it goes to an independent assessment on your right to privacy on somebody else's right to free speech and to the decision. if the an bushehr and publish date no judge can save you is

what it comes to. >> the judgment handed down all we know about the matter of the record is the public statement or the prepared statement by mr. miler on the steps outside the year accusing the quarter from producing the privacy law by the back door that is paragraph 50 of the witness' statement. but to be fair to mr. weiler that is his right to comment on the judge. >> he subsequently got a right to comment on the judge. >> whether he should comment without appealing and maybe for others to judge there was some fairly certainly bad taste to describe that way of reporting while 52 of your judgments.

>> couldn't resist the hon feeble crack. >> this is typical of the stream of that sort of thing coming from the press and i think one has to put up with it once it was out they were going to do this and does not just the sun. >> but again, they have the right to comment and whether they do so and a high-minded way >> i think it reflects more on them than on me. >> before we finish, you quoted mr. max mosley from a document you describe as the news of the world either put themselves forward or otherwise being being

put forward by an award is that in the documents? >> it is not that i have a copy i forgot to put it in. >> that's fair enough, but i would like to see it and so why make it clear why i want to see it because it goes back to whether this is one reporter or indeed one journal, but what is happening in the industry as a whole. >> as you will see it makes it clear that they were very proud of what the have done. >> that's the point. i would be grateful if you could bring that available. >> thank you very much. 2:00. >> [inaudible conversations]

>> i believe about a ticket to paragraph 53 of your witness statement, please. >> do you suggest ms. brooks agreed to launch a campaign? >> is that a joint campaign or federal campaign? >> it's my understanding that it is in effect with the joint agreement my understanding is they got together to be attacked estimate it probably is no surprise to is a seat position whatever stance he took it certainly wasn't fair in any collusion with ms. brooks he did in tire the on his own and do you have any comment? >> i wouldn't find that

surprising by this i mean brooks as well as mr. baker and certainly in rebecca brooks' case she could do my freeing land because they denied that e-mail or that the ever had one become more than one journalist and of what became of absolutely obvious they kept it in april of this year and i could go on and on. >> we get picture of your view and you are entitled to your view and the people entitled to your view that the question is does the basis of your understanding have an evidential foundation? >> ivies told by a former senior

employee of the news international it would be wrong for me to announce his name because this is confidential but i would be happy to write it down to you, sir. >> you got it from the source and you can't go beyond it. >> i'm very confident i was told the truth. >> fair enough. the full idea was a very serious issue mr. max mosley. to refer to another piece in the daily mail which is a shivering title that hands down has shown no balance and another example of comment rightly or wrongly on the decision. >> one could say that. i would say it is calculated if i put my self and