>> coming up, a hearing on guantanamo bay prison and the implications of the potential closure. the members of the house debate amendments to the develop dealing with the data collection program. >> this is a website. it is the history of popular culture. it is a collection of stories on the history of popular culture. it is quite more than that. what i have been trying to do is go into more detail with how popular culture and pack -- arenas.sports and other

it is not just about sport culture. we have sports biography. we have some history of media and the newspaper history. there are a range of things. one i formulated the site i purposefully cast a wide net. , jacke with the founder doyle. thehis past week, subcommittee held a hearing on the implications of closing guantanamo bay prison. witnesses included current and former military officials that talked about what could be done with the t cheney's if the facilities closed. the address concerns over -- over detainees at the facilities) in the also just concerns over detainees. the is one hour and 45 minutes.

>> good afternoon. this hearing is for the subcommittee of civil rights and human rights will come to order. my ranking member will be here briefly. today's hearing is entitled closing guantanamo, the national security, fiscal, and human rights implications. we are pleased to have a large audience. thank you to those who are here and those following the hearing on twitter and facebook. you can use the hash tag #closegitmo. there is so much interest in today's hearing that we have moved to a larger room to accommodate everyone. anyone who cannot get a seat is

welcome to go to the overflow room for a live video feed. i will begin by providing some opening remarks. i will turn to senator ted cruz and senator leahy for opening statements before we turn to witnesses. it has been more than 11 years since the bush administration established a detention center at guantanamo bay. i spoke on the senate floor more than 65 times about the need to close this prison. i never imagined that in 2013 not only would guantanamo still be open, but it would keep it open indefinitely. the reality is every day it remains open, guantanamo prison weakens our alliances and inspires enemies and calls into question our commitment to human rights. our most senior national

security and military leaders have called for the closure of guantanamo. listen to retired air force major matthew alexander. he led the interrogation to track down the leader of al qaeda in iraq. here is what the general said -- i have listened time and again to foreign fighters and sunni iraqis that the number one reason they decided to pick up arms and join al qaeda were the abuses and authorize torture and abuse at guantanamo bay. it is no exaggeration, the major said, to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detaining abuse. in addition to the national security cause him every day that guantanamo remains open, we are wasting taxpayers dollars. i received information from the department of defense yesterday. guantanamo bay clause for fiscal year 2012 was millions of

dollars. for fiscal year 2013, estimated $454 million. do the math. we are spending $2.7 million per year for each a detainee held at guantanamo bay. what does it cost to put a prisoner and keep them in the safest and most secure prison in america? $78,000 a year against $2.7 million. this would be fiscally irresponsible wearing ordinary economic times. it is even worse when the department of defense is struggling with the impacts of sequestration coming including the furloughs and cutbacks and training for troops. every day soldiers and sailors serving at guantanamo are doing

a magnificent job under difficult circumstances. i went to the southern command in miami. i met with the man in charge with this responsibility. they are saddened with this assignment. they are doing what they are supposed to do. at great risk and i great separation from their family and personal challenges, they are excepting this assignment. they look to us as to whether the assignment still make sense. every day at guantanamo, dozens of detainees are being worse to practice the american medical association and international red cross condemn and that a federal judge recently found to be painful and humiliating and degrading. president obama asked in his may 23 national security speech, is this who we are?

is that america we want to leave our children? our sense of justice is stronger than that. it is worth taking a moment to recall the history of guantanamo bay. after september 11, the bush a mishmash and decided to bash bush commission should decided to set up an offshore prison at guantanamo order to evade the requirements of our constitution. an office of legal counsel memo said that guantanamo was the legal equivalent of outer space. it is a perfect place to escape the law. others even within the bush administration disagree. then the secretary of state objected. he said disregarding the obligations, reversed a century of u.s. policy and practice and undermine the protections of the law and for our own troops.

it will undermine public support among critical allies, and making military cooperation difficult to sustain. the defense secretary approved the abuse interrogation techniques at guantanamo. the horrible images that emerged are seared into our memories. just as sandra day o'conner wrote a state of war is not a blank check for a president. by 2006, even president bush said he wanted to close guantanamo. in 2008 the presidential candidates of both major parties supported closing guantanamo. president obama issued an order prohibiting torture for all

guantanamo detainees. i'll be the first to acknowledge the administration could be doing more to close guantanamo. we met last week to discuss what they are doing under existing law to transfer detainees out of guantanamo. but the president's authority has been limited by congress. we have facted restrictions on transfers including a ban on transfers from guantanamo that make it very difficult if not impossible to close the facility. it's time to lift those restrictions and move forward with shutting guantanamo.

we can transfer most of the detainees safely to foreign countries and bring the others to the united states where they can be tried in court. since 9/11 nearly 500 terrorists have been tried and convicted in our federal courts and are now being safely held in federal prisons. no one has ever escaped from a federal super max prison or military prison. in contrast only six individuals have been convicted by military commissions. two have been overturned by the courts. today nearly 12 years after 9/11, the architects of the 9/11 attacks are still awaiting trial in guantanamo. i discussed with the deputy attorney general in the bush administration and no, ma'am nigh for f.b.i. director this whole case. here is what he told me.

quote we have about a 20 year track record in handling al qaeda cases in federal courts. the federal courts and prosecutors are effective in accomplishing two goals in every one of these situations. ,getting information and incapacitating terrorists. some may argue we can't close guantanamo because of the risk in terrorist activities.

but even in our federal prisons the recidity rate is far higher than guantanamo. recidivism includes hundreds of detainees transferred under the bush administration when the standards were much more lax. no one is saying it is risk free or they will not -- the number two official in al qaeda who was recently killed in a drone strike. the bottom line is our national security and military leaders have concluded that the risk of keeping guantanamo open far out weighs the risk of closing it. it's time to end this sad chapter of her history. eleven years is far too long. we need to close guantanamo. i would now recognize the ranking member. >> thank you mr. chairman. president obama tells us the war on or the error is over, that al qaeda has been decimated and that we can now take a holiday from the long difficult task of combating radical islamic terrorism. i don't believe the facts justify that rosey assessment. five years ago the president campaigned on closing guantanamo. and yet guantanamo remains open as a detention facility for those deemed to be the most dangerous terrorist that have been apprehended. and to date, the

administration's position seems to be to continue apologizing for the existence of guantanamo, to continue apologizing for our detaining terrorists and standing up to defend ourselves but to do nothing affirmatively to address the problem. in particular, if guantanamo is closed, it raises the fundamental question of where these terrorists will be sent. now we can embrace a utopian fiction that they will be sent to their home nations and somehow lay down their arms and embrace a global view of peace. i don't think that utopian fiction has any basis in reality.

we have seen whether it was in boston or benghazi or fort hood that radical terrorism remains a real and live threat. now i have significant concerns about the obama administration's overbroad incursions into the civil rights of law abiding americans. but at the same time, i have concerns about their unwillingness or inability to connect the dots and to prevent violent acts of terrorism. and until we are presented with a good viable strategy for what to do with terrorists who would work night and day to murder

innocent americans, i have a hard time seeing how it is responsible to shut down our detention facilities and send these individuals home where they almost surely would be released and almost surely would return to threaten and kill more americans. that's a question i hope this panel sheds some light on, how we can responsibly proceed in protecting the national security of this country, protecting the men and women of this country who expect as the first responsibility of the federal government that we will keep the nation secure. i look forward to the testimony today on that question. >> thank you. >> i do want to thank senator

durbin for having this hearing. i think it's long past time we take action into an unfortunate chapter in our nation's history. you can do that and still fight terrorism as it threatens us. it's nice to make up quotes and pretend the president took a holiday from terrorism but he never said any such thing. i do know that for over a decade the indefinite detention of prisoners at guantanamo has contradicted our most basic principle of justice. by itself it has harmed our national security. i think it's shameful we're still debating this issue. as long as we keep this detention center open at

guantanamo, it continues to serve as a recruiting tool for terrorists just as the photographs have shown. countries have championed the rule of law in human law of rights to not strap prisoners down and feed them against their will. we condemn states when they do this and we should and we should not tolerate the same thing in our country. as senator durbin points out at a time in sequestration to be spending as much as $2.7 million for a prisoner in guantanamo.

we could hold these people for far less as our super max prisons if that is the issue. how can we talk about all the things we have to take out of our budget because things that actually benefit americans and yet we can spend this kind of a fortune down there and talk about spending hundreds of millions of dollars more to overhaul the compound. that's what has been requested. we have seen precious manpower and money squandered on this lang failed experiment instead of being directed to important national security missions at home and abroad. this waste has to end. further more, the military commission system for trying these detainees is not working. the tiny handful that have been prosecuted there as compared to the hundreds in our federal courts, we've seen federal court over turn convictions at guantanamo. even the lead military

prosecutor at guantanamo acknowledged this. the same charges could be pursued in federal courts where they have a strong track record of obtaining long prison sentences against those who want to do us harm. why are we afraid to use the best federal court system we've ever seen? probably the best court system in the world and we act like we're afraid to use it. we convicted nearly 500 suspects in these federal courts.

the status quo at guantanamo is tenable. it is expensive and inefficient. period i can review board begin reviewing reports. i'm glad to see that common sense provisions were included in this year's national authorization ability which should be reported by the armed services committee but it will help. i look forward to working with members of congress to bring this about. a witness is waiting mr. chairman. >> thank you for being here and thank you for the support you've given to this subcommittee. we want to welcome one of the fellow members of the senate judicial committee. she's welcome to participate. you can come down the line if

you like and is it -- >> a little later. >> senator diane fine sign the. >> thank you for allowing me to is it with your subcommittee. as you mentioned i was at guantanamo about a month ago with john mccain and the president's chief of staff. we've been looking at the figures of cost and apparently they are much higher than we thought. if the new costs are correct, the cost of the facility is $554 .1 million in 2013. and that is $2.67 million per detainee. i want to point out to keep a prisoner in maximum security in our federal system is $78 thousand,000.

so this is a massive waste of money. there were 166 in345eu9s that most of which had been there for a decade or more. most with no hope, no trial, no charge. these 166 detainees are slated for trial while 46 others will be held without trial until the war against terror is over, whenever that may be. 86 of them, more than half have been cleared for transfer by either the bush or the obama administration. nonetheless they remain in dismal conditions and legal limbo. by the end of president obama's

second term, the majority of guantanamo detainees there today will be held without trial for almost 15 years. i would submit that this is not the american way. and i would submit that guantanamo has been a recruiting tool for terrorists. it makes a myth out of our legal system and it really ought to be closed. we saw the hopelessness, we saw when we were there 70 detainees were undergoing a hunger strike. twice a day american military personnel restrained the detainee in a chair by his arms, torso and feet. a tube is inserted through the knows and into the stomach and for some this has been going on for five months twice a day. i'm very pleased have you some medical testimony here today and i look forward to hearing it.

but this large scale force feeding and this behavior is a form of protest. it's not an attempt at suicide. i believe it violates international norms and medical ethics. and at guantanamo it happens day after day and week after week. so i find this unacceptable. >> thank you. >> i want to get to the witnesses but i do want to thank you chairman durbin for holding this hearing. i've been around long enough to go through several stages on guantanamo.

there was the stage where it was the worst of the worst and they were too dangerous to release. then the bush administration released a huge chunk of them then said we're down to the worst of the worst. then released another chunk of them. then there are 86 slated for release and we haven't been able to find places for them to go. we were fed a bill of goods about who was there and how dangerous they were. they've been released or slated for release and in my time on the intelligence committee we heard over and over again from our national security officials about the value of guantanamo as a recruiting tool for our enemies. this is a timely hearing and i'm grateful to the leadership of the chairman of our judicial committee and chairman fine sign the thank you. >> as custom of the committee to swear in the witnesses and i'd ask the first panel to please rise. >> do affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth so help you god? >> let the record reflect all

the witnesses on this panel answered in the affirmative. i ask consent to interest into the record a statement from michael leonard who served in the marine corps for 30 years. he led the first force at guantanamo. he couldn't be here today but want to make sure his views are in the record. we'll circulate his statement to the committee. he details in his statement he tried to comply with the geneva conventions and bring in the red cross to inspect this facility. he was rebuked. we squandered the good will of the world after we attacked by were attacked by our actions in

guantanamo. our decision to keep guantanamo open has helped our enemies because it validated every negative perception of the united states. we can't transfer detainees to a secure facility in the united states is ludicrous. we're pleased to be joined by major general paul eaton. he's a senior advisor to the national security network. he retired after more than 30 years in the united states army. in 2003 and 2004 he served in iraq as the commanding general of the coalition assistance training team. he commanded the army's infantry center and chief of infantry for the army. he errand a master's degree in political science. thank you for your service. previous proceed. you have five minutes and your entire statement will be made part of the record. >> thank you very much.

ranking member and members of the subcommittee thank you for inviting me here to share my views on closing the guantanamo bay detention center. my biggest challenge when i created the iraqi armed forces was to over come the impact on society in iraq. we worked hard to develop the moral component. we drilled daily the notion of slan control of the military. military justice, prisoner management and battlefield discipline. we stressed atability. the day it hit the press, my senior advisor and air force general under sa dam retired came into my office and said general you cannot understand how badly this is going to play on the arab street. we lost the moral high ground. investigation by tony a great american hero found that torture

implemented at guantanamo was exported to iraq. men who had served in guantanamo during techniques were deployed to iraq to get interrogations. not my words. borrowed from testimony. it was one reason i'm convinced we have to close down this detention center. you can't buff guantanamo to shine again after the since of the past. improvements in detainee treatment will not change the belief in the mind of our allies and enemies that guantanamo is a significant problem in general in the u.s. military in particular. the argument that the guantanamo facility represents a valuable

intelligence tool is wrong. the shelf life of intelligence has and particularly the people who have the intelligence is very short. the argument that guantanamo facility is necessary to hold dangerous men is wrong. our super max prisons do this quite well. we have a great many am lies created for many reasons. my team in iraq was composed of nine nations military and slan. in late night discussions our guantanamo problem would come up from time to time. some of our closest allies refuse to send us detainees because of guantanamo and we're losing intelligence opportunities every time this happens. releasing any individual guantanamo detainee does not

change our national security posture. to this soldier the fear based argument to keep guantanamo open is hard to understand. it brought to the u.s. for prosecution, incarceration the detainees who pose no threat to our national security. the'6" men who have been cleared for transfer should be transferred. we must find lawful dispositions for all law of war detainees as we have done in every conflict. further, guantanamo places are soldiers in nation at risk not only because it makes america look hypocrite cal as we promote the rule of law but because it makes the detainees look like the warriors they are not. our leaders in iraq would pose the question did we create more terrorists today than we managed to take off the street? guantanamo is a terrorist creating institution and is a direct facilitate or the in filling out the ranks of al qaeda and other terror organizations that would attack our country and interest.

guantanamo is a combat power generator for the enemy. we as a nation are strongest when we up hold the constitution, the bill of rights, the geneva conventions and other laws and treaties to which we subscribe. we are weakest when we stray from the rule of law. we have an opportunity to close guantanamo now as we wind down combat operations in afghanistan. there is no national security reason to keep guantanamo open. in the words of one of my colleagues, they don't win unless they change us. and we've got to resist that attempt at change. thank you very much. >> general stevens served in the u.s. army as a officer for 28 years before retiring. a psychiatrist with an active

practice. general is a professor at the university of health seasons sciences in the military medical department. the general served as senior advisor to the department of defense on issues relating to care and support of service members and their families. thank you for your service to our country and please proceed. >> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to testify today. as you said i'm board certified in general psychiatry and child and adolescent psychiatry. i have experience in research and teaching. retired general. medical centers and medical regions. the federal courts and the

office of the military commissions have qualified me as a psychiatric and medical expert. i have had multiple interviews with detainees, attorneys and spent nearly three months in guantanamo over the past four and a half years. i currently provide consultation and expert testimony as needed on current oar former detainees. i have reviewed files of nearly 50. the treatment of hunger strikers at guantanamo compromises the core ethical values of our medical profession. the a.m.a. has long endorsed the principle that every competent patient has the right to refuse medical intervention. the world medical association and red cross have determined force feeding through the use of restraints is not only an ethical violation but violates article three of the geneva.

it destroys the trust essential for all clinical treatment including medical issues unrelated to force feeding. it uses force against detainees. at guantanamo physicians and nurses have become part of the command apparatus to break the hunger strikes using force and denial of privileges. the plain truth is force feeding violates ethics. and nothing claimed in the name of defending our country can justify cruel and degrading treatment of another man or

woman. the detention facilities at guantanamo i diminish america's standing and put at question our true values. the underlying issues that contribute to the hunger strike must be addressed including the confinement that were put in place this year. it leaves thism presentation that the detainees are highly trained soldiers eager to get back on the battlefield. most do not fit the picture. they peal in comparison to violent prisoners accused of crimes i have seen evaluated in this country. if any detainee has committed a crime i think they should be prosecuted and punished accordingly. most of these detainees have not been charged. the oh progressive conditions undermine our national security objectives. force feeding must end. it is unethical and a front to human dignity. a form of cruel and degrading treatment.

my recommendations include first the underlying conditions must be resolved including expeditious release. second detainees should not be punished for engaging in hunger strikes. third all directives, orders and protocols provide that helt professionals act as adjuncts must be rescinded. trust in the medical staff by detainees has been so deeply compromised. independent doctors and nurses should be brought in. fourth the aging detainees require more complicated medical care. the regular rotation of clinical staff impedes continuity of care, diagnosis and treatment. it places dedicated and

professional military clinicians in untenable circumstances of providing suboptimal treatment to an increasingly ill population. it is not fair to the doctors, nurses or detainees. thank you for the privilege of speaking to you. >> we'll hear from our next witness. he is the host of secure freedom radio, a syndicated radio program and in the 19 80 policies served as assistant secretary of defense for international security policy and deputy assistant secretary for nuclear forces and arms control policy. he received a bachelor's degree from georgetown and a masters in international study from johns hopkins school of advanced international studies. the floor is yours.

>> i also served in this body for senator jackson, who many of you had a non-and memorable memory of, i'm sure. >> i recognize i am in the distinct minority on this panel, but i take comfort that i represent the vast majority of americans and certainly the vast majority of those of you in congress on this question. should gitmo be closed? the answer is resoundingly no one lasts -- unless there is a better alternative available. i would like to put this into context if i may. it is to explain why we have gitmo in the first place.

it is because we are at war. this is seemingly lost on a lot of us as we talk about this in an abstract context. this can somehow be removed from this overarching problem. we are not just at warp. we are at war because others attacked us and, in your wisdom wisdom, and the congress you gave the authority to fight back. we have lost sight as to who we are fighting with. it bears directly on the question before you all today. we are fighting against those who would adhere to a doctrine they call sharia. not all muslims do, but those who are engaged -- >> please, no outbursts of approbation or disapprobation.

>> those who do it here believe it is their obligation to destroy us, to force us to submit to their will. and bears down directly to the question of what happens when they are allowed to return to the battlefield. i think we all agree, recidivism of those two are released from gitmo is a problem. it is not as bad as recidivism and the federal resin system, that's a sobering thought. we don't want to put them into the federal prison system. it's even worse than it is at gitmo. if the commitment these prisoners have, should they be allowed out to wage this jihad until we submit? it adds urgency to what senator

cruise asked. how do you prevent that from happening? i find it unconvincing the idea that many of these problems are made for truck the bull by simply moving these people into the united states. for one thing, it does raise the question as to whether the cost we are paying, and several of you have alluded to this excessive, wasteful, inefficient cost, but how much has it meant that not a single one of these people or any of their friends have been able because of their proximity to a federal detention facility in the united states, how many lives have been spared as a result? there's no way to know. are you feeling lucky? do you want to take a chance? you'll find much more violence inside the federal prison system, not least because these individuals will be engaged in

proselytizing their form of islam, sharia, inside the prison system. beyond that, their colleagues will be trying to do what was done in iraq yesterday by al qaeda which is to try to inflict harm on american community that has the misfortune of incarcerating these people. my concern is much to set aside the numbers that you may or may not feel you can safely push out and there are a number, an unknown number, that you can never try. do you honestly think that the people behind me in the people in telling this hearing will stop for the release of these

prisoners because they are now in the united states? you know better than i. federal judges inside this country will almost certainly, at least some of them, look with sympathy on the claim that these prisoners, once inside the united states, once they are entitled to constitutional rights they may not otherwise have that would perhaps result in their release inside the united states. i find that beyond malfeasance were we to go down that road. it is dereliction of duty. i hope my testimony will encourage you not to close gitmo. like thank you, mr. gaffney.

our next witness is lieutenant josh fryday. in addition to his legal today's -- duties, he served in the disaster relief effort following the synonymy and nuclear disaster in japan. prior to joining the navy, he worked in the san francisco district attorney's office and the northern district of illinois and he received his ba from the university of california at berkeley where he graduated phi beta kappa. he received his jd and thank you for being here. please proceed. >> thank you, chairman derman -- durbin, senator cruz, and other members. the office is aware i'm testifying today, but my statements are based on my own personal experience and knowledge and does not reflect the views of my office, the navy, or the department of defense. over the past year, i have been assigned to serve as military defense counsel for individuals detained in guantanamo bay,

cuba. as you know, there are 160 six remaining and i represent one of them. people often ask me if it is difficult representing a detainee in guantanamo and i am proud to live in a country where my commander-in-chief can order me to perform such challenging missions. my colleagues are patriots who love their country. we are caught -- we are talked a perform her duties with honor, courage, and commitment. i am here today doing my duty to talk to you about my indefinite detention in guantanamo bay. my client has now been detained for over 10 years. after five years of detention, he was charged with material support for terrorism and in 2009, the military commission process was halted and the charges against him dismissed. a recent d.c. circuit court

decision held that material support for terrorism is now no longer a crime that he or anyone detained prior to 2006 can never be detained for. i am not here today to ask for sympathy for a man i was ordered to represent but i would like to tell you a bit about him. he is an afghan citizen with a third grade education received in a pakistan refugee camp after fleeing the russian invasion. he was 22 years old when detained although he does not know his exact age. he had a son six months old when he last saw him in 2003 and he has never been charged with harming anyone either afghan north american. had my client and brought to

federal court instead of guantanamo, he could have and what had been tried years ago. nearly 500 terrorists have been convicted in federal courts. in the guantanamo military commission, six. now, after a decade of detention with no crime he can be charged of, he sits in guantanamo imprisoned indefinitely. my client asks how it is possible for my government to detain him for without proving he committed no crime and i told them there are people who believe under the laws of war that we are able to detain people indefinitely until the war is over. he then asks me, you will no longer be at war with afghanistan after 2014. can i go home then? or does this war never and? as a service member and an attorney sworn to uphold the constitution and our strong legal conditions, i don't have good answers for him. if my client is guilty of a

crime, you should be tried and given his day in court. i thank the committee for your willingness to listen to a story today. as long as he is in guantanamo, no judge or jury ever will. we are a nation of laws and a people of principles. denying my client a trial and detaining him indefinitely is at odds with our oldest values. on the eve of our revolutionary war we held trials for british shoulders -- soldiers. john adams served as one of the defense lawyers. but today? even basic due process and guantanamo is denied including the opportunity to confront your accusers, be presented with evidence against you, and have access to counsel.

our threats are real. criminals and terrorists should be prosecuted and jailed. our enemies must know we will bring them to justice no matter what. the people guided by principle in the rule of law, we can do better than indefinite detention. or centuries, service members have and paid the ultimate sacrifice to protect the fundamental values that define our nation. we should always be faithful to those values especially when it is most challenging to do so. >> thank you, lieutenant. the last witness for the panel is elisa massimino, and adjunct professor and one of the leading human rights advocacy groups and they have been great partners with this subcommittee working on our human rights agenda. she was a litigator in private

practice and talked philosophy earning her jd from michigan, a master of arts and philosophy and phi beta kappa from trinity in san antonio. you have testified before the committee before and i welcome you back. please proceed. >> chairman, ranking members, thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the importance of closing guantanamo and how we can do so in a way that protect our country on the national security, and our values. is the president of an organization to advance rights, i focus on ensuring that we remain a beacon for freedom seeking people around the world and continue to lead by the power of example. that's why after the terrorist attacks on our country we joined forces with more than 50 retired generals and admirals led by many who believe the values and institutions are assets and not liabilities. i've been to guantanamo and met the dedicated people serving their. we have been observers to every

military commission convened there since its inception. we know and have great respect for the service members and civilian lawyer struggling to navigate this jerryrigged system to bring some form of justice. some would have you believe that guantanamo critics are a handful of human rights activists, foreigners, and defense lawyers, but it's not true. the largest and most persistent calls come from within our own senior defense, law enforcement, and others who have a cost- benefit book and have it concluded that it is best served by closing. president bush said he wanted to close. henry kissinger called it a blot on our reputation. they said it had given us a very, very bad name. he called it "a rally in thai --

cried for terrorist recruitment. major-general michael leonard in charge of standing up guantanamo said it cost us the moral high ground. admiral mullen says it has been a recruiting symbol for our enemies. general colin powell said he would close if not tomorrow but this afternoon and senator mccain suggests it would be an act of moral curler which batch -- it would be an act of moral courage. there is a growing bipartisan consensus that we no longer needed. the hearing catalogs the reasons why it is imperative to catalog this into action. we heard of the astronomical costs at a time when the pentagon is furloughing half a

million employees and the general reminded us the impending and of combat operations will require a change in authority. they described the deterioration of morale and the deteriorated state of many prisoners which is leading to a tipping point. do tenant showed us how they have worked in system of justice. in many ways, the struggle is a war of ideals. that is the valid grounds on which we should have the greatest advantage. sometimes when we lose our way, outsiders can remind us who we are and what we stand for. family members have written letters to you in advance of this hearing and i want to quote from them. the uncle of an algerian who has been detained for more than one decade and cleared for release said, when i was told that he was detained by the americans, i thought at least he would have the right for a fair trial. i thought his right to be respected and justice would prevail. but i feel today is mostly in comprehension.

how can this nation that prides itself on human rights close the eyes to the foundations of its founding principles? he has been held for more than one decade without charge and he has been cleared for transfer. his mother wrote them a i do not understand why my son is still in guantanamo after all these years when we know he has been cleared. we never thought the united states was a type of place where people could be held like this. we talk about who we are as a nation but sooner or later he cannot be separated from what we do. as we wind down the war, we must expunge the legacy of guantanamo and restore our reputation for justice and the rule of law. the question is not why or if but how. human rights has published a

comprehensive exit strategy with a detailed plan for closing the prison and among the challenges facing the prison, closing guantanamo is far from the most complex. while it may be politically complicated, senator mccain recently said it's not rocket science. the risk is manageable. with leadership, the president, and congress we can get this done. thank you for convening this hearing. >> we will have a round of questioning, seven minutes per senator. i will ask about the senators try to stick with the time limits. i thank the panel. let me start at the beginning. marion, illinois, is a small city in southern illinois. it has a federal prison. incarcerated in the federal prison are convicted terrorists. i've never heard one word from a person living in illinois about the fear associated with those

terrorists being in that prison. the notion where other federal prisons exists is that they are pretty good. people don't escape from them. the community around them feels pretty safe. mr. gaffney, the notion of sending the worst of the worst to the super max prison 30 miles away from any city in the middle of nowhere where they will have little to no communication with the outside world, why does that frighten you? >> isaiah said in my testimony testimony, i'm concerned about many things. there will be more violence inside the prisons and secondly, we cannot be sure, but it's a safe bet on the basis also where -- >> have you been inside a super max prison? >> i have not had the privilege of being inside a super max prison. >> please. i have visited a similar

facility and most of them are in a very restricted, lockdown condition. >> as they should be. >> more than one hour a day outside and then usually by themselves, so how do you believe they will be able to incite problems within the eu super max building? >> i'm glad you asked one thing concerns me is what we are seeing be done in the prisons wr it large, the proselytization. we have imams brought in for the purpose of catering to the muslim population but also converting and promoting this doctrine which does conduce to violence. no getting around it. it is supremacist in character. you have to assume there will be opportunities especially if we start, as we have done with the shoe bomber, relieving them of the limitations on their freedom of movement area and then i think you will get more

violence. if i may come to the question -- >> i have a limited amount of time. we have now incarcerated the saudi, a person me it suspected them part of 9/11 being held with no hint of a problem within the prison or outside. i also want to make something very clear for the record. there are some very patriotic m. [applause] the notion that bring in someone associated with their religion is an invitation to violence or katrina -- extremism and presumes everybody brought in is dangerous. >> the fellow who started the muslim chaplains in the federal prison is in federal prison himself. he is a terrorist. he created an infrastructure inside the united states for promoting sharia through the muslim brotherhood. if theyion be at risk take prisoners from gitmo?

i am concern that they might be. apart from whether they could spring people from the facility, it makes it a target for terrorism. it is an opportunity to create a spectacular opportunity -- spectacular event. >> there are people all over the united states incarcerated in these facilities. they are handled carefully so the people they do have a federal prison constructed near them. that move to the question. i believe the president should move according to his promise to close guantanamo. congress has made that exceedingly difficult with restrictions we put in place in terms of the transfer of these detainees. would you comment on those restrictions? >> i would be happy to do that. i would also like to comment on the federal presence. i understand many people have these anxieties. i called the american

congressional -- correctional association and ask them if they could handle these kinds of prisoners. they said, you know who is in there now? these are not nice people. it is absurd to think our corrections officials cannot handle this population. thatre absolutely right congress has made closing guantanamo more difficult because of transfer restrictions. i was happy to see the senate defense authorization bill that would give greater authority to the commander in chief to dispose of the prison at guantanamo in a way that fits our national security. i hope those provisions become law. in our exit strategy document it ise released today, math.ially about the

we have 166 people. they have been cleared for transfer. for theaiting appointment of a leader at the defense apart -- defense department to do the same. you heard from senator feinstein about what is going on about the hundred strikes. this is something on which the president and congress have to work together. presidential leadership is essential. theress needs to trust commander in chief to make these decisions. >> thank you to our -- for our service to this country and thank you for reminding us what we are about in this country. the reference to john adams is one that stands out. before he was elected president, he was assigned to defend british soldiers who were accused of massacring british colonists.

you have been a prosecutor in our prison justice system. you have been a defense counsel when it comes to military commissions. some in congress argue that we cannot trust our courts. if we give someone a miranda warning, they will clam up and not want to talk or cooperate. more than 500 accused terrorists have been successfully prosecuted in article 3 courts. what is your opinion of the proper place for these trials? the question in your comments. i do not believe it is my job to provide its recommendation to this committee. it is not what i have been assigned to do. andng been in guantanamo seen the commission up close, it has been 12 years since 9/11 and we are still litigating what kind of clothes people can where and what rights apply.

it is a confusing system. it is a slow system. slower system than federal courts. there are a lot of barriers in areas for council, issues for attorney-client privilege, issues for state rules. there are a lot of differences that need to be worked out. >> thank you very much. you, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank each of the witnesses for coming here. it seems to me this is an issue that inspires a great deal of passion, a great deal of emotion. that oureems to me national security policy should not be derived from bumper sticker ideology, but rather

from careful, hard decisions about how to protect the national security of the united states. thee are the key facts in the but i think are hard facts that i have heard very little discussion of on this panel today. of januarys, as 2013, the director of national intelligence in the obama administration have confirmed or suspects that 28% of former -engagedmo detainees re in terrorism. that is an inconvenience that for any argument that would lead a substantial risk for these individuals being released. scoredcond that is under by timing this week. i've vented prisoners, including

senior members of al qaeda, is it from the abu ghraib prison, which is controlled by the iraqi security force. s the likewise, underscore risk of relying on foreign facilities to became known toledo's forhe whom there is a substantial risk engaging in- terrorism if they find in-- are at larly those who in terrorismgaging if they find themselves at large. is there any reason to believe that the recidivism rate would be in the lace -- in less than

the guantanamo prisoners that have been released and the engage in terrorism at 28%? terrorism at ain rate of 20%? question could always be -- also be post, is the existence of guantanamo a higher risk than the release of prisoners we have -- the question can also be opposed -- ofed, is the existence guantanamo at higher risk and the release of prisoners reality have their -- already have there? individualsce those back into the care of countries that would take care of them, a requirement is body has imposed

on the secretary of defense, a certification process. releasing thebout 86 that are cleared for release under conditions that meet the expectations that the secretary of defense has to certify, i think it is appropriate and i think the risk associated with that is relatively low. it is not zero. i live in a world, a military world that accounts for risk and down with every factor available to you. understood your answer correctly, it was that if these released, we can act to mitigate the risk of -engaging in terrorism. you did not dispute the premise

of my question, that these individuals, if released, we engage inect to re- terrorism at at least the same rate. the people we released initially, it is not the case, that they were the most dangerous. the first people we released with those we thought were the least dangerous. irrational inference would be those remaining would, if anything, return to terrorism at a higher rate than a lower rate than 28%. >> predictions are really hard, especially if they are about the future. unhave a population that is unknowable to a 100unknowablerate.

unknowable to a 100% rate. was noted what i thought the most difficult question. it is easy to stay close guantanamo and get and applause from various audiences. the harder question is, what do ?ou do with these terrorists you either send them to u.s. detention facilities. the chairman has volunteered marion, illinois to host these terrorists. i do not know about the citizens and what they think of that. i know what the citizens of texas with think of it. we have multiple instances of people in federal prisons directing terrorist acts from

federal prisons. was conflict -- terroristsof aiding from prison. the escape we just saw in abu ghraib, it is hard to have any confidence that if these individuals are sent to a fourth facility, that they will not be and commit future acts of terrorism. i want to close with a final question. reported that under the obama administration, approximately 395 people have ,een killed by drones strikes

are you aware of any reasonable argument that it is somehow more protective of human rights, more protective of civil liberties you fire a missile as someone from a drone and killed them that it would be to detain them and interrogate them and determine if they are guilty or innocence and what intelligence might be derived from that individual. >> mr. chairman, one housekeeping item i would like to add to the record. senator cruz, i'm probably not the best arbiter of what is humane. have people on the panel who have spent a lot of their time welding on that. i try to focus on national security. this is a human being. if you kill people that is typically less humane than incarcerating them. letting them starve to death is less humane than feeding them involuntarily if necessary.

this is not my specialty. i would defer to others who might have a higher claim on knowledge in this. >> we have no intelligence from someone who has been killed. >> that is where the national security piece comes in. interrogating people is i would suggest a real impediment to our ability to prosecute a war like the one that has been thrust upon us by people who operate with a very high regard for operational security. to the extent that we deny ourselves unilaterally this ability by essentially for closing putting them in place where we can have those kinds of interrogations i think is a dereliction of duty on the part of the commander-in-chief. >> thank you. >> it is certainly a reasonable concern in the criminal context.

the claim that 28% of detainees has rejoined the fight is highly misleading. defense department officials have said that many detainees included in that category are nearly -- they very well have not been in activities that threaten our national security. that does not mean all of the prisoners are somehow innocent farmers and that there is no risk. i believe it is a question as it relates to what our overall objective is. atot of the people guantánamo are precisely declined to target that al qaeda looks for -- some of them could cause harm if they are released. that does not make them any

different from the hundreds of thousands of other angry young men throughout the muslim world who believe in the same cause. there are sadly no shortage of potential suicide bombers. guantanamo does nothing to solve the problem. it probably makes it worse. >> senator feinstein. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to ask a question. asyour past, did you serve an intern in my san francisco office perchance? [laughter] >> proudly, ma'am. >> well, i am very proud of you. [laughter] isn't it true that some of the detainees have not been cleared for transfer? they can only be prosecuted in federal criminal court because the charges of conspiracy and material support of terrorism are no longer available in the military mission?

is that not correct? >> that is correct. >> so, what we are saying if there is no alternative prosecution in the federal court, they remain without charge or trial until the end of time. >> let me clarify, ma'am. the material for conspiracy is a -- can be charged in federal crime. it is a charge that is available in the federal court. >> if you will keep them at guantánamo, they cannot be tried by military commission. is that correct? >> correct. they cannot be tried. >> the hope is that they would have to be transferred out and tried in a federal court. >> either that or go through a

meaningful process or have a visa set up where the country determines that they are no longer a threat in which they can be transferred. >> let's talk. i have believed from the days of kernel will -- general davis that the commission is an ineffective instrument. hominy the cases have they actually tried? -- how many cases have actually tried? explain what those six convictions are and who is still serving. >> the six convictions were for -- the names are -- [reading names] i did not serve in those trials. i do not know the details of each case. the charge that one was charged was -- >> maybe i could give them to

you. one received a five-month sentence. inwas sent back to his home yemen to serve time before being released in 2009. in hobart 2012, the d c circuit vacated his can -- in 2012, the d.c. circuit vacated his -- hicks was the first person convicted in a military commission when he entered into a plea agreement on material support on terrorism charges in march of '07. months given a nine- sentence. he mostly served back home in australia. another flight guilty to conspiracy and material support also a military jury delivered his sentence. the final sentence handed down in february of '11 was two years in pursuant to his plea

agreement. he has returned to sudan. mohammad plead guilty to conspiracy and material support. thanentence will be less three years pursuant to his plea agreement. because of credit time served, you could be eligible for release to sudan in december of this year. one last one. militaryuilty in a commission to murder military and spy him. years,sentenced to eight but was transferred to a canadian resident where he will serve out his remaining sentence and be eligible for parole after he served a third of the sentence. there are a couple of more. one of them is your client. here is my point -- the sacrifices were few and low. i have sat here over the years and wondered what we are doing?

why are we maintaining this sparse of a military commission which really doesn't work? we have different people down there trying to make it work. to the best of my knowledge, no one has been successful. last month when i was down there, i saw a court room with nothing scheduled to go forward. it seems to me that everything down there is so deceiving and is really a kind of untruth about the american way and the american judicial system and about america's humanitarian treatment of prisoners. it goes on and on and on. there is no end to this war that we know of.

unless the facility is closed on it will continue to go on. do you have any other comment you would like to make? >> senator, could i make a quick comment? >> sure. >> this question of whether it will go on and on was back to the point i was trying to make earlier. that is not up to us. the president is saying it has to end is only possible if we surrender and submit. this question of will there be more, this recruiting if we leave it open, that begs the question compared to what? does it get worse if you have more of these jihadists inspired by our submission? that is what i am concerned about. >> i know what is happening. i also know that guantanamo contributes nothing positively. he contributes nothing that a

federal prison would not do better post at the contributes nothing that a federal court could not do better. >> but if we close it, that could be seen negatively. it would inspire our enemy. >> i disagree. it would send a signal that we have learned something. i saw the people there. the doctor is right. it is a very different take that people imagine. dr., do you not agree? >> yes, ma'am. look at the prisoners coming out of israel. they are inspired. >> i want to say thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate being here. >> we have two house members are unfortunately delayed.

i have never seen this happen in the senate before. we will let house members testify. how about that? [laughter] havee honored to congressman smith and his ninth term. has a very lengthy and impressive bio that i will not read. i hope you understand boast up and we have another congressman who is enrolled at west point and graduated first in his class. i'm not sure how long you have been in congress. >> 30 months. towe will ask each of them make a statement. if the panel will not mind for

a few moments. five minutes. if there any further questions, senator cruz and senator feinstein. >> thank you. i'm honored. i wish we could work together more often. we should close -- a number of issues have been raised. i'm not here to argue that we should stop detaining and interrogating suspects were that we should release the number of suspects that are at guantánamo. those are difficult questions. i think the 84 inmates we have visited it for release is being acceptable risks, but that is a separate question from where we hold him. the argument i make is that guantánamo bay coming up to balance the costs and the benefits.

there is literally no benefit to keeping guantanamo bay open. all of the arguments i have heard about the necessity to detain and interrogate and fight the war -- which i agree with completely -- the necessity to protect ourselves from our enemies, all of that can be accomplish by holding them within the u.s. it has been stupefying in the last two years the degree of which people have been unaware of the fact that we have hold hundreds of terrorists inside the u.s., including a blind shiek and many notorious operatives. we continue to do that right here in the u.s. safely and efficiently. number one, the average cost of an inmate is estimated 1.5 million per year at guantanamo. there will be transition costs to shut down guantánamo. in the long run, there is no question that it is cheaper to hold them in the u.s. than it is in guantánamo. what is the benefit of keeping that prison open? there is none. there have been arguments made

about more constitutional rights will apply as they come to the u.s.. the supreme court has ruled that guantánamo is treated like the u.s. there are no greater constitutional rights here in the u.s. there is no benefit. what is the costs? number one is the cost and the money to maintain the facility. understand how the international community looks at guantanamo. it was opened in the first place as an effort to get around the u.s. constitution. it was hoped that it we help them outside the u.s. at we would not have to abide by the pesky constitutional values and rules that we hold so dearly in this country. the world knows that. it is an international eyesore as a result. niceupreme court said, try. you are in control of them so the constitution does the fact apply.

george bush and john mccain, and many hard-core republicans who i think would take a backseat -- said we need to close this prison because it is hurting us with our allies and inspiring our enemies. i'm not naïve. and when i say the only reason al qaeda attacked us is because of guantanamo bay. far from it. it is unnecessary. i propose an orderly way to close it. the president has also put out a plan. i know he is accused of not having one. again, it it is -- there are arguments that you can have separate. it is not about whether or not we should hold them. it is about where we should hold them. holding them in guantánamo bay hampers our efforts to successfully prosecute the war against al qaeda. he continues to be a piece of evidence that our allies used say we do not want to cooperate with the u.s. because we do not like the way they treat prisoners.

the hampers our ability to successfully prosecute this war. the only argument left hanging out there is somehow we cannot safely hold these people in the u.s. i find the argument to be ridiculous. we are safely holding hundreds of terrorists. not to mention mass murderers and pedophiles and some of the most dangerous people in the world. at the u.s. is incapable of successfully holding a inmate and we are all in a world of hurt. i hope we understand that. and there is the notion that this will somehow inspire al qaeda more, i hate to tell you, but they are sufficiently inspired right now. we have maybe 484 in the u.s. it brings them -- but that is

ridiculous. let's get around to closing guantánamo as soon as we can. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i agree with mr. smith to say only as far that al qaeda is very much inspired. i was at guantánamo bay this past may. i want to have some facts right up front about the situation. every american should be proud of integrity shown at the u.s. military personnel caring for these detainees. their work is difficult, but they bring the highest honor to the work they do their. second, there are no human rights violations occurring at guantánamo bay.

there is no doubt that the detainees are held in conditions that may or -- [muffled interruption in background] [gavel] >> thank you. given the safe and secure environment that it provides, they have freedom of movement activity than they would in a maximum u.s. prison. they have access to gym equipment and dental care and recreation. this is a political stunt. there's no benefit, because it is great. gym have access to equipment and dental care and recreation. the healthcare matches the level of the care received by our u.s. personnel. i would be remiss if i do not talk about the hunger strike there. this is a political stunt. they should not be rewarded. claims of the efforts of them currently refusing nutrition as inhumane wrong. the methods used by military

personnel to feed detainees who wish not to feed themselves are carefully monitored by medical personnel and those in command. it is right to continue to provide detainees nutrition. i want to talk about the constitutionality. some people question it. we continue to be at war with al qaeda who daily seek to kill americans. as long as they fight us, we remain at war. as the supreme court has made clear, the capture and detention of enemy combatant is a necessary incident to the conduct of this war. there is no question about the constitutionality of the detention at guantánamo bay. let's talk about the merits. current detainees have been off the battlefield for some time. they may continue to provide vital intelligence to u.s. intelligence collection is that we now focus on those who are there today. they're still engage in the counterterrorism battle all around the globe. we need to have a secure location in which to detain captured enemy combatants. intelligence collection that occurs at this location is enormous to our efforts to

continue to identify and capture additional enemy combatants and defeat our enemy. i just returned from a trip to afghanistan as well. many assure you there are folks there that would either be to kill or capture. we will serve our national security far better if we were able to capture them. we talked about options. what are our alternatives? we could release them to third- party countries. as senator cruz said, we have a high recidivism rate. or 15% or one quarter of those detainees, i can assure you that we will have american service members killed as a result of releasing detainees from guantanamo bay. just within this past week, i cannot perform image or tap into facilities in iraq. releasing 500 al qaeda warriors. the transfer to third-party is not a solution to keeping america safe. there is a human right risk that the nations to which we send

those detainees will torture those folks. we cannot permit that. second, the other option is to bring them back to the u.s. twice within the last 48 hours. there have been amendments offered. twice the bills have been defeated. the american people and their representatives understand that bringing these detainees back to the united states is not a workable solution. damageto talk about the that has been done to do to that rhetoric surrounding guantanamo bay. after four years in office, the president continues to insist we pursue a political goal later figure out a way to meet the real mission. the president knows full well indeed and has spoken about not all of those prisoners are transferable or returnable, including the 9/11 five. no one believes they will come back, including this president,

but he continues to use the rhetoric of guantanamo bay closing. the president seems for more concerned in my opinion and mollifying the al qaeda than protecting the american people. the president continues to do great harm to america's security interest. thank you for the time. i yield back. >> thank you, congressman. senator white house, do you have a question? >> i had a question for the panel. ont a moment of background it. i grew up the son of a foreign service family and spend a certain amount of time in africa and southeast asia. and was, i felt, the beneficiary of the goodwill and good example that my country presented around the world. i was never able to articulate it very clearly until i heard president clinton who was a

master articulator say the power of our example as americans has always been more important in the world than any example of our power. i recently ran across daniel webster's first bunker hill from 1825 where he said the last hope of mankind rest with us. meaning americans. if it should be proclaimed that our example had become an argument against the experiment, the experiment being our democracy, he continued popular liberty would be sounded throughout the earth. wholike those of you represent our country overseas

to react to those thoughts and explain where in the range of hard military power and soft economic power and diplomatic persuasion you think of the example that america represents to the world stands in the assets that we bring to bear in support and have our support around the world. >> senator, thank you. human rights first has stenciled on their wall a quote from one of my favorite presidents, dwight eisenhower. whatever america hopes to bring to pass in the world must first come to pass in the heart of america. do we want americans to be represented with a young man who or do we want america to be represented by a man who had just built a large and actual chicken farm in an african country?

as a soldier, i would far better want representation by a man who knows how to bring agricultural expertise than my sons and daughters with rifles overseas. we are far better served by our economic prowess and diplomatic prowess than by our extraordinarily fine military. thank you. >> senator, i'm not sure if i qualify as one of your candidates for answering this. but if i may -- >> you may. >> ok. thank you. the idealism you just described and the general men referred to is certainly amenable and something we should strive for, but it has to be tempered by a certain realism.

when you are confronting people who are not moved by our example and may be affected by our power, i think you need to be able to bring both to bear. colloquyase, i had a with senator feinstein about this, i just have to return to it, if i may. to the extent that an enemy like the one we confront today actually perceives weakness not as dissuasive or exemplary or desirable but as an inducement to violence against us -- the changers of making a miscalculation here, not because it is the way we would like things to be, but it is because it is the way our enemy perceives and responds to these things. our submission is their goal.

i guarantee you they will perceive the closure of gitmo as evidence of accomplishment. -- >> i just have to react to that because i have to disagree. george washington led armies that left a bloody footprint in the snows of valley forge with no certainty that their enterprise would succeed, and the pledging of their lives would not put them at the end of the rope am a and yet they did not torture hessians when they fought them, they did not foresee them, you can go on and on. theugh world war ii, example of britain in the shadow of hitler's nazism, throwing out of their secure intelligence facility somebody who had the nerve to lay hands on one of the prisoners partly because they knew it was bad practice in intelligence gathering, partly because it was not who they were, and we are so proud of the way britain stood

up against the nazi menace, even before we got into the war, when they stood alone, and winston churchill will be a figure in history because of that, and i think over and over again they refused to use those techniques -- is actually a measure of their strength. thecould just as easy make argument that we are strengthening al qaeda and our enemies by treating them as if they were more dangerous than not the journey me -- then nazi germany, and require us to veer from standards of decency and conduct that has characterized this nation since its inception. >> thank you. >> senator whitehouse, are you finished? thank you. before we adjourn this meeting, i thank the panel in my collies. i would like you to ask -- i would like to ask you to note

one particular thing. 15 years ago today at this moment, 3:40 p.m., two of the officers of the capitol police were shot down and killed in the capital by a madman with a gun. they were officer jacob chestnut and detective john gibson. he each year at this time when the senate and house are in session, we have a moment of silence in their memory. i would like to ask all those in attendance to please join me, if you can, stand for a moment of silence. >> thank you very much. if there are no further questions, i have a script to

read. the way again to my colleagues in the house, joining us here today. there has been a great deal of interest in today's hearing it in the individuals and revisions submitted testimony including david irvine, retired admirals supporting the closure of guantanamo, amnesty international, the constitution project, the national religious campaign against torture, the center for victims against water, reprieve, air force captain jackson, tom sullivan, the former u.s. attorney before the northern district of illinois, i would also like to note that two other attorneys, close friends of mine in chicago in addition to tom sullivan, lowell and jeff volunteer attorneys representing detainees as well. they give extraordinary amounts of time and help bring justice to the situation. we also received more than one

dozen statements from family members of those attained in guantánamo bay, i particularly want to thank the human rights organization for their assistance in ensuring these individuals were allowed to share their perspective. without objection, i would like to place the same as in the record. openearing record will be for one week to accept additional statements. written questions for the witnesses will be submitted by the close of business one week from today. we ask the witnesses to respond promptly if they can. if there are no further comments from our panel or colleagues, i want to thank the witnesses for attending, and my colleagues for participating. there is difference of opinion, obviously expressed today, and that is what the system of government is all about. that we would come together with differences of opinion in a peaceful gathering and debate on important policy relative to our values and our security. and i think this subcommittee, which have a response ability to deal with issues involving the constitution, human rights, and civil rights, has a particular responsibility to

raise even controversial issues on a regular basis. i'm sorry, but it has been five years since we had a hearing on guantánamo. i guarantee you that if it continues to be open, there will be another hearing very soon. at this point, this meeting stands adjourned. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] ♪ everyuld be honored, member of congress, go down this river ♪ ♪ i would be honored every member of congress go down this river made of promise ♪

>> yesterday, the obama administration says it plans to repatriate the two prisoners from guantanamo bay. they would be the first transfers in neither -- nearly a year from guantanamo bay.

jay carney says the defense department of by congress, which is required by law when prisoners are transferred. the prisoners were not identified. a jury is willing to accept them. on capitol hill, some mixed reaction from those who want the facility closed and others opposed who are worried about future threats from the detainees being released. congress ouisiana woman died. says her mother died at home of natural causes. disappeareds plane in alaska. between the two of them, they served 50 years in the house. she was ambassador to the vatican three years in the clinton administration. she was 97 years old. >> this is a website.

it is the history of popular culture. it is a collection of stories on the history of popular culture. pop culture -- it is more than that. i have been trying to go into more detail with how popular politics andts sports and other arenas. it is not just about pop culture. we have sports biography. of mediaistory entities, newspaper history. there is a range of things. ien i formulated the site, purposely cast a wide net to see what worked. >> more with jack doyle sunday

on c-span's "q & a." houset, some of the debate on two amendments for the defense spending bill that deals with nsa data collection programs. this is about 40 minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the amendment i offer this evening clarifies and confirms the scope of two programs that mr. snowden illegally exposed while sitting in a hotel room in communist china. under section 702, no u.s. citizen in the u.s. can be targeted. i say again, no u.s. person to be targeted in any way by the united states government. while their other authorities, the u.s. person may be subject to an investigation, the u.s. government may not do so under section 702. that is this amendment. thco