Chris Dodd: “No. They are not out of business at all. The interrogations would have to be done by governmental authorities. You can…”

“No. They are not out of business at all. The interrogations would have to be done by governmental authorities. You can bring back military people to do it. There are plenty of guys who can do it, if we put them back on active duty. This is not an overly burdensome problem. The question is, here we are debating the Defense authorization bill and we have been confronted which a huge problem that galvanized the world's attention only a few days ago. We know that part of the problem was because we had people who were not being held accountable and who have little or no supervision. At least we know that much already. In the midst of this debate, should we step up and try to do something about that problem? If the argument is that we have no in-house capacity to fill 40 or 50 slots in Guantanamo, or maybe an equal amount in Iraq with 135,000 U.S. forces there and 20,000 in Afghanistan, the idea that we can't find people within the military services to fill 40 or 50 slots, then I don't accept it as a legitimate argument against this amendment. They may want to keep contracting and have these contractors go through the Department of the Interior, but that is wrong, in my view, and I think it is dangerous. The military has said--I am not opposed to what their thinking is--categorically it ought not be done there. It is dangerous. It causes us problems and it is causing our military personnel problems. It ought to be changed.”