On the recordNovember 19, 2013
I would say we have to go from the evidence we have before us, where we have a 29-percent reengagement rate. And let's face it. The easier decisions were made first, in terms of who should be released. Now we have some very hardcore individuals who are there. We already have a 29-percent reengagement rate of them getting back in the fight against us as terrorists, and so we face a grave risk of some of the most hardened individuals if we transfer them or we lessen the standard for transfer, which is what this is doing. It is taking away the issues I talked about--the consideration of countries we have already transferred to but people have gotten back in it--and making it easier to transfer and weaker in terms of the national security requirements that have to be met, and I am worried they will get back in and then harm us and our interests because we already have a history of that. I want to ask the Senator from Georgia an additional question. Some have cited the cost issue as the reason we should close Guantanamo. But to the Senator's knowledge, has anyone done the cost estimate of all the considerations that would have to be taken into account in the United States and also the security interests of the people of this country of transferring these terrorists to the United States? Finally, I would also say there are risks we face in losing intelligence if they have to be Mirandized, and things such as that. That is a huge cost in terms of protecting our country, is it not?
Source
govinfo.gov




