On the recordOctober 18, 2011
I would say to our distinguished Republican leader, I think that is what is at the heart of this, that they want to treat these individuals in the context of our civilian court system; otherwise, why would you object to a provision on military custody for those who are members of al-Qaida who are planning an attack against the United States or have attacked the United States? Also, I would point out, there is a national security waiver in this provision. So the only thing I can take from it is that they do want to treat this war as people who are at war with us as civilians as opposed to who they are--enemies of our country. Mr. McCONNELL. Could I ask the Senator from New Hampshire, a former attorney general, a further question? Does this not lead, inevitably, in the further direction of a mindset that would say, on the battlefield, if you capture an enemy combatant-- and that enemy combatant is, inevitably, on the way to an article 3 court--could it lead to the feeling that that enemy combatant should be read his Miranda rights on the battlefield, if he is viewed as an individual who is on the way to a U.S. court under U.S. law? Where does it end, I ask my friend from New Hampshire?





