Lindsey Graham

Yes. The point is---- Mr. McCAIN. Not a civilian trial, not given her Miranda rights, but tried by military tribunal.

Yes. Mr. McCAIN. So we are at war. We have American citizens who are enemy combatants. Yet the Senator from Illinois, in the most bizarre fashion that I have heard, says, therefore, they are guaranteed the protections of--as he said--a…

Yes, it is. Mr. McCAIN. So our colleague from Illinois who continues to quote from the Constitution of the United States fails to quote from the specific addressing of this issue by the U.S. Supreme Court, specifically the Hamdan decision…

Does he agree with me that we need a legal system that understands the difference between fighting a war and fighting a crime?

Does the Senator agree with me that the dangers our Nation faces do not justify changing existing law, denying this country the ability to gather intelligence even against an American citizen joined with al-Qaida, that that would be an…

Does my colleague agree with me that the recidivism rate of people we are releasing from Guantanamo Bay has gone up?

Would the Senator agree with me that it is very smart to evaluate whether we should allow someone to be let go and intelligence professionals should be able to make that decision as to whether the individual is a military threat, that that…

In our civilian law, we can hold people who are a danger to themselves or others without a trial but with judicial oversight; is that correct?

Every detainee not only gets their day in Federal court, the government must prove they have a solid case to hold them as an enemy combatant, and everyone gets a yearly review as to whether they are a continuing threat?

So everybody held after judicial review for the first time in the history of warfare. Does the Senator agree with me that the annual review process that we have created by this law, this bill, the Defense Authorization Act, is something we…

Does the Senator agree that the government has to prove to an independent judge by a preponderance of the evidence that the person is a member of al-Qaida involved in hostilities?

We never had, in the history of other wars, a Federal judge determining whether the military has the ability to determine whether someone is an enemy combatant, but we have that in this war. Does the Senator agree with that?

Does the Senator agree with me that every enemy combatant, citizen other otherwise, held at Guantanamo Bay or captured in the United States has their day in Federal court through habeas proceedings?

Does my colleague also agree that in this war, we provide a due process unlike any other war in the past?

My point to my colleagues--and I enjoyed this discussion--is that if you take the ability to hold someone as an enemy combatant off the table, you cannot interrogate them for intelligence- gathering purposes, and if you put a time limit on…

Does the Senator agree with me that we gathered good intelligence over time from people held at Guantanamo Bay?

I thank the Senator for offering this amendment. To my colleagues, we are trying to fight a war, not a crime, within the value systems of being the United States, being the champion of the free world. I do not believe in torturing people…

Does the Senator agree with me that his amendment that says you can be acquitted but still be held as an enemy prisoner is consistent with the law today?

Does the Senator agree with me that if this Congress chose to change the law and say that an American citizen who has associated himself with al-Qaida cannot be interrogated for intelligence-gathering purposes, we would be less safe?

Does the Senator agree that holding an enemy prisoner-- one of the benefits of capturing someone is gathering intelligence?

Let's just logically walk through this. In every war in which America has been involved, American citizens unfortunately have chosen at times to side with the enemy. Our courts say the executive branch can hold them as enemy combatants…

That we should reserve prosecution for a limited class of persons among enemy prisoners?

Does the Senator agree with me that we do not want to start the practice in the United States that everybody we capture as an enemy prisoner is automatically a war criminal because that could come back to haunt our own people in future…

There is no requirement in international law to prosecute an enemy prisoner for a crime?

And the law of war allows the following: trial or detention or both. Is that correct?