tv Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the Legacy of Martin Luther King CSPAN January 16, 2016 10:39pm-11:21pm EST
judges, eviscerated that right. they had a series of physicians. first of all, these people may have a constitutional right to habeas corpus, but because they are foreigners they have no due process. hearingvious -- habeas doesn't need to comport with due process. then they say, these hearings don't even need to meet a standard that someone who has been convicted. here are people that never had a trial who have an even lower standard. then the court went through any evidence presented by the government in an interrogation report was presumed to be correct. it cannot be challenged. as a result, the court took away a legal remedy for these people. that happened in 2010. for the past 5 years, to get out, they've been dependent on a political process from the obama
administration. maybe it will work, maybe it won't. the worst thing is that the obama administration's justice department took advantage of absurd legal decisions. they challenged every grant of habeas corpus. they opposed every grant of habeas corpus. if the court ordered these people released, congress could not restricted. and yet for some reason, the took administration advantage of the absurd legal opinions to prevent the grant of habeas corpus. i hope we can change that. two other things. guantanamo is a test of what this nation stands for. unfortunately looking back through history, it seemed to me
that our nation of great principles seems terribly willing to sacrifice those principles whenever there is a threat. yell about security and sacrifice principles like individual freedom and habeas corpus. someday, i hope that we realize at hearing to our principles 0-- adhering to these principles might be difficult at times, but it is the most important. i would like to get that message across. there was something moving to me about the bridge of spies, if you saw it. agent-- defending an a lawyer who had privileged
conversations with him. someone from the cia said, what is the guy telling you? and he said, do you want me to violate the attorney-client privilege? they said, the nations security is at stake. he says, what is your name? you are german of background, and i am irish. you know what makes us american? sticking to the rules. sticking to the rules like abs corpus -- habeas corpus. but not depriving people of their liberty based on suspicion. that is what makes us american. it is tested at times like this. knowe we have the guts to that standing up for this principles is what makes us stronger. i also hope that this will be obama's legacy. we should let him know that he will be judged more by what he does on this by history perhaps
than anything else. thansks. military commissions have prosecuted how many people? eight. karen: four of them have been vacated or overturned. >> 800 roughly prisoners at the beginning. 4 successful prosecutions. >> almost done by plea deals. they didn't go through a trial. >> plea deals in the american system-- karen: that is still being contested. so no. >> so a very small percentage. how have -- how long has khalid sheikh mohammed been in custody? >> nearly 13 years. >> when do you anticipate he would actually get inside a
courtroom? years.a couple >> the problems with the aretary commission process, they always going to be present in the system? >> my way of envision the thetary -- of envisioning military commission. it was more for the polls than anything else. anytime they hold a pretrial hearing in what looks like an established legal setting, it's full of holes. it fails to proceed. everything looks real, all the people are there. then they hit a snag. there are full of snags. the fundamental problem with it is that one side is trying to hide all evidence of torture, and the other side isaying, we cannot proceed with out talking about the fact that these men were tortured.
>> and those making department our military officers -- making those arguments are military officers themselves. >> i was confused by one thing you said. you think that guantanamo will be closed by the end of the year, but the military commissions will migrate into federal trials? karen: right now they can bring anybody here pending congress changing its mind. >> is there money to do it? karen: congress can't tdo it. that is going to have to change one way or another. thought as the real problem in guantanamo are those that are too dangerous to release. if you can't get rid of that list, you cannot close guantanamo. we stillist dwindles,
have the military commissions. >> walk me through. if obama wants to close it, which presumably he does, would in executive action be enough? >> the former councilman had an op-ed in the washington post say he thinks obama has the executive power to override congress' restrictions and be people here. -- bring people here. the ability to place people captured in congress -- income that is a presidential authority. >> i think it is a good argument. win before the supreme
court. there is tremendous political applications. acts executive authority, what will a trump presidency be able to do? do you really want to stand up to congress, how far do you g o? >> absent that, is there any other way out of this? >> the way out of it would be, and has been for a while -- john mccain wants to close guantanamo. if you could cut a deal with john mccain, if mccain can bring along some republicans to do with, then you could tyrry to do it. part of the problem is that -- there are two. one, mccain hates of all the -- hates obama because he thinks he is a weakling. and mccain has lost his party within the republican party.
people see him as a moderate. i don't think he can deliver enough republicans. karen: he keeps asking for a plan. "show me your plan." i can understand why there is no plan. there seems to be a plan in action of some sort. he has left the door open. >> paul ryan has been trying to get through the use of military force. the present authorization for the use of military force is what keeps these people at guantanamo, right? karen: in theory. at the could also look right under international law. >> you are saying those in guantanamo are not only being
held with the use of military force, but something other? >> presidential authority in times of crisis. his article 2 authority? >> this is a very technical area, but yes, i think that argument could be made. karen: you can also make the argument that if it ended, that would be a premise for saying ok ay, we don't have the authority anymore. whether it would win the day or whether some kind of executive decree would come in is another story. you could make that argument, and many have. but if you have a new authorization for the use of military force, you don't get to know that anyone will get rid of the old one. we don't know how it's going to be built. >> i'm having a hard time understanding why can't honda motor is going to be closed. -- why guantanamo is going to be
closed. what scenario makes that even possible? >> the obama plan is get as many people out of theire as po ssible. you are left with 50-60 people. you then go to congress and say, how can you be spending $300-400 million a year to house 50-60 people? let's take them to the u.s., it will save money and it's more efficient. they will be protected from the population. that is the plan. >> you've looked at every federal terrorism case since 9/11. what is the conviction rate? karen: 91%. >> what were the 9%? karen: accused of anything that
arrives at the level of a serious crime. attack,0 accused in an khalid sheikh mohammed-- karen: when it comes close to real terrorism, it is 100%. the trials start to finish could be 18 months. the lawyers for those charged very much wanted military commissions, not trial. when the debate went on, all the lawyers went into military commissions. we can hold them forever. and that is what happened. if you want swift justice-- >> the obama administration has put a lot into guantanamo. bush also did. >> there has been zero under obama. most went to new york for trial?
karen: the eastern district of virginia in alexandria. some have gone to the d.c. court. but many of them have gone either to brooklyn or manhattan. >> and what has the outcome been? karen: they get convicted. they are usually sentenced averaged around 18 years. many of them are put away for 25 years or more. many for life. >> the problem with military commissions in guantanamo is material support, which is a common indictment, is not a war crime. that is why some of these prosecutions fail completely. they were vacated. karen: right, some were vacated. others that were charged expected to could not be charged.
another guantanamo detainee has been through the system for how many years? now it is on appeal for the question of conspiracy. >> he was an bin laden bodyguard? >> questions from the bbc. abu zubaydah, who i am sure you are familiar with. in his diary, he was released a couple years ago. what will happen with him? he's also at camp 7, where you can get you when you are a journalist. state have to say about the closing of guantanamo? karen: great question. >> i think abu zubaydah is one people we are looking at when we shrink the population down and down. this is a man that cannot be returned, as far as i can see, to anywhere that he is from.
no palestinian has been released from guantanamo because israel will not allow it. he is the great shame of the torture program. he was instigated for him. -- it was instigated for him. the last i heard legally is that they were still trying to prosecute him. they decided he was the leader of some kind of militia aligned to al qaeda. i don't think that was ever explorable. it seems what he was doing was facilitating escape from afghanistan after the invasion. that meant soldiers, but also civilians. i don't think there is any kind of case against him. he's in the category of people waiting periodic review boards.
they may have walked completely back with. i don't know what they do with this man. has seizures regularly. it is a really terrible story. handful ofre are a people hiding in the shadows in guantanamo that we don't know about. some of whom who are terribly abused and are in an awful state, which is why no one wants to go near the cases. all kinds of people where we look at too dangerous to release. the government has evidence problems. we have to get everybody else out. we need to be clearing out everybody that is an insignificant threat before we look at exactly what we are left with. i wanted to be as -- want it to be a small as possible. we are hearing 50-60.
that is too many. one of them released from guantanamo became a leader of the taliban. two others went to become leaders in yemen. >> those that were released were during the bush administration, when there was no process. a lot of them were released because of political reasons. now we have a process. i wish it had worked more quickly. but we review these people. >> what is that process? what has it been? >> it was originally started back in 2009, when the obama administration -- it was amazing. at the end of the motion ministration, we found that files on these people were scattered everywhere. there had been no formal review of those at guantanamo.
they really did not know it. the ulcerative the obama administration was to collect -- the whole start of the obama a menstruation was to collect data and collect a review. -- of the obama administration was to collect data and start a review. cia, everyone. they had to come to a unanimous decision about each individual. it was very tough. you always have those on the difference prevent -- defense department saying oh my god, there is a risk, we don't want to do with. they created this other category of people too dangerous to release, which is a bad category. obama said at that time even then, that would be reviews. but they didn't do any. they just did not do any. when it started again and 2013 people throughy the interagency task force. risk, can they
be released? the problem with that is that they have not put enough resources into it. there have only been 18 of these reviews. they should review them all. 85% of them would probably be cleared. let me say one thing about abu zubaydah. is,m not allowed, like andy to even look at wikileaks information. i can lose my security clearance, unbelievably. but his lawyers have told me that they think a lot of the allegations against him were simply false. whole created with about his -- created myth about his dangerousness. he is not such a person. >> i'm from the muslim public affairs council. i am so impressed by the work that you are doing. it was cringing to hear all the details today. my question -- if guantanamo was
set up to skirt the geneva convention and to skirt any kind of rights that prisoners of war would have, what would be close that down? in this local climate, we got isis. it seems very convenient for people of that mindset to say, i can do this. asked, and even if i am, i can put labels on it. no one will be concerned. if i'm on the other side, i would say great, i can just keep doing this forever. >> i think that is because there
are people who think that holding people without charge is helpful. clear, every very time president obama speaks about it he says, what we're doing in guantanamo is creating more enemies. i think that is true. there are forces present in the united states political team who are desperate to add new people to the population in guantanamo. that president obama has shown a willingness to bring people who are prosecuted abroad to court in the united states. none of it gives any reason, i do not think, that the geneva conventions do not work. they were not only thrown a sign at guantanamo but they have been generally treated appallingly in
the wars since 9/11. think is thing which i killing people is extra-judicially is the detention. i don't think there is a strong argument to be made anywhere on practical terms whatsoever for keeping guantanamo going so that you can add new people to it. i do think throughout obama's presidency, the only good thing i can say is that it always looked like a legacy to me, not with thoseng thing policies that take place. are thoseere theories, it was created to
avoid the law. if you are outside sovereign territory, you don't need to pay attention to u.s. law. many people think, that is terrific at a time when we're facing these terrorist threats. there are a lot of people in this country, like vigilante movies, who think the law is and it impediments. there is a debate. i am telling you, you go into the republican side of congress, they believe that. this is a police -- place we need, a place where we are not these little rules. this is the perfect place. believe me, that is what a lot of people think and the fight is with the others, like us, the left, who wants to say let me tell you, our strength comes and our principles adherence to the law.
two-foldhave a question. one, how important is it that have that governors have said they will not accept people released from guantanamo in their states and although you mentioned it, i think it is more important, how much of wanting to keep people there is not wanting it to come to light how much torture has been used? is the president has very clearly said he does not want to move backwards he wants to move forward. >> the governor who do not want them in their backyard, not in my backyard, it is just a affect if in a campaign season. if there are any fact or attacks on prisons, including guantanamo
why any terrorist organization, etc., it is understandable. built, atanamo was military base held hundreds of women and children who were there as servicewomen and servicemen and children in school, etc.. a choice, then prison was being built for the worst of the worst or they could go home. they chose to stay. to bedea that it is scary in there, it is just a political tool. it comes down to money. it now costs $3 million a year to keep each detainee -- to keep the detainees there. as we let detainees out, the cost per detainee goes up. at some point, when you get to over, it doesft
not make any sense at all and i think that, to answer your question -- >> let me just say, lindbergh coming out against mohammed , killedied in new york it. it has political power. it is a shame. the torture question -- i think they will cover it up anyway. so -- >> all i was going to say was, you know, we have the executive summary of the torture reports a year ago and as i said a year ago, i am still very impressed that the system you have in the united states was able to do that. because we have had pretty much zero detectability in the united kingdom in terms of a proper investigation in what has taken place since 9/11. you read the when
executive summary, read the whole report, ok, there are deductions. what is in there that is so profoundly shocking? >> the report was really about cia, not just about guantanamo. >> i understand, but they are different. >> but no, i would like to see a similar test to what took place on guantanamo. it is not as if we do not know the terrible things that of happened. about whattion was would come to light about torture. you know, what might come out? i agree,he answer is, it's not so much we worry about how much we know because it is about --, but the real underlying area, when you have tortured individuals who are on trial or whose witness in evidence is about people have been tortured, you actually
cannot try them. it does not matter what kind of system you build it to make lipstick on this. all the machinations will not get around it. someone was tortured. they witness, the big government witness was excluded. the trial took place. of ok -- the only one town detail know who is of a move to with thesoil, charged killings of over 200 people, including americans and two east iticans and u.s. embassies, was a short trial. it took a month. in, it played itself out, there were difficulties, but the issue of torture did not come up in the trial it self and we are still here and he was back in colorado. visiting bloomberg.
what were they? would costht that it a lot of money and jeopardize security in new york. it would make a place, you know, as they said at the time, where people can come, you know, attack new york. it was silly. he fell into a -- the factou look at that they have had trials, karen, it tell us. who has been tried in the subdistrict of new york? karen: a number of individuals and charged.adited extradited after many years, tried in the last three years. i will just go through who they were.
laden was-law of bin tried. another individual who was -- you wanted to set up a -- a camp in oregon. i need and, a host of others. a couple who tried nodded manhattan and in connecticut for other crimes. there have been no norms. no moves to new york. extra security that judges can notrmine our ok, like reading the new york times or something so the jurors will not see any headlines. not very exciting. [laughter] >> can i just say one thing? when you talking about the being tried. that is 10% of the population at guantanamo. 90% of the people are there indefinitely in prison without charge or. that is an extraordinary thing
in our system. try our others is clearly they should be in federal courts. it is better for everyone. terribleas one of the decisions by the obama and administration to back down after having publicly announced they were going to proceed. i think what that tells us, you know, is they were confident that they had enough evidence that did not involve torture to secure or they would not have gone ahead with it. so, backing down on that has, you know, led to this position where the justices are delayed. >> hello. my name is adam. you may have covered some of this because i unfortunately came in a little bit late, if from theat the -- up politicians and the environment
we're in -- we have the people who are actually conducting this business down in guantanamo to include also, of course, the department of defense and mr. carter, the secretary. so you have judge paul, you have this highly trained military taking care of these prosecutions who used to get a lot of optimistic interviews years ago about a way forward, a land, so forth. it seems to me that the -- forget about the politics that are undoubtedly related -- but deep perspective these trials occurring at guantanamo, i mean, they have not happened yet and it seems to me a question as to whether they will ever happen. is that ither thing have not been down to guantanamo
know, you, but, you used to talk to the people in the prosecution and they had a plan in there was kind of a morale and they felt they were doing the right thing and if you agreed with him or did not, you could understand a kind of his speed to core animating the prosecution side. at this point, it just goes on and on. i mean, what is going on with the department of the defense and the prosecution team and to -- iextent do they believe mean, a lot of these are, you know, good, sincere people who think they are doing the right thing whether we agree with it or not to eat these processes eroding and then we have this insubordination editorial in the -- i guess it was in the new york times -- it is going on with kind of, on a technical morale psychological legal level
the people who are tasked with carrying this matter out at the present time, given the prospects? karen: i cannot answer that except to say that i do not inc. the optimism, at least in the front row of the commission has changed. sympathizing, -- but as their optimism based on? they believe -- martin believes this process can work and no matter how many hurdles there are, he just believes that the. record, all of these glitches taking place, whether it is the cia having access to the courtroom and nobody knowing it except the
judge, the translators being in maturingrs during the interrogation process, or a number of other -- the fbi informant that was placed on the defense team -- for some reason, he thinks he can it defies the odds and make this happen. concerneds not suit about the timeframe and i think, if they are actually -- there were actually a limited in his mind i wonder how optimistic he would be if he thought he would concluded before the obama presidency. the people who supported the commission and instead of federal court trials are not unduly bothered if it drags on and on and on because they absolutely did not want these people tried in federal court for whatever their reasons are. it issults is that helping to defend the notion of guantanamo is a place where people must be held indefinitely
without judge or trial. in, that is another important reason to keep pushing against it. >> at them, can i say, one of the things that is interesting is sort of the commissions was lindsey graham. lindsey graham believes strongly in wrongly that you are in a war and that these are -- need to be and like it was a war. and not criminals. if lindsey graham, who is a strong friend of john mccain, and john mccain defers to them on this, is to say, yes, this is not working. people have talked to lindsey graham and said, yeah, you're really elevating these people by treating them as war criminals and not warriors, that would change the whole thing.
but i'm not sure he will. from theyou, jeff central times. i am wondering if you could talk about why the review boards being ended so slow. the,g to get by the end of that would be this week. you take the administration would really hustle up on that. ?s it about resources is there no reason why this process will not stick? >> they simply have not had the resources into it. the obama administration simply has not managed it. close-- if they wanted to the place, you should get the
resources into do [rbwant to -- prb is. and do notf go on take charge of it, you know. >> no one has really been overseeing it. he'll be as petitions have been challenged, and nobody is joining. some people see that as part of the conspiracy. i do not think it is, i just think it is that no one is overseeing the process. >> thank you. chris with the red cross. areeems that some people moved to the united states and have had a negative prb. anything that changes legal arguments?
>> the whole premise and reason for guantanamo was to say, these foreigners outside of the united states have no can station on rights. the supreme court said they have the right to hate this. -- hey be us purpose. habeus corpus. under the constitution, it says there is no way to hold people without trial. says, a foreigner within the united states enjoys full constitutional rights and the right to due process. >> hello, i am lonely. i am a former fellow here. guantanamo, say on the
republican side of using it as a strategy for war, if first you can start, talk about how guantanamo has become this recruiting symbol and how it and what it means as a strategy. you are fighting a war on the psychological operations side. how important that becomes to recruiting sources is. >> i think it has disappeared. i have not done a scientific study, but in jihadi candidate, propaganda -- it was -- i would a nonscientific response, it does not seem to be one of those issues and it will be wanted passing for the purposes of getting around it, the whole energy around that has gone down on all sides, right and some mark if you go back to 2000 six,
this was a really, very intent international -- it was a huge vote for the united states. forget about diplomatic jihadists, but that sort of receded. you live this every day, do you think that is a reasonable view or not? >> i was thinking that it, you know, he my kind of every day interactions with muslim people i think people are relevant. know, anot about, you terrorist response, this is about an everyday, ordinary appreciation of muslims about guantanamo and what it stands for. i think it does have a -- it does have a very bad affect even if it is not pitching in at a very high level. >> i am scott, i work at human rights first and i am also a moon. certainly it is a friendly audience for what your purposes and i commend all of you for your arguments have.