- Today we welcome back the Obama administration's
top officials for the closing the detention center
at Guantanamo Bay.
In March these two gentlemen appeared
before the committee to discuss the administration's
proposal to relocate the prison
and its detainees to the continental United States
as well as the process of releasing individuals
to foreign countries.
Much of the news from that hearing
surrounded Mr. Lewis' revelation that in his words
"unfortunately there have been Americans that have died
because of Guantanamo detainees."
And indeed last month, the Washington Post reported
that the administration believes
that at least 12 detainees released
from the Guantanamo facility have since attacked US
or Allied forces in Afghanistan,
killing about a half dozen Americans.
That was startling enough but it is particularly disturbing
that upon close examination, these witnesses made statements
to the committee that are inconsistent
with the documents and inconsistent
with information that the administration
has supplied the committee under the law.
Specifically the committee asked,
whether the Department of Defense ever knowingly
transferred a detainee to a country that did not exhibit
an ability to substantially mitigate the risk
of recidivism or maintain custody or control
of that individual.
Mr. Lewis and Mr. Wolosky assured committee members
that it had not.
Yet numerous intelligence reports provided
by the administration suggest
that their answers were inaccurate.
In fact, the Defense Department had done so
on numerous occasions.
The Secretary of State has the sole responsibility
to negotiate transfers including agreements
to monitor released detainees.
Under the law, Congress regularly receives information
from the Intelligence community, on the return
to terrorism rate of individuals released
to foreign countries.
As well as assessments of a country's ability
to prevent terrorists from returning to the fight.
Simply put, many countries just aren't up to the job
and a diplomatic agreement to do the job
isn't worth the paper it is written on
if a country does not have the resources,
does not have the training, to keep committed terrorists
from returning to the battlefield.
Yet the administration has sent Guantanamo terrorists
to these countries anyway.
To then deceive this committee and the American people
is deeply disturbing.
And when given the opportunity to correct the record
for the committee, they ignored us.
I appreciate that the administration finally responded
on Tuesday but it shouldn't take the calling
of a hearing to elicit a return letter.
Especially on something as consequential as this.
This committee has an obligation to conduct oversight.
While we have differences of opinion
over Guantanamo policy, I don't think anyone here
finds the administration's dismissiveness acceptable.
And should anyone think the committee's concerns
are theoretical, and specifically I was pressing
on these terrorists who had been transferred to Uruguay,
it is not theoretical.
Because now Jihad Diab, who's an Al Queda linked terrorist,
who was sent from Guantanamo to Uruguay in December 2014.
We sounded the alarm about Uruguay's lack
of legal framework.
We explained to you about the critical resources
to prevent travel outside the country.
That that was lacking in the case of Uruguay.
And so what is the result?
The result is last month, Jihad Diab disappeared
from Uruguay.
His current whereabouts are unknown.
And this was after Mr. Wolosky testified
to us in March that we are confident
that the government of Uruguay is taking appropriate steps
to substantially mitigate the risk of this former detainee
and others sent to Uruguay.
Yesterday CNN, citing US officials, reported that
this terrorist was last spotted in Venezuela.
He is believed to be headed back to Syria or Yemen.
We have been awaiting answers to the committee's inquiry
but while I've been patient, the President has been
in a rush.
Seemingly willing to release Guantanamo terrorists
to wherever he can.
I wish we were not here today.
Holding another Guantanamo hearing this week
was not my intention.
But he is loose and my patience has run out.
And I now turn to the ranking member.
- Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Wolosky
and Mr. Lewis welcome back.
And thank you for your service.
Last time you gentlemen were here,
I made my views on the Guantanamo prison pretty clear
and I would ask that my opening statement
from that hearing be included as part
of the record of this hearing.
- [Voiceover] No objection.
- To recap, the prison should be closed.
National security experts of both parties agree with me.
In fact I have a letter here from 36 retired generals
and admirals calling for the prison's closure.
And I ask that it be included in the record.
The prison is a waste of money
and a propaganda tool for terrorists.
End of story, as far as the prison goes.
There were however some issues raised
about transferred detainees at the last hearing
that deserve some follow-up.
And I say transferred rather than released
because there's an extensive process that goes
into removing a detainee from the prison
and sending him to another country.
It's not as though they're just set loose.
But it is important to know how exactly
are we monitoring transferred detainees
and assessing the risk they pose.
Those are good questions.
But because they deal with intelligence methods,
we could only discuss them in a closed, classified setting.
My understanding is that the administration offered
to do just that and that offer was rebuffed.
I hope that after this hearing, in a few weeks or so,
we can have a closed, classified setting
to get answers to some questions that you are not
really allowed to say here in open session.
So why are we here?
The title of today's hearing is
Demanding Accountability: The Administration's Reckless
Release of Terrorists from Guantanamo.
Well since we say reckless release,
it sounds like people's minds are made up
and I wanna make sure all the facts are on the table.
Because I think there's plenty of blame
to go all around.
I think the chairman raises legitimate issues
but I do think there's plenty of blame to go around.
First the vast majority of Guantanamo detainees
were transferred out of the prison
before President Obama took office.
A total of 780 detainees had been held in Guantanamo
during the Bush administration.
500 were transferred out compared to 159 detainees
under President Obama.
Secondly let's look at the number of transferred detainees
who returned to the battle field.
The figure 30% gets thrown around a lot
but what goes into that number?
Turns out it includes the total number
of transferred trainees that we know for sure
have returned to the fight as well as those
suspected of re-engagement over the entire life
of the Guantanamo prison 2001 to present.
During the Bush years, 2001 though 2008, the rate
of suspected and confirmed cases
of re-engagement was actually higher than that, 35%
with 21% of the cases confirmed and 14% suspected.
So let me say that again.
More than 1/3 of the terrorists that President Bush's
administration transferred may have returned to the fight.
Now let's contrast that with the Obama administration.
Under President Obama that number again totaling
suspected and confirmed cases drops to 13%.
8% suspected and just 5% confirmed.
That 5% represents seven people.
Now I know one person escaping is one person too much
but I just want to have a balanced hearing here
because if we've already made up our minds
in talking about the administration being reckless
it doesn't seem to me that we're really here
to learn anything more.
I reiterate most 13% of those transferred since January 2009
have reengaged compared to as much as 35%
during the previous administration.
The contrast is striking.
But let's not get lost in the numbers
because this is perhaps the most important point.
The transferred detainees who returned
to the battle field and killed Americans
were let out during the Bush administration
not during the Obama administration.
So if we're going to paint with a broad brush
and say 30% of transferred detainees may be going back
to the fight and killing Americans,
we need to take the whole story
and put it in perspective.
The Bush administration racked up that average
and then some.
The Obama administration has helped to bring it back down.
Thirdly the administration's closure plan
would not transfer any person who does not meet
the most stringent criteria.
I've heard claims that the remaining detainees
are the worst of the worst and the administration
simply wants to turn them loose.
That's false.
29 of 79 remaining detainees are cleared for transfer.
Among them are 22 Yemenis.
The administration isn't transferring them yet.
As a matter of policy, we transfer detainees
to their home countries.
But in the case of Yemen, the government cannot provide
adequate security assurances.
So the administration has pumped the brakes
out of an abundance of caution.
We need to find countries
that can provide adequate assurances
before those 22 are transferred.
That leaves 50.
Some of these are really bad guys.
Ten of them will stand trial.
Another 40 are being legitimately held
as prisoners of war.
But under no circumstances, in my opinion,
is the Obama administration simply opening the gate
and releasing dangerous terrorists onto the street.
Look, Guantanamo's a mess and it always has been.
No one is blameless.
Anyone can cherry pick single cases
to paint a picture big or small, good or bad.
But I think the facts and the statistics
speak for themselves.
And I think that what we should do after this
instead of having the witnesses come
and tell us that they can only tell us things
in a classified briefing, is to spend our time
with them after this hearing, in a few weeks,
where we could be in a closed setting,
getting to the bottom of this matter.
Now the Foreign Affairs Committee obviously has oversight
on this issue.
The hearing last March and today's hearing
are the only two times that the committee
has taken up this issue in the nearly 15 years
that Guantanamo prison has been open.
So since we have our top Guantanamo experts with us today,
I hope you can give us your opinions
on some interesting ideas we've recently heard
about that prison.
I'm going to read you a few quotes.
You may recognize them.
I'll give you a hint.
It's one of the candidates running for President.
Here's the first quote
"This morning I watched President Obama talking
" about Gitmo, Guantanamo Bay, which by the way
" we are keeping open. And we're going to load it up
" with some bad dudes. We're going to load it up."
Unquote.
And the second quote.
" Torture works, okay folks? Believe me it works.
" And water boarding is your minor form. Some people say
"it's not actually torture. Let's assume it is.
" But they asked me the question 'Whatta you think
" of waterboarding?' Absolutely fine but we should go
" much stronger than waterboarding. We should go much
" stronger because our country's in trouble."
Unquote.
So I just wanted to say that I read that
because some people say they want to expand
the Guantanamo prison and torture.
I can't think of a worse proposal
for our national security.
These schemes would only harm us
with our allies.
And provide ammunition to our adversaries.
Mr. Wolosky, Mr. Lewis, at some point today
maybe we can hear your views on what would happen
if we went in that direction.
Again, I hate doing tit for tats but I do think
it's not really fair to blame the administration
for all the frustrations we have about Guantanamo
when we see that there were problems
and wrong things done
in the previous administration as well.
So I look forward to listening to you
and hearing your thoughts.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
- Thank you, Mr. Engel.
This morning we are pleased to be joined
by Special Envoy Lee Wolosky.
Special Envoy for Guantanamo Closure
at the US Department of State.
Previously Mr. Wolosky served as the Director
for Transnational Threats on the National Security Council
under President Clinton.
And Mr. Paul Lewis is joining us.
We're pleased that he's here.
Special Envoy for Guantanamo Detention Closure
at the US Department of Defense.
Previously Mr. Lewis served as both the general council
and the minority general council
on the US Armed Services Committee.
Without objection, the witnesses full prepared statements
will be made part of the record.
Members will have five calendar days
to submit any statements or questions
or any extraneous material they might want
to submit for the record.
And I'd like to remind everyone including our witnesses
that willful misrepresentation of
or false statements by a witness is a criminal offense
under 18 US Code Section 1001.
Indeed that is the case for all of our hearings.
And Special Envoy Wolosky please summarize your remarks.
- Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ranking Member Engel.
Distinguished members of the committee, good morning.
I appreciate your inviting me once again
to appear before this committee.
I look forward to continuing our discussion
in closed session either later today as we have offered
or as soon as possible.
So that we can have a fuller discussion
of some of the classified topics we know are
of interest to the committee.
Altogether, a total of 779 detainees have passed
through Guantanamo and of those 700 have departed.
The vast majority of detainees transferred out
of Guantanamo to other countries, some 532,
were transferred by the administration of George W. Bush.
Under President Obama, a total of 159 detainees
have been transferred.
Today 79 remain.
President Bush acted to whittle the detainee population
because he understood that, and I quote
"The detention facility had become a propaganda tool
for our enemies and a distraction for our allies."
Close quote.
President Obama has continued detainee transfers
for many of the same reasons.
Of the 79 detainees detained at Guantanamo today,
29 are currently approved for transfer.
Detainees have been designated as approved for transfer
during this administration through one
of two rigorous inter-agency processes.
First, soon after taking office, President Obama
ordered the first ever comprehensive inter-agency review
of all of the 242 detainees then in US custody.
In 2009 and 2010, the Guantanamo Review Task Force,
sometimes also called the Executive Order Task Force,
which was comprised
of more than 60 national security professionals
from across the government, assembled all reasonably
available information relevant to determining
an appropriate disposition for each detainee.
Then based on the task force's recommendations,
the Departments of Defense, State, Justice
and Homeland Security, the office of the Director
for National Intelligence and the Joint Chiefs of Staff
unanimously determined the appropriate disposition
for each detainee.
Transfer, referral for prosecution
or continued law of war detention.
Second, pursuant to executive order 13567,
detainees who were not approved for transfer in 2009
and 2010 could be subject to additional review
by the Periodic Review Board.
The PRB is comprised of senior representatives
from six agencies and departments.
None of the PRB representatives are political appointees.
Having described how Guantanamo detainees
have been approved for transfer,
I would now like to briefly describe the process
for transferring detainees.
Decisions regarding whether, when and where
to transfer a detainee are the culmination
of another rigorous inter-agency process.
The Department of State leads diplomatic negotiations
with foreign governments regarding the transfer
of Guantanamo detainees but we are typically joined
in our discussions by senior career officials
from the Departments of Defense, Justice
and Homeland Security as well as those
in the intelligence community and on the joint staff.
Generally, transfer negotiations occur in two steps.
First, the US government obtains
or reconfirms a political commitment
that the potential receiving country is willing
in principle to resettle or re-patriot detainees
and to impose various measures
that will substantially mitigate the threat the detainees
may pose after transfer.
Second we engage in technical discussions
with foreign officials responsible
for implementing these measures.
These technical discussions offer the opportunity
to tailor the integration and security measures
to specific circumstances under consideration,
to share best practices from previous detainee transfers
and perhaps most importantly, to determine,
based on an individualized assessment
of these specific circumstances,
whether the statutory standard in the NDAA
governing the foreign transfer
of Guantanamo detainees can be met.
Once we conclude that our diplomatic negotiations
will result in a security framework that we assess
will substantially mitigate the threat a detainee
may pose after transfer, the Secretary of Defense
consults with the Secretaries of State, Homeland Security
and the Attorney General, the Director
of National Intelligence and the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the transfer.
Only after the Secretary of Defense receives the views
of those principals and only if he is satisfied
that the requirements of the NDAA are satisfied
does the Secretary of Defense assign
and transmit a certification to the Congress
conveying his intention to transfer detainees.
Ladies and gentlemen of the committee,
let me close by saying that although
we would obviously prefer that no former detainees
engage in terrorist or insurgent activity
following their transfer, we believe that the low rate
of confirmed re-engagement for detainees transferred
since January 2009, under 5%, is testament
to the rigorous inter-agency approach
the administration has taken to both approving detainees
for transfer and to negotiating
and vetting detainee transfer frameworks.
I look forward to your questions.
- Thank you.
Mr. Lewis.
- Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel,
distinguished members of the committee,
Representative Donovan, thank you for the opportunity
to testify again regarding the administration's
Guantanamo detainee transfer process.
Secretary Carter has approved the transfer
of 43 detainees, 28 of whom have been transferred this year.
Secretary Hagel approved the transfer
of 44 detainees.
Secretary Panetta seven and secretary Gates 65.
During this administration, 159 detainees
have been transferred.
Mr. Chairman, we understand the importance
of this issue to you and this committee
and we appreciate the attention you have given to it.
As I stated in March at the outset,
I'd like to reiterate one continuing fundamental point
regarding this detention facility.
The president and his National Security Committee
have determined that closing this detention facility
is a national security imperative.
Imperative is a strong term.
The president and his leadership
of the National Security Team believe
that the continued operation of detention facility
weakens our national security.
Closing Guantanamo is about protecting the country,
not weakening it.
As you know, the importance in closing
this detention facility is echoed
by former President George W. Bush
and a long list of former Secretaries of State,
Secretaries of Defense, Joint Staff Chairmen
and other former military leaders.
As Representative Engel noted, a letter was provided
to the committee by former FLAG officers,
including a former commandant of the Marine Corps.
Transfers from Gitmo are in the national security interest
of the United States and are conducted in a safe
and responsible manner.
On March 23, 2016, I testified before this committee.
During that hearing, as the Chairman noted, I was asked
whether the Department of Defense had ever knowingly
transferred a detainee to a country
that did not exhibit an ability
to substantially mitigate the risk
or control the individual.
In response to that question,
I stated the Department of Defense
had not conducted such a transfer.
I stand by my response.
We have addressed your concerns, Mr. Chairman
in a letter that we sent to you this week
and I again apologize for the late response.
But I want to briefly highlight several points.
Here's our statutory framework.
The 2016 NDA requires that at least 30 days prior
to any transfer and in addition to other requirements,
the Secretary of Defense certify to Congress
that the receiving country has taken
or agreed to take steps to substantially mitigate
any risk the individual could attempt
to re-engage or otherwise threaten the United States.
We have met that statutory requirement
with each of our transfers.
Prior to the transfer of any detainee
to a foreign country, the United States government
receives security assurances
from the receiving country regarding the actions
that the receiving country has taken
or agrees to take to substantially mitigate the risk.
After the assurances are negotiated,
the Secretary of Defense and his senior staff
engage in a robust review process
that considers many factors including all
of the intelligence that the government has
regarding the threat posed by the individual detainee
and the security assurances.
Importantly, updated intelligence, medical
and compliance information is provided
to each country regarding the detainees
under consideration for the transfer.
Many countries also take the opportunity
to travel to Gitmo to interview transfer candidates.
After full consideration of all this information,
including a full and updated assessment
form the intelligence community,
the Secretary makes the determination
that I told you about earlier.
As Secretary Carter has testified
and Secretary Hagel testified,
they take this responsibility very seriously.
Secretary Carter has said he will not transfer a detainee
that he does not believe is in the security interest
of the United States to do so.
These transfers have not been conducted
in a vacuum, sir.
Each transfer is formally notified to Congress
and we regularly brief members and staff on transfers.
With the notice of each transfer,
we offer to brief Congressional leadership
and members and staff
of all the National Security Committees.
I appreciate the opportunity we have had
to regularly brief you and your staff
regarding these transfers.
Briefly I think it's important
to put these recent transfer decisions
in a foreign policy context for this committee.
Many countries in the international community
want to close Gitmo and have stepped up to help us.
Specifically, over 30 countries since 2009
have accepted for resettlement Guantanamo detainees
that are not nationals of their country.
Additionally, there is sustained support
for our closure efforts from civil society organizations
both domestic and abroad including the Organization
of American States.
Even the Vatican has expressed the support
for our closure efforts.
In summary, each transfer is only approved
after careful scrutiny by the intensive inter-agency
review process and the negotiation
of the security assurances sufficient
to substantially mitigate any threat.
Finally, I'd like to take a moment
to again recognize the military service members
who conduct detention operations at Guantanamo.
These men and women continue
to have our deepest appreciation
for their service and the professionalism they display
each and every day on behalf of our nation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I look forward to your questions.
- Thank you, Mr. Lewis.
The last time you appeared before this committee,
we asked specific questions about the transfer
of detainees to countries ill-equipped to handle them.
Specifically we asked whether the Department of Defense
ever transferred a detainee to a country
that it knew was incapable of maintaining control
of that individual and keeping him
from returning to the battle field.
Mr. Lewis responded no.
Mr. Wolosky stated that he was not aware
of such an instance.
Upon further review of your own intelligence assessments,
those answers appear to be false.
In fact it appears that the administration
has released dangerous terrorists
to ill-equipped countries on numerous occasions.
On May 16, I wrote to your departments asking you
to correct the record.
You did not.
The committee asked the administration
to halt all transfers until you explained your testimony.
You did not.
In fact you completely ignored the letter.
Until we called this hearing.
And that is why we are here today.
And I'm gonna ask you several simple questions
and I'd appreciate a simple yes or no answer.
Mr. Lewis, Mr. Wolosky, in your roles do you have access
to intelligence assessments of detainees
and transfers countries?
- Yes.
- Do you review those intelligence assessments prior
to the transfer of detainees to the custody
of foreign governments?
- Yes, sir.
- We review the intelligence assessments
that are material to the issue before us
which is whether to transfer a detainee
to a specific country under certain circumstances
in order to be able to meet the statutory standard.
- Right.
And in my May 16th letter,
I referenced three intelligence reports
submitted to Congress, pursuant to Section 1023
of the National Defense Authorization Act.
Those reports are dated May 31st of 2013.
July 15th of 2014.
August 6th of 2015.
Are you familiar with the content of those reports?
- Yes.
- [Lewis] Yes.
- Are you aware that those reports contains assessments
of each country to which the Defense Department
has transferred detainees?
- Yes.
- [Lewis] Yes.
- And are you aware that those assessments indicate
that some countries lack the ability
to control those terrorists?
- We cannot by law discuss classified
Defense Intelligence Agency assessments
in this session, Mr. Chairman.
We're happy to do that in closed session.
What I would point out to the committee
is that in connection with each transfer,
we do rely on intelligence reporting
that is broader than just DIA reporting
and as I said is tailored specifically
to the issue of a transfer to a certain country
at a particular point in time
and is geared toward a determination
or an analysis of whether the relevant
statutory standard for transfers can be met.
- Mr. Chairman the reports you refer to
are one of many reports we look at.
We look at all source information
from the intelligence community.
And as the Envoy has stated, the Secretary
makes his determination looking at all the evidence
that's available, the updated evidence,
and in particular he makes his assessment
after we overlay the security assurances
to that country.
So if the intelligence tells us
that there may be a gap in capabilities,
that's what we negotiate the assurances for.
So again, we look at those records, Mr. Chairman
but we look at a much broader array of records.
- I'm gonna explain to you, Mr. Lewis,
that is not what you said here in March, all right?
And in light of your familiarity
with the intelligence reports
and what is in those reports,
I'm just gonna ask you again, has the administration
ever transferred a detainee to a country it knew
was incapable of monitoring that individual,
preventing him from traveling outside the country
or otherwise keeping him from returning
to the battle field?
- Sir, since I've worked for Secretary Hagel
and Secretary Carter, every transfer has met
the statutory requirement.
And it's my understanding that the administration
prior to my coming transferred pursuant
to the process that Envoy Wolosky indicated.
And there are no transfers that I am aware of
that did not meet the statutory requirement.
- I don't think you can just wish away intelligence reports
that raise grave concerns.
Reports that you chose to deny when asked about them
in our last hearing.
But if you're now saying that the intelligence reports
are, I assume the implication here, incomplete.
Then I have to say, from what we can tell,
the president has made a political decision
to close Guantanamo no matter what the cost
to national security.
Based upon our experience.
Based upon our discussions which go on
for some considerable time now
in terms of the warnings from us on this committee
about the five individuals who were transferred
to Uruguay and their subsequent conduct.
And now the fact that one of them has been released.
That can be the only reason
why these intelligence assessments are being pushed aside.
In my judgement.
And it appears that the assurances that you got
from Uruguay didn't account for anything.
This fella Jihad Diab walked right out of Uruguay.
We have no idea where he is.
And if that country is telling you
that they won't prevent their travel.
Which is what I pointed out to you.
Then we'd better listen.
If they're not gonna prevent their travel.
Then it's not a surprise what subsequently has occurred.
So Mr. Wolosky, you've briefed this committee several times
about Uruguay.
You've told us repeatedly that the government
of Uruguay was capable of handling these terrorists.
In fact, you testified on March 23rd that
"We are confident, to your question, that the government
" of Uruguay is taking appropriate steps
" to substantially mitigate the risk associated
" with each of the six detainees that have been transferred
" to its custody."
That turned out to be wrong, as I pointed out.
Jihad Diab has now escaped.
Now the other point I would make out, make to you,
and this also goes to some of the conversations he's had.
Is that I'm aware this was the third time he left Uruguay.
And nobody knows where he is.
The media is reporting that he could be on his way
to Syria or Yemen.
And I would just like to ask, why did you provide
false assurances to Congress, why did you mislead us
about Uruguay's capabilities.
Because I made it very clear to you.
Our concerns about Uruguay's capabilities.
They were pretty up front.
- Mr. Chairman, I strongly disagree
with any suggestion that I mislead this committee.
In fact, I stand by my testimony from March
in which I affirmed that Uruguay had committed
to and is in fact taking steps to substantially mitigate
the risk of the six detainees that were transferred
to its custody in December 2014.
While we would have preferred that Mr. Diab remained
in Uruguay, if in fact he is not in Uruguay currently,
until the expiration of the two-year resettlement program
that was the subject of the agreement reached
with Uruguay and reached with him frankly.
The fact is that the standard is not elimination
of risk, it is mitigation of risk.
And there is no, we never represented to this committee
that there was a travel prohibition.
What the president's closure plan describes generally,
and I cannot get into the specific assurances
provided by the government of Uruguay.
But what the president's plan describes
are travel restrictions.
The president's plan describes specifically
the withholding of international travel documents.
Now there are a number of additional steps
that we take and our partners take
to restrict travel and to monitor travel.
I cannot go into those in an open session.
I'm happy to describe them to you,
even in the specific context of Uruguay,
in a closed session.
But I cannot do it here.
- But let me explain this simple fact to you.
When a country tells you that they won't prevent a terrorist
from traveling, then you had better listen
if your intention is to release that terrorist
into that country.
But my time has expired.
I will go to Mr. Eliot Engel of New York.
- Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis, let me start with you.
In a hearing before this committee in March,
you discussed the issue
of former Guantanamo detainees killing Americans.
According to White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest,
none of the former detainees who have gone
through the screening process implemented
by this administration in 2009 have harmed Americans.
To quote Mr. Earnest from March of this year.
And I quote him.
" No one who's been released from prison
" at Guantanamo Bay on President Obama's watch
" has been implicated in violence against Americans. "
Unquote.
So I would like to ask both of you.
How has the Obama administration changed
the detainee transfer process from the process used
before President Obama took office?
Or has he not changed it?
I understand it's been changed.
How have these changes helped prevent former detainees
from harming Americans?
So why don't we start with you, Mr. Wolosky.
- Sure, thank you Congressman Engel.
532 detainees from Guantanamo were released
under the administration of George W. Bush.
The fact is that we can't tell you much
about the circumstances under which they were released.
We can speak to what our administration has done
and what we understand to have been the process
in the previous administration.
So first, we engage in a rigorous inter-agency
evidence-based process, reliant predominately
on career government officials
to determine first if a detainee may in principle
be designated as approved for transfer.
And transferred out of the custody of the United States.
That's the first step.
This is an inter-agency process
that includes many career professionals
throughout the government.
And I as I described in my testimony,
this administration there are actually
two separate processes at various points
in the administration.
To first determine whether in principle a detainee
may be safely transferred subject
to security assurances.
Second thing we do very carefully
is we negotiate for detainees who have been approved
for transfer, specific security assurance packages
consistent with local law in the places
that we transfer these detainees to.
And after obtaining a political commitment
from the country in question
that under the circumstances in question
the measures to be put in place
by the country: monitoring, travel restrictions,
information sharing, integration planning
will mitigate substantially the risk
that that particular detainee may pose.
That's what we do.
And what we have done, as I said in my opening statement,
has reduced the re-engagement rate, the confirmed rate,
to under 5%.
It's much higher in the previous administration.
We believe that that reflects the fact
that the things that I just described simply weren't done
in the previous administration.
But that's what we have done.
- [Engel] Thank you.
- Mr. Engel it's a more rigorous process.
The process in the previous administration
was only DOD, primarily only DOD.
As Envoy Wolosky has said, this is inter-agency.
When the Obama administration took office
there were about 240 detainees at Gitmo.
We took a fresh look for over a year
at all of those detainees and decided three categories.
Those that could be eligible for transfer
with appropriate security assurances to the proper country.
Those that they wanted to refer for prosecution,
to take a look at prosecution.
And those that merited continued law of war detention.
I say it's more rigorous because as Lee said,
there is broader group of career professionals
and some politicals but primarily career professionals,
intelligence folks, career prosecutors,
who looked at these cases.
They also looked at a broader array of evidence.
They looked at all the evidence
that the USG possessed, whereas the previous process
was primarily DOD evidence.
And then as we know, Congress weighted in.
We now have the statutory overlay for all transfers.
So the bottom line is, as Lee said,
it's a much more rigorous and intensive process.
- Well thank you.
You know I think it's important to put it
into context because even one prisoner escaping
is one prisoner too much.
So we're not going to say that anything is foolproof.
Nothing is foolproof.
But I think that if we look and see what the administration
has done and the safe guards they've tried to put in.
I feel that we're absolutely doing our best.
In fact it's a big improvement
than the previous administration.
So let me ask you this.
We've heard a lot about the challenges
of closing Guantanamo.
It is true that some former detainees
have re-engaged, I know.
Chairman is very upset about it.
And so I am.
But can you help put those cases into context?
What are the costs of keeping this facility open
and how would halting the transfer of cleared detainees
affect terrorist recruitment and propaganda
and coalition efforts to degrade
and defeat terrorist organizations?
- Sir there are three costs.
It's primarily, it drains our expenses.
It's wildly, wildly expensive.
We can do it cheaper in the United States.
More importantly for this committee,
our allies want us to close Gitmo.
It hurts us with the international community.
In my previous testimony, in my opening statement,
I outlined indications in which members
of the previous administration
at the Department of State said Gitmo hurt us.
And I believe it is a propaganda and recruiting tool
President Bush said that.
Many others have said that.
The bottom fundamental point is we want
to protect the country.
And the national security leadership
of this administration, President Bush
and many people in his administration,
numerous secretaries of defense,
numerous secretaries of state,
the prior military officials that we talked about
including a commandant of the Marine Corps
have said the cost of Gitmo outweighs the benefit.
It hurts us.
It hurts us with the international community.
It hurts us with our taxpayer money.
And it is a recruiting tool.
The president has made this decision.
And the national security community leadership
has made this decision.
Lee?
- Sure, thank you.
First, I agree with Special Envoy's comments.
And I do feel compelled just to address
this notion of terrorists escaping
and prisoners escaping and things of that sort.
Just to remind the committee that the individuals
that we're talking about were held
in law of war detention by the United States.
They were lawfully held under law of war detention.
But they weren't convicted of crimes.
When we transferred them to foreign countries,
we transferred them subject to security assurances
such as travel restrictions.
There are a large, this is what this administration
does, the previous administration did not do this.
There are a large number of detainees
of the 532 transferred in the previous administration
certainly, that weren't even subject
to the travel restrictions that we put in place
on these individuals.
But again, I just wanna make sure
that we're getting the terminology right.
Because escaping connotes incarceration.
When we transfer individuals who the US government
writ large has concluded may be transferred subject
to security assurances, they are transferred subject
to those security assurances.
And at that point they are not prisoners.
They are former detainees under supervision.
- I'll stop now 'cause I know my time has run out.
But I wanted to, the thing that irks the chairman
and frankly irks all of us is the fact that this
person was sent to Uruguay and Uruguay apparently
doesn't have the ability to monitor this person
who now has left the country.
Just briefly could you talk a little bit
about the case.
Or do you need to do it in a classified setting?
- On the issue of foreign countries
surveillance capabilities, I would need
to discuss that with you in closed session.
And I welcome the opportunity to do so
so that you may be informed
about what those capabilities are
and what they aren't.
And how they were used and applied
in this instance.
- I echo the Envoy's comments.
We would appreciate the opportunity
to discuss this in detail.
What I can tell you is we talked
to the Uruguayan authorities on a regular basis.
We regularly review intelligence.
We regularly look at this.
And Secretary Hagel, who you know is a very forceful,
careful, deliberate person, signed the Congressional
notifications saying he felt that Uruguay
could substantially mitigate any threat by this detainee.
Again, we're happy to discuss this in a closed session.
- I would like to do that in closed session.
So we'll make arrangements to do that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
- We'll make arrangements to do that.
And at the same time, at the end of the day,
the Uruguayans gave them the travel cards.
Gave 'em the travel card to travel.
At the end of the day, he walked right out of there.
Three times.
And this time, nobody can locate 'im
to get 'im back into custody.
And he is an Al-Qaeda linked terrorist.
Anyway, I go to Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida.
- Thank you so much, Chairman Royce
for calling this hearing and for continuing
to demand transparency and accountability
from the administration regarding its plans
for Naval Station Guantanamo Bay
and the detention center.
As you point out, Mr. Chairman,
the administration has not been forthcoming
with the American people about the release
of dangerous terrorists to various nations.
The reality is that the situation is far different
than we've been told.
So I continue to ask myself,
why does a nation like Uruguay,
why does a nation like Ghana,
why does a nation like Senegal and so many others,
why would they want to take in
these dangerous terrorists unless they believed
that the benefits outweighed the risk.
Unless the administration convinced them
that the benefits outweighed the risk.
And not only that but we're talking
about a high-risk, high-threat individual.
And that person has experience in evading authorities.
Will conduct operations going
to nations that have limited intelligence.
That do not possess
the most sophisticated monitoring system.
That was obvious with the Uruguay transfer.
And we're to believe that the terrorists
will not use that to their advantage?
That they will be properly overseen?
It would probably take 'em just one day
to realize how lax the security is.
In Uruguay for example.
So it's no surprise I think to any of us
that one of these individuals managed
to flee Uruguay where we now know
that his movement was not required to be restricted.
To Brazil and from there who knows?
As the chairman said.
He may en route to Syria or there already.
So I would ask you, if it's possible,
to get a yes or no answer.
Has the administration promised any
of these countries, whether it's Uruguay, Ghana,
Senegal, whatever, cash for taking in these individuals?
And if so, how much, how often and to which countries?
- Congresswoman, we have provided de minimis
resettlement assistance to certain countries
to support expenditures such as language training,
vocational training, things of that sort.
That is fully disclosed to the Congress
in the Congressional notifications that you receive.
- And if you could refresh my memory,
for Uruguay for example, how much would
that country have gotten?
For language and for the other.
- I can't tell you off the top of my head
but we're happy to provide that information
to you supplementally.
- And we'll get the notification, refresh my memory.
Has the administration offered any other
favorable agreements or offered to support
these countries on other related matters
in exchange and if so what kind of exchanges?
- Nothing financial beyond what is
in the Congressional notifications.
Anything related is a broad category.
I can say generally in open session
that many of our partners do view a detainee transfer
as an opportunity to deepen security
and counter-terrorism and intelligence cooperation
with the United States.
We generally welcome that.
And we look to facilitate that interest where it exists.
- And has the administration provided military
equipment or military training in exchange
for taking in a detainee and if so to what extent
and to which governments?
- No, not to my knowledge.
Paul?
- Ma'am that's something we'd have to talk about
in a closed session.
- Like night vision goggles or something like that?
- Again, the negotiation of the security assurances
is very detailed and complex.
And to discuss any specifics I'd have to talk
to you about that in a closed session.
And we're happy to do so.
- Has the administration provided intelligence equipment
or training or promised or offered intelligence sharing
to any government in exchange for accepting a detainee
and if so to what extent and which governments?
- We would have to talk about intelligence matters
in closed session.
- So it seems to me that the absence
of any of these agreements wouldn't need
to be discussed in a classified setting.
So I mean unless you say no to these questions,
I think it would be fair to assume that at least some
of this has been happening, is happening.
Is it the intent of the Obama administration
to continue to release all but a handful
of the most dangerous detainees in order to then say
to Congress, well why keep Gitmo open when we have
such few detainees there
as if President Obama had not had anything
to do with clearing out the number
of detainees in the first place?
- We intend to continue essentially the policy
of the previous administration
to transfer detainees that we conclude may be safely
and responsibly transferred outside the custody
of the United States.
In accordance with applicable law.
- Would it be fair to say that from now
until the end of the presidency, this presidency,
that we would be seeing more and more detainees
being released, five, twelve, two,
until there's just a handful
and say, hey look at all this wasted money
for just a handful of folks?
When you're the ones pushin' 'em out.
- We have 29 detainees who are approved for transfer
and our intention is to work to transfer those
individuals subject to security assurances.
- Thank you.
Well as you know there's a great deal
of resistance about having them come
to the United States.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
- Thank you, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.
And we go to Mr. Brad Sherman of California.
- I'd like to comment on this
over the next five minutes
and I'll probably offend both political parties.
The prior administration did release more terrorists
than the current administration.
More of those released by the prior administration
have been caught fighting us on the battle field.
But the fact is much as we like to fight
as Democrats and Republicans, the policy has been the same
in both administrations.
House them only in Guantanamo
because we don't have the political guts
to house them here in the United States.
And release as many as possible, far too many,
far too quickly.
And massively understate the cost of the release.
We are told that it's wrong to keep them there
for the duration of the war
because the war has lasted too long.
That is their fault.
They waged was against America.
And no we never guaranteed them
that the war would be short.
The purpose of incarcerating POWs
is not only to keep them off the battle field
but to deter their comrades.
When we tell the terrorists around the world,
if you get caught, you'll get released,
while the war is still going on,
we encourage their recruitment.
Now we're told that there's only 12 identified circumstances
when Americans have died because of this release.
That is such a massive under-count.
First of all, when we release somebody
and they rejoin the battle field,
do they send us a report?
Are they listed on LinkedIn?
New status: Rejoined the terrorist movement?
And then when an American dies on the battle field.
Do we get a report from the terrorists?
Here's a list of the people who killed 'im.
Here's a list of the people
who provided them with logistics.
Here are the people that provided the recruiting.
Here are the people that provided the financing.
So unless we're certain that one
of these released people is being monitored every day
and is not doing anything to help the terrorists,
we have to assume that they are waging war against us
as they did before.
And the cost of release is also the incredible concessions,
Ilean Ros-Lehtinen brought this to attention.
All the winks, all the nods, every country in the world,
especially small countries know.
Take one detainee, the president of the United States
is personally indebted to you.
And when you've got a fishing concern.
Or if you're seeking something from the United States,
now or later, the answer is yes.
We'll never get an accounting of that
because you can't account for the winks and the nods.
Now we're told that Gitmo is a terror, that we get
a tremendous propaganda advantage if Gitmo is closed.
Of course we only partially closed it.
We have no propaganda advantage.
It's still a symbol the other side can use
as long as it's open with one detainee.
But we could bring these prisoners
to the United States.
That does not enhance their legal status.
The Supreme Court has ruled in the Brome Dion case
and the Hamdan case, that they have just as many
legal rights there as they would here.
But we, here's an America where we accepted nuclear bases
in our states, knowing that they were targets
for the Soviet Union.
And now, we can't even accept a prisoner.
And we whip up all this fury.
We have 443 convicted terrorists
in American prisons right now.
I'll ask our witnesses to raise their hand
if they're aware if any of those had escaped.
I see no hands going up.
I'm not aware and I've researched this.
We've got Moussaoui, we've got Sakharov,
we've got the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber,
the World Trade Center 1993 bombers.
The Oklahoma City bomber and the Unabomber.
And we're trying to bring to the United States, El Chapo,
who escaped Mexican prisons twice.
We can incarcerate people here.
And obtain the political advantage
that we're told can be achieved
by shutting down Gitmo.
But instead we constantly vote on ways to not do it.
If the legal rights of these POWs in the United Stats
is too great if they're on US soil,
that's the fault of Congress.
We can pass laws identifying that these are POWs.
They're non-uniformed enemy combatants
and entitled to less protection
than those who wore uniforms fighting against us.
So we've got a lot of dead Americans as a result
of this catch and release program.
We've got one party who says we can't house them here.
Although we're able to house terrorists here
in our prisons.
And we've got another political party
so anxious to shut things down
that we massively understate the cost
of releasing them.
I yield back.
- Thank you very much, Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Issa of California.
- Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd just like to bring this up to speed in one area.
Is it true that under current law,
closing Guantanamo is prohibited?
This isn't a trick question.
(laughter)
- I don't think that current law
prohibits closing Guantanamo.
I think that what current law prohibits
is the expenditure of money to move detainees
at Guantanamo into the United States.
- Okay, so under current law, you can close Guantanamo
by releasing the prisoners, you just can't bring 'im here?
That's your assessment?
- I believe the current law prohibits detainees
from being brought into the United States.
- Okay, so the reason that you have both have titles
that say Special Envoy for Guantanamo Closure
is because your job is to close Guantanamo?
Is that right?
- Sir, that is correct.
- Current though, Current though.
I got a yes and that's far enough.
- Sir my title Guantanamo Detention Closer.
We're not closing the Naval facility.
- No, I understand that the president who loves
Chavez and loves the Castros enough to open up relations
has not decided to give back what we have in perpetuity.
So we'll leave that aside.
Your job is to close the detention.
You are working toward that.
I just wanna ask one or two fairly simple questions.
It's been said many times on both sides
of the dais that President George W. Bush,
his administration released more prisoners actually
that you inherited, right?
He released more that you have?
- [Wolosky] Yes.
- Okay.
And during that time, it has been discovered,
and during this administration it has been discovered
and made public that in fact some released
by the Bush administration went back
and killed Americans on the battle field
in Afghanistan and other places.
Is that correct?
- Yes, sir.
- So, George W. Bush released more prisoners,
attempted to vet them, was wrong, they went back,
they killed Americans on the battle field
and we know it and the public knows it, right?
- Yes, sir.
- Okay, so George W. Bush's failures are now very public.
They released people who went back
and killed Americans on the battle field.
Okay, like Mr. Sherman, that's not necessarily popular
with my party.
This President has released many additional people
who have returned to Afghanistan.
Are you prepared to say that none of them killed Americans?
- You're talking about Guantanamo detainees
returning to Afghanistan since 2009?
- Guantanamo detainees released after 2009
who in fact went back and killed Americans.
- The assessment of the intelligence community
is that no detainees released since 2009
during this administration are responsible
for the deaths of Americans.
- So your public statement is that no detainees released
by this administration have killed Americans
on the battle field as of today.
- Correct.
- Okay, just wanna make sure I have it on the record
because I don't believe it.
But you can say it and you're under oath
and I believe it.
That you believe it.
So, I just wanna make sure we understand.
We're sitting here and somehow President George W. Bush
early on releasing the less dangerous, the easier to vet,
the less likely to be hardened criminal terrorists.
Terrorists, not criminals.
They were released, they killed Americans.
You're releasing people, they're not killing Americans.
How do you account for that?
Is this rehabilitation that you've done?
- Uh sir, there are a lot of factual predicates
embodied in your question
that would require some correction.
- Well, President Bush released people,
they killed Americans.
You released people, they didn't kill Americans
on the battle field.
How do you account for that difference?
That you've said under oath?
- As I indicated in my testimony submitted
for the record, we have put in place procedures
that are comprehensive, they're rigorous,
they're inter-agency in nature
and we believe that as a result of those procedures,
that has contributed to the very substantial reduction
in the re-engagement rates seen
between both administrations.
- Okay well let's do that.
You've used procedures that have limited re-engagement.
But it hasn't eliminated re-engagement correct?
- That's correct.
- So you've released people after 2009,
they've re-engaged, they're back on the battle field
attempting to kill Americans right?
- It is not correct to say that anyone who has re-engaged
under the definitions used by the intelligence community
for confirmed or suspected re-engagement
is back on the battle field.
Again, I'm happy to talk or better yet,
the intelligence community can speak
to the committee about the standards that are used.
But it is an overstatement to say that an individual,
for instance, who has been suspected of re-engagement
is on the battle field seeking to do harm
to coalition forces.
- Okay but I just, it's just one of these things
that I think, in a very public, this is not something
that needs to be privately discussed.
It's something now, Madam Chair, if I can have
30 more seconds
since my predecessors did.
People that were released under Bush re-engaged
and killed Americans.
You'll have us believe in a public environment
that although people released under this administration
were more hardened criminals, these were the people
that were in fact not released under Bush
because he thought they were too dangerous,
they've been released.
You're saying in a public forum that they re-engage.
But you're saying nobody died.
- Uh sir, again it's incorrect to assume
that individuals released under Bush
are less dangerous or more dangerous
than released during this administration.
Again this would require a rather long discussion
about why, for instance, the overwhelming preponderance
of the detainees who were approved
for transfer who remain in Guantanamo today
are from Yemen.
So it's just simply not correct
to make blanket assessment about who is more
or who is less dangerous.
Or frankly what the procedures, you keep talking
about vetting done by the Bush administration.
Again, we're not aware of the type of vetting
that is done in this administration.
So again there are a lot of premises embedded
in your question.
- Thank you, Madam Chair.
- Thank you, Mr. Issa.
Mr. Duncan of South Carolina I'm sure will follow through.
- [Duncan] You need some more time,
gentleman from California?
- 30 more seconds.
Thank you. - [Duncan] You'll yield
in 30 seconds.
I just wanna understand.
We have heard endlessly that the Bush administration
released people and they went back on the battle field.
And President George W. Bush and his administration
have to live with the fact that they thought these people
could be safely released back to Qatar
and to other countries.
And in some cases they were wrong.
But you continue to work toward closure
by release back to these countries.
Yemen being a particular area of concern.
And I just wanna make sure the American public hears
in an open session that you believe
that you've been flawless in that no Americans have died
because of people released on this president's watch.
And you've said that.
So I wanna thank the gentleman.
It was very kind to let me recap.
- Thank you and thanks for your approach
to everything, Chairman Issa.
I first off wanna apologize to the lady
with the Department of State for comin' across abrasive
about another issue and I thank you for your help
on that other matter.
We've established the fact that one of the Gitmo Six,
the Uruguayan Six, has disappeared.
We've also established the fact, I think,
that there are certain requirements
and parameters that must be met
before detainees are transferred to a third country.
Uruguay told us, well first off Uruguayan law
prevented intelligence monitoring
and mitigation and former President Mujica said publicly
that his government would place no restrictions
on the movements of the six detainees
that were released to Uruguay.
Later we had their chief intelligence officer
apparently informed the US Embassy
that these Uruguayan Six, the Gitmo Six,
would not be restricted in any way.
And that he was not authorized
to conduct monitoring or surveillance
But if we go back to the requirements
that have been talked about numerous times
here this morning.
Surveillance and monitoring and some assurances
were part of the deal.
So America needs to understand
that one of the six detainees captured on the battle field,
Al-Qaeda operatives captured either
in Tora Bora or Afghanistan has disappeared.
Uruguay, Brazil, United States, at this point have no idea
where this individual is.
Now this individual that we're talkin' about, Jihad Diab
is a forger.
He was responsible for forging documents, passports,
travel documents, for Al-Qaeda terrorists.
He's now disappeared into Brazil.
So let's take it to the 30,000 foot level
and think about Brazil in general.
We've got an area in Brazil and Paraguay
known as the tri-border region.
A lot of folks are transiting through Latin America
through an area known as the tri-border region.
They're coming to South America, to that area,
oft times on fake passports.
Not necessarily forged passports.
They're just passports that don't belong to them.
And they're exchanging those documents in that region
for other false documents and trying to transit
though Latin America to get to America.
To get to the Untied States.
Case in point, five Syrians traveled
to the tri-border region in Brazil
on fake Israeli passports.
The hypocrisy of that I think's alarming.
That Syrians traveled to the tri-border region
on fake Israeli passports.
Exchanged those documents
for somewhere around $25,000 for fake Greek passports.
That they used to travel to Honduras.
Apprehended at an airport in Honduras trying
to come to the United States on fake Greek passports.
So now we have a Gitmo detainee forger for Al-Qaeda
has escaped, disappeared, whatever you wanna call it.
Into Brazil, possibly to the tri-border region
to assist others from the battle field.
ISIS operatives possibly, coming to that area.
Exchanging documents, getting new forged documents
or fake documents to possibly travel
to the United States of America.
But let's take it another step.
There's a huge even getting ready to happen in Brazil
known as the Olympics.
That's a heck of a terrorist target, folks.
So we've got an Al-Qaeda operative who is a forger
who has escaped in Brazil or disappeared in Brazil.
Who has the ability to forge documents.
And he's in a country that's gettin' ready
to host the Olympics.
I hope our counter-terrorism efforts in Brazil,
working with our allies there, are full bore.
So I wanna ask, now that this gentlemen has escaped.
He's gone missing rather.
Is the Obama administration concerned about that?
- Sir, as I indicated previously, it would've been
our preference that all six of the detainees transferred
to Uruguay stayed in Uruguay.
- You stated that.
I asked you a question.
Is the Obama administration concerned
over Jihad Diab's disappearance?
Yes or no?
- As I said I would have preferred that he stayed
in Uruguay with the five other detainees
through the end of the program
which was for another few months until December 2014.
If you're asking me what concerns me,
frankly it is the 532 who were transferred
during the previous administration.
- [Duncan] Mr. Wolosky.
- Without these security procedures.
- We have established the fact that we all wished
he would've stayed in Uruguay and would be right there
with the other five.
What I'm askin' you, is the Obama administration
concerned that he has disappeared.
- I believe I've answered your question.
- Mr.Lewis.
Okay, certainly what you know now.
Will you publicly repudiate the Sloane letter
about the Uruguayan concerns?
So the Uruguayan government, who this administration
tricked, I think, about these people, can finally begin
monitoring and controlling the remaining five detainees.
Will you repudiate the Sloane letter?
- We stand by the Sloane letter.
And we stand by the representations
that we made to the government of Uruguay
at the time of the transfer.
In fact, I believe that the Uruguayans told you,
Congressman, when you visited that they believed
the United States had provided accurate information
about each of the detainees transferred
to their custody.
- They did and that contradicted some previous statements
they had made publicly.
So um.
- [Wolosky] Why do you think that is?
- I'm sorry?
- [Wolosky] Why do you think that is?
- Well we can go back through all of this.
- Why would they say one thing to you
and another thing privately?
- If Mr. Duncan, could you yield for a minute?
- [Duncan] I can.
- I did wanna put something in perspective
for our witnesses here.
And it has to do with why the Chairman
of the Western Sub-committee would be upset here.
And the fact is that the Chief of Intelligence
in Uruguay explained to our committee,
gave us the information, that they were not allowed
to monitor or surveil these six terrorists.
And the decision you made was to transfer them anyway.
He made that observation to this committee
prior to the transfer.
You made the decision to transfer these six
despite our warnings.
The second point that is upsetting to him
is that he Intelligence Chief was then dismissed
from his position.
After warning us of that and subsequently warning us
that they were casing, or they were outside our Embassy
after their release.
And again that they were not allowed to monitor or surveil.
Now we find ourselves in the situation,
despite Jeff Duncan's admonitions and concerns.
And despite what we brought up at the prior hearing.
We find ourselves in the situation where one
of these six indeed is, one of these six terrorists,
is indeed been able to walk out of Uruguay
and no one knows where he is but we do know his attitude.
And this is the reason for our concern.
But I thank Mr. Duncan for his trips
and his work on behalf of the committee.
- I wanna thank the chairman for helping clarify that.
The pattern is clear.
We've been asking about these Gitmo Six
and about the Uruguayans ability
to monitor them for a long time now.
And we have raised concern.
- [Royce] I know.
- About events such as what we've witnessed
in the last 60 days where one of the six
has just disappeared.
Who was an Al-Qaeda terrorist.
There's no doubt about it.
He was a forger.
And we're supposed to tell these countries
that these weren't terrorists.
That they weren't engaged in attacking
or hurting our allies or our United States military
in any way.
Very clear that he was.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
- We got to Mr. Matt Salmon of Arizona.
- Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Last time you were here Mr. Lewis you testified
that Americans have been killed
and I'm gonna piggyback on Mr. Issa
and Mr. Duncan's questions.
You subsequently notified the committee
that those deaths occurred in Afghanistan
by as many as 14 former detainees.
All who were released by the Bush administration.
And I'd just like to ask a few question about that.
How many Americans were killed?
Were they US servicemen and women, civilians or both?
What are their names and where are they from?
- Sir, it's our understanding that there are 14
and I can get you the specifics on that.
I believe we've, the intelligence community can get you
those specific details.
But the number is 14.
Many of the incidents were in large scale firefights
in a war zone, so we can't always distinguish
whether Americans were killed by former detainees
or other participants.
But the intelligence community can get you
the specific details that you asked for, sir.
- Okay and just to recap the specifics.
I'd like to know whether they were servicemen
or servicewomen or civilians or both.
And I'd like to know what their names are
and where they're from.
Those are the things I'd like.
You can provide or get me all of that?
- Yes, sir.
- That'll be very, very helpful.
And then just to piggyback on some
of the other questions.
Knowing that there were casualties associated
with those detainees to Afghanistan specifically,
you then as an administration decided
that it was okay to still release detainees
to Afghanistan?
Is that correct?
- It may have been correct at the moment.
I can assure you that each detainee transfer
to Afghanistan or frankly anywhere else,
is subject to the review of the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
And I can tell you the State Department wouldn't not
concur in any transfer of a detainee to Afghanistan
over the objection of the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
- Well did the, prior to releasing detainees
to Afghanistan, did the intelligence community assess
that the government of Afghanistan was incapable
of maintaining custody and control
of these individuals?
- The standard isn't maintaining custody and control
because they're not transferred into custody.
The standard is substantially mitigating
the threat that they may pose.
And again, these are determinations
that would have been made in conjunction with
and subject to the consultation with the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
If in fact they occurred in this administration.
I believe that there have been.
- Yes, Congressman there have been transfers
to Afghanistan and as Envoy Wolosky says,
we do consult with the field commanders
in Afghanistan prior to any transfer.
And again those transfers have been made
under the statutory standard that any threat
is gonna be substantially mitigated by the host nation.
It's better to talk about this
in a closed setting, sir.
- But you did state for the record
that one of your criteria for releasing them
to Afghanistan was not monitoring.
That's not a concern?
You didn't care whether they were able
to monitor or not?
- We can't speak to specific security assurances
with specific countries in an open session.
But what I can say is that any transfer
to Afghanistan would have involved the consultation
and concurrence of the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
That's certainly what we do in all transfers,
particularly in a place like Afghanistan.
We at the State Department currently would not consent
to any transfer to a place like Afghanistan
unless the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
concurs in the transfer.
- Well Afghanistan is an active war zone
and it's also one of the most corrupt countries
in the world.
And so I guess what a lot of us would like
to better understand is if monitoring isn't part
of the decision and making sure that whereabouts
are readily ascertained, I guess a lot of us wonder
why that isn't one of the criteria.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, yield back.
(indistinguishable chatter)
- The Chair now recognizes Mr. Weber.
- [Weber] Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Envoy Wolosky, is that how you're saying that?
- [Wolosky] Yes, sir.
- Okay.
You said that the standard was not the elimination
of risk but a mitigation of risk, in your earlier comments.
Was that true under the prior administration as well?
- [Wolosky] I don't believe so.
- So y'all came in, the current administration came in
with that in 2009 basically?
- Actually the Congress came in with that.
It's written into the NDAA.
There's a piece of legislation passed
by the Congress and signed into law
by President Obama.
- So that was the standard that you used?
That's pretty shocking what Councilman Duncan revealed
that we were told that Uruguay was not gonna be able
to monitor these guys travel.
There were six terrorists and I'm not knowledgeable
or privy to who they were.
These were not the five that was released
in exchange for Bergdahl is that correct?
- Correct.
- Is it fair to say that, in the Bush administration
didn't they attempt to try to release
what was assessed
to be the lower level risk combatants at first?
- I can't speak to it.
I don't know what their process was.
- Is that fair to say in the current administration?
That you chose to release the lower risk first
and held the worst to the last?
- The worst we're not releasing.
We are only releasing or transferring,
subject to security assurances,
those individuals who have been designated
as approved for transfer by the six agencies
and departments of the government
that are responsible for those decisions.
- But common sense would probably dictate
that the Bush administration followed
those same guidelines?
- I don't think that that's a fair assumption, respectfully.
One reason why it's not a fair assumption
is for years we haven't released Yemeni detainees
who in many cases are low-level fighters if that,
because of the circumstances in Yemen.
So currently many of the detainees who remain
in Guantanamo and who are approved for transfer
are from Yemen.
And that could reflect more their nationality
then their risk profile.
- It goes to their risk profile and I'm sure too.
Now the five that were exchanged for Bergdahl,
are any of those back on the battle field?
- No.
I'm just gonna defer to my colleague
from the DOD to speak to that transfer
because it was an anomalous transfer as you know.
Negotiated by the Department of Defense
as a prisoner exchange.
- [Weber] Okay.
- I'm confident he will say no when he turns around.
- All right, well his time has passed.
I'm gonna move to the next question.
So there are countries who take,
who the administration negotiates with,
and we have a disagreement about whether or not they
actually will monitor them or not.
What number of countries do we look at
for transferring these combatants?
Is it six, eight, twenty-six?
How many countries are involved?
- We can get you the numbers
but I believe we've transferred detainees
in this administration to what?
30 or 40 countries?
- We've resettled to 30 and then 9 repatriations
back to their own country.
- Okay, so 30 countries.
Are you monitoring?
Are you able to track?
You talked about, earlier in your comments,
you spoke with career government officials
in making those assessments and those determinations.
Career government officials on the United States side
or on the prospective country's side or both?
- [Wolosky] I was referring to the US side.
- US side, okay.
So on those 30 countries where we're sending people,
whether or not they can monitor them effectively or not.
And you're gettin' feedback, we called it,
I think it was information sharing.
Is that in real time?
- It can be.
- [Weber] It can be but is it?
- In some circumstances that I'm aware of
it is in basically real time.
- Was it in real time on the guy
from Uruguay that got loose?
- We can discuss that in closed session.
I would welcome the opportunity to do that today.
- [Weber] Okay.
- If you would like to, sir.
- Okay.
Of those 30 countries, are you able to track
in real time, and even in retrospect,
are you able to track and say, okay, this country
did a good job of keepin' up with their combatants,
this country didn't, this country was okay,
this country was lousy.
Is there a scale of rating those countries
and their abilities?
- I'm not aware of a scale.
- So how do you know goin' forward in the future
if a country doesn't do a good job, how do you say,
well we'll give that country another one
or two or three?
How do you determine that?
- By their record.
- Well that would be a scale, wouldn't it?
- I don't think so.
It would be specific to the performance
of a particular country.
Their monitoring, their information sharing
with the United States.
If we're not satisfied with the results
on a previous transfer, we wouldn't transfer a new one
to that same place.
- Okay well that makes sense.
And then the discussion you had
with Mr. Duncan and Mr. Issa,
you talked about those released
under the previous administration, Bush
and there was 530 I think released.
And how many is it under the current administration?
- 159.
- 159, so I don't think that you and Issa agreed
on the fact that somehow Bush released the good ones
and Obama released the bad ones.
Is that a fair statement?
- [Wolosky] That's correct.
- Okay, would you say they were roughly equal?
- It's impossible to generalize.
Each case is different.
What I was trying to do was to push back
against the suggestion that Bush released the easy ones
and we only have the hard ones.
- Right but it's safe to say.
- It's not an accurate characterization.
- Well without the specifics you can't accurately know that.
But in general, a reasonable person might make
that kind of assumption?
- We are all about talking
about specifics, not generalizations.
- [Weber] Okay, fair enough.
- That's why we're here.
It's why we requested the opportunity
to speak with you in closed session.
Because frankly a lot of what is said.
- [Weber] Okay, well I'm runnin' out of time.
- Including Uruguay is just inaccurate.
- [Weber] Okay we'll come.
- And I'm happy to tell you if you're interested
in learning the facts about what was said.
- Let me, we'll come back to that, Mr. Wolosky.
- [Wolosky] In this hearing was accurate. I'm happy.
- Mr. Wolosky I'm out of time.
- [Wolosky] I'm happy to speak to it.
- Mr. Wolosky, I'm outta time.
This is not a, let me just say, thank you
for being forthright but we are on a time limit.
Two quick questions.
- Can I make one comment though?
- [Chairman] Yes sir, you may.
- Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There are 29 detainees that are currently eligible
for transfer who we believe we can transfer safely
and responsibly if we get security assurances.
- [Weber] Can I make a suggestion?
- Yes, sir?
- Don't send 'em to Uruguay.
(laughter)
- Sir, many of them are Yemenis.
That's why they're there.
- Mr. Wolosky back to you.
- [Lewis] Thank you, sir.
- You're welcome.
At the end of the Uruguay program,
you mentioned earlier that the guy got free two months.
- [Royce] This is your last question.
- All right, two months early.
Tell, for the committee's sake,
what would an additional two months done,
in your opinion?
Would it rehabilitated that combatant?
What would that have done?
- This individual, Diab, frankly was a problem
from the moment he landed in Uruguay.
And I'll tell you that and be upfront about it.
His resettlement was difficult.
He did seem to wanna participate
in the opportunities that were being afforded to him
by the government.
- Should we have had snap-back sanctions in place?
To use another term battered around?
- We're not repopulating Guantanamo.
- Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
- [Royce] We go to Mr. Joe Wilson of South Carolina.
- Thank you, Chairman Royce.
And thank you for your leadership on this issue.
And it's so important.
I've had the opportunity to visit Guantanamo twice.
To see the personnel there.
The professionalism of our military.
And it's the place where terrorists should be.
In my home state of South Carolina,
we've learned a lesson.
There's one terrorist at the Navy Brig in Charleston.
He's had a consequence.
He's attracted more terrorists.
To come to the community and threaten attacks
on the facility.
Putting schools at risk.
Neighborhoods in the immediate neighborhood at risk.
It's utterly absurd, the thought of bringing them
to the United States in any way
or releasing them.
And it's interesting you say Yemen.
You released people to Yemen, which was supposed
to be an example of great success
by this administration of establishing a stable country.
And within days of releasing and pardoning terrorists, `
the country collapsed.
And it would be interesting to know,
what did happen to the persons who'd been released
to Yemen previously?
- We do not release individuals to Yemen.
- Well you had previously released,
before the collapse of the country.
But there is a consistency here which is not good.
And the consistency is, we have an administration
that's dismissed ISIS as a JV.
Junior Varsity.
These are the same people, after the announcement
of Junior Varsity, they committed mass murder
in Jakarta, in Brussels, in Paris, in Orlando,
in San Bernadino.
We know the mass murder, this week, in Baghdad
and in Kabul.
Over and over again there's been a dismissal
of threats to American families.
Additionally, it's incredible too, this administration
is very consistent.
By reaching the dangerous Iranian nuclear deal,
providing tens of billions of dollars
to a state sponsor of terrorism.
Just last week, the funding that has been provided
by Iran to Hamas, there have been rocket attacks
on Sderot in Israel.
Again, it's extraordinary to ignore this.
And then we come to pardoning and returning terrorists
to go back on the battle field.
This is inconceivable.
And it's also quite illogical.
As you talk about a recruiting tool.
A recruiting tool is releasing people.
Not being serious about detaining people
who have every intent to kill American families.
And it's really interesting to me,
that they don't use the argument
that it's a deterrent or it's a recruiting tool
to have prisons within the United States.
Of course it's a deterrent.
If people know they could be incarcerated,
they're less likely to commit a crime
or kill American families.
And I'm really grateful that even CNN yesterday,
reported that US officials have said
that 44-year-old Abu Wyote Diab, a Syrian national,
went off the radar several weeks ago in Uruguay
where he was resettled in 2014.
Not prior to 2009.
And so Uruguay's interior minister told CNN
that Diab was considered a refugee
by their government and as such he would not need permission
from Uruguayan authorities to leave the country.
They said he would only need permission
from the foreign country he wished to enter
per agreement with US that enabled their lease
of Gitmo detainees to Uruguay.
And there's a truth from CNN that I hope you look at
and will reconsider what you're doing.
And that is that the disappearance could provide fuel
for opponents of efforts to close the detention facility
at Guantanamo, especially if Diab is found
to be attempting to join a terrorist group.
Of the 676 detainees released from the detention facility
as of January, 118 have returned to the fight
and an additional 86 are suspected of returning.
A recidivism rate of nearly one out
of three released, according to a recent report
from the administration's office
of Director of National Intelligence.
By releasing, pardoning these people, American families
are at risk around the world.
And I just hope that you will reconsider
what you're doing.
And then, I'm really grateful to the Washington Post.
Gordon Englund, the former Secretary of Navy,
and he's an extraordinary public servant.
He's a person of the highest integrity.
He has warned that the process of releasing,
the early process did work.
But that what's being done is that there were 200
detainees when he departed, none had approved for release.
Under the president, more than half have been released.
None of the low risk according to vigorous vetting
he has conducted during the Bush administration.
Statements by the contrary of the White House
are misleading at best.
And so I hope you will really reconsider
and understand that we're in a global war on terrorism.
This is not an academic exercise
of deterrence or incarceration.
And I yield my time.
- Okay, we go to Mr. Dana Rohrabacker of California.
- Thank you.
Do any of you, have either of you,
know of cases, do you believe that Americans
at Gitmo were involved with criminal mistreatment
of the detainees?
- Not aware of that.
- Okay, so but the president has made it
a national security imperative
that we close Gitmo.
And this we are told, that he has to close Gitmo
because it's got such a bad reputation.
But yet from what you just said,
we know that those charges are not true.
Is that right?
- Um, the president.
- We have a propaganda campaign going on
by the enemies of the United States,
detractors of the United States, against us.
Claiming that there was some kind
of major criminal mistreatment
of prisoners in Guantanamo.
And neither one of you knows an example of that
or the fact is if there was one or two instances,
it certainly didn't reflect what was going on in Guantanamo.
Correct?
- Sir, the issue is wrongfully so, there are many people
around the world in many countries
who think that there were things
that went wrong at Gitmo.
We don't believe that they were.
But they perceive that it happened.
- Well let me correct it.
Not only do some people, a lot of people, think that
but there are people who hate our country
who are promoting that, no way it's not true.
Let's get this in your mind.
This isn't nice American politics.
And this isn't a criminal matter
although the president would like
to think of these terrorists as being American criminals.
Americans who have made a criminal act.
This is people who hate our way of life.
They're engaged in an organized effort
to terrorize Western civilization
by murdering large numbers of non-combatants.
- [Lewis] Sir, may I give a.
- This is, we're trying to handle this
and what we get is a president who makes
a national security imperative
to give in to those people who propagandize
and by doing that adds some sort of credibility
to whom?
To the charge that our people who are working
in Guantanamo are a bunch of ghouls
who are torturing these people.
I totally, yeah, there may be one
or two instances where somebody lost their temper
and did something wrong.
But by and large you know and we know
that the prisoners in Guantanamo
have been treated extraordinarily well.
The president, by making it a national security imperative
has basically demonstrated that the propagandus
by people who hate us, will succeed.
And it will be seen and is seen
as a sign of weakness by terrorists
all over the world.
This very act that we're talking about
is encouraging those people
who will murder non-combatants, especially Americans.
Now let's get back to the number 532 released by Bush.
Now among those, I know, were some for example,
a lot of people were picked up.
The Uyghurs from Afghanistan had been picked up.
They were in Afghanistan at the time
of our operations.
There were a lot of situations like that.
Obama has released 159.
I think it is a bit disconcerting.
Again with this administration insists
on treating these terrorists
and those involved with terrorist activities
as nothing more than criminals.
Ya know, they are nothing more than like criminals
would be in the United States.
That's why perhaps the president finds it impossible
to say the words, radical Islamic terrorist.
Because that is different than just some criminal
who's committed an act of violence
or murder in the Untied States.
And by doing so, again seen as a weakness,
the president is actually encouraging terrorists
around the world to take advantage of this weakness.
Take advantage of the fact we're willing
to retreat if you just have a propaganda campaign.
I'm glad to hear that we actually are suggesting
that our guys didn't commit all sorts
of horrible acts against these people.
But of the 159 that were released.
That have been released.
What is disconcerting is when I hear,
well we don't have proof and it's been determined
that this number of people have not, these people actually
haven't committed any of these other acts
after they've been released.
I, like Mr. Issa, find that totally.
It is absurd, it's so bad.
The fact is that, if we're waiting for evidence
to prove before we can say, well we think it's probable
that they have been involved.
Because we know what kinda people they are.
That's one thing.
But what we're being told is
unless we have overwhelming evidence
that they've killed Americans
or killed other innocent people,
we're gonna assume that they haven't.
Well, this is a way, this is not watching out
for the security interests of the people
of the United States.
This is projecting weakness.
This is going to make sure that more Americans die
if by nothing else giving in and having our President
of the United States insisting on treating terrorists
as if they're American criminals.
Which'll do nothing but encourage terrorism overseas.
Thank you very much.
- Thank you, gentleman.
We go to Mike McCaul, Chairman
of the Homeland Security Committee.
Mike McCaul of Texas.
- Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know the president campaigned
on a promise to close Guantanamo.
Is it fair to say that that campaign promise
will not be fulfilled?
- It's difficult to say.
As you know we're asking the Congress
to reconsider its position on bringing
a small number of detainees into the United States
where, as you know, our federal, as you know better
than most, Congressman, our federal prison system
has a 100% success rate in safely incarcerating
over 400 convicted terrorists.
- So the current plan is to process 29 transfers
outta Gitmo which would leave, I think there's 79 detainees
that would leave, 50 I guess at Guantanamo right?
- That's correct.
There are 10 that are in some phase
of the military commission process
and are being prosecuted or serving sentences.
The periodic review board process is ongoing
so it's possible that the number of detainees
who were approved for transfer will increase.
But your round numbers are generally correct.
- In my, I've been down there.
I saw Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, evil incarnate.
So the 50 remaining, is it your intention to.
We passed into Congress
under the National Defense Authorization Bill
an express prohibition against bringing these detainees
into the United States.
This administration will honor
that legal restraint, correct?
It will follow the law?
- As the president has said, his intention right now,
his goal is to work with the Congress to change the law.
- Okay, what is the status of the trial
of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
- It's in the motions phase, sir.
- Why is this taking so long?
I was a federal prosecutor.
This has been, ya know, since 9/11.
- Sir, I'm a former federal prosecutor as well.
Other people are better placed to answer your question
but broadly what I'll tell you is it's a new process
so everything is new.
There's no precedent.
There are a bunch of very good defense counsels.
And the judge is being careful and deliberative.
We have a very good chief prosecutor, General Martins
who's trying very hard but it's just the law,
to do the law carefully, as you know sir,
is a careful.
- Right, and I know a defense counsel filing a lot
of motions, pretty nice courtroom down there.
There are 50 detainees that will be left.
How many of those will be facing military trials?
- Right now as Envoy Wolosky said
there seven that are in the motions phase.
The 9/11 Five, the coal bomber, the alleged coal bomber
and then one more Al-Qaeda leader.
There are three in the sentencing phase.
And we're continually looking at the others
to see if there can be a case.
But I'm not best placed to tell you where we'd be.
- Getting back to those who you plan to release,
we know 13 released have been implicated
in attacks against the United States
or coalition forces in Afghanistan.
Not a good number.
Let me ask you this question.
Has the administration ever refused to send detainees
to a country
because it could not provide adequate security?
- Absolutely.
There are many countries that we look at
that we ultimately determine are not suitable for this.
- You mention a lot of these detainees
you wanna transfer out are Yemenis.
Yemen is a failed state in my judgement.
And it's in a really bad state of affairs.
You have the Houthis down there, Iranian forces,
you have Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
Still plotting external operations
against the United States.
Can you tell me definitively
that you will not be sending these detainees to Yemen?
- Yes.
- Okay, that's a very good answer.
What country would most likely receive them?
- I'd prefer to talk to you in closed session about that.
What I will say, as you know, generally we prefer
repatriations to resettlements
because of cultural affinities, language skills,
family connections.
In this case, that's not going to be possible for Yemen.
So we're looking at other alternatives.
- One last questions.
The Saudis have a pretty good de-radicalization program.
Have you considered that?
- Yes, in fact we transferred a number
of Yemenis, I believe nine, to Saudi Arabia in April.
- Okay, I see my time's expired.
Thank you.
- Thank you, thank you.
I wanna get back to the issue
of what you told this committee in March
just in closing here.
We asked specific questions about the transfer
of detainees to countries ill-equipped to handle them.
And specifically we asked whether the Department
of Defense ever transferred a detainee
to a country that it knew was incapable
of maintaining control of that individual
and keeping him from returning to the battle field.
And Mr. Lewis responded no.
And Mr. Wolosky stated that he was not aware
of such an instance.
Your written response to the committee's letter though,
sent just this week states that
"The law doesn't prohibit us from sending detainees
" to countries that have partially derogatory
" intelligence assessments."
Now partially derogatory, in common terms,
means can't contain.
Or at least are seriously challenged
in containing those terrorists.
So why didn't you cite the law instead
of suggesting to the committee
that detainees were not being transferred
to countries that were incapable
of maintaining control of them
when it is so clear that they are?
That's the point I wanted to make.
That's why this seemed to me
like misleading the committee.
And while I appreciate the witnesses willingness
to speak to us in a classified setting,
which we'll take advantage of.
That can't hide the fact that these issues can
and have been discussed very productively here today.
As you can see we have serious concerns
about this policy and we'll continue the conversation.
But I do wanna thank the witnesses.
And thank the members of the committee.
And the committee is adjourned.
- [Wolosky] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.