[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 56 (Tuesday, April 23, 2013)]
[Pages S2866-S2871]

                             Boston Bombing

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, there has been a great deal of 
misunderstanding about the position the Senator from South Carolina, I, 
and others have taken on the detention and interrogation of the suspect 
in the Boston bombing. None of us is saying the suspect should be 
indefinitely detained as an enemy combatant by the U.S. military or 
tried in a military tribunal. The suspect is a U.S. citizen and must be 
treated accordingly, and he will be. What we are saying is that the 
importance of treating the suspect in accordance with his rights as an 
American citizen must be balanced with our government's top national 
security priority, which is the lawful, effective, and humane 
interrogation of this subject for the purposes of gathering 
  The Boston attacks were clearly inspired by the violent ideology of 
transnational Islamist terrorism. We need to learn everything we can 
about what foreign terrorists or terrorist groups the suspect and his 
brother may have associated with, whether they were part of additional 
plots to attack our Nation, and what other relevant information the 
suspect may possess that could prevent future attacks against the 
United States or our interests.
  We need to delve further into this whole issue of the education some 
people who are motivated by these base ideologies obtain over the 
Internet and the effect it is having. We should at least know about 
  Our civilian justice system offers a responsible option for striking 
this balance with American citizens. It allows the Justice Department 
to delay reading a suspect his Miranda rights if doing so is in the 
interest of ``public safety.'' The administration had rightly invoked 
this public safety exception in the case of the Boston suspect, which 
provided our national security professionals a discrete period of time 
to gather intelligence from the suspect without the presence of his 
  However, soon after questioning him in this manner, the 
administration recently reversed itself and read the suspect his 
Miranda rights. In doing so, the administration gave up a valuable 
opportunity to lawfully and thoroughly

[[Page S2868]]

question the suspect for purposes of gathering intelligence about 
potential future terrorist plots. Whether we will be able to acquire 
such information has now been left entirely at the discretion of the 
suspect and his lawyer. Put simply, the suspect has been told he has 
the right to remain silent. If he doesn't want to provide intelligence, 
he doesn't need to.
  Is this a responsible balance between a citizen's rights and our 
national security? The suspect had only been responsive for a couple of 
days before he was read his Miranda rights. Even then, he could not 
communicate verbally. Does anyone really believe our national security 
professionals were able to acquire all of the relevant intelligence 
possessed by a subject who couldn't speak in only 2 days? This is not a 
responsible balance between civil liberties and national security.
  From the very beginning of this debate, the Senator from South 
Carolina, the Senator from New Hampshire, I, and others have maintained 
that the administration should reserve its right to hold the suspect as 
an enemy combatant for the purpose of gathering intelligence. This was 
not the only option or even the ideal option. In light of the 
administration's decision not to continue questioning the suspect under 
the public safety exception, the only option we are left with is 
lawfully questioning the suspect as a potential enemy combatant.
  The full extent of whether the suspect is linked to al-Qaida or its 
associated forces remains unclear. The brother's trip to Russia 
certainly should be the subject of an inquiry. Additional questioning 
is critical to making it clear.
  Today there is ample evidence that would allow the administration to 
question the suspect for key intelligence. The consequence of not doing 
so is that our need to question the suspect for such intelligence is 
left solely at his discretion and willingness to cooperate. This is not 
a responsible approach to the national security of this country.
  Again, this is not to say that we must hold the suspect indefinitely 
in military detention, nor that the suspect must be or should be tried 
in a military tribunal. In both cases, there is plenty of precedence 
for holding a terrorism suspect as an enemy combatant for a limited 
time before moving him into the criminal justice system for the purpose 
of standing trial in civil court. What is more, the Supreme Court has 
consistently upheld the legality and constitutionality of this 
approach, as well as the ability to hold American citizens as enemy 
combatants. Ultimately, the broader question is whether one views the 
United States as part of the battlefield in the global fight against 
terrorists. I know some don't. I, however, do not see how we can avoid 
this fact. Those who seek to attack us certainly view the homeland as 
part of the battlefield--indeed, the central part.
  Of course, there will always be and should be differences in how we 
handle events in the United States and events overseas and differences 
in what rights are due to American citizens as opposed to foreign 
citizens. Yet we cannot afford to build a wall between the fight 
against terrorists abroad and the fight against terrorists who are 
trying to attack us here at home, including when American citizens are 
involved in this fight, as some clearly are, and will continue to be.
  Just because some don't seem to want to grapple with the difficult, 
unprecedented legal issues this war presents does not mean they will 
cease to be real challenges. If we pretend the homeland, the United 
States of America, is not part of this battle, I believe it will only 
be a matter of time before we learn this lesson the hard way.
  I say to many who are reporting on this issue, I hope it is clearly 
understood that we are not saying the suspect should be indefinitely 
detained as an enemy combatant by the U.S. military or tried in a 
military tribunal. The suspect is a U.S. citizen and must be treated 
accordingly, and he will be.
  During the now-famous discussion of 13 hours on the floor of the 
Senate, there were certain comments made that I think are important to 

       The battlefield coming to America or acknowledging that is 
     an enormous mistake.

  I am quoting from the debate that took place.

       Alarm bells should go off when people tell you that the 
     battlefield's in America.
       I'm here to argue that we can't let America be a 
     battlefield because we can't say that we're no longer going 
     to have due process, that we're no longer going to have trial 
     by jury, that we're no longer going to have presentment of 
     charges in grand juries. It is impossible in a battlefield.

  This is another quote:

       [W]hen people say, oh, the battlefield's come to America 
     and the battlefield's every--where the war is limitless in 
     time and scope, be worried, because your rights will not 
     exist if you call America a battlefield for all time.

  The Chair understands as well as anyone that the people of Boston and 
the people of Massachusetts, of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 
would clearly take exception to a statement such as ``the battlefield 
coming to America or acknowledging that is an enormous mistake.'' The 
people of Boston are very well aware that the battle comes to the 
United States. There are many attempts for it to come to the United 
States. Tragically, it came to the United States of America in a most 
tragic and terrible way.
  We need to have a larger debate here about the location of the 
battlefield. To somehow believe the ultimate target of these radical 
Islamic extremists and other extremist elements is not the United 
States of America is a gross misreading of what this fight against 
terrorism is all about.
  Quoting from a Wall Street Journal editorial, as I have done in the 

       The Boston bombing also ought to chasten libertarians who 
     keep insisting that the U.S. homeland is not part of the 
     terror battlefield.
       ``It's different overseas than it will be here. It's 
     different in the battlefield than it will be here,'' [one 
     Member] told Fox News earlier this year. ``Which gets 
     precisely to the argument I have with some other Republicans 
     who say, well, `the battlefield is everywhere. There is no 
     limitation.' President Obama says this. Some members of my 
     party say the battle has no geographic limitations and the 
     laws of war apply. It's important to know that the law of war 
     that they're talking about means no due process.''
       Boylston Street looked like a boulevard on Monday, and so 
     did Watertown on Thursday night. The artificial distinction 
     [arises from undue] focus on geography. The vital distinction 
     for public safety is between common criminals, who deserve 
     due process protections, and enemy combatants at war with the 
     U.S., wherever they are.
       As for due process, the greatest danger to liberty would be 
     to allow more such attacks that would inspire an even greater 
     public backlash against Muslims or free speech or worse. The 
     anti-terror types on the left and GOP Senators who agree that 
     the U.S. isn't part of the battlefield are making the United 
     States more vulnerable.
       Americans erupted in understandable relief and gratitude on 
     Friday with the rapid capture of the terrorist brothers. But 
     we shouldn't forget that their attack succeeded, with 
     horrific consequences for the dead, the wounded and their 
     loved ones. The main goal now is to prevent the next attack.

  How do we prevent the next attack? We find out as much information as 
possible as to what motivated this attack.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from South 
Carolina be included in the colloquy.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
  Mr. McCAIN. We wish to make sure our position is very clear. We are 
not saying the subject should be indefinitely detained by the U.S. 
military or tried in a military tribunal. The suspect is a U.S. citizen 
and must be treated accordingly, and he will be.
  The tragic events we saw in Boston bring home again that this fight 
is far from over. I don't know if these young men were motivated by the 
information they received, whether it was overseas or whether it was 
due to the Internet and various influences there. What we do know is 
that while living in this country, they changed from apparently normal 
young people into terrorists who were willing to do anything to take 
the lives of their fellow American citizens.
  The battlefield is the United States of America. Anyone who doesn't 
believe this ignores the events from which we are recovering.
  I yield to the Senator from South Carolina, who has probably been 
more widely quoted than I have, and request that he clear up this exact 
situation we are calling for which, frankly, is being portrayed 
inaccurately in a great deal of the media.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Very simply put, I have two goals. I think Americans

[[Page S2869]]

want two things to happen in this case. They want the surviving suspect 
to be brought to justice. I am glad he survived, as hopefully we may 
learn some information from him that will make us all safer in the 
future. I am pleased he survived so we may try him in a court of law, 
before a Federal court in Massachusetts, to hold him accountable for 
his crimes. In the trial, he will be given a lawyer. He has the right 
to remain silent. He will be tried by a jury. He will be given all the 
rights associated with a Federal court trial. He is an American 
citizen, and we have never suggested otherwise.
  As one of the primary authors of the 2009 Military Commissions Act, I 
expressly exempted American citizens from military commission trials. 
Why? I wanted to reserve that system for foreign terrorists. It doesn't 
mean I don't believe there will be domestic terrorism. It doesn't mean 
I don't envision an American citizen helping the foreign enemy. I do. 
Every war, unfortunately, we have been in during the history of our 
country, American citizens have joined forces and sided with the enemy. 
This is not an unusual event. What would be unusual is to say one could 
do so and not be treated under the law of war. We would be making 
history if we adopted that view.
  Let me begin with a case in World War II. German saboteurs landed in 
Long Island. They had been planning for years an effort to come to our 
country. These were Germans who had lived in our country and went back 
to Germany and became Nazis. Because they spoke good English, they were 
recruited by the German intelligence service to come back and plan 
massive attacks on our homeland.
  They had a cell here in America, some of whom were American citizens 
who joined the plot. Thanks to the great FBI work of this time and day, 
as soon as they landed the plot was foiled and the American citizens 
were captured. In 1944, 1945, and possibly as late as 1946, the 
American citizens who aided the German saboteurs were held as enemy 
combatants and tried in a military court. Three of them were hanged.
  The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court said: 
When you join the forces of our enemy, you are committing an act of 
war, not a common crime.
  Tokyo Rose sided with the Japanese. She was tried and given a life 
sentence. Since 9/11, there have been three American citizens who have 
been involved with al-Qaida or the Taliban or affiliated groups. They 
have been held as enemy combatants. They have gone to trial in civilian 
court and the courts have blessed the holding of American citizens as 
enemy combatants.
  Rumsfeld v. Hamdi was an American citizen captured in Afghanistan 
held under the law of war as an enemy combatant. He was eventually 
tried and the Court said, as in World War II, we can hold one of our 
own as an enemy combatant, recognizing the difference between a common 
crime and the law of war.
  Mr. Padilla was held 4 years by the Bush administration. His case 
went up to the Fourth Circuit and the Fourth Circuit said: Yes, you can 
hold enemy combatants off the battlefield. That is the power the United 
States possesses at a time of war.
  When you are fighting a war, the goal is to win the war and to find 
out about what the enemy is up to. When you are fighting a crime, the 
goal is to convict someone or have them found innocent. They are two 
different systems.
  This young man will be going to Federal Court and a jury will decide 
if he is guilty of his crimes. What we are asking of the administration 
is: How do you gather intelligence in that system? It is not meant to 
gather intelligence. We don't want to limit ourselves as a Nation to 
asking questions about future attacks in the criminal justice system 
because here is the way that works. If I am his lawyer, I am not going 
to let you ask him any question about anything until I get a benefit 
for my client. So intelligence gathering now is controlled by the 
terror suspect and his lawyer. Is that smart? Now you are having to 
plea bargain to get intelligence.
  What we are saying is, conduct the trial in civilian court--the only 
form available--but because there are international terrorist 
connections here--clearly they killed people in Boston not because they 
wanted their property or they were mad with the Boston city government, 
they killed--they slaughtered a young boy and his family and others 
because they have adopted a radical jihadist view of us as a Nation. 
The older brother was quoted as saying we are infidels, we are a 
colonial Christian power, we have corrupted Islam. They are trying to 
kill us and destroy our way of life because of what we believe.
  The sooner we understand that, the better off we will be.
  Here is my view about defending ourselves as a Nation. A criminal 
court is about due process and giving the accused a fair trial. 
Military intelligence gathering is about defending the Nation at war. 
The question we all have to answer for ourselves is: Is America at war? 
The answer, to me, is yes. We are at war with a radical ideology that 
hates everything we stand for.
  Bin Laden is dead. We celebrate that. But al-Qaida is very much on 
the march. As a matter of fact, radical Islam is regenerating, and the 
way they are coming after us is to find people in our own backyard and 
turn them against us.
  How could we have missed this? How could the intelligence services in 
Russia tell the FBI: You need to watch this guy; we believe he is a 
radical Islamist coming to your country to hurt you? How could we miss 
him going to Russia and coming back? How could we miss his YouTube 
videos where he is ranting and raving against us and threatening to 
take us down as a Nation?
  These are questions to be asked and answered. And here is what we are 
suggesting: The surviving suspect, due to the ties these two have to 
radical Islamic thought, and the ties to Chechnya, one of the most 
radical regions in the world, the President should declare 
preliminarily that the evidence suggests this man should be treated as 
an enemy combatant. We could hold him for a period of time, question 
him without a lawyer, and none of the evidence could be used against 
him in the criminal proceeding. That is the best way to gather 
intelligence. The best way to gather intelligence is to have a rapport 
with him, take down the stories he is telling us and deconstruct them; 
spend time with him outside the criminal justice system.
  We have gathered so much good intelligence from enemy combatants at 
Guantanamo Bay. You won't send him to Guantanamo Bay, but during the 
last decade we have exploited intelligence from enemy combatants--
people who have joined the other side--and it has helped us figure out 
how to defend ourselves and find bin Laden.
  All we are saying is when it comes to defending against future 
attacks, we want to talk to him without a lawyer. That is all we are 
saying. We want to talk to him without a lawyer so we can find out what 
he may know about what we face in the future, and when it comes to 
prosecuting him, we won't use anything we found against him. A first-
year law student could convict him, but, my God, look what we are 
losing as a Nation by using this model. Instead of taking time out to 
interrogate him without the presence of counsel to learn about what did 
happen, we are now stuck in a criminal justice system where we can't 
ask him one question his lawyer won't allow.
  I am not blaming the lawyer. My goodness, if I were his defense 
lawyer, no one would ask him one thing without my permission, and they 
would have to give a lot to get an answer to anything. All I am 
suggesting is we are at war, these two people fit the profile of folks 
who are trying to kill us, they are tied to overseas organizations 
potentially, so why in the world can't our country have some time with 
this person in the national security legal system to find out about 
what he knows and how they planned this attack, to make the rest of us 
  I believe in due process. And he, in that system, can go to a judge 
and say, I am not an enemy combatant, and the government would have to 
prove he is. So he has due process there. But here is what I believe 
deeply, and then I will turn it over to Senator Ayotte of New 
Hampshire. I believe the closer one gets to our homeland, the more 
rights we have as a people to defend ourselves. I don't want a police 
state. I don't want to live in a country where

[[Page S2870]]

we can't express who we are and what we believe in and to argue and 
have a different view of religion. But, by God, given the times in 
which we live, I don't want to become deaf and blind to the threats 
that are real in our own backyard. I want a system that can find out 
about guys like this before they kill us.
  Let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen, if we don't gather good 
intelligence and we don't hit them before they hit us, there is more to 
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from New Hampshire be included in the colloquy.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask my colleague for a comment on the issue of whether 
the United States of America is a battlefield. Does my colleague agree 
with the quote, ``The battlefield coming to America or acknowledging 
that is an enormous mistake''?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Not only do I agree, who picked the battlefield? I didn't 
pick America to be the battlefield. I don't want to be at war with 
anybody. They chose the battlefield.
  Where do you think they want to hit us most, I ask Senator McCain? If 
you could get the top leadership and give them one shot at America 
anywhere, where would they take that shot? Would they hit us in France? 
They would hit us here. Why? Because they want to destroy our way of 
life. They are trying to come here to kill us. All I am suggesting is 
we should be able to defend ourselves. And the closer they get to us, 
the more rights to defend ourselves we should have.
  Let me say I asked the Judge Advocates General of the Army, Navy, Air 
Force, and Marine Corps: Is the authorization to use military force 
against al-Qaida, the Taliban, or affiliated groups limited to outside 
the United States? They said: No, there is no geographic limitation. So 
if somebody hijacked a plane tomorrow trying to fly it into the 
Capitol, our military could shoot it down. We are not going to restrict 
ourselves to the battlefield being everywhere else but in our own 
  Mr. McCAIN. Finally, again, if there were information of an imminent 
attack, such as the aircraft that crashed in Pennsylvania that might 
have been headed for the Capitol, we would take whatever measures 
necessary to prevent it from happening. To somehow say we would not use 
every capability in our arsenal to prevent that goes back again to this 
fundamental error, fundamental misconception about the nature of 
radical extremists where the battlefield clearly is the United States, 
and we should be most prepared.
  And, by the way, if there is some good news that came out of Boston, 
it was that some of the measures that had been taken since 9/11 
contributed significantly to our ability to track down and eliminate 
this threat far more rapidly than we would have prior to 9/11.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, if I may, hats off to the Boston, MA, police 
officers, to the Presiding Officer's town. Our heart breaks for the 
victims. Bostonians made us proud. They show us how to stay brave. The 
FBI and everybody did a great job, but how we missed this I still want 
to know.
  The Senator from New Hampshire was the former attorney general of New 
Hampshire. She knows the difference between fighting a war and fighting 
a crime.
  I have been a military lawyer, I have been a civilian lawyer, and I 
am all very much for the idea of due process being given to everyone 
charged with a crime, including this man. He deserves to be presumed 
innocent, to have a lawyer, and a jury to find him guilty or innocent. 
He deserves all that because it makes us better and safer. But what we 
should not give up as a Nation is the ability to find out about future 
attacks in a logical way. We are at war, and in the law of armed 
conflict, national security applies here, in my view, because of the 
type of incident involved and the threats we face.
  I wish to hear from Senator Ayotte, who has become one of the most 
knowledgeable people on the topic. She has tried people in New 
Hampshire--death penalty cases--and if she doesn't mind, perhaps she 
can share with us her view of where the battlefield is, what kind of 
laws to apply to a situation such as this.
  Ms. AYOTTE. I thank my colleague from South Carolina and very much 
thank my colleague from Arizona for, obviously, their leadership on 
this issue.
  I have great confidence in our criminal justice system, having both 
defended and tried criminal cases in that system. The purpose of that 
system, of course, is to bring people to justice. There is no question 
in this case, in light of what Boston has gone through--and I know the 
Chair knows all too well the crimes that were committed and the acts of 
terrorism committed--that we need to make sure the criminal justice 
system holds that individual, the terrorist who survived, accountable 
in the Federal criminal system.
  I am confident, based not only on what we have seen with video 
evidence but the great work done by our law enforcement officials, both 
at the local level in Boston, along with the cooperation of our Federal 
agencies--they did phenomenal work--that evidence will be used against 
this terrorist in the Federal court system and he will be found guilty. 
In fact, with the overwhelming evidence, this is not a difficult case 
to prosecute, and we should hold him fully accountable.
  But our criminal justice system, which I have great respect for, was 
not set up to gather intelligence to protect our Nation. In fact, 
protections such as the right against self-incrimination, when an 
individual is given their Miranda rights, that is intended to tell 
people they have the right to a lawyer, they have the right to remain 
silent so they can't be coerced into confessing to something and then 
having that confession used to convict them later in a court of law, 
that doctrine was not intended to stop this Nation from gathering 
intelligence, to make sure when we have a terrorist attack, such as 
what occurred in Boston, which was so horrific--and let me say my 
thoughts and prayers are with the victims of those terrorist attacks--
we cannot in the national security context hold that individual for a 
sufficient period while still being respectful of his constitutional 
right--which we can be--and gather intelligence.
  If we cannot do that, what are we saying about our Nation? What are 
we saying here? Let us go back to 9/11.
  What if we had captured one of those individuals before the second 
plane hit the second tower or before the plane went down in 
Pennsylvania. Are you telling me we couldn't hold them for a longer 
period of time?
  Our law enforcement officers relied on what is called the public 
safety exception to Miranda in this case with the Boston terrorist, but 
that exception expired very quickly. It expired so quickly that 
yesterday, while our law enforcement spoke with him, by noon he was 
being advised by a Federal court judge he had the right to remain 
silent. Is that enough time to find out whether he has any ties to any 
foreign terrorist organizations, given that his brother traveled to 
Dagestan, with ties to Chechnya--with known ties in those areas of the 
world to al-Qaida? Is that enough time to know whether somebody else or 
some other organization was funding them or there are other attacks 
that America can expect? Because that was a very brief period of time, 
and that is what we are talking about--respecting our values in the 
criminal justice system but also protecting our Nation.
  In this instance, this individual was very quickly advised that he 
had the right to remain silent. When he came to consciousness, it was a 
matter of hours that were given to gather all this information. Is that 
enough, given what happened in Boston, to make sure we know everything 
this individual knows to protect this Nation from future attacks, if he 
has ties to al-Qaida or some other foreign terrorist group? That is a 
very limited time.
  What we are saying is, yes, try him in Federal court, and he is 
entitled to due process in that system as well. But he should have been 
held initially to make sure we have the maximum information in our 
national security system to protect our Nation.
  Is America the battlefield? We all remember too well 9/11. 
Unfortunately, the goal is to come to America, and we have to 
acknowledge we are at war with radical Islamic jihadists who are 
seeking to kill us--not for anything we

[[Page S2871]]

have done but for what we believe in and for what we stand.
  I want to show an individual whose name is Anwar al-Awlaki. Anwar al-
Awlaki was an American citizen, just like this individual who committed 
the terrorist attack in Boston whom we are holding right now. This 
American citizen became an influential leader in al-Qaida in the 
Arabian Peninsula, advocated for violent Jihad against the United 
States, used the Internet to recruit followers and inspire attacks, and 
was linked to dozens of terrorist investigations in our country and 
with our allies. He was in Yemen, and on September 30, 2011, our 
administration took him out with a drone strike, and I applaud them for 
  But if Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen under the constructs we are 
under right now, came to the United States of America and was involved 
in an attack against our country--we can take him out with a drone 
strike if he is in Yemen. But if he actually gets to the United States 
of America to carry out the attacks he wanted to as a terrorist and we 
capture him here, we have to give him Miranda? No. We need to be able 
to hold individuals such as he, and anyone who is seeking to commit a 
terrorist attack against our country, in the national intelligence 
context, to find out what they know to make sure we can disrupt these 
terrorist networks around the world. That is what we are talking about, 
and we can do both within our values.
  To those who have been writing inaccurate pieces about this, we 
understand that if someone is an American citizen, they cannot be tried 
in a military commission; they can only be tried in a Federal court. 
And we will do that here. If we had caught him, we would have tried him 
too. But before we do that, we had better know what he knows about the 
terrorist network to be able to know whom he is involved with and to 
prevent future attacks on this country because people like him--and 
unfortunately what we saw in Boston--do want to come here to attack us. 
We have to be in a position to protect this country.
  What concerns me most of all is the construct that this 
administration has put together. Here we have a construct where even 
foreigners who are terrorists--not American citizens--are being brought 
into our civilian system and are being advised of their Miranda rights 
without giving the maximum opportunity to gather intelligence.
  This is a picture of Osama bin Laden's son-in-law sitting next to 
Osama bin Laden, Abu Ghaith, the day after our country was attacked on 
September 11. Osama bin Laden's son-in-law, Abu Ghaith, was captured 
overseas. He spent time in Iran. Instead of being brought to Guantanamo 
or held for a lengthy period to be interrogated, he was brought right 
to a Federal court in New York City to be tried there.
  This is the construct this administration is using, where they are 
not treating this like we are at war even with foreign terrorists. 
Osama bin Laden's son-in-law, not held as an enemy combatant, tried--
just like this individual who was captured committing the terrorist 
attacks against us in Boston--in the Federal civilian court system.
  We are at war, ladies and gentlemen, and we owe it to our Nation to 
protect our country. The only way we can do that is when we capture 
individuals who are foreigners who are members of al-Qaida or when we 
capture individuals who are American citizens who commit terrorist 
attacks against this country--who may or may not have ties to foreign 
organizations--we had better find out. If they do, we need to 
understand what they know to protect our Nation and then hold them 
accountable, as we will in this case, and make sure they never see the 
light of day. I hope in this case we seek the death penalty for what 
that suspect in Boston did in terrorizing those who were there at the 
Boston Marathon on such a wonderful day.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. We have an order for a recess at 
this hour.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair.
  I would ask the Senator from New Hampshire, how do we get the death 
penalty when the only way we can get information out of the suspect is 
to go through his lawyer? If we can't have this national security 
interrogation, where there is no lawyer, to get information to protect 
against a future attack that can't be used in a trial, don't you think 
the lawyer is going to say: I am not going to have my client talk to 
you unless you promise not to seek the death penalty?
  Ms. AYOTTE. I would say to the Senator from South Carolina, I don't 
know how that isn't possible in this case. Any defense lawyer--as they 
should--to defend their client, there is no way they will allow that 
individual who committed the terrorist attack in Boston to speak to one 
investigator now, if we get additional information or we have followup 
questions, without taking the death penalty off the table.
  That is the defense lawyer's job. I respect them for that. But it 
puts our Nation in an awkward position to have to negotiate with a 
defense lawyer when we have questions for someone who has committed a 
terrorist attack against our Nation.