Michele Bachmann - Guantanamo Bay

Last Updated: Dec 13, 2011

Summary

Congresswoman Bachmann supports the use of Guantanamo Bay as a facility to house detainees. She supports the use of military tribunals, and opposes civilian trials for detainees and movement of detainees to the US.

In June of 2008, Congresswoman Bachmann reacted to the Boumediene vs Bush decision by stating that the decision was unacceptable and that detainees should not have access to the US court system.

In opposing the transfer of these detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Congresswoman Bachmann has both introduced and co-sponsored legislation to prevent the transfer of detainees to the US and to prevent the use of funds for those transfers. She also mocked the idea that other nations can or should be paid millions of dollars to take in prisoners from Guatanamo into their nations.

In response to the killing of Osama Bin Laden, Congresswoman Bachmann asserted that this was evidence that the use of interrogation and detention was effective in prosecuting the war on terror.

Reaction to Boumediene v. Bush

In June of 2008, Congresswoman Bachmann wrote an op-ed discussing a recent supreme court decision which upheld that prisoners at Guantanamo Bay had the right to habeas corpus.

Enemies Welcome in U.S. Courts
6/12/2008 | Email Michele Bachmann | All Posts By Blogger
Today’s ruling by the Supreme Court is completely unacceptable. Alien combatants should not be allowed to have access to American courts forcing our nation’s hardworking taxpayers to pay their legal costs. These terrorists have openly condemned America and the values we stand for, they should not have the privilege to use our rights. This ruling threatens Americans’ freedom and sets a very bad precedent for future rulings with violent terrorists.
I believe that Justice Scalia hits the nail on the head when he said, "The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed. That consequence would be tolerable if necessary to preserve a time-honored legal principle vital to our constitutional Republic."

Preventing Transfer of Detainees

In March of 2009, Congresswoman Bachmann released a statement noting legislation that she and others introduced to prevent federal funds being used to transfer prisoners from Gauntanamo Bay to Minnesota.

Bachmann Legislation Bars Obama Administration from Sending GITMO Detainees to Minnesota
Washington, D.C., Mar 23, 2009 - U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (MN-6) and Congressman John Kline (MN-2) introduced legislation (H.R. 1566) that would prohibit the use of any federal funds to transfer or house Global War on Terror detainees now held at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba anywhere in Minnesota.
“It is simply irresponsible to shut down a facility that houses known terrorists and transfer them to our neighborhoods," said Congresswoman Bachmann. “While I understand the interest of the White House in making this well-orchestrated PR move, these are very dangerous terrorists and they must be treated as such. To transfer them anywhere near Minnesota residents – or any American citizen for that matter, is a risk we cannot afford to take.”
On January 22, 2009 President Obama announced his intention to close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center in Cuba. Last week, as the Administration has found our international partners increasingly unwilling to commit to resettling detainees on their soil, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that detainees could be released into the United States. It remains unclear whether Holder’s announcement will entice European nations to accept detainees.
In addition to H.R. 1566, Congresswoman Bachmann is also a cosponsor of H.R. 1012, which would prohibit the use of federal funds to transfer the Global War on Terror detainees to anywhere in the U.S.

Prisoners to Other Nations

In June of 2009, Congresswoman Bachmann wrote an op-ed discussing President Obama's attempts to pay other countries to take prisoners from Guantanamo Bay.

Here's $200 Million, Take Our Prisoners!
6/16/2009 | Email Michele Bachmann | All Posts By Blogger
While it's easy to call for the closure of Guantanamo Bay, President Obama is realizing that there are legitimate reasons that it can’t easily be done. No other country wants to house these dangerous terrorists on their soil. And, most Members of Congress are saying they don’t want them either. For instance, Congressman John Kline and I introduced legislation to keep them out of Minnesota.
However, after months of talk, America has found a country to take some of the detainees, and all it took was a little financial incentive.
Palau, a Pacific archipelago and long-time ally of the United States will take in 17 Uighur, or ethnic Chinese Muslims, detainees for the sum of $200 million in foreign aid. To put that number into context, the Wall Street Journal reports that that aid package breaks down to $11.7 million per detainee. For a country with 20,000 residents with a GDP of $164 million, talk about a boost to the economy!
Seventeen detainees gone, and only around 230 left. It looks like the President is going to be writing some pretty big checks in the next several months to deal with our detainees. Or he can admit that he’s learned since coming to office that his campaign promise is simply not the best plan for America.

Detainees to Minnesota?

In June of 2009, Congresswoman Bachmann wrote an op-ed discussing the possibility that detainees would be moved from Guantanamo Bay to Minnesota or other places in the US.

GITMO Detainees Coming to Minnesota?
6/9/2009 | Email Michele Bachmann | All Posts By Blogger
Last week, I was surprised to hear Congressman Tim Walz (MN-1) come out in favor of holding Guantanamo Bay terrorist-detainees at facilities in Minnesota.
Congressman Walz agrees with President Obama that Guantanamo Bay should be closed and he’s willing to house the detainees right here on Minnesota soil. The President has been unable to get other nations of the world to take them, but apparently Minnesota’s First District will step up to the plate.
Congressman John Kline (MN-2) and I introduced legislation that would keep any detainees from coming to Minnesota – anywhere in Minnesota. I am also a co-sponsor of H.R. 1012, which would prohibit the use of federal funds to transfer these terrorists to anywhere in the U.S.
It is simply irresponsible to shut down a facility that houses dangerous terrorists and transfer them to our neighborhoods. To transfer terrorists anywhere near Minnesota residents – or any American citizen for that matter, is a risk we cannot afford to take.

Opposition to KSM Trial on US Soil

In December of 2009 Congresswoman Bachmann released a press statement noting her opposition to the trial of KSM on US soil.

Bachmann Statement on KSM & Co. Trial on U.S. Soil
NYC Terror Trials
Washington, D.C., Dec 10, 2009 -
U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann held a press conference with Former Assistant United States Attorney Andrew McCarthy, Former Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary for Detainee Affairs Charles "Cully" Stimson, and other House Republicans today at the U.S. Supreme Court to discuss how the KSM trial will place our national security at risk:
“The decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City and give him all the benefits and perks reserved for American citizens is a slap in the face of the 9/11 victim’s families, the American people, and the men and women who risk their lives to defend our liberties each and every day.
“This administration took 11 months to make this decision. The right decision doesn’t take 11 months – it only takes a moment to realize that KSM will use a public trial to access sensitive intelligence information, plan more attacks and mock the families he tore apart on 9/11.
“If President Obama admits that we are a nation at war, then we should act like one. Justice for the 9/11 attackers should be swift and conclusive, something that won’t be done when KSM exploits the abundant appeals and legal loopholes he has been inexplicably awarded as a foreign combatant,” said Bachmann.

Floor Discussion of Guantanamo Bay

On January 13, 2010 Congresswoman Bachmann participated in a floor discussion with Congressman Gohmert of Texas. The discussion covers numerous aspects of the Guantanamo Bay facility and the rights of the detainees there.

Mrs. BACHMANN. I want to thank the gentleman from Tyler, Texas, Louie Gohmert, for the wonderful job that he has been doing. I caught some of the gentleman's remarks briefly, and I was so pleased that you talked about this whole concept of the greatest terrorist recruiting tool, Gitmo or U.S. weakness.
You are exactly right in your description of what we are looking at now with Gitmo. What we are looking at the President's idea of closing Gitmo is actually a fiction.
And the gentleman may have already addressed that issue, but it can't be underscored enough in my mind: Gitmo will not be closed. Yes, it may no longer be in its current physical location off of U.S. soil, but Gitmo will simply be packed up into boxes, a moving van is going to show up, and that moving van will be taken across water and across land. And, guess what? Gitmo is going to have a new address. It will fill out a change of address form for the worst of the worst terrorists that we know of that are enemy noncombatants against United States citizens, only now these enemy noncombatants, rather than being held safely and securely off U.S. soil, will be brought on to U.S. soil, where they will be on U.S. soil in Thompson, Illinois, in the heartland of this great country, whereby they will have opportunities potentially to do what we know terrorists have been doing for the past several years, and that is recruiting through the U.S. prison system for more people to become radicalized in their Sharia-compliant view of jihadist extremism.
Is this going to make anyone safer in the United States? Ultimately, that is the final question that we as Members of Congress have to satisfy ourselves: Will we be safer bringing these terrorists from Gitmo onto U.S. soil or will we be safer keeping them secure where they have been all along, on Gitmo? I think it is keeping them on Gitmo.
Something else I would like to bring up if I could, just for a minute, just to divert, and it is the issue of this underwear bomber on Christmas Day. This is such a horrible travesty that was averted simply because the incompetence of this terrorist. But for his incompetence, we would have this Chamber filled with Members of Congress screaming about, What happened? Why weren't we secure? We would be having lively discussions every night. Thank God this terrorist was not successful. But he came so close to taking out nearly 300 innocent lives.
We have seen this path before, and there is a common thread that occurs. The common thread are people who are sold out to radicalize Sharia-compliant jihad. That is the thread. Why aren't we as a government looking for people with that profile?
Oh, I guess I said a bad word. Profile? Is that a politically noncorrect word now? We are not supposed to say it? Well, let's talk about what we need to do to keep safety foremost. Not political correctness. Safety of the American people. That is what this is about.
The American people are right to be outraged when they think that their government is lifting up the tenets of multiculturalism over the tenets of the safety and security of the American people.
Oh, that the day would never come when, in the name of political correctness, Americans would die needlessly in tragedies like the one thankfully that was averted on Christmas Day. May that never be.
And for my money, one of the worst things that happened is that when this underwear bomber was taken off of the plane, he had a small interrogation, then was given his Miranda warnings, was given a defense lawyer, and that is the end of it. Now duct tape is over his mouth. The United States will never again benefit from what this terrorist--I suppose we are supposed to say ``alleged terrorist''--what this fellow intended against American citizens and other citizens from other nations of the world. This is a travesty.
He should not have been given his Miranda warnings, in my opinion. He should have been fully vetted and interrogated for what he was, because, let's remember, we have to make a decision. Are we going to take this war seriously or are we going to treat this as a criminal act akin to breaking and entering?
This is war. You can't have anything more clear. Someone who comes intending to bomb a plane, a Northwest Airlines plane over Detroit, this is an act of war. This is not a breaking and entering. This should not have been a Mirandized situation, given full rights to a lawyer and told forever and ever, You don't have to say a word. Now we are giving you all the rights, privileges, and immunities of an American citizen even though you aren't one. You are a Nigerian, and you planned evil intent for a lot of innocent people.
This is beyond belief to me. I just can't believe it. That is why I am so grateful to the gentleman from Tyler, Texas, because you are asking exactly the right question: Is Gitmo a recruiting tool or U.S. weakness? When you lawyer up and Mirandize actual terrorists in the midst of a terrifying event, an act of war against America, you don't Mirandize. You treat them for what they are.
You treat them for what they are. You interrogate them. Why? Because at the end of the day will the American people be safer or will we be more at risk? Closing Gitmo, that location, moving it to Thompson, Illinois, opening it up, it's still Gitmo; now it's just Gitmo North rather than Gitmo South, and that equals U.S. weakness.
With that, I yield back to the gentleman from Tyler, Texas.
Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate so much those wonderful points that were made. It is weakness that gives a recruiting tool, the joy among jihadists to realize we told them, close Gitmo. It's a nice place if you're going to be held somewhere as a prisoner. We told them it was a recruiting tool. And now, as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said, that is because they are people who understand not the reason they'll defeat us. They didn't get it. They thought they really did need to close Gitmo, and they did, and they're going to bring it onto the continental U.S. That shows weakness. The fact that we are showing that kind of weakness in closing Gitmo is a fantastic recruiting tool.
Mrs. BACHMANN. Absolutely.
Mr. GOHMERT. If you go back after the surge that was ordered by President Bush, and before that, things weren't going well. General Petraeus told us we need a surge. We got a surge and all of a sudden things are going much better in Iraq. They're going great. And some of the declassified information that was obtained by our intelligence sources, we saw their own writings. We saw what they said. They said that things are going so good for the United States, we thought after the Republicans lost the majority, they would pull out. But now that they've come with more troops and they're defeating us, we can't recruit. Their own information said we can't recruit, because this showed strength.
And now they're having a big time because, gee, they've been successful in making us think that showing weakness is going to help us, when it's actually helping them recruit. It is exactly what's happened. Every time they acted and did something violent, and we responded by backing up.
I want to address very quickly one of the things that's been brought up by
some of our friends. Some people in the country say, Well, these prisoners need all of the constitutional rights they're supposed to have. And they're getting them at Gitmo. Because just as if--when I was in the military, I was subject to the UCMJ. I was subject to a military court. I wasn't entitled to a trial if I had done something on a military installation. I was entitled to a military trial. And that was constitutional. And it was constitutional and is constitutional for this Congress to set up military commissions to try people who have engaged in war against us. That is constitutional. And they've gotten all of their constitutional rights as someone at war with us. And now, because they're going to be tried in the United States, they're deciding to plead not guilty so they can put on a show.
What causes more weakness, what causes more recruiting? Is it U.S. weakness or is it Gitmo? Clearly, our country leaders have been suckered into thinking that closing Gitmo will be a good thing for us, and in fact what is telegraphed is, these people are weak, just as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said. You would think they are united, but their hearts are divided. That's because they're people who understand not. They're saying, We don't understand.
Mrs. BACHMANN. If the gentleman would yield on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. This is an extremely important point. Again, the mastermind of 9/11, who achieved his goal of killing 3,000 innocent Americans in the World Trade Center bombing, he got his way. Why would we give him his way by bringing him to New York City at over $200 million a year taxpayer expense to give him a show trial when he's already pled guilty and already asked to be executed? What happened? Did the President, did the Attorney General say to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Now wait a minute; you don't want to plead guilty. Wait a minute; you don't want to be executed. You want to come to New York City. You want to have the trial just like you asked for in the first place.
Why would we do that? Because the only message we will be sending to future terrorists will be you, too, can have a show trial in the city of your choice if you come to America. Or, if you try a terrorist activity, you, too, can be Mirandized and be part of the American legal system.
I yield back to gentleman from Texas.
Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. I realize my time is expiring and appreciate the indulgence, Mr. Speaker. It should be clear, though, the way to deal with Iran is not through weakness. If they won't shut down the nuclear proliferation, we have got to shut them down.
With that, we yield back our time.

GITMO Worked

In a May 2011 interview following the killing of Osama bin Laden, Congresswoman Bachmann speaks about the new realities in the war on terror and the relationships with Pakistan and India. She also notes that GITMO, detention, and interogation was effective in obtaining information leading to the death of Osama bin Laden.

Iowa Debate

In August of 2011, Congresswoman Bachmann participate in the Republican Presidential debate in Ames, Iowa. She stated that terrorists did not have Miranda rights under the constitution.

WALLACE: Congresswoman Bachmann, I want to switch to another angle of the war on terror, though if you want to weigh in on Iran, feel free. We -- you say that we don't win the war on terror by closing Guantanamo and reading Miranda rights to terrorists. Congressman Paul says terrorism suspects -- suspects have committed a crime and are due -- should be given due process in civilian courts. Could you please tell Congressman Paul why he's wrong?
BACHMANN: Well, because, simply, terrorists who commit acts against United States citizens, people who are from foreign countries who do that, do not have any right on our -- under our Constitution to Miranda rights.
We've also seen that Guantanamo Bay has yielded significant information. In fact, we've learned that that led to the capture and the killing of bin Laden.
This is a tool that we need to have in order to be able to prostitute the new type of war, the new type of warfare, and the new type of terrorists that this country is dealing with.
Regarding Iran, Iran is the central issue in the Middle East and their capacity to become a nuclear power. They're one of the four state sponsors of terror in the world.
I sit on the House Select Committee on Intelligence. I can't reveal classified information, but I can say this: As president of the United States, I will do everything to make sure that Iran does not become a nuclear power.

CBS Foreign Policy Debate

In November of 2011, Congresswoman Bachmann participated in the CBS foreign policy debate. She was asked if she supported keeping Guantanamo open and responds to statements made by Congressman Paul by stating that she supports any actions necessary to secure the safety of the troops.

Scott Pelley: Thank you, Governor. Representative Bach-- Bachmann, let me give you 30 seconds to pick up on that.
Michelle Bachmann: Thank you. Yeah, I-- I'd like to respond to Ron Paul and his comments. Because the people that the president of the United States gave orders to kill include Osama bin Laden. Now I think all of us can agree this is a good idea for the president of United States to make this decision. Ron Paul doesn't think so.
But this is a very good idea for the president. After all, Osama bin Laden had no problem ordering the destruction of the wor-- of the-- of the Twin Towers or of the Pentagon. That resulted in over 3,000 lives. As well-- Awlaki, who we also killed, he has been the chief recruiter of terrorists, including Major Hassan at Fort Hood, including the underwear bomber over Detroit, and including the Times Square bomber. These were very good decisions that were made to take them out.

Voting Record

Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010

In October of 2010, the House voted on a funding bill for Homeland Security. Buried within that legislation was language to prevent any funds from being used to transfer detainees from Guantanamo Bay to the US or to their home nation. Also in that funding bill was a definition that made photos taken of prisoners at Guantanamo bay classified and unable to be released. The act passed the House 258-163. Michele Bachmann voted in favor of the act which prevented the movement of prisoners from Gitmo and classified photos of detainees.

Michele Bachmann voted in favor of the act which prevented the movement of prisoners from Gitmo and classified photos of detainees.