Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd also like to welcome the Attorney General and to thank him for his testimony today. This series of hearings is designed to explore the constitutional and legal authorities behind the recent Administration's policies involving military tribunals, alien detention, and the monitoring of attorney-client communications. Congress has oversight responsibility of these policies, and the public has the right to know what these policies are and whether they comply with the law of the land. I think we'd all agree that there needs to be a proper balance between the real and pressing need for enhanced national security after the September 11th attacks and the protection of our civil liberties.
President Lincoln reminded us during the Civil War that the security of the nation is the basis upon which the exercise of all other rights depends. The Constitution, by design, appreciates and accommodates this principle. Article II vests in the President the broad responsibilities and powers of the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, and the chief law enforcer through the Office of the Attorney General. At the same time, the broad legislative powers of the Congress in Article I and the judicial powers of review in Article III of the Constitution provide the kind of checks and balances that are the hallmark of our government.
I realize that these are basic principles that everyone understands, but they are principles that we need to be reminded of, particularly when circumstances such as the current war against terrorism test the strength of our Constitution.
Earlier this week, we heard testimony by the Justice Department, some prominent legal experts, as well as individuals who were affected directly by these new policies. As the Committee reviewed the President's executive order and the Administration's policies in the context of the Constitution, existing statutes and case law, it is apparent that the President has the legal authority to take appropriate action as the Commander-in-Chief under what is obviously a state of war. The Supreme Court has upheld the use of military tribunals as constitutional, and these tribunals have been used many times before in a fair manner. Furthermore, I think someone made a good point that we should not be providing more and special protections to non-citizens as compared to our own military people who are subject to military proceedings. The President's executive order on military tribunals is specifically crafted and limited as to whom it would apply. We should allow President Bush to have the option of military commissions as a tool in the fight against terrorism. And while I would have liked to have had more information on the Administration's policies as they were crafting them, President Bush did not need the express consent of Congress to take the actions that he did.
Yet we must be prepared to ask hard questions. In fact, I understand and appreciate the concerns expressed by my colleagues and others. I still want to hear more about the Administration's policies regarding the treatment of detainees and the monitoring of attorney-client communications. But while it appears that in a few isolated cases some rights may have been delayed, as far as I can tell from the record of the testimonies, those rights have not been denied. Further, it appears that the actions by the Administration are based on strong legal and case authority.
But as I've already said, it's the responsibility of the Congress and this Committee to ask questions about the appropriateness of these policies, and we need to take this responsibility seriously. So I'm glad that Attorney General Ashcroft is here today to give us more insights into the Administration's policies and to provide us with assurances that they are in compliance with the Constitution and our laws.
As an aside, one of the key voices absent from these hearings is that of the thousands of law enforcement officials deployed across the country immediately after the attacks of September 11th, the agents in the field trying their level best to protect the American public. I think that these brave men and women are doing everything they can to prevent any other heinous terrorist attacks, and we need to recognize that they have a difficult job to do. These trying times certainly do not justify violations of the constitution or our laws, but they can make certain infractions or irregularities more understandable, particularly if they occurred in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attacks. I fully agree with a statement made during one of these past hearings - we are dealing with a "completely different ball game."
We need to remind ourselves of the extremely complicated context in which our law enforcement officials are operating. What we have is a well-financed, organized and committed group that has explicitly declared war on the United States with the financial support of various business and non-profit organizations that have been able to penetrate and operate in this country. In addition, this group is waging that war not through conventional battlefield means, but through attacks on American institutions and people wherever they exist. The problem is pervasive, it is hiding on our soil waiting to strike. The goal of these terrorists is not just to kill our way of life, it is to take our lives. Thus, it is not only be appropriate but a necessity for our law enforcement officers to be doing their job aggressively, albeit fairly and consistent with the Constitution and the laws of the nation.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.