It's not covered in the PATRIOT Act, but it is an issue that we ought to be concerned about.

Mr. FRANKS. Dr. Zogby, just for the record, I think to suggest that deliberate routine torture is the committed policy or the deliberate policy of the United States defies any sort of credibility.

Mr. ZOGBY. Sir, I didn't write the memos, I didn't write the memos; the memos are there. There is a paper trail about what we have done. And I think that the degree to which we continue to deny that we've done it, we do not look good in the eyes of the world, nor should we feel good about ourselves as we face the American people. We have an issue that must be addressed, and it will be addressed either by us or future generations

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman from New York Mr. Nadler.

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me express my appreciation for your civility to the witnesses.

Ms. Pearlstein, you talked about 12,000 prisoners in major new permanent detention. Section 412 of the PATRIOT Act, I think Ms. Tapia Ruano mentioned that under section 412 the Attorney General can detain alien terrorist suspects that he designates as such for up to 7 days, and that he must certify he has reasonable grounds to believe et cetera. Within 7 days the Attorney General must initiate removal of criminal proceedings or release the alien. The President, under military order number 13, allows the Secretary of Defense to detain designated alien terrorist suspects within the United States without express limitation and condition, and apparently without any length of time restriction. Under what legal authority did the President issue that order? And how do they get around the 7-day restriction, which was very carefully negotiated in this Committee in section 412 of the PATRIOT Act?

Ms. PEARLSTEIN. I think the short answer to your question is there is no clear answer from the Administration to what the basis of the legal authority is, and I think it is important to distinguish

Mr. NADLER. Has that been challenged in court?

Ms. PEARLSTEIN. The basis of the legality of the detention of people being detained at Guantanamo Bay, that people being detained in the United States, in particular Jose Padilla, who was subsequently released following a ruling of the Superior Court, and the detentions in Afghanistan and Iraq have been challenged in U.S. courts only in the context of civil litigation challenges brought by people who were subsequently released from detention, challenging acts of torture and abuse that they were subject to while in detention.

There is currently no mechanism of which I'm aware and no suits or any other proceeding through which I'm aware of anybody held in custody in Afghanistan and Iraq to challenge the legality of their detention in U.S

Mr. NADLER. Under section 804 of the PATRIOT Act, I think you said, giving jurisdiction abroad, why can't you get a writ of habeas corpus?

MS. PEARLSTEIN. Section 804 of the PATRIOT Act provides only that the Department of Justice now has jurisdiction to prosecute of

Mr. NADLER. But does not give jurisdiction for the defense attorney to question his intentions.

Ms. PEARLSTEIN. Under that particular provision. All that is about is the U.S. Government's prosecutorial authority. The Federal habeas statute, which exists on the books separate from the USA PATRIOT Act, is still on the books. To my knowledge it has not been deployed by a current detainee abroad.

Mr. NADLER. Thank you.

Ms. Tapia Ruano, is it true that immigrants who have been found eligible for bail have been kept from being released?

MS. TAPIA RUANO. Yes. And it's even more outrageous to consider that immigrants who have been granted legal permanent residence after their full merits hearings have also, as a result of 9/11, detainee status been retained in jail until they received a clearance from the United States.

Mr. NADLER. Under what authority?

Ms. TAPIA RUANO. Under the regulation that allows individuals to be kept under-it's not a regulation, I'm sorry, under the understanding of policy memos-I can't point to them directly because we haven't seen them in writing, but we know it exists-but it is a policy, it's a cooperation that until the individual is "cleared by the FBI, such individual is not released, regardless of the decision by the agency."

Mr. NADLER. Regardless of the decision of the agency. And why aren't people subject to habeas corpus release?

MS. TAPIA RUANO. Based on my understanding of the law, until those individuals are subject to some final order, those individuals, in fact, don't have an opportunity to file a habeas. Since the Real ID Act was passed very recently, now I would suspect and I haven't been able to study it well enough to advise you-but I would suspect that that would also limit any right that individuals have to take habeas court proceedings if it involves immigrationrelated relief.

Mr. NADLER. So an immigration-related case, even after they have been found eligible for bail, they can be detained indefinitely? MS. TAPIA RUANO. The individuals normally-and this happens today-individuals, noncitizens, can be detained after they have been granted bail by a judge by having the agency, the prosecutor, issue a stay of that order

Mr. NADLER. The prosecutor or a court?

Ms. TAPIA RUANO. The prosecutor.

Mr. NADLER. The prosecutor can stay the court's judgment?
Ms. TAPIA RUANO. Absolutely. And that happens every day.

Mr. NADLER. Do you know of any other area of law where a prosecutor can overrule a judge?

Ms. TAPIA RUANO. I'm unfamiliar with other areas of law, so I can't really answer that question.

Mr. NADLER. Anybody on the panel know of any other area of law where a prosecutor can overrule a judge's decision to release a person on bail?

Mr. PITTS. Well, it is happening right now. The Supreme Court of the United States decided in the Rasul case a year ago, the

tled to a lawyer and to Federal court review, and that has not happened

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman from North Carolina Mr. Coble.

Mr. COBLE. I thank the Chairman. I thank the witnesses for being here.

I too want to thank Mr. Scott and Members of the Democrat and Republican side of the aisle and staffers who have worked with me as we conducted nine oversight hearings under the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, and I think this is the 12th hearing. And I take great umbrage, Mr. Chairman, when I hear people say, well, you all are trying to ram through the PATRIOT Act.

We're not trying to ram through it at all. After nine hearings— and, by the way, the nine hearings were very productive, I think. Now, in some instances the witnesses departed from the PATRIOT Act, as I may do in my statement, and I was generous about that, and I didn't admonish anybody. But I've heard some folks claim that the United States has the worst human rights record in the world. Folks, that boggles my mind. I'm not suggesting that you all said that; others have said that to me. Conversely, I think we probably have one of the best human rights record than anybody in the world. Perfect? No, not by any means, but far more than most countries.

Abu Ghraib, do I support what was done there? Indeed not. But, folks, I'm not going to use a broad paint brush to portray our men and women in the armed services as being human rights abusers. Now, there were a couple, perhaps a limited number, of stupid acts that have been addressed through a court martial, I'm told, and that is, indeed, appropriate.

I guess what gets my juices flowing, Mr. Chairman, is when I see these thugs, whose faces are concealed by masks that cover their face, anxiously waiting to behead innocent hostages, when I see that on the one hand, which is a 1-day news story, and then we hear about Abu Ghraib, and-and again, I'm not defending Abu Ghraib, but the Abu Ghraib story appears to be eternal. The thugs who are anxious to behead innocent hostages is a 1-day story and obviously not newsworthy. Folks, it's damn newsworthy to me and to most Americans.

And I think these hearings are healthy; I think we are plowing sometimes new ground, Mr. Chairman. Sometimes we are plowing the ground that has been plowed nine times before, but I don't mind doing that if we can get to the truth, if we can improve the situation.

Dr. Zogby, I think you mentioned about 9/11. It's a day that will, indeed, live in infamy. We were minding our business, and then we were attacked, and over 3,000 people killed, and you say many Arab Americans, inexcusable. And if I appear to be subjectively involved, I am subjectively involved. And before I get too subjectively involved, before the Chairman comes down on me, before that red light illuminates, I'm going to yield back my time.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Maryland Mr. Van Hollen.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. State your order.

Me. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman.

Let me, first of all thank my distinguished colleagues Mr. Van Hollen and Ms. Wasserman Schultz

Chairman SENSENBRENNER The gentlewoman will state her point of order.

MS. JACKSON LEE for being willing to yield to me. I want to

make it clear

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman is not stating a point of order, and the gentleman from Maryland Mr. Van Hollen is recognized.

MS. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I was in the room before my two colleagues; however, I will yield to my two colleagues because of the disorientation of the Chairman. Thank you very much.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague, and I thank all the witnesses for their testimony this morning.

And, Mr. Zogby, I wanted to follow up on a couple of points you made, because you talked about the impact on people around the world of actions taken here in the United States, and the perceptions that that gave to people. And you mentioned those in the context of the PATRIOT Act, but also Abu Ghraib and some of the indefinite detentions that took place. And you made what I think is a very important point that needs to be emphasized, which is, this is not about winning a popularity contest. Yes, it's nice to be liked around the world, but the most important thing that we can do as Americans is to make sure that we protect our security.

But essential to protecting our security is making sure that people around the world in many cases have a positive impact upon the Crited States, especially when we're pursuing an effort to encourage and promote democracy around the world. And as you said, we all share the view that the United States must be a leader in promoting democracy and human rights around the world, and if we're going to be encouraging elections, free and open and fair elections, in places in the Middle East, if we're going to be encouraging free and fair elections in many other places around the world, then it's important to us how people who are going to be voting in those elections perceive the United States, because we hope that they will elect leaders who will be supportive and friendly toward the United States' interests, and to the extent they have a negative view of the United States, it's much easier for those who would want to demagogue the United States to win in those elections.

And so an integral part of our democracy promotion effort overseas, it seems to me, is making sure that the United States continues to be perceived, as it has been in the past, as a great leader for freedom and a great leader for human rights. And to the extent that we tarnish that image, we hurt our own national security interests, and we hurt our ability to fight the war on terrorism.

You've done a lot of work in this area. Could you please talk a little bit more about how those negative perceptions of the United States can undermine our own efforts to promote democracy in those regions in a way that is consistent with our national security

Mr. ZOGBY. And, Congressman, I thank you. And I would say I'm not sure I could do it more eloquently than you've just done. I think you have made the case very clear.

But I would say to you that this is not about us being the best or the worst. At the end of the day, there is not a scale that judges America with other countries. And I think Congressman Coble is right about that. We set a higher standard and always have. We have always been and wanted to see ourselves be the city on the hill, and that's why democratic reformers have looked to us. When they no longer look to us in their governance, instead look to us to validate policies that bring about repression, then I think we have to examine ourselves not only for our foreign policy purposes, but I think also for a sense of are we being true to ourselves and to our Founders, and to the sense of the value of America that we teach our children. I think that is really fundamental here.

The pictures of Abu Ghraib were not a 1-day story, and they shouldn't have been, because that's not who we are. And those pictures are going to be soon replicated by other pictures from Abu Ghraib that will come out at the end of the month, and we will be reminded again and the world will be reminded again that America stopped being America.

The stories of the Koran are not a few, but there are many, number one. And number two, the inspector general reported that the Department of Justice shows that those very practices took place domestically in metropolitan detention centers.

We need to be fair to who we are. If we deny who we are, I think we lose our ability to lead in the world. When foreign governments become more repressive-because as people become more angry at America and become more angry at their government's leadership for being supportive of America, we are, in effect, creating a groundswell for terrorism. As we said, antidemocratic practices produce terrorism. By those very practices that we are encouraging or by example leading other governments to pursue, we are making other countries in the world less free, we're making the countries less democratic, and we're making America a role model for less democratic and less free practices. And there is a tragedy in all of that because it undercuts our effort to fight terrorism and make us

more secure.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you. And let me just say

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman has expired.

The gentleman from Indiana Mr. Pence.

Mr. PENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for the long series of hearings that you have held on the PATRIOT Act; they have been enormously informative to me as a Member of this Committee who was involved in drafting this PATRIOT Act.

I also want to thank the panel. It is not easy to come before Congress, and I am grateful for your patriotism and your citizenship displayed today.

I want to direct my remarks and my questions specifically and respectfully to the Chairman of the Board of Amnesty International, Mr. Pitts. And let me say I'm a bit of a fan of Amnesty International. I actually went to the floor a week before the initi