Reid on CT Legislation Posted by James Lamond

For those who missed it this week, Senator Reid sent a great letter to Carl Levin and John McCain, regarding detainee provisions in the 2012 Defense Authorization Bill. In the letter, Reid says that he will not bring the bill to the floor while it has three controversial provisions in it. He specifically cited the provisions that authorize indefinite detention (section 1031), require military custody for terrorism suspects (1032), and transfer restrictions on current detainees (1033). 

Daphne Eviatar of Human Rights First describes the effects of the bill saying:

this would be the first bill authorizing military detention of suspected insurgents since the McCarthy era, when Congress passed the Internal Security Act to allow the government to indefinitely detain suspected Communists.

If the Committee's bill became law, military detention would actually be required for all suspects who are not U.S. citizens, which could cut the FBI -- our best-trained experts on investigating international terrorism -- out of these critical cases. It would also make it far more difficult to prosecute terrorists later.

Replacing an effective system – the FBI and other law enforcement that have an expertise in counterterrorism – with required military detention makes make little sense. Beyond stretching the military into roles it was neither designed, nor wants, to handle, it is a logistical nightmare. Requiring the military to be police and jailor would mean that military officers would have to arrest and hold terrorism suspects throughout the country. Outside of a handful of cities, which have large bases that might be able to handle this, the infrastructure, facilities, capabilities and training simply do not exist. In a recent letter to Congress a  group of retired generals and admirals warned that the provisions “would transform our armed forces into judge, jury and jailor for foreign terrorism suspects,” distracting from the military’s core mission: “to prosecute wars, not terrorists.”

However, what is most ironic with all of this is the timing. The debate is going public the same week the trial of Underwear Bomber commences. Abdullmutallab was arrested and successfully interrogated by the FBI after he attempted to blow up an airliner over Detroit on Christmas day 2009. He now faces justice in a criminal court, without any of the drama or fanfare that opponents of criminal courts fear.

At a more substantive, less news hooky, level though, the timing is even worse. The Obama administration has made clear that the use of civilian courts is a key component of the overall counterterrorism strategy. John Brennan recently outlined this component of the strategy in remarks at Harvard Law School. He explains some of the more pragmatic benefits: 

For when we uphold the rule of law, governments around the globe are more likely to provide us with intelligence we need to disrupt ongoing plots, they’re more likely to join us in taking swift and decisive action against terrorists, and they’re more likely to turn over suspected terrorists who are plotting to attack us, along with the evidence needed to prosecute them.

When we uphold the rule of law, our counterterrorism tools are more likely to withstand the scrutiny of our courts, our allies, and the American people.  And when we uphold the rule of law it provides a powerful alternative to the twisted worldview offered by al-Qa’ida.  Where terrorists offer injustice, disorder and destruction, the United States and its allies stand for freedom, fairness, equality, hope, and opportunity.

The Obama administration’s has had a pretty successful counterterrorism record - particularly in 2012 - from getting  bin Laden to breaking terrorist finances to actually leveraging a more global response. In addition, the public agrees. Even as the President’s numbers have dipped, Obama always had strong  approval on his handling of terrorism  - even before bin Laden. 

This looks to me to be both bad policy as well as bad politics. 

Comments

[cheap new era hats]

No one can succeed without any hard work. Karl Max was successful, because he spent more than 30 years writing the book "Communist Manifesto"; Tomas Edison

succeeded, because he had experimented thousands of times to find the best material for lights. Every success calls for hard work. If you want to suc-ceed, work hard

first.zhongchengmaoyi110post

[cheap hats]

Island of wonderful Britain and Northern Ireland is genuinely a component of UK. united kingdom can be surrounded by Atlantic Ocean, North Sea, English funnel and Irish

Sea. zhongchengmaoyi110post

[scroalh]

Excellent Info. Tweeted about it. I?l bookmark this post too.

palermo hollywood apartments
teeth bleaching trays

[Soccer Jerseys]

very happy to read your blog.Thank you for sharing this article.It is great!
Thanks for sharing this nice post.I will keep your article in my idea.

[moncler jackets]

You made some decent points there.. Wow! what an idea ! What a concept ! Beautiful .. Amazing Agreeable A rise in An increase in.

[mac makeup]

I just like the approach you took with this subject. It isn’t every day that you discover something so concise and enlightening.

[Air Yeezy]

When a dog bites a man that is not news, but when a man bites a dog that is news. (Charls A.Dana, American journalist)

[moncler jackets]

I enjoy reading the report, too. It′s easy to understand that a journey like this is the biggest event in ones life.

[mac makeup]

I agree with your Blog and I will be back to check it more in the future so please keep up your work. I love your content & the way that you write. It looks like you’ve been doing this for a while now, how long have you been blogging for?

[rolex daytona]

In this excerpt, although watch out of ten is one of many watches only the tip of the iceberg, is different ........ Make sure you buy your watch from a well-known dealer to ensure that you are not being ripped off. It helps if they have an address or a store that you can visit, should you have any issues with your purchase. You can often easily check their address using Google Maps street view to see if their shop is where they say it is.