The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : National Security Nonsense

Text Size

Levelheaded people can candidly disagree about what needs to be done to oppose the tactics of terror, employed by radicals who are hell-bent on killing Americans. We can have a rational debate regarding the extent to which robust American interventionism abroad sows the seeds of hatred. Defense policy presents big questions ranging from homeland security, to the use of private military contractors, to our involvement in NATO, and the budget priorities of national security. There's a galaxy of issues out there for use to discuss, debate, and dispute.

However, when I read the language of the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1867), a bill co-sponsored by the GOP's Sen. John McCain and Democratic Sen. Carl Levin, I could not process a policy so hysterically paradoxical to the freedom, liberty and constitution we proclaim to love.

Glenn Greenwald over at Salon identifies the most alarming aspects of the bill:

(1) mandates that all accused Terrorists be indefinitely imprisoned by the military rather than in the civilian court system; it also unquestionably permits (but does not mandate) that even U.S. citizens on U.S. soil accused of Terrorism be held by the military rather than charged in the civilian court system (Sec. 1032);

(2) renews the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) with more expansive language: to allow force (and military detention) against not only those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks and countries which harbored them, but also anyone who "substantially supports" Al Qaeda, the Taliban or "associated forces" (Sec. 1031); and,

(3) imposes new restrictions on the U.S. Government's ability to transfer detainees out of Guantanamo (Secs. 1033-35).

While I'm certain Greenwald isn't the most popular policy mandarin among The Spectacle's readership, he has isolated an authentic threat. Likewise, I'm not always on board with Rep. Paul, but I was distressed by his remarks that this potential suspension of due process and civilian trial would be the first of its sort since the American Civil War. We've had a decade to process the lessons of 9/11. I always thought that the wars being fought overseas would eventually draw to a close. I wouldn't have guessed that they'd simply embed themselves right here at home. Perhaps we've become addicted to our fear. Perhaps it gives us some small comfort to assume that we're being well protected.

But consider the context. We're not talking about the hassle of dealing with that "crack squad of savvy, motivated personnel" manning hand-wands and sporting royal blue TSA frocks. I suppose we can live with in a world where our liquids, gels and aerosols must be tucked ever-so-less-ominously into 3.4 oz. containers. "Enhanced pat-downs" still seem ridiculous...but I digress.

This bill represents a shocking, yet formal codification of what we've come to understand as right and proper in a post-9/11 world.

Some of you may be willing to accept this as a necessary evil...the overhead cost of a living in a country that's increasingly less free than we'd like to admit. Some of you may be comfortable being told this makes you safer. I happen to prefer the modest benefits of due process and that old chestnut habeus corpus.

I'm not willing to engage in conspiracy theorizing regarding the senators' intentions for this bill. I don't believe they're initiating some Orwellian super-state. They're probably very well intentioned. However, I'm personally disinclined to tolerate this "security" grotesquerie masquerading as the responsible stewardship of our collective safety. I refuse to surrender my freedoms because I'm being told to be afraid. Something about "the land of the free, and the home of the brave," keeps ringing in my ears.

View all comments (43) | Leave a comment

Sean| 12.1.11 @ 3:33PM

Americans fought for our freedoms and rights. It is a disgrace that we would willingly give them up because some people are scared. It is stupid that Republicans would give Obama or anybody else the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain anyone he desires.

Jack in Wi| 12.1.11 @ 6:49PM

Reid: This is the best thing I have ever read in this magazine. The idiot who I voted for in the last election Ron Johnson was one of the numbskulls who voted for this disgace. Even filthy old Russ Feingold would never have done that. The Republicans gave the Democrats a chance ot look like defenders of the Constitution and civil liberites. Obama has promised the ACLU he will veto this mess . Well If he does a lot of Republicans better change their votes to uphold that veto.

Dai Alanye| 12.1.11 @ 3:44PM

Before anyone's head explodes it might be wise to read Andrew McCarthy's analysis at NRO. He doesn't consider it a necessary bill but also suggests it's far less than a tyrannical high-water mark.

DRed| 12.1.11 @ 3:59PM

The only reason this law isn't disturbing is that it's just codifying what the president already claims he has the authority to do. What's disturbing is that more than 60 senators think this is a good idea, and what's even more disturbing is that nobody seems to care. It's hard to come up with something more inimical to the freedoms our founders fought for than a law permitting indefinite executive detention. This law is about as un-American as a piece of legislation could be. Do I think this means Obama is about to start rounding up his political enemies? No, no more so than Bush did (which is not at all). But this law sets a horrible precedent.

Mark| 12.1.11 @ 5:04PM

With exception of 2 Republican senators, all of the Republican senators voted (along with 16 Democrats) for this horrific, immoral, un-American legislation. Any American could just be accused of being or supporting a 'terrorist' and find himself disappeared. We all know that innocent people have been placed on death row for decades only to be exonerated. What happens if your neighbor doesn't like you and accuses you of terrorism? How does this law not allow for the horrors the world saw in Soviet countries or see today in banana republics, China, Syria, or any other dictatorship.

DRed| 12.1.11 @ 5:23PM

At this point there's 168 comments on the article whining about the establishment media and 4 on Congress authorizing arbitrary executive detention. Is it really any wonder this country is mess?

Reid Smith| 12.1.11 @ 5:30PM

My humble thanks for pointing that out.

Tom| 12.1.11 @ 6:12PM

I'm not a bit surprised that The American Spectator's resident dhimmi is outraged that his buddies will be locked up safely and securely in Gitmo.

Reid Smith| 12.1.11 @ 6:19PM

Tom, I'm pretty sure due process was incorporated into the Constitution. I hope you sleep sounder knowing we're suspending crucial aspects of the Fifth Amendment. Thanks for reading.

Tom| 12.1.11 @ 6:36PM

I sleep very soundly at night, thank you.

And the only Constitutional right that a terrorist deserves is a bullet in the brain.

Reid Smith| 12.1.11 @ 6:53PM

So, an American citizen who's merely accused of terrorism doesn't deserves a fair trial? No due process? No innocent until proven guilty? Just off to Gitmo and then who knows? I don't really know what America you're living in, my friend.

Occam's Tool| 12.1.11 @ 7:55PM

By the way, Reid, before the Fort Hood inciodent I had been hired by Darnell Military Hospital as an MD on staff. In Psychiatry. Fortunately, I had a better job offer.

I think I take this a lot more seriously than you FOR VERY GOOD REASON. You're not the target I am.

Tom| 12.2.11 @ 6:24AM

You can whine your pathetic little dhimmi heart out. But you have proven by your previous postings on Islam to be a modern-day "useful idiot", as the Soveits called those fools who they used to further their agenda.

Just as the communists wrapped themselves in the Constitution in order to destroy it, so do the Islamists do today. Islamic terrorsts are also the modern equivelant of medieval outlaws; by their actions agianst society, they have forfeited all rights and protections that society has to offer.

Occam's Tool| 12.1.11 @ 6:47PM

Reid, I do sleep better, knowing that foreign scum captured on a foreign battlefield with at least a 20% chance of escaping to kill Americans again (that's a confirmed recidivism rate) are locked up where they can't harm my fellow citizens. The Constitutional protections WERE not designed for illegal foreign combatants in a time of war. FDR's Supreme Court demonstrated that in the 1940s; the legal precedents are at least 70 years old.

Due process does not apply to spies, which is what these combatants technically are. Toodles and thanks for playing. If your doctorate was in a field where mistakes can kill every day, you might think more clearly, sir. If you had the experience of clinical work with psychopaths 1/1000th as extensive as mine (I was the psychiatrist for the Alabama Chain Gang, among other Prison units), then your real knowledge of how international relations with non-democratic states work would be increased considerably.

You are underwhelming, Mr. Smith. The combination of callow youth and Panglossian philosophy does not suit you well in your arguments. You amuse rather than enlighten.

Fortunately for us, I do not see you in higher councils of government in any place other than that den of vipers and traitors known as the State Department, which always amscrays once the real fighting commences, although it gives moronic advice leading up to same---witness the State Department and the Bay of Pigs, which lost an easily winnable conflict with Castro due to excessive PC.

DRed| 12.1.11 @ 6:54PM

I love that you're bragging about how intelligent you are in a post where you confuse recidivism with escape. The provision of the law that Mr. Smith is complaining about has nothing to do with foreign scum on a foreign battlefield. It has to do with American citizens, in America, who will be able to be detained indefinitely, by the military, at the whim of the president. Get a clue what you're talking about before you make even more of an ass out of yourself.

Occam's Tool| 12.1.11 @ 8:03PM

Right, sorry DRed. Let's get this right---25% of the former Gitmo detainees that the US Goverment felt were safe enough to leave Gitmo have returned to terrorism. You were RIGHT, I was wrong. Of course, the thrust of the argument, that the safest detainees that we think are problematic enough to go to Gitmo in the first place would cheerfully return to killing US citizens does tend to undercut the joy somewhat, no?

DRed| 12.1.11 @ 8:40PM

Allegedly returned to terrorism. I'm apparently not as trusting of the government as you are. And it's highly likely that some of those people were innocent when we first detained them. In any event, that's still not an effective argument for the executive detention of American citizens on no other basis than the government's unchallenged assertion.

Sacsux| 12.2.11 @ 8:29AM

Occam's Tool

You are confused. A total of 20 to 25 released GITMO "terrorists", out of some 750, are said to return to terrorism. Not percent, but actual numbers. That is about 3%.
One of the criteria used to determine whether they "returned to terrorism", presuming they were actual "terrorists to begin with, was writing a column critical of the US. :-(

Jack in Wi| 12.1.11 @ 6:56PM

Occam: This is the kind of stuff that they use in your homeland on the Dead Sea. In fact it was put forth by several rabid Zionists in Congress. The worst of these are John Mc Cain and Lindsay Grahme of South Carolina. These are more tactics of places like Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy.

Reid Smith| 12.1.11 @ 6:58PM

Well, thanks. If I make you laugh, I suppose I can live with that. Thanks for always reading. Your commentary sure livens things up, and a Candide reference is always welcome.

mechanized| 12.1.11 @ 6:58PM

Alright then. If you are dragged away in the night on the excuse of "Tool is a TERRORIST! Don't ask questions." then I promise not to shed any tears.

I will, however, demand that you receive your constitutional rights. I'd appreciate if you'd do the same for me.

Occam's Tool| 12.1.11 @ 8:00PM

The United States is my Homeland, Jihadist John in Wisconsin.

Tool is not going to be dragged away as a terrorist anytime soon, mechanized...unless the Jihadists win. Which, since the Demographics are on their side, they very well might. Whittaker Chambers believed he was going from the winning side to the losing side by joining the forces for freedom.

I'm not a pessimist as he was because I think that eventually the US will become a nation that will defend itself as vigorously as it did in the prophetic Kratman novel Caliphate. I'm just hoping we do it before the incident that propelled self-knowledge in Kratman's brilliant, nightmarish novel.

DRed| 12.1.11 @ 8:14PM

Oh, Occam. You're calling for terrorist attacks on the Iranian government on this very page. Al Queda operatives have been arrested by Iran and accused of plotting to carry out attacks against the Iranian government. Therefore, you're clearly a member of an al-queda affiliated terrorist organization, and Obama can have you scooped up and sent to Gitmo at his leisure. See how easy that is?

Occam's Tool| 12.1.11 @ 7:53PM

Reid: one of the German saboteurs that was killed by FDR on US soil after a court martial was an American citizen, in wartime.

Dred: No, I'm talking about the recidivism rate of RELEASED ex-Gitmo detainees.

This is from The Weekly Standard:

"150 former Guantanamo detainees are either “confirmed or suspected of reengaging in terrorist or insurgent activities,” according to a new intelligence assessment released by the Director of National Intelligence’s office on Tuesday. In total, 598 detainees have been transferred out of U.S. custody at Guantanamo. 1 out of every 4, or 25 percent, of these former detainees is now considered a confirmed or suspected recidivist by the U.S. government.

The DNI’s latest assessment is a significant increase over previous estimates. In June 2008, the Department of Defense reported that 37 former detainees were “confirmed or suspected” of returning to terrorism. On January 13, 2009 -- seven months later -- Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said that number had climbed to 61. As of April 2009, the DoD found that same metric had risen further to 74 -- exactly double the Pentagon's estimate just 11 months before.

In February 2010, President Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, confirmed that the estimated number of recidivists had increased to 20 percent. At that recidivism rate, and based on the total number of detainee transfers at that time, between 110 and 120 former Guantanamo detainees were on the U.S. government’s recidivist list in early 2010.

Thus, the DNI’s latest assessment of the Gitmo recidivism rate is higher than all previous estimates by an appreciable margin."

DRed| 12.1.11 @ 8:12PM

Well, forgive me Occam. But you did write 'escaping'. Nobody escaped from Gitmo. I'm curious-did the government provide any evidence to back up their assertions? You guys wouldn't believe Obama if he told you it was raining outside, but you're willing to trust him to arrest American citizens and hold them indefinitely without charge? It makes no sense. Don't be such cowards. Liberty is worth a little risk, don't you think?

Occam's Tool| 12.1.11 @ 6:26PM

You are absolutely right on that we should not be sacrificing our Liberties in our fight against terrorists. The best way to do this, and at a cheap cost in American lives, is to remember that "the best defense is a good offense."

Therefore, to start, I suggest an airburst from an American ICBM of 3-5 megatons over downtown Teheran commence tomorrow, followed by a complete stepdown of PRE-FLIGHT wanding and gonad grabbing, with the warning that the next assault on the US OR OUR ALLIES (to be determined by us) from any individual Muslim or Islamic group will result in the death of Riyadh, Mecca, Medina, Cairo, Damascus and a second Iranian city that I'm too lazy to look up right now.

THEN withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan with our heads held high. Cost of missile would be under 1 billion. Cost in US lives---nada. Deterrence effect---maximal.

It is a mistake not to use Nature's best teaching mechanism to educate our Iranian friends---pain. They committed a breach of international law by capturing our embassy, a piece of American soil. Revenge is a dish best served cold.

LJM| 12.1.11 @ 6:34PM

Wow. That's pretty psychopathic. And the very definition of terrorism. Congratulations and good luck finding your perfect medication.

DRed| 12.1.11 @ 6:38PM

Oh, don't worry. He can prescribe it to himself.

Kingofthenet| 12.2.11 @ 12:57AM

I don't even think 'Bibi' would be that bloodthirsty.

Occam's Tool| 12.1.11 @ 6:33PM

It is vital, incidentally, that the assault be launched without warning with our announcement afterward. The idea is to come across as a malignant, vicious bastard to our enemies, completely unpredictable, bloodthirsty, horribly asymmetrical in response.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were NOT proportional to Pearl Harbor. But it won the war and maintained the peace for going on 70 years, now. (Yes, I know it is slightly over 66 years to be precise. Jeez.) For this reason, and because the Japanese REALLY,REALLY deserved it, the bombing is entirely justifiable. The same will be held true with nuking Teheran from a distance of 70 years.

Some here believe I am Liberal with the spending of American lives. NOT SO! I am Liberal in the spending of ENEMY lives to obtain American goals. I believe that we should do very little fighting; this is best done by making a fight with us a horror too devetating for anyone to contemplate.

Tina B| 12.1.11 @ 6:43PM

I, for one, am almost speechless at the idea. My response is growing painfully like an uncovered wound might.

My daddy left Poland after the war, and migrated first to Great Britain and then to the land of the free and the home of the brave. God rest his soul I don't think he could have handled the extent to which our freedoms are being eroded, as the lawmakers stand idly by and jeer.

DRed| 12.1.11 @ 6:47PM

They're not standing idly by-they're joining in. But don't worry-they'll keep us safe. It's only the terrorists they'll go after. Just trust them.

Occam's Tool| 12.1.11 @ 8:10PM

Therefore, we should nuke the bad guys overseas and scare the piss out of the terrorists in much the same way as the woman in Threads. We should reduce governmental surveillance of US citizens by simply thyreatening to exterminate the source of all terrorism if we are attacked instead.

Really, it pisses me off everytime I get scanned at an airport. BUT, this is the price we pay for not destroying Hamas, Hezbollah, Riyadh, Teheran, Cairo, Mecca, and Medina when we are struck by terrorists.

One can protect one's citizens safety by frightening the enemy into submission or by a harassing security system toward denizen's of one's country. Israel tends to do both to some degree; thanks to European/Paulbot/and allies intervention against Israel our world is much less safe from Terror than it would be if Israel was allowed to win.

I propose changing the algorithm to "we win, they lose." Seemed to have worked for one recent great President, I recall.

Occam's Tool| 12.1.11 @ 8:10PM

Sorry, "threatening." Damn.

DRed| 12.1.11 @ 8:41PM

Can you show me where Reagan advocated the mass slaughter of innocents?

Mulder| 12.1.11 @ 6:45PM

One of the most basic enablers of this type of legislation is the use of language in propaganda. The fact that our government and Congress refer to our world being a "Post 9/11 world" and as our "Homeland" should disturb any clear-thinking individual.

The first time is pure nonsense: our world is no different than before 9/11. One isolated event in our more than 200 year history does not reshape the world we live in, nor should it. Referring to the U.S. as our "Homeland" resurrects the Nazi era, with their reference to Germany as the Fatherland, which was a dictatorship under Hitler.

Seems we're almost completely at the point of a dictatorship under Obama, which is exactly what Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor warned of back in 2006.

The fact that neither Obama nor any member of Congress recognizes this cogent fact means O'Connor is smarter than all of them combined.

MrB| 12.1.11 @ 7:15PM

I too cannot imagine anything less American than this bill. Tasking our men and women in uniform with rounding up people who are merely accused of terrorism, and giving them no chance to defend themselves is not our way. It is the way of dictators crackpots and paranoiacs.

Having said that I too believe that the senators who voted for this, and house members who put forward a bill that went much further, are doing it because they believe we want it or can be given enough fear to accept it.

For those of us who do think that this is a problem let me suggest that we call their offices to tell them that this is wrong. We should tell them that we do believe in due process and that we don't sleep soundly at night knowing we might be taken away on an accusation, to be punished for secret evidence that we can never see.

They may not listen, in which case we should vote them out. But it is polite to try, all it takes is a few minutes, less time than it took to write this comment.

Contact info can be found at www.house.gov and www.senate.gov .

Cujo359| 12.1.11 @ 8:43PM

There are so many people throughout the political spectrum who realize this is wrong, it's hard to understand why it happens anyway. Is there something we can do together that we can't do separately?

MrB| 12.1.11 @ 11:44PM

I think that it happens for three reasons. The first is that the endless war is profitable for some and they tend to spend heavily on lobbyists to keep it going. Secondly Congress seems to be caught in an endless need to "do something" so that they can say that they did. In this case I think that they've decided they need to "do something" about terrorism.

But thirdly and most importantly I think its because they believe in it. Having met some elected officials I find that the scariest thing is the extent to which they believe the hype more than we do. Perhaps the architecture of Washington focuses it somehow.

In any event I think that the answer of what we can do collectively now is:
a) Bombard the House and Senate with e-mails stating that this is wrong.
b) Bombard the whitehouse with e-mails saying they need to veto it and fix this, that the justice system keeps us safe and secret prisons do not.
c) Vote out anyone who does not listen.
d) Tell all of our friends and family to do the same.

cjmartel| 12.1.11 @ 10:11PM

The fact that it was U.S. Senators and their ilk that came up with this travesty should in and of itself be alarming. Couple that with the fear mongering that has gone on incessantly since 9/11 and we are fast approaching a point of no return.
Unfortunately there are very few Americans left that understand that liberty is but a heart beat away from disintegrating, and the true cost of liberty is ETERNAL VIGILANCE.
I think every government official should join Oathkeepers.org, then maybe they would'nt be so quick to tear down the U.S. Constitution.
9/11 happened TEN years ago, these wars need to end now! How is it that we defeated two incredibly powerful enemies during WWII, but we can't quite seem to get a handle on a six pack of goat herders!!
People need to demand that this fear mongering stop. We are raising an entire generation that is constantly told to be afraid, afraid of the boogeyman, afraid of crossing a street, afraid to say the wrong thing, just in a constant state of fear.

MrB| 12.1.11 @ 11:52PM

I remember Hunter S. Thompson commenting: "What do you do with a generation that has been taught that war is peace and sex means death?"

While he may have been off, I would ask: what do you do with a generation that has been taught that that war should be eternal and freedom is to be afraid?

Kingofthenet| 12.2.11 @ 12:35AM

While I didn't have a problem with the American in Yemen being bombed, this is a different kettle of fish. The Cleric KNEW he was a wanted man and put himself in a position not able to be caught, killing him in that situation is fine, similar to someone 'holed up' with weapons and taken out by a Police sniper or Swat team. This sounds like they can 'disappear' an American Citizen IN CUSTODY without a chance to face a court.

Erik Wolter| 12.2.11 @ 2:03PM

The guilt of six of the eight saboteurs during FDR's time notwithstanding, detention without due process, including denaturalization of American citizens and deportation of German Americans during WWII is well documented. Many were merely suspects for who they were, what they said, or what organiztions they belonged to years before the war. Fortunately the Supreme Court recognized the injustice as a violation of free speech in time to reverse the deportations of the denaturalized in 1945.
See "Loyalty on Trial: One American's Battle with the FBI."