A few days ago I wrote about the Obama administration’s decision to shut down 19 embassies in the Middle East and North Africa for the remainder of the week in response to what officials are calling a serious and credible threat. The State Department has since reaffirmed that some embassies will remain closed until further notice while others will reopen on Monday. We already know that the threat causing the shutdown came from al-Qaeda’s Yemeni branch, but we’re still in the dark in regard to what the threat actually entails. Continue reading
A few days ago, a story came out in which William Lietzau, the Pentagon’s Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary for Detainee Affairs and point-man on Guantanamo Bay, admitted that he would argue against building Guantanamo. This came following Lietzau’s announcement that he would be leaving his post to continue his career in the private sector. He also gave President Obama a pointer on how to close Guantanamo; announce that the so-called war against al-Qaeda has come to an end. Lietzau, who was key in getting Guantanamo built in the first place, was quoted as saying, “[a]rguably, if the war aim of diminishing Al Qaeda’s ability to mount a certain level of attack has been achieved, we could declare an end to hostilities and return to dealing with the threat as a law enforcement matter.” Continue reading
Unless you live under a rock, you’ve probably heard about the State Department’s response to an alleged terrorist threat this past Friday. The State Department issued a travel alert to all Americans traveling abroad and even went so far as to close 21 foreign embassies over the weekend, 19 of which will remain closed through this week. Although the embassies that are now closed are located mostly in the Middle East and North Africa, the travel alert covers Americans traveling to all parts of the globe. Continue reading
Early yesterday, the sentencing phase of the trial of Bradley Manning, the source of the Wikileaks scandal, began at Fort Meade. As I said yesterday, Manning was acquitted of aiding the enemy, the most serious charge against him. Still, Bradley Manning was convicted on 20 of 22 counts, including charges of violating the Espionage Act of 1917. The prosecution and defense both agreed with Col. Denise Lind that Manning faces a total of 136 years in a military prison for his crimes.
On top of the potential 136-year prison sentence, the parties also agreed that Bradley Manning will be demoted to the rank of enlisted private, dishonorably discharged from the Army, and stripped of all pay and benefits that he would have otherwise received.
The star witness of yesterday’s sentencing hearing was Brig. Gen. Robert A. Carr (ret.), who is now an executive at defense contractor Northrop Grumman. General Carr’s expertise on the matter comes from a long career overseeing the Army’s intelligence gathering operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Bosnia. His last assignment as a member of the Army was to gather information and assess the extent to which information released by Wikileaks harmed soldiers in the field and jeopardized American national security.
Now that the bulk of Bradley Manning’s sentence has already been settled, all that remains is to determine how much of the potential 136-year sentence he will actually serve and what monetary fines the court will impose on him. I find it hard to believe at this point that Manning, who is just 25 years old, will ever be a free man. I guess that’s just what 20 separate convictions for espionage will get you. But now that he has been stripped of all benefits and pay and will probably spend most or all of his life behind bars, arguing about monetary fines is basically just a formality. It’s probably not very realistic to expect him to pay up.
Anyways, General Carr’s testimony centered around whether or not Bradley Manning’s crimes actually led to any deaths in the field. General Carr claimed that exactly one death, an Afghani national with ties to the U.S. government, occurred as a result of the Wikileaks scandal. The Taliban reportedly killed him after obtaining the information. However, when pressed by the defense, General Carr admitted that the man was never named in war logs released by Julian Assange and any mention of the death was stricken from the official record. General Carr still insisted that Bradley Manning’s crimes had put U.S. soldiers and Afghani allies at risk by detailing the relationship between certain Afghani forces and the U.S. military.
It’s interesting that not even General Carr, the prosecution’s authority on the supposed damage caused by Bradley Manning, could not point to a single instance where the leaks led to even one casualty. The only such accusation was quickly stricken from the record. To me, this shows just how desperate the government was to make an example out of Manning with the aiding the enemy charge. There’s really no other explanation for moving forward with that charge with only one precarious piece of evidence.
The trial still has a long way go. The defense is still days, maybe weeks away from presenting evidence of mitigating circumstances that could soften the blow of Bradley Manning’s 20 convictions. Like I said before, Manning isn’t going to be a free man any time soon. But if today was any indication, he might not be looking at a 136-year sentence after all.
Chris Whitten, Research Fellow
Center for Policy and Research
Yesterday, Col. Denise Lind, the military judge presiding over the Bradley Manning case at Fort Meade, acquitted Manning of the charge of aiding the enemy. The charge was the most serious that Manning faced, and almost certainly would have led to life in a military prison. For those of you unfamiliar with Bradley Manning, he is the Private First Class who was on trial for releasing the data published by Julian Assange on Wikileaks. Because of that, the case has received a great deal of attention from both the media and human rights groups who are attempting to find a balance between government secrecy, transparency, and civil liberties.
Bradley Manning’s acquittal on this charge is not exactly surprising given that it was unprecedented for the government to bring such a charge in a leak case. But still, the government’s argument made some sense if you look at the letter of the law. Luckily, common sense seems to have prevailed. I don’t believe (and I certainly don’t think the government could prove) that he intended to aid the enemy, and a vast majority of the information he leaked probably did not aid al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups in any way. On top of that, there seems to be a lot of questions regarding whether or not most of the information should have been classified in the first place.
That’s not to say that Bradley Manning’s actions weren’t worthy of punishment. Any way you look at it, it’s probably not a good policy to allow military personnel with security clearance to release classified information. But that’s where the other charges come into play. Manning is by no means off the hook. Yes, he beat the most serious and highly publicized charge against him, but he was still convicted of a myriad of other charges. Manning was still convicted of six violations of the Espionage Act of 1917, as well as most of the other 22 charges lodged against him (10 of which he has already plead guilty to). He faces a maximum of 136 years in prison, although he probably won’t receive the maximum sentence due to the plea bargain I mentioned. Regardless, it’ll probably be pretty hefty.
A statement put out by Reps. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.), both members of the House Intelligence Committee, was cautiously optimistic but also a little confusing to me. Here it is:
“Justice has been served today. PFC Manning harmed our national security, violated the public’s trust, and now stands convicted of multiple serious crimes. There is still much work to be done to reduce the ability of criminals like Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden to harm our national security. The House Intelligence Committee continues to work with the Intelligence Community to improve the security of classified information and to put in place better mechanisms to detect individuals who abuse their access to sensitive information.”
My confusion here comes from their claim that they are working hard toward securing classified information and our national security. It seems to me like their plan is to bring the hammer down on anyone like Bradley Manning who leaks information to deter others from doing the same. I know that leaking classified information is different than murder in that it’s usually a planned, calculated act. The leaker usually knows there’s a good chance he might get caught, so I can see the logic behind a deterrence theory argument. But I highly doubt anyone planning to pull a Bradley Manning-esque stunt doesn’t already know that the crime carries a serious penalty.
Maybe instead of throwing the book at Bradley Manning, who seems to have had serious concerns about the military’s policies, we should take a look at overhauling our classification systems. And maybe we shouldn’t be handing out security clearances like candy. Politicians should absolutely go after people like Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden. Leaking government secrets should be punished. But the politicians should at least own up to the fact that this is partially their fault. If we start paying attention to what we classify and who we give security clearance to, we won’t find ourselves in these situations.
Chris Whitten, Research Fellow
Center for Policy and Research
Thursday, in response to the May 22nd emergency motion requesting an end to the newly instituted groin searches, Federal District Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth ordered the government to stop genital searches of Guantanamo Bay detainees prior to meeting with their lawyers. In his strongly-worded 35 page opinion, Judge Lamberth ordered prison commanders to return to an earlier search method described in a 2009 Defense Department task force review, which limited guards to grasping the waistband of a detainee’s trousers and shaking their pants to dislodge any contraband. The current search method at Guantanamo, referred to as an exaggerated response to unpersuasive security concerns, involves the touching and holding of detainees’ genital and anal areas “flagrant[ly] disregard[ing] the need for a light touch on religious and cultural matters” and dissuades detainees from gaining access to their lawyers. The order stated in part that:
“… the choice between submitting to a search procedure that is religiously and culturally abhorrent or forgoing counsel effectively presents no choice for devout Muslims like petitioners.”
While the government made justifications for the invasive searches at Guantanamo, i.e.the finding of homemade weapons and prohibited electronic devices in April, Judge Lamberth felt that the record failed to indicate “that the detainees have received any contraband from their attorney or that detainees have attempted to pass contraband to each other during phone calls or meetings with attorneys.”
Responding quickly to the order, the Justice Department filed an appeal late last night. The Justice Department has requested a hold to be placed on the stopping of genital searches, stating that Guantanamo detainees are able to gain access to weaponizable items which may result in suicide, harm to other detainees, or the guards becoming seriously injured. In addition to the appeal, the government submitted a sworn declaration from Marine General John Kelly, commander of United States Southern Command, who spoke strongly of the irreparable harm that would result with the discontinuance of genital searches at Guantanamo. The government claims that the newly implemented search methods have not deterred meetings nor have they impacted access to the prisoners. Furthermore, the government states Judge Lamberth’s order is barred by the Military Commissions Act, which “unequivocally bars conditions-of-confinement claims by Guantanamo detainees.”
“Because the full-frisk-search and visit-location policies with which Petitioners take issue both concern their conditions of confinement, the Court lacked jurisdiction to issue an order enjoining them.”
The appeal has resulted in great tension. Guantanamo leadership is maintaining protocol, requiring their “standard” genital searches before and after visits with attorneys or phone calls, while lawyers have filed a motion asking Judge Lamberth to issue an order requiring the government to follow his ruling, arguing that the government is acting in contempt of court. In the upcoming weeks, it will be interesting to see whether the appeal moves forward, or if for the first time, a federal court can restrict a military commander from implementing certain security procedures at a detention facility.
Alexandra Kutner, Research Fellow
Center for Policy and Research
As the controversy surrounding force-feeding tactics at Guantanamo Bay continues, two top members of the U.S. Senate have spoken out in favor of ending the practice. Senators Richard Durbin and Dianne Feinstein called on President Obama to stop force-feeding prisoners partaking in hunger strikes in protest of their status at Guantanamo. This comes just days after a U.S. District Court Judge handed down a ruling stating that federal courts have no authority to shut down the force-feeding program, but agreeing with detainees and their attorneys that the practice is troubling and may violate human rights. The decision put the burden solely on President Obama to address the situation, and it looks like he will be receiving pressure from Congress as well.
Senators Durbin and Feinstein did imply that there may be cases where force-feeding is medically necessary, but stated that the military does not observe proper guidelines and safeguards even in those cases. This was not Senator Feinstein’s first attempt at convincing the government to stop force-feeding. Last month she wrote a letter to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel after a visit to Guantanamo in which she called hunger strikes a “long-known form of non-violent protest aimed at bringing attention to a cause, rather than an attempt of suicide.” This seems to imply that Feinstein’s views are in line with others who believe that force-feeding is inhumane in instances where protests do not threaten Guantanamo personnel and involve mentally competent detainees.
The White House turned to its usual response, stating that it does not want any detainees to die of malnutrition while in detention. So it’s ok to hold them indefinitely with no hope of release even though we lack the necessary evidence to press charges, but it’s not ok for them to protest a largely unreasonable policy in a manner that poses no threat to the United States or its military personnel. Got it.
The Senators also called on President Obama to make good on his long overdue promise to close Guantanamo Bay altogether, which was just another drop in the proverbial ocean of similar requests made since Obama took office. As sad as it is, it’s almost laughable at this point to think that another request to close Guantanamo will make a difference with so many members of Congress still in favor of keeping it open. But I guess it’s nice to know that there are still politicians out there who believe that it can be accomplished.
Do I think this latest effort to stop force-feeding and close Guantanamo will make any difference? Not really. Like I’ve said before, closing Guantanamo will be a long, painful process and there are still too many people who want to keep it open. It’s not a groundbreaking prediction but I don’t think Guantanamo Bay will be closed any time in the near future. I think our short-term goal needs to be putting an end to force-feeding. If you believe Monday’s decision, we should be able to sidestep much of the political process and leave it up to President Obama if we focus on that. That doesn’t mean we should abandon efforts to close the base, but we need to focus on the immediate problems that we can fix right now.
In a related story, two hunger-strikers dropped out of the over 4 month-long protest for unspecified reasons, bringing the total number down to 104. However, 45 are still being force-fed on a daily basis.
Chris Whitten, Research Fellow
Center for Policy and Research
Despite prior rulings that federal courts have no jurisdiction over the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, attorneys for detainees at the detention center have now turned to the court system for help in putting a stop to force-feeding at the GTMO Detention Camp. Over the weekend, defense attorneys filed a motion with a federal district court in Washington DC requesting an immediate hearing on the legality of tactics used by military personnel at Guantanamo to keep hunger-striking prisoners alive. In the 30-page motion, defense attorney Jon B. Eisenberg stated, “There cannot be a legitimate penological interest in force-feeding petitioners (detainees) to prolong their indefinite detention.”
The military continues to defend the use of force-feeding as a necessary step to maintain order at Guantanamo, but the defense attorneys and detainees argue that it is a direct violation of human rights. Detainee Nabil Hadjarab claims that he is taking part in the hunger strikes to protest his detention despite the fact that no formal charges have been lodged against him. Hadjarab stated, “I am doing this because I want to know my destiny. I cannot abide not knowing anymore.” Force-feeding at Guantanamo has been criticized for months now but this is one of the first instances where the detainee’s defense counsel has turned to the courts for relief.
The motion specifically names four detainees, and there might be a reason for its timing. The Islamic holy month of Ramadan starts next week, and any force-feeding that might occur during daytime hours could violate detainees’ religious beliefs. Even if the motion is not presented to the court by next week, the detainees are seeking a temporary order that would prohibit guards from force-feeding them from sunup to sundown. This would probably be granted as guards at Guantanamo have agreed in the past to only force-feed detainees after sundown in observance with Ramadan.
Even so, guards at Guantanamo are unlikely to change their ways without a specific court order. Army Colonel Greg Julian stated, “Until we are told to do differently the practice will not change.” I can understand that guards at Guantanamo are simply following orders. They aren’t exactly in the best position. They don’t get to make the call on whether or not the detainees are charged or released. As for the overarching policy, I agree that it isn’t a good look to have detainees dying from malnutrition at Guantanamo. But it isn’t much better to shove tubes into detainees’ stomachs in response to a protest that has a perfectly legitimate aim.
We aren’t talking about detainees with high intelligence value or detainees that have been charged with crimes. I can see a better argument for force-feeding detainees in that category, even if it might still be a human rights violation. We could at least justify it since keeping them alive might save more lives if they have information on any impending attacks. Instead, we’re talking about men who have been told by the government that there are no charges against them due to lack of evidence, but they are still not allowed to leave Guantanamo Bay. These are men who have made a conscious decision to protest a policy that many Americans don’t even like. And if the courts put a stop to force-feeding it might force the government’s hand into making a decision as to their fate.
Either way, this has turned into an issue that the courts will now have to address. And with the total number of hunger-strikers at 106 and the number of detainees being force-fed at 45, it will be interesting to see how this plays out in the next week or so.
Center for Policy and Research
Intelligence agencies are now scrambling to change their surveillance practices due to Edward Snowden’s leaks regarding NSA surveillance programs. Terrorist groups, who have always taken precaution in order to avoid detection, are now changing the way they communicate since they learned that some of the means previously thought undetectable were actually being monitored. Intelligence officials, speaking anonymously and unauthorized, have stated that terrorist organizations – in particular al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, which includes al-Qaida’s Yemeni Branch – have been switching e-mail accounts, cellphone providers and adopting new encryption techniques to mask communications. Given that we have 56 Yemeni detainees in Guantanamo, President Obama’s statement that he would soon lift the ban on Yemeni repatriation seems like a bit of a misstatement. If we can no longer monitor those whom we deem to be terrorists, I highly doubt we would allow for the transfer of detainees back to their home countries, regardless of whether they are seen as valuable or not.
Snowden’s leak on NSA surveillance has brought much debate, particularly regarding how much harm was actually done. On the one hand, it is easy to understand that by giving out information on how we are being monitored could cause issues, namely creating smarter criminals. On the other hand, is it really that unthinkable that a criminal is being monitored and therefore has already thought of means to go undetected? Political issues, etc. (which we do not fully understand the global implications of – and they will continue to rear their ugly heads) aside, has the information Snowden released really taught us any more than we could have learned from every cable series or spy movie of the past decade, not to mention the public debate surrounding the Patriot Act? For instance, take Osama bin Laden. It took us a decade to find him because he went completely off the radar. 1) This is public information – if you’re that smart and that high up the food chain, you’re probably not using a phone and if you were, you’re using it very sparingly. 2) I could have told you that after watching one season of “The Wire.”
I understand the NSA’s problems with the leak. I understand that some people may have been tipped off and might be harder to locate now. But at the same time, come on. The guy at the top of the cell isn’t going to be dumb enough to be making phone calls. And the guy at the bottom of the cell is probably still going to be dumb enough to do something else you probably already have intelligence on.
Alexandra Kutner, Research Fellow
Center for Policy and Research
Over the last couple of weeks, the a lot has been said on both sides of the argument about Edward Snowden, the NSA leaker, and the balance of national security and privacy. His disclosures have raised a moderate amount of outrage on the part of libertarians of both parties, as well as a great deal of discussion on the proper balance of national security needs and privacy rights.
Interestingly, most representatives in Congress does not seem that perturbed by the idea of these programs, although they are livid that they were disclosed in this manner. And of course the Executive has been outraged that one of its trusted contractors has turned on them. And now, Snowden has been charged with espionage, however poorly that statute may fit the offense.
Something that is lost in all of this debate on whether the surveillance programs in question are legal, ethical, wise, etc. is the question of who should be asking these questions and how. We have a Whistleblower Protection Act for a reason, after all. It reiterates and reinforces the idea that national security policy questions are to be dealt with by our cadre of national security professionals and by Congress.
Snowden claims that he leaked the information in order to allow the American public to decide for itself if these programs were appropriate. But his own actions and methods belie this intent. By releasing the information into the public domain, instead of following the prescribed chain of notification and complaint, Snowden decided himself that the programs were a violation of the public’s privacy rights. So instead of having the decision on the careful balance between national security nd privacy made by our elected representatives, Snowden ensured that it was made by an unaccountable high school dropout.
I do not bring up this last point out of spite, or to merely disparage Snowden; I, too, never completed high school. However, there is a reason for the overwhelming preference for college graduates with a broad liberal arts background. Such an education promotes better contextual understanding of the fine balances between the different competing factors confronted in any given situation. This is precisely the skill that the central question in this affair requires: whether the value to national security of these programs is worth the loss of a given amount of privacy. Interestingly enough, this is also exactly the type of decision made on a daily basis by our elected representatives in Congress, who (not incidentally) should have been the Snowden’s last stop before going public.
I know understand how powerful the personal belief that a certain national security program or event is unethical and must be exposed can be. I have been personally involved in a whistleblower case, and seen with my own eyes the emotional strain that can be caused by holding back the information that you vehemently believe should be made public. But that does not excuse those like Snowden or Bradley Manning, who have simply bypassed all of the proper channels and taken the decision entirely into their own hands.
If Snowden was a true patriot, he would not broadcast his information from safe havens abroad, on the run from the law (although he claims he is “not here to hide”—again, his actions belie his claimed intent). He would instead do what respectable whistleblowers do: First go through the correct channels, and when that fails and resort to the open media is required, stand up and face the music. Such whistleblowers often go unprosecuted, and when they are, they can at least rely on a jury of their fellow citizens to come to the rescue.
Paul W. Taylor, Senior Fellow
Center for Policy & Research