On Thursday, the Senate Intelligence Committee voted to declassify the executive summary and conclusions from its report on the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), charwoman of the committee, released a written statement, stating that “[t]he report exposes a brutality that stands in stark contrast to our values as a nation…. This is not what Americans do.” Continue reading
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
This week, the NSA took more steps toward controlling the damage caused by Edward Snowden when he released information detailing an extensive surveillance program aimed at U.S. citizens. The NSA had previously said that it had foiled over 50 terrorist attacks against the United States by collecting phone and Internet records, but the agency’s damaged credibility largely caused those claims to fall on deaf ears. So on Thursday, NSA Director General Keith B. Alexander provided new information on these supposed attacks. In all, Alexander claimed that 42 attacks had been stopped, although only 13 of those were being planned on U.S. soil. The others were to take place in Europe, Asia, and Africa.
Alexander attributed these numbers to the success of the PRISM program and other surveillance programs that have come under fire since Snowden first released information to the public about them. The claims did not come without criticism as multiple senators questioned the role that the surveillance programs played in thwarting the attacks. Alexander further stated that the public had nothing to worry about in terms of privacy because the data could not actually be accessed unless the NSA had reasonable suspicion that it could use the records to thwart an attack. Essentially, the NSA is claiming that they were only collecting the data without examining it unless they had been tipped off that the communications contained information about an impending attack.
Once again, we’re faced with the problem of not being able to believe a government entity that has already breached the public’s trust. Although these claims are a bit more specific than the original claims brought forth by NSA brass, it’s still difficult to trust them without any kind of documentation. But with al-Qaida already changing their tactics based on Snowden’s leaks, releasing information about how these supposed attacks were stopped could prove even more detrimental to our national security. The NSA has basically gotten itself into a vicious circle of unsubstantiated claims with no legitimate way of backing them up.
Putting aside the claims of thwarted attacks, I personally find it a little easier to believe that the NSA was not accessing the records without reasonable suspicion. Think about how many records we know the NSA collected and how many more they could have collected without our knowledge, and ask yourself if the NSA really has the manpower and time to rifle through millions upon millions of files that probably have no value in terms of national security. Whether you believe the numbers or not, the NSA certainly has a monumental task in protecting us from terrorist attacks and it’s hard to believe that they would waste their time investigating people without probable cause. On top of that, we haven’t heard any reports of American arrests stemming from the surveillance programs that weren’t terrorist-related. If there were any such incidents, they probably would have come to light along with all the other dirt that has been dug up in the past month or so.
Like I’ve said from the beginning, it’s completely understandable that Americans are still concerned about these programs. Regardless of how many terrorist attacks may have been stopped by the NSA, it’s unsettling that the government has this type of power. But I’ve also said that we need to keep it in perspective. We face more threats today than ever before and we have put our trust in the government to protect us from these threats. The government certainly isn’t making it easy, but we need to have some level of trust that they won’t abuse their power. You could easily make an argument that they already have simply by collecting our records, but we still have to weigh that against the possible destruction that could occur if agencies like the NSA weren’t taking these steps. There’s no easy answer here, but unfortunately these are the kind of questions we’re left with in the current global climate.
Chris Whitten, Research Fellow
Center for Policy and Research
This morning Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, a son-in-law of Usama Bin Laden, pleaded not guilty to the charge of conspiracy to kill Americans. Interestingly, this took place not in a military commission at Guantanamo Bay, but in federal court in lower Manhattan, just a few blocks from the site of the 9/11 attacks.
While Abu Ghaith’s connection to the 9/11 attacks is disputed, he is charged with publicly praising the 9/11 attacks and supporting al Qaeda/UBL for nearly 15 years. Numerous sources cite him as being the most senior al Qaeda member to be tried in the United States.
Not surprisingly, the decision to hold his trial in federal court has drawn significant criticism from the press, politicians, and the public- and it was just announced yesterday. NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg is quoted as saying “Would I prefer to have it [the prosecution of Abu Ghaith] elsewhere? I’m not going to get involved in that because I don’t want to make the president’s job any more difficult.” Other political leaders were not so diplomatic, Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte described the Obama administration’s decision to prosecute Abu Ghaith in federal court as “sneaky” and contradictory to the will of Congress.
Today was just a simple 20-minute arraignment, but given the press and publicity Abu Ghaith has received thus far, his prosecution seems like it will be a lengthy and contentious process.
Kelly Ann Taddonio, Research Fellow
Center for Policy and Research