Over the weekend, news broke that the United States government had made the decision to exchange five Guantanamo Bay prisoners for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl roughly five years after his capture by Taliban forces in Afghanistan. While many have applauded the effort to bring home a captured member of the American armed forces, not everybody has been so quick to label this course of action “correct.” Continue reading
News broke this past Wednesday afternoon of yet another tragic mass shooting at Fort Hood, the second in the base in just five years. While TransparentPolicy‘s primary focus is the United States’ response to foreign terrorist threats, this is an issue that warrants our attention, largely in part to the widespread implications the news coverage of these events will have on the general public’s perception of service members and military veterans, which will ultimately affect the long-term well being of those who have served our country in the post-9/11 military. Continue reading
Earlier this month, Foreign Policy reported that the FBI had made a controversial decision to drop the term “law enforcement” from its official fact sheet in favor of “national security.” The terms were in reference to the primary functions of the FBI. After facing swift backlash, the FBI has once again revised the fact sheet to include both terms. Continue reading
A report analyzing the September 2012 Benghazi attack was released yesterday by the Senate Intelligence Committee. The document ultimately concludes that the attack was preventable, and argues that the State Department failed to boost security in response to intelligence warnings leading up to the attack. Continue reading
In news that shouldn’t be surprising to anybody, new information has come out that says the NSA has been monitoring and collecting e-mail address books in addition to telephone records and other Internet information from American citizens. The Washington Post claims that this additional program was able to collect information from “a sizable fraction of the world’s e-mail and instant messaging accounts.” The goal of this program is similar to that of the NSA’s other data collection programs, in that it is intended to find connections among foreign terrorist suspects. The program allegedly led to the collection of over 250 million address books over the past year. Continue reading
Over the weekend, The New York Times and Washington Post reported that the NSA, on top of collecting Americans’ phone records, has been collecting other information that could detail social connections, travel companions, and locations at certain points of time. It appears that the NSA collected this information through credit agencies, social media, passenger manifests from airlines, insurance agencies, and other public and private sources. The program seems to be either closely linked or a part of the PRISM program leaked by Edward Snowden a few months ago. Continue reading
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
Last month, 13 Guantanamo detainees wrote an open letter requesting independent medical examinations and advice. The detainees, who are using their hunger strike as a means of communication and to gain global attention, said that they did not trust military doctors whom they accused of putting their duties to their superiors above their duties to their patients, in violation of the ethics of their profession. In response, more than 150 doctors, including some from the US, have signed an open letter to President Obama, urging the administration to allow Guantanamo detainees to receive new treatment. The letter, which was published in Lancet, stated:
“Without trust, safe and acceptable medical care of mentally competent patients is impossible. Since the detainees do not trust their military doctors, they are unlikely to comply with current medical advice. That makes it imperative for them to have access to independent medical examination and advice, as they ask, and as required by the UN and World Medical Association.”
The question is whether or not the actions taken by the Guantanamo medics are ethical. According to the World Medical Association, force-feeding hunger strikers of sound mind is never ethically acceptable. The WMA has stated: “Even if intended to benefit, feeding accompanied by threats, coercion, force or use of physical restraints is a form of inhuman and degrading statement.” Therefore, the means by which the medical staff is keeping the detainees alive violates international law, and to some, constitutes torture. However, it is a doctor’s duty to provide life-sustaining treatment. Unlike Cruzan v. Dir. Missouri Dep’t Health which held that competent adults have the right to refuse forced feeding, even if death will result, Washington v. Harper held that prison officials could override a prisoner’s objection to forcibly being administered medication, assuming that it’s in the prisoner’s best medical interest. So what other viable treatment options do these physician’s have, given that the detainees remain on hunger strike? While the means to force feed someone are gruesome and painful, wouldn’t it be even worse if we allowed our detainees to starve themselves to death?
President Obama has stated that America should never practice torture and that Guantanamo should be closed. The only way that will happen is if we have healthy detainees, fit to either stand trial or to be sent elsewhere. If this is truly what he wants, the best place to start is by ending this hunger strike. In this case, he should start listening to his detainees and allow for independent medical examinations. The detainees’ aren’t going to stop their hunger strike, and the medical examiners aren’t going to stop force-feeding them. If no one is going to give, the President should force somebody’s hand.
Alexandra Kutner, Research Fellow
Center for Policy and Research
Last week I wrote about the breaking story that the NSA has been monitoring phone records after obtaining a court order that allowed them to collect data from Verizon Wireless. As I noted, feelings on the issue are split. An editorial from the New York Times claimed that the Obama administration had “lost all credibility on the issue,” and that the government was clearly abusing its power. The Washington Post took a similar stance, but called for more information on the matter before the public jumped to conclusions. Over the weekend, more information came to light that might help us paint a better picture of what exactly the NSA’s telephone surveillance program entailed.
Most of the new information about the NSA’s PRISM program came from the whistleblower himself, Edward Snowden, and ex-CIA employee. Snowden is currently living in Hong Kong to avoid prosecution by the federal government for leaking the story. He provided The Guardian, the British news agency that first broke the story, with a 12-minute video interview that you can watch here. In the interview, Snowden claimed to have had the authority to spy on any American citizen, including the President. He claimed to have leaked the information because of some of the same concerns I voiced last week. In particular, he said that he did not want to live in a society that secretly monitors its citizens, especially those who have done nothing wrong.
So basically what we have learned is that between the CIA and NSA, the federal government had virtually unlimited power to monitor U.S. citizens, even those in the most powerful positions. It would appear that the government needed no probable cause of any kind to place surveillance on these people. I think it’s safe to say that most people’s initial reaction to any instance of government surveillance is outrage. As I said before, we are a freedom- and privacy-loving people. But it’s also important to look at all perspectives before jumping to conclusions.
First things first, the government is not in an enviable position. Charged with protecting over 300 million citizens, agencies like the NSA and CIA have a monumental task in detecting and thwarting terrorist attacks against the United States. Incidents like 9/11 and the Boston Marathon attacks showed just how susceptible we can be to terrorism without implementing a proactive approach. Because of this, there seems to be a general consensus that the government must have some type of surveillance and intelligence gathering programs. The trouble is in deciding just how extensive and intrusive these programs should be. If the government backs off on its surveillance programs and an attack occurs, the public will be outraged and ask why more wasn’t done to protect them. On the other hand, in situations like this where the government is perceived as having gone too far, the public is also outraged. The happy medium, if it exists at all, would be extremely difficult to find. So if the public is going to be outraged regardless of which stance the government takes, it makes sense to some extent that the government would take a proactive stance that might actually prevent attacks and prevent American deaths.
Second, we have to look at what the government was searching for in the records acquired from Verizon. So far, it appears that the NSA was not listening to individual phone calls or audio recordings. From what we know thus far the NSA was simply analyzing data for patterns that might uncover terrorist activity within the U.S., which most would consider a legitimate government concern. Nothing so far points to the government using the collected data for censorship purposes, or anything unrelated to preventing terrorism for that matter.
Having said that, I am not trying to convince anybody that the government did the right thing. Determining what the right thing even is in this situation is an extremely difficult task, and there probably isn’t a concrete answer. There is certainly a chance that the government may abuse its power any time it monitors its citizens, but we still don’t have all the facts to make a determination on whether or not they were. And, especially at a time when confidence in our government is so low, public outcry against the NSA is understandable and maybe warranted. Even so, when we look at this situation we have to keep it in perspective. One of the government’s many jobs, and more specifically the NSA’s job, it to protect the public from terrorist attacks, and so far it looks like that is what the PRISM program is intended to do. More facts are sure to come to light in the following days and weeks, and we might want to reserve judgment until then.
Chris Whitten, Research Fellow
Center for Policy and Research
On Wednesday, The Guardian released a story detailing how the National Security Agency obtained a secret court order compelling telephone giant Verizon Wireless to hand over phone records detailing all domestic calls made by its customers. Specifically, the order, signed by a federal judge on April 25th, gave the NSA unlimited authority to collect phone numbers, location data, time and duration of calls, and other unique identifying data until July 19th. As the article points out, the court order was unusual in that it targeted such a wide range of people. Normally, this type of court order would be limited to an individual or a small group of people.
Now, I would venture to say that when most Americans first heard about this story, they envisioned a government agent sitting in a van with headphones on, listening to their individual phone calls. However, as a follow-up article by The Washington Post explains, this is probably not the case. Information obtained regarding the court order made no actual mention of audio recordings. Although it is not out of the question that the NSA may have other programs aimed at obtaining audio files, they would not be able to acquire them under this order. It appears that the NSA is only seeking paper and electronic records at this point.
But why would the NSA want these phone records? Although the reasoning behind the court order is largely unknown at this point, the White House responded quickly by claiming that this was an anti-terrorism move. Particularly, the NSA is probably seeking out patterns in the records that could reveal possible terrorist plots against the United States. Even if this is the case, the methods the NSA uses to find these patterns have not been proven and have actually been questioned by experts in recent years.
The story has already sparked a great deal of outrage among the American public. We have a high expectation of privacy and tend to think that we are immune to this type of surveillance, especially when it has not been proven to be effective. But since specific details are still being withheld, we can’t be sure whether the NSA’s program is actually constitutional. Putting that aside, there are a few different ways to look at the situation. Like I said before, we tend to place a high value on privacy in the U.S. The idea that the government can monitor our phone calls without notice of permission is unsettling to most, and understandably so. Even if the government is not actively listening to our phone calls, it’s hard to say what else they ARE monitoring. Prior to the enactment of the Patriot Act, this kind of surveillance would have been unthinkable.
On the other hand, some Americans are ok with the idea of the government monitoring private phone calls. The program even received some support in Congress. Senator Lindsey Graham defended the NSA’s program on Fox News, stating that it was a necessary step toward thwarting “homegrown terrorism.” There are undoubtedly some Americans who agree and are ok with trading some amount of privacy for increased national security. In the post-9/11 era, this is also understandable. After all, what does the average American have to worry about if they have nothing to hide? It’s not like the government has released the actual records to the public. This might be true, and that argument might hold water, but the fact is that we don’t know where it stops. Just to reiterate, specifics regarding the program are still unknown, and the NSA may have place self-imposed limitations on their surveillance, but we just won’t know until more details are released. That’s the part that makes so many Americans uneasy.
Until then, we again have to ask ourselves a question that been asked over and over for the past decade: What amount of privacy and liberty are we willing to give up in the name of national security?
Chris Whitten, Research Fellow
Center for Policy and Research