Should Terror Suspects Have Rights?
If you’re a regular reader of this blog you’re already aware that I’m not crazy about the idea of Hillary Clinton serving as Obama’s Secretary of State. If not, you can catch up here. Other than her, I’ve been pretty satisfied with the team that Obama is putting together. Is it full of Clintonistas? Yes, but I’d argue that any Democrat who wasn’t involved with the Clinton administration was probably left out for a reason. In addition, this is politics – loyalties shift and I expect to see a lot more familiar faces accepting positions in the new administration. Most of them will go uncontested – unlike John Brennan who has surrendered any major intelligence position in advance because of expected (and much deserved) criticism of his participation in the war on terror. Pamela Hess of the Associated Press reports:
John Brennan, a 25-year CIA veteran and career analyst who became the first head of the National Counterterrorism Center in 2004, preemptively declined to take any intelligence post in the new administration in a Nov. 25 letter sent to Obama.
Brennan has publicly disavowed waterboarding, a form of simulated drowning. But Soldz said his group considers the excessive use of isolation, sleep deprivation, cultural and sexual humiliation and other techniques in combination as torture, and Brennan had not repudiated their use.
Waterboarding is torture. Any other characterization is smoke and mirrors. Our policies have not made us safer in the long run, they have put Americans in great potential danger. If the SCOTUS hadn’t made the right decision in Boumediene v. Bush – when it ruled that Guantanamo detainees have habeas corpus rights – the U.S. government would have had a blank check to detain anyone they want, anywhere in the world for an indefinite amount of time without ever charging them with a crime. Does that mean they would run around doing so? No, but that’s not the point. The point is that government needs to be kept in check and our civil liberties always have to come first. Imagine the outcry if foreign states, for example, Iran, North Korea etc. detained Americans, subjected them to “enhanced interrogation techniques” (not to be confused with torture), denied them due process, and kept them in “single occupancy cells” (not to be confused with solitary confinement) for years, all in the name of national security. I don’t think it would go over very well.
There’s been a lot of talk lately about President Bush and whether or not he will preemptively pardon anyone involved in executing the war on terror under his administration. Opinions are all over the map. Here’s what James Carafano of the Heritage Foundation has to say about it:
What last minute Bush administration decisions, plausible or not, do you most fear or favor? (Hint: pardons, regulations, executive orders)
Can’t see why we would need a blanket pardon since I am not sure there is much to be ashamed about. This administration has been investigated and sued to death on every issue related to the war already. Don’t see the new administration going on a witch hunt. They would quickly find themselves persecuting the people they are trying to lead.
I chose to highlight Carafano’s position for a reason – he was my military history instructor when I was a brand new 2LT in Field Artillery training at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. He was not particularly approachable or well-liked. In fact, he seemed to hate the very presence of lieutenants (a common side-effect felt by many instructors after a few years of teaching). Regardless, he was smart and definitely knew his stuff. I recall a lecture he gave about his first trip to the World War II battlefields of Western Europe. He mentioned being struck by all of the “little white crosses” that seem to go on for miles. He argued that each cross represented the potential outcome of each decision an officer makes in combat and that those decisions should never be taken lightly. I wonder if he sees the same potential for more “little white crosses” in response to the way we’ve waged the war on islamic extremism. Probably not. And try to remember that we are not merely talking about “policy disputes.” We are in a struggle to save the soul of our country. Sacrificing our values will not only turn others against us, it destroys us from within.
Unless you’ve been under a rock for the past few days you know that there was a major terrorist attack in Mumbai, India. Details are still coming in over at Counterterrorism Blog. In a nutshell, it appears as if a group of terrorist reached India from Karachi, Pakistan via ship. There are over 100 dead, including 6 foreigners (as of right now). The terrorists hit multiple targets simultaneously and while they seemed to kill indiscriminately, they were reportedly looking for Brits and Americans in particular. Stay tuned to Counterterrorism Blog for up to the minute information and analysis – those guys know their stuff.
When I’m not blogging here I like to share links and stay connected with people through Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to add me to your friends on either.
Thanks for reading.
About the Author: Randall H. Miller is an American college educator/blogger. He is also a former U.S. Army officer (82nd Airborne) with a M.A. in Diplomacy (focusing on International Terrorism) and a B.A. in Criminal Justice. Use the form on the right to sign up and receive notifications of new content. The words and ideas expressed here are 100% his own and not those of his employers or affiliated organizations.
RHM | Nov 28, 2008 | Reply
Here’s another blog following the Mumbai situation closely:
http://barcepundit-english.blogspot.com/2008/11/mumbai-day-3-situation-is-still.html
James Carafano | Nov 28, 2008 | Reply
Hopefully not all my LTs found me that scary.
RHM | Nov 28, 2008 | Reply
Dr. Carafano,
Small world, no?
For the record, I didn’t find you “scary”, but you were perpetually annoyed with LTs (and not alone in that respect). I graduated from OBC the day after you pinned on LTC which, I believe, was toward the end of your tenure teaching newbies. Regardless, I remembered the most important lecture(in my humble opinion), “little white crosses.”
I appreciate you stopping by to read my post and especially for commenting. Happy Thanksgiving weekend (sounds better than “Black Friday”).
RHM
James Carafano | Nov 29, 2008 | Reply
here is my piece on Mumbai.
November 28, 2008
After Mumbai: Could It Happen Here? What to Do
by James Jay Carafano, Ph.D.
WebMemo #2147
On Wednesday, armed groups of terrorists equipped with a variety of weapons and explosives fanned out across the Indian city of Mumbai. In coordinated assaults, they attacked areas frequented by foreigners, killing indiscriminately and taking hostages. While the rationale and responsibility for the attacks are still under investigation, the incident raises questions about U.S. Domestic security. It is unwise to draw specific lessons and suggest trends based on any one particular incident, particularly when all the facts are not known. Nevertheless, there are do’s and don’ts that should be followed in thinking about the unthinkable—armed assaults in America.
Unthinkable, but Possible
While the armed assaults in Mumbai are horrific, they are not unprecedented. Russia, for example, has experienced a string of such incidents perpetrated by Chechen separatists. For instance, in 1995, 1,000 hospital patients were held captive at Budyonnovsk, near the border with Chechnya. Russian troops stormed the hospital twice, a battle that resulted in 100 civilian deaths.
In October 2002, 50 heavily armed Chechen rebels seized a Moscow theater and held hundreds hostage. The rebels booby-trapped entrances with mines and rigged an explosive bomb in the center of the theater. Russian special forces pumped the theater full of gas; over 100 captives died from the effects of the gas.
On September 1, 2004, a well-armed group of Chechen rebels invaded a school at Beslan in the North Caucasus. Armed with automatic weapons and explosives, they took more than 1,000 hostages. After a bloody stand-off, 334 hostages were killed.
Even the United States has not been immune from the danger of planned armed assaults. For instance, in August 2005, a Pakistani national was arrested as part of a terrorism investigation into a possible plot to attack the Israeli consulate, California National Guard facilities, and other targets in southern California. In 2007, the FBI arrested six men from Cherry Hill, New Jersey, for allegedly planning an armed assault on Fort Dix.
Is the U.S. at Risk?
On the one hand, there is no question that the United States is a much “harder” target for transnational terrorism than it was before 9/11. Likewise, federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies have paid much more attention to the threat of “homegrown” terrorism. Since the September 11 attacks, government agencies have thwarted over 19 conspiracies aimed at killing Americans on U.S. soil.
Nevertheless, it is unrealistic to believe that all homeland security efforts will deny every attack every time. In particular, armed assaults and vehicle-borne explosive attacks are tactics that are not beyond the reach of any modestly funded and committed terrorist group.
What Not to Do
If and when the next attack occurs, there are things that the U.S. should not do:
Throw money at the problem. If another terrorist attack occurs, shrill cries will dominate the public discourse, claiming that this new attack occurred because our nation was not spending enough. But few problems can be solved by money alone. If fact, our nation is still not doing a very good job spending the money already allocated. The government knows, for example, that it needs to do a better job spending the money already allocated to emergency responders. A study cited in Time magazine, for example, found that most grants to state and local governments have been distributed “with no regard for the threats, vulnerabilities and potential consequences faced by each region.” Our nation needs a system that will spend the money allocated for homeland defense efficiently and effectively.
Trade safety for civil liberties. Calls for new security measures that require temporary impositions on basic civil liberties will also dominate the aftermath of any hypothetical future attack. Yet this argument is almost devoid of logic. On the other hand, Americans should beware that, despite hysterical claims to the contrary, not every government action to fight terrorism is a slap at the Constitution. The USA PATRIOT Act is a case in point: Its detractors have yet to identify a single abuse or prove that any of its provisions are unconstitutional. The debate over the balance between civil liberties and security warrants thoughtful debate, not knee-jerk histrionics.
Blame America. If there is another attack, one explanation will be that the U.S. deserved it. Critics might offer any number of reasons supporting such claims, but generally these assertions should be summarily dismissed. No nation is perfect, but our country strives to be a force for good in the world. Some may not like American politics or policy—or even our pop music, for that matter—but nothing the United States has done justifies terrorist acts aimed against innocent people.
Say the U.S. is on the wrong course. In all wars there are advances and setbacks, victories and casualties: Every such incident is not a call for change in strategy. There is a reason why the United States has not been attacked since 9/11. It is not because there is no threat or that the nation has just been lucky. In many respects, U.S. counterterrorism programs are working—and not just at home, either. While there has been a flare-up of terrorism in India and the Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan, as a recent report by the Human Security Project shows that, globally, the trend in transnational terrorist attacks and the appeal of the radical Bin Laden agenda have been declining for several years.
What to Do
No administration can guarantee it will stop every attack everywhere. But if our nation assumes the offensive, the U.S. can take the initiative away from the terrorists, lessen their chances of success, and mitigate the damage they cause. Consequently, Washington should continue to:
Emphasize cooperation and information sharing between federal, state, and local law enforcement;
Retain an integrated approach to homeland security. When an explosion happens, the government cannot wait until it knows if the incident was a terrorist attack or an industrial accident. Rather, our nation needs to respond with alacrity, and that means taking an integrated “all-hazards” approach from the local to the national level. As such, the Federal Emergency Management Agency must remain an integral part of the Homeland Security Department; and
Maintain valuable terrorism-fighting tools established under legislation like the USA PATRIOT Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act of 2008.
Now is not the time to grow complacent about homeland security.
James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is Assistant Director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and Senior Research Fellow for National Security and Homeland Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.