The Republicans in charge of the various national security committees know how to write.
We are concerned that the lack of a comprehensive military detention system will continue to have numerous detrimental results, including: incentivizing lethal operations over law of war detention; the loss of critical detainee-provided intelligence; forcing the United States to be wholly dependent on foreign governments to hold and provide access to detainees; and, as in Warsame’s case, bringing terrorists to the United States
The implications are that 1) we can “do more” to gather intelligence from detainees so long as they are not on US soil; 2) we never want to rely on other countries for help; 3) for the love of god, please don’t ever let a detainee set foot on the continental United States.
Never mind that number 1 is a fiction we already dealt with – GITMO is US soil for the purposes of the Constitution. So, unless you are under the impression that terrorists lose all ability to speak when they enter the United States or you are trying to find a way to make torture legal, then I’m not sure what your concern is. The fact that number 2 cannot realistically coexist with numbers 1 or 3 really makes me chuckle. We don’t want to risk affording rights to these people, but we want to make sure that we keep them in our total control – so keep them on our property, but not in our country? Also, I get the impression that there is a concern about killing terrorists instead of attempting to bring them in to some kind of system for interrogation and (maybe) justice. I don’t see how this squares with anything else, especially given the context of Warsame – but there it is, the GOP and it’s concern for the lives of terrorists.
And then there is number three. I just don’t get it. Who do they think we keep in U.S. prisons now? It’s not the Brady Bunch in your backyard there, Congressman.
I’d also add the complete ignorance of international legal norms this displays. Those pesky Geneva Conventions (and pretty much every other dealing with the laws of conflict) hold countries responsible for what happens to all people under their control. It’s pretty much not even a debate on the international stage anymore that if someone is in your custody, you have to treat them in accordance with the conventions. (And there is no gap in Geneva for anybody that could ever allow torture, regardless of legal status. Freedom from torture, cruel inhuman and degrading treatment is a Non-derogable right, fellas.) Maybe the US agreement to every human rights convention has gone the way of Gingrich’s contract with America?
Yeah, there is that underlying current, but it isn’t emphasized because I think most people have given up on the idea that we are not subject to the Geneva Convention. I think the most striking thing is the juxtaposition of complaining about an implicit incentive to kill people rather than take them prisoner while at the same time complaining that there is no good way to take people prisoner (assuming we don’t want them on US soil).
But, I remain befuddled why anyone thinks Colorado SuperMax can hold the worst criminals known to human history, but the walls will crumble to the ground if there happens to be a terrorist of foreign origin inside.