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.