| National Security |
 |
 |
 |
|
Less Privacy, No Added Security
By Rep. Darrell Issa The role that government regulation plays in our daily lives is ever increasing, but it grew dramatically over the Thanksgiving holiday. Just before the travel season started, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) announced enhanced — and arguably invasive — procedures for screening ticketed passengers at all U.S. airports. With the new regulations, TSA claims the authority to pat down our private areas and reach inside our waistbands, or ask us to stand still for X-ray scanners to image our naked bodies.
Understandably, many Americans feel that the new procedures lack common decency or even threaten basic civil liberties.
Shortly before dawn on the morning of November 13, John Tyner, a resident of Oceanside, Calif. — and one of my constituents — entered the Transportation Security Administration checkpoint at San Diego’s Lindbergh Field. Upon approaching the checkpoint, Tyner provided a valid identification, willingly removed his shoes, placed his baggage on the conveyer, and queued through a metal detector the same way that nearly 2 million other domestic-airline passengers do every day. What happened next went viral.
An agent informed Tyner that he was required to pass through an Advanced Imaging Technology scanner, which he declined. With his handheld camera phone, Tyner recorded the agent explaining the “standard patdown” procedure to which he would be subjected. Included in the patdown was a “groin check” that involved the agent placing his hand on Tyner’s “inner thigh” and “slowly going up#…#two times in the front and two times in the back.”
A supervisor explained that the procedure was an “administrative search” that agents are “authorized” to perform. In the end, both Tyner and his camera were sent home. The video was posted on YouTube, where nearly 1 million viewers have heard firsthand what happened.
The events of 9/11 doubtlessly raised the stakes for the safety of air travel. Every American should have the confidence that procedures designed to detect terrorists and prevent their boarding commercial airlines are narrowly tailored and effective. Meanwhile, the challenges of heightened security must not infringe on our constitutional liberty.
Since 1973, an administrative search at airport checkpoints has been deemed constitutional so long as the search is “limited in its intrusiveness as is consistent with satisfaction of the administrative need that justifies it.” The court’s decision, of course, did not address the use of a federal agent’s hands to inspect a passenger’s most intimate body parts. Neither did it foresee the use of sophisticated technology to image a passenger’s body.
It bears repeating that the constitutional right of the people “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” is an inviolable precept of our democracy. If the enhanced-patdown procedures rolled out by TSA a few weeks ago do not constitute an “unreasonable” search without “probable cause” — which the Bill of Rights forbids — then at best, the public outcry against these procedures reflects the deepening distrust that the American people have in their government. The people are steadily losing confidence that the government in general, and federal regulators specifically, are capable of preserving our rights and protecting our lives at the same time.
Of course, there’s good reason to be doubtful. It was luck, rather than effective screening, that stopped the 2009 Christmas Day bomber, whose own father had warned U.S. officials of his terrorist sympathies. And if not for the watchful eye of a Times Square street vendor who pointed out a plume of smoke under a parked car months later, the plot of a Pakistani-born militant could have resulted in the deaths of hundreds. And despite numerous red flags and intercepted e-mail correspondence with an extremist cleric in Yemen, federal authorities were unable to stop Army major Nidal Hasan from murdering 13 military and civilian employees at Fort Hood, Texas, in November 2009.
At every point — from requiring us to remove our belts and shoes, to forcing us to discard our shaving cream and hand lotions, to putting all our toiletries in little plastic bags and placing our laptop computers in separate plastic bins — we have willingly submitted to new travel regulations on the promise that TSA procedures were necessary to keep us safe. Yet it seems that we have been giving up more and more of our privacy and liberty every day without any increase in our security. In fact, the new screening procedures appear to be in conflict with our basic constitutional protections, in the end taking a step back for liberty without a step forward for security.
It is true: 9/11 changed our lives. But if the TSA is going to be taken seriously — and not as a defunct regulatory agency conducting “security theater,” as Washington Post columnist George Will recently characterized their security screenings — then the American people need greater assurances that the TSA takes seriously our concerns about liberty, privacy, and indeed our modesty.
Moreover, there will need to be stronger evidence that TSA, as currently organized and administered, is competent to provide that security.
— Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) is the ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Nuclear-armed mullahs are not an option
By Reps. Darrell Issa, Dan Burton and Jeff Miller
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems hell-bent on enriching uranium and developingthe other complex components and specialized parts necessary to deliver and detonate a nuclear weapon. President Obama's policy in response is far from clear-cut.
We recognize that any assessment of the secret activities of a closed society like Iran is both difficult and necessarily tentative. Even with a well-honed intelligence network, it is impossible to understand the precise status and contours of the Iranian nuclear enterprise.
Although some public accounts have indicated that intelligence agencies believe the Iranian bomb quest has been set back by sabotage and the defection of essential individuals, the inherent limitations of intelligence collection and analysis means that these assessments may be wrong. Iran may be even closer to producing a nuclear weapon than the intelligence community believes.
Only Mr. Ahmadinejad and his cronies know for certain.
What we do know, however, is that Iran continues to conduct military exercises in the Persian Gulf to showcase the regime's ability to threaten a vital transit route for the region's petroleum exports. America's dangerous dependence on foreign oil means that Iran's hostile behavior poses a national security threat. And while the threat from Iran's conventional weapons is serious, the threat to this strategic waterway from a nuclear-armed Iran would be a thousand times worse.
The United States must always be prepared for the possibility of a "strategic surprise." Yet given this administration's national security failures, we have little assurance that the president is equipped to handle an Iranian crisis.
Regrettably, it is increasingly apparent that the president's "outstretched hand" to the Islamist regime in Iran has failed, while his continual scolding of Israel appears to have further emboldened Mr. Ahmadinejad's hostilities toward this important regional ally. Furthermore, the administration's enthrallment with multilateral postulation about the benefit of aggressive global sanctions has accomplished nothing to mitigate the prospect that radicalized Muslims around the world might obtain nuclear weapons.
Some have suggested that the administration has tacitly accepted the development of an Iranian bomb. These analysts argue that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's speculation about a U.S. regional nuclear umbrella, in addition to the administration's plans to place missile defenses in Eastern Europe andthedispatchof other anti-missile weapons to the Mideast, indicate that the president is resigned to Iran's eventual acquisition of atomic arms.
The risk of Iranian nuclear weapons, surprise or not, is deeply troubling. So are the reports that the administration has conceded this eventuality.
First, "containing" a nuclear-equipped Iran as the United States did the Soviet Union during the Cold War would require an explicit commitment to use overwhelming force in certain circumstances. It is not clear whether the president is willing or prepared to make such a commitment in the case of Iran.
Second, even if this commitment was forthcoming, many experts do not believe it is possible to contain Iran. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union refused to take overtly hostile actions directly against the U.S. or its allies during the Cold War, presumably because it feared a massive nuclear retaliatory strike. Essential to this assessment is the fact that the leaders of the Soviet Union understood that American retaliation would preclude the possibility of an eventual global communist triumph.
Iranian leaders may not be encumbered by the modicum of rational statecraft distilled into the collective Soviet brain. Rather than discouraging the use of nuclear weapons against U.S. interests, the prospect of inducing destruction may actually appeal to the mullahs calling the shots in Tehran.
It is telling that while the Obama administration downgrades the role U.S. nuclear weapons play in our national security, the Iranians seem to be striving unabated to obtain atomic arms. Thebestway to counteract uncertainty about Iran's intentions,however, isa certain indication of what is intolerable to the United States.
The first step to halting an Iranian bomb program is increasing our intelligence-gathering capabilities to monitor the progress of Iran's nuclear program. Meanwhile,effective sanctions must be imposed immediately, and the United States must demonstrate its unequivocal support for the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people. We also must not foreclose the possibility of a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities or the option of overwhelming retaliatory force should Iran launch itself or supply terrorists with the resources to launch an attack on the United States or our allies. Iran should have no doubt about the full force of America's military strength and no question about our willingness to use it.
To date, however, the president's policy for dealing with Iran is both incoherent and frighteningly similar to the failed approach of the Carter era. It wasn't until a reinvigorated Kremlin - tempted by an anemic and indecisive American administration - sent Soviet tanks into Afghanistan that President Carter began to acknowledge the threat of a nuclear-armed foe. We hope it will not require another strategic surprise to educate President Obama about a pressing contemporary nuclear threat.
Rep. Darrell Issa of California is ranking member of the House Oversight Committee. Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana is ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East. Rep. Jeff Miller of Florida is ranking member of the House Armed Services subcommittee on terrorism and unconventional arms. No civilian trials for Gitmo terrorists
The White House can't seem to figure out what to do with the terrorists in U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay, but the administration still wants the American people to cough up more than $230 million to transfer them to the Thomson Correctional Center in northwest Illinois and an additional $200 million to pay for increased security in cities where Guantanamo detainees will go on trial in civilian courts.
On top of that, the president's 2011 budget includes a little-noticed provision that obligates $350 million for "detainee operations." This Gitmo slush fund comes complete with no transparency or disclosure on how the money is to be spent.
All of that amounts to a very expensive price tag for a policy that the administration seems unwilling to explain fully to the American people, most of whom remain unconvinced that the policy is in their national security interests. Furthermore, Congress has taken multiple votes both to prohibit the use of federal funds to transfer terrorists to U.S. soil and to demand a comprehensive plan from the administration.
On Jan. 22, 2009, President Obama issued three executive orders about the detention, interrogation and disposition of terrorists in the custody of the United States. One of those orders, Executive Order 13492, required a "prompt and thorough review" of the terrorists held at Guantanamo. The order also mandated consideration of all "legal, logistical and security issues relating to the potential transfer of terrorists currently detained at Guantanamo to facilities within the United States." To lead the review, President Obama appointed Attorney General Eric Holder.
Months later, after conducting what Attorney General Holder called a "personal review of each case," the administration announced a plan to begin transferring Guantanamo detainees -- including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- to federal facilities in the United States and prosecuting them as common criminals in the federal system. On Nov. 18, 2009, Attorney General Holder testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee about this decision, telling Congress that he had "weighed every alternative." But had he?
In recent days, mounting public pressure and bipartisan political opposition have forced the administration to reassess the closing of the Guantanamo facility and the relocation of terrorist detainees. Already the White House has failed to meet a self-imposed one-year deadline, and administration officials are signaling that New York City, the venue originally chosen for criminal trials for the terrorists, might not be the best option after all.
In fact, it is becoming increasingly apparent that decisions made by the administration in response to the thorough review ordered last year are ill-conceived and hastily announced. If a thorough review was conducted and every alternative was considered, as Attorney General Holder testified, it is difficult to understand why the administration's policy is now subject to internal reassessment.
Either the administration's November decision was based on a comprehensive assessment of all "legal, logistical and security issues," or it rested on a half-baked analysis that failed to consider the full consequence of its decisions regarding the disposition of terrorist detainees. Either the Justice Department was willing to make a decision that the attorney general labeled "controversial" because it was the best option, or Americans are now witnessing an administration that makes national security decisions with a wet finger planted firmly in the political wind.
Of course, there is another possibility. It may be that the Justice Department never actually conducted the mandated assessment, but has undertaken a yearlong charade designed to distract Americans from the fact that the president's team is more concerned about appeasing the extreme left in his own party and winning a global public relations battle than protecting the American homeland.
We oppose outright the administration's decisions to treat terrorist detainees like common criminals, to transfer them to American soil and to try them in civilian courts. The erratic behavior and uncertain commitments of the administration do not engender confidence in the president's ability to protect and defend the people of the United States against terrorist threats and to pursue justice for those responsible for killing thousands of Americans in the global war on terror that began on 9/11.
Obama's missile defense decision weakens America
In an increasingly familiar display of Carter-era defeatism, President Obama has acquiesced to Russian demands and dismantled long-standing U.S. plans to counter the threat of Iranian missile attacks.
The cancellation of military deployments in Eastern Europe that were designed to protect both the U.S. and our allies from Iranian aggression has, in fact, weakened our global position. In response, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has called Obama's decision "brave," which gives many Americans little consolation for the loss of a strategic defense initiative.
Under the president's plan, missile interceptors similar to those located in Alaska and California will not be deployed in Eastern Europe as originally intended. Instead, the president wants ship-borne anti-missile systems sent to the Black Sea or Baltic Sea, with the potential development of ostensible land-based counterparts in Turkey or Romania.
What the president hopes is lost on the American people is a pattern -- long embraced by dovish politicians -- of refusing to openly oppose the development of weapons and advocating instead for hypothetical long-range alternatives.
In a sleight of hand, these politicians hope to give the appearance of favoring a strong defense while actually ensuring delays and detours that ultimately limit or kill the programs they oppose for ideological reasons.
Indeed, the president's plan to downgrade our missile defenses rests on many uncertainties. Ample appropriations to develop and sustain them must be secured. The interceptors must be designed and deployed in sufficient numbers. Additional ships must be retrofitted to accommodate the missiles, and redirected vessels from other strategic global positions would leave areas crucial to our security undefended.
Before the president announced his plan, Poland and the Czech Republic were prepared to accept the now-canceled interceptors and their associated guidance radars. Obama caved to wholly unfounded Russian objections to a U.S. military presence that posed Russia no threat.
If land-based missiles are to be deployed eventually, the Obama administration (or its successor) will now have to re-create the wheel. Laborious and time-consuming diplomatic negotiations will be necessary to secure host-nation permission.
The possibility of a lengthy search for other suitable defense sites not only causes an unnecessary delay, but it betrays America's allies in Eastern Europe and suggests to our foes that the United States can be bullied.
There is considerable disagreement among the world's intelligence agencies about Iran's progress toward manufacturing nuclear warheads. In light of the somewhat conflicting and tentative nature of these conclusions, the United States needs a strong defense against the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles by militant Islamic regimes in the Middle East. Regrettably, Obama's plan promises to weaken rather than protect our national security interests.
Perhaps unintentionally, however, the president does seem to have conceded the importance of an anti-ballistic missile system -- albeit a reduced one -- and ironically, Obama himself has acknowledged the dangers we face.
"President Bush was right that Iran's ballistic missile program poses a significant threat," he declared when announcing his drastic revision of U.S. policy. The president has also made clear that Iranian efforts to design medium-range missiles -- those that can easily be transported and fired at targets in Europe and the Middle East -- are succeeding faster than originally believed and are likely to be fielded in great numbers.
Against the constant cooing of numerous leaders in his own party, Obama now seems to have unwittingly affirmed the need for strategic missile defenses in the Middle East. The absence of assertions from Obama that such defenses do not work or that they are destabilizing is interesting.
Regardless of the weaknesses of the Obama proposal, he has at least established a consensus that missile defenses are both effective and necessary. For one who leads a party not known for its support for a strong national defense, that's a bold move.
You might even call it brave.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., is the ranking minority member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
CIA's Panetta, DNI Blair Must End Turf War and Switch Jobs
When Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, it did so to better protect the American people from the breakdown of vital intelligence that left our nation vulnerable on that infamous morning of Sept. 11, 2001. Administrative coordination of the various intelligence agencies—a key provision of the law—was met with initial skepticism, but a post-9/11 world required new approaches to preserve our national security.
Regrettably, the internecine turf wars that formerly compromised our intelligence community show signs of new life. This time around, the conflict involves Adm. Dennis Blair, President Obama's national intelligence director and a highly-decorated Pacific fleet commander, and Leon Panetta, a seasoned and immensely competent Washington insider who now leads the Central Intelligence Agency.
The New York Times reported on June 9 that Blair issued a directive in May announcing his intention to handpick every overseas senior intelligence officer. Panetta responded, staking out the exclusive and historic province of the CIA to install station chiefs. The disagreement quickly hit fever pitch, and senior administration officials have now been summoned to mediate a truce.
As a fundamental matter, the law specifically prohibits the director of national intelligence from concurrently serving as the director of the CIA. While this distinction may seem academic, it underscores a clear congressional intent to differentiate intelligence gathering from intelligence coordination. In other words, the business of spying must reside within the CIA and intelligence gathering entities.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence was created to "oversee the coordination of the relationships between elements of the intelligence community and the intelligence or security services of foreign governments." According to the law, the position is one designed to harmonize—not disrupt—the interrelationship of various intelligence agencies.
The CIA director, on the other hand, "shall coordinate the relationships between elements of the intelligence community and the intelligence or security services of foreign governments . . . on all matters involving intelligence related to the national security or involving intelligence acquired through clandestine means."
The distinction couldn't be more apparent. Director Blair is charged with the administrative oversight of the intelligence community. Director Panetta is charged with the active "command and control" of the CIA's foreign intelligence officers.
Director Blair's strategic office must resist the urge to assert command and control of the intelligence community in violation of both the letter and spirit of the law that created it. But that could be a tall order for a man who's earned his stripes—and his stars—by demonstrating those skills through years of naval command.
The challenges are there for Director Panetta too—from the burden of reinvigorating an agency hard hit in a current climate of congressional accusation to working within a legal framework that potentially buffers his direct access to the president. Panetta's strengths—the ability to direct the traffic of government at both the Office and Management and Budget and as White House chief of staff—are naturally predisposed to coordination and administration.
In this instance, the Obama administration has selected two outstanding and experienced leaders to serve America's national security interests. If internal conflicts now threaten the effective coordination of these interests, the president may need to intervene personally and reorganize his national security team. Perhaps Panetta, with his vast administrative and political experience, is better suited as DNI while Blair, with his extensive background as a commander, would thrive at the CIA.
Such organizational shakeups and senior-level swaps within an administration are common in presidential history. Indeed, they are often a sign of good and efficient management skills that ensure the nation's top leaders are assigned the most suitable roles.
With two wars to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with too many terrorist cells preparing for new attacks on the United States and our allies, the Obama administration must take every effort to prevent the type of stovepiping that undercut our strategic defenses, damaged the morale of frontline agents, and exposed the nation to the nefarious acts of 19 terrorists armed with box cutters and a few weeks of domestic flight school.
A Dangerous Retreat on REAL ID
When the independent, bipartisan Sept. 11 commission issued its report in July 2004, an alarming fact was emphasized: Terrorists need valid identification to board an airplane. The commission asserted that "for terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons." Congress subsequently passed the Real ID Act, which was quickly signed into law by President George W. Bush.
Under that act, states must shift to "secure" driver's licenses and identification cards by verifying that anyone who asks for a driver's license or identification card is actually the person he or she purports to be. States are required to verify an applicant's Social Security number, lawful immigration status and identity.
Despite the fact that a unanimous Senate -- including then-Sen. Barack Obama -- passed the Real ID Act, several senators recently introduced legislation known as the Pass ID Act, which promises to return the nation to pre-Sept. 11 dangers.
Under the Pass ID legislation, about which the secretary of homeland security testified last week, states would no longer need to verify a person's identity before issuing a driver's license or identification card. They would not be required to resolve Social Security number mismatches; nor would they need to ensure the person does not possess duplicate or additional licenses or identification cards issued from other states.
The Pass ID Act would not fine-tune Real ID; it would neutralize or weaken numerous protections that Real ID provides.
So far, 16 states are complying with benchmarks set by the Department of Homeland Security or are on track to comply by the end of this year. States have until 2014 to begin issuing the "secure" driver's licenses and identification cards and until 2017 for full compliance. Why stop the progress we've made?
While developing Real ID, the Bush administration sought and received bipartisan participation. DHS received more than 21,000 comments on the proposed rule and made numerous amendments before issuing the final rule in January 2008. The process was transparent and responsive from beginning to end.
The Sept. 11 commission recognized that a driver's license is only as good as the information it contains. The ability of terrorists to obtain multiple driver's licenses and state-issued identification cards increases the security threat to America. The implications are clear: Valid driver's licenses that are issued based on a fraudulently obtained or fake birth certificate exacerbate our national security vulnerabilities.
Congress should not reverse course and ignore the findings of the Sept. 11 commission. Sadly, that is exactly what the Obama administration and a handful of Democratic senators are trying to do.
Lamar Smith is a Republican from Texas. Jim Sensenbrenner, a Republican from Wisconsin, authored the Real ID Act. Peter King is a Republican from New York. Darrell Issa is a Republican from California. Reps. Issa, King and Smith are the ranking Republicans on the three House committees that share jurisdiction over the Real ID Act.
A Torturous Case of He Said, She Said
National security must remain a strategic legislative priority that deserves the vigilant and careful attention of Congress. When it comes to protecting Americans and preserving our freedoms, the interests of the people are best served by a permanent relationship of reciprocal confidence and deference between Congress and the intelligence community. On May 14, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) raised a very serious accusation concerning the credibility of the intelligence briefings Members of Congress receive — charging that the intelligence community misleads Congress “all the time.”
Within hours of her very serious allegations, CIA Director Leon Panetta — himself a former Democratic House Member — issued a direct, unqualified rebuttal.
“It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values.”
Panetta stated: “As the agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully. We are an agency of high integrity, professionalism and dedication. Our task is to tell it like it is — even if that’s not what people always want to hear. ... Our national security depends on it.”
Flash-forward to the present and things don’t seem so black-and-white for Panetta or the CIA.
As the ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and a former member of the Intelligence Committee, I recognize the supreme importance of dependable and credible intelligence briefings to Congress. The work of government — especially in the face of resurgent international terrorism — relies heavily on the timely, accurate and thorough relay of pertinent intelligence.
Congress has a right to expect it. The CIA has a duty to provide it. It is often said that there are three sides to every story, but in this case, there can only be one truth.
Speaker Pelosi has served in Congress for more than 20 years and is a former member of the Intelligence Committee. If her charges are true, then the integrity of the information Members of Congress receive from intelligence agencies is compromised.
At the moment, Congress is pulled between two competing truth claims — with new details and disclosures emerging that have only deepened the concerns lawmakers have over the briefings they receive. To get to the bottom of this crisis of confidence, it is only appropriate for the FBI to launch an immediate and thorough investigation so we can get the truth.
When it comes to our national security, we cannot allow the partisan politics of Washington to stand in the way of the truth. FBI Director Robert Mueller recently appeared before the House Judiciary Committee. I asked him to immediately initiate an investigation into whether the CIA lied to Members of Congress. The following morning, I also sent a letter to Director Mueller formally requesting the inquiry and introduced the Classified Information Accountability Act, which would allow Members of Congress who have been lied to by the intelligence community to pursue civil charges.
The whole question of lying to Congress is serious enough that it should always be investigated and taken seriously. We cannot have a cloud of suspicion over Congress that affects the credibility of the intelligence information we receive. We rely on truthfulness and candor behind those closed-door briefings. That’s all we’re asking, to make sure we get truthfulness and candor — the fact is the Speaker has said the CIA lied. The CIA first said, “No we didn’t,” and now has admitted to concealing “significant actions” from Congress since 2001.
I’d like to make sure the Speaker has an opportunity to get her reputation back and ensure that every briefing to every Member of Congress, whether it is at the secret level or the most compartmented level, be honest and have candor. If the CIA willfully lied to Congress on this matter, there needs to be accountability.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
And the Truth Shall Set Someone Free
U.S. law stipulates that someone who “knowingly and willfully makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation” to Members of Congress shall receive a stiff fine and eight years in prison. Over the past few weeks, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has claimed that CIA briefers lied to her in 2002 about the use of waterboarding on suspected terrorists.
CIA Director and former Congressman Leon Panetta denies his agency lied. Yesterday, I asked FBI Director Robert Mueller to find out the truth. Today, I am following up my request with a formal letter to Director Mueller.
Speaker Pelosi’s charge strikes at the core of America’s constitutionally designed checks and balances. Congressional oversight of the Executive Branch—including the CIA—is wholly predicated on a continuous and candid flow of information between Capitol Hill and the White House. No candor, no oversight. No oversight, no Constitution.
Some in Congress ascribe the Speaker’s allegation—and my call to investigate—to tortured political posturing. Bandying about the “politics as usual” line in Washington plays great back home but represents an abdication of responsible governance. Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) appeared on MSNBC’s “Hardball” with me last evening in an attempt to dissuade an FBI investigation and somehow protect the Speaker; however, on this one, I’m circling the wagons around Congress’ constitutionally mandated job of intelligence oversight and Speaker Pelosi’s reputation.
If the CIA lied to Speaker Pelosi they could have lied to me, to Rep. Smith and to the American people. An iron-clad FBI investigation would protect the sanctity of the information on which our job depends. That job, lest we forget, is keeping America safe while keeping our intelligence community accountable to the rule of law.
From GITMO to San Diego - Not In My Back Yard
This past week, an editorial that ran in the San Diego Union-Tribune accused Reps. Duncan D. Hunter, Brian Bilbray and myself of demagoguery – asserting that a “not in my back yard” objection was insufficient reason to object to President Obama’s plan to move dangerous terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to military facilities in San Diego County. I think I speak for our entire congressional delegation when I say “not in my constituents’ back yard” is plenty of reason to object.
As representatives of the people, our first and foremost responsibility is to stand up for their interests, and when it comes to this subject, the people have been far from silent. I wish the editorial writers were able to answer the phones, read the mail and faxes that have been pouring into my office so that they could hear firsthand the public outcry from San Diegans regarding this issue. The idea of housing dangerous terrorists like Khalid Sheik Mohammad, top Bin Laden’s assistants and those involved in the attack on the USS Cole here in San Diego County has resulted in an overwhelming public outcry and we have no right to ignore that.
As if somehow keeping dangerous terrorists away from our families wasn’t reason enough to oppose this plan, there are a number of other compelling reasons. For starters, the Administration wants to scrap brand-new detention facility at Guantanamo built just four years ago at a cost to taxpayers of $30 million dollars.
Most concerning however is that moving these terrorists will disrupt the military tribunal process which will rightfully try the detainees under the terms of the Geneva Convention as “unlawful enemy combatants.” Instead, the Obama administration seems determined to move these terrorist to the United States where, once on American soil, they may enjoy Constitutional protections intended to safeguard U.S. citizens.
The Constitution places an intentionally high burden of proof on the government to prevent tyrannical and summary punishment by the government of its citizens. The “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard is a daunting challenge for prosecutors and is the reason many guilty criminals go free in America. We recognize the importance of maintaining this standard for citizens to prevent the conviction of the wrongfully accused. This standard was never intended to apply however to those who, in violation of international law, take up arms against the United States in foreign lands. When trying war crimes, we recognize the need to apply a standard which allows a conviction based on the “preponderance of the evidence.”
Sixty-one of the terrorists once held at Guantanamo who were eventually released are believed to have rejoined the fight against the United States. The need to try these criminals with a decisive standard is clear, and making that point isn’t demagoguery, but, reducing this complicated argument to a seemingly inconsequential objection is.
No Easy Task
When Speaker Nancy Pelosi engineered the ouster of the House dean, Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), from his chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee to install her chief environmental henchman, Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), we knew to expect a double dose of legislative toil and trouble. According to a recent Heritage Foundation analysis, Waxman-Markey will raise the average American family’s annual energy bill by $1,500 and kill approximately 1.1 million jobs by 2035. When all is said and done, there will be two certainties in Nancy Pelosi’s House: higher taxes and the death of jobs.
President-elect Barack Obama intends to make the closing of the Guantanamo detention center one of his first official acts. The case of Mohammed al-Qahtani illustrates perfectly the difficulty Obama will face as he attempts to do so.
Qahtani allegedly planned to be the 20th hijacker in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. He was denied entry into the United States a month before the attacks, was captured in Afghanistan in 2002 and interrogated for more than 50 days into early 2003.
It was later disclosed that Qahtani was subjected to harsh treatment by U.S. military personnel. In an interview this week with Bob Woodward of The Washington Post, Susan Crawford, the senior Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo detainees to trial, said Qahtani's treatment “met the legal definition of torture.” Crawford is the first senior Bush administration official in such a position to publicly state that a detainee was tortured.
Crawford revealed that, during Qahtani's detention, he was exposed to sustained isolation and was forced to stand naked before a female agent. He also suffered sustained sleep deprivation, endured strip searches, was made to do dog tricks and exposed to prolonged periods of cold, which left him in a “life-threatening condition.” In making her finding, Crawford declared that the prosecution of Qahtani could not go forward, because coerced testimony is not allowed in U.S. courts.
There are nearly 250 detainees still being held at Guantanamo. Some have been determined to be no threat to the United States, but for various reasons they have not been released. Some, like Qahtani, are dangerous but are in a legal no man's land. If Obama closes Guantanamo, many of these detainees cannot simply be freed. How long the closing will take will depend on what the Obama administration determines to do with these men. In many cases, there will be no easy choices. |
|
B350A RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, DC 20515 PHONE: (202) 225-5074 FAX: (202) 225-3974 |
|
| STAY CONNECTED |     |
PRIVACY POLICY | SITEMAP |
|