SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
Need to create a login? Want to change your email address or password? Forgot your password?
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
In today’s New York Times, Charlie Savage tells us that Republicans are continuing to tie the Obama Administration’s hands in dealing with terrorism suspects:
Republican senators are pushing to include a provision in a 2012 military authorization bill that would require [Al] Qaeda suspects accused of plotting attacks and who are not American citizens to be held in military custody — even people arrested in the United States. The White House opposes such a blanket rule.
Republicans are lining up near-uniformly behind the measure, and they seem to be recruiting a number of Democrats as well. It appears to be part of their campaign to portray the American criminal-justice system as too weak to meet the challenges of trying terrorists. Instead they want to militarize the process, consolidating terrorism cases in the hands of commissions at Guantánamo.
In a short piece at the National Interest, senior counterterrorism analyst Paul Pillar explains why this approach is wrongheaded:
Applying the “war” notion to counterterrorism has several negative consequences. It overly militarizes counterterrorism itself, encouraging excessive reliance on the military instrument. It invites the tendentious association of counterterrorism with unrelated military adventures or misadventures, as happened with the Bush administration’s Iraq War. It further invites the open-ended use of extraordinary and even extra-legal methods, as occurred with the Bush administration’s practices on detention and interception of communications. It elevates terrorists from the status of criminals to that of warriors.
The Obama administration sensibly discarded the term “war on terror,” but the “war” view of counterterrorism lives on and continues to have negative consequences. The most recent, and in a sense the most extreme, application of this view is found in efforts by Republican members of Congress to bar the use of civilian prisons and courts to handle terrorist suspects. These efforts do not involve the expansion of any counterterrorist tools or resources. Instead, they involve a prohibition on the use of certain tools and resources—ones that have been used effectively for years to handle many terrorist cases. How could such a prohibition be expected to improve counterterrorism?
Of course, it won’t improve it. Instead it would be a new impediment to counterterrorist investigations. If enacted, it would lead to awkward and ineffective procedures such as the FBI having to interrupt an investigation that had just gotten under way in order to turn a suspect over to military custody.
To provide another example of a problem with militarizing justice for terrorist suspects, consider that most suspects seized abroad are held by foreign police. The United States needs the cooperation of these forces, and the support of their governments, to get its hands on the terrorists. But the Guantánamo system has fallen into such disrepute that very few countries will send America a prisoner if it means he’ll be held and prosecuted before the Gitmo military commission. It would become practically impossible for the U.S. to get custody in some cases.
The Republican measure is not only dumb, but hypocritical. Only four years ago, its sponsors were zealously arguing that the president needed to be given all possible tools to fight the “war on terror.” What has changed since then? Only one thing: the party in control of the White House. Obama’s tactics and handling of terrorism cases are barely distinguishable from Bush’s. Both presidents employed military tribunals and the criminal-justice system; both also funneled far more cases into federal court than into Guantánamo. And with good reason: prosecutors got better results in the federal courts.
Could it be that Republicans are seeking to embarrass Obama by ensuring that Guantánamo is kept open, and that his campaign pledge to close it is therefore never fulfilled? That sounds about right, though it’s also true that the G.O.P. never tires of offering sacrifices to the god Mars, tending to see military force as the solution to every problem. In any case, the measure reveals yet again the miasma that has descended on Congress, which recently won a record-setting 9 percent approval rating. That the Republicans would push a foolish provision is unsurprising; what’s amazing is that some Democrats are cowed enough by their opponents to support the initiative.
More from Scott Horton:
No Comment — March 28, 2014, 12:32 pm
On CIA secrecy, torture, and war-making powers
No Comment — November 4, 2013, 5:17 pm
An expert panel concludes that the Pentagon and the CIA ordered physicians to violate the Hippocratic Oath
No Comment — August 12, 2013, 7:55 am
How will the Obama Administration handle Edward Snowden’s case in the long term?
Many comedians consider stand-up the purest form of comedy; Doug Stanhope considers it the freest. “Once you do stand-up, it spoils you for everything else,” he says. “You’re the director, performer, and producer.” Unlike most of his peers, however, Stanhope has designed his career around exploring that freedom, which means choosing a life on the road. Perhaps this is why, although he is extremely ambitious, prolific, and one of the best stand-ups performing, so many Americans haven’t heard of him. Many comedians approach the road as a means to an end: a way to develop their skills, start booking bigger venues, and, if they’re lucky, get themselves airlifted to Hollywood. But life isn’t happening on a sit-com set or a sketch show — at least not the life that has interested Stanhope. He isn’t waiting to be invited to the party; indeed, he’s been hosting his own party for years.
Because of the present comedy boom, civilians are starting to hear about Doug Stanhope from other comedians like Ricky Gervais, Sarah Silverman, and Louis CK. But Stanhope has been building a devoted fan base for the past two decades, largely by word of mouth. On tour, he prefers the unencumbered arrival and the quick exit: cheap motels where you can pull the van up to the door of the room and park. He’s especially pleased if there’s an on-site bar, which increases the odds of hearing a good story from the sort of person who tends to drink away the afternoon in the depressed cities where he performs. Stanhope’s America isn’t the one still yammering on about its potential or struggling with losing hope. For the most part, hope is gone. On Word of Mouth, his 2002 album, he says, “America may be the best country, but that’s like being the prettiest Denny’s waitress. Just because you’re the best doesn’t make you good.”
Ratio of husbands who say they fell in love with their spouse at first sight to wives who say this:
Mathematicians announced the discovery of the perfect method of cutting a cake.
Indian prime-ministerial contender Narendra Modi, who advertises his bachelorhood as a mark of his incorruptibility, confessed to having a wife.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
Science’s crisis of faith