Guantanamo

Congress Viewed from Across the Pond

James Joyner — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:10:56 -0600

"Viewed from across the pond, the U.S. Congress seems at best incompetent and at worst a joke," Alex Massie argues. And that perception is not without consequence.

President Barack Obama deliberately pitched himself as a leader for the post-globalization age. So many promises were made on so many fronts that, inevitably, many of them would be broken or ignored or, as now seems increasingly probable, chewed up by the legislative process.

No wonder Europeans are unimpressed by this president and his inability to deliver upon the promises he made, not merely to American voters, but to the entire planet. Campaign aspirations are always snuffed out by brutal political reality. But rarely has the contrast between campaign poetry and governing prose been quite so clear.

Nowhere has this been more the case than on climate change and the fate of the prison at Guantánamo Bay. European leaders had hoped for more from Obama at the Copenhagen conference on climate change. Hamstrung by a skeptical Congress, Obama did his best. But it was a best that satisfied few people and, once more, reminded Europeans that the U.S. president is less powerful, in terms of domestic politics, than any prime minister. It was a reminder of the Yankee separation of powers. Only the most cockeyed optimist would bet on cap-and-trade legislation passing this year.

[...]

Because, more than anything else, it was the promise to close Gitmo that earned the president his Nobel Peace Prize, the failure to solve the detainee problem now makes that award seem even more preposterously premature. Much worse than making the president seem weak, it risks making him seem ridiculous. While politicians can survive and even, on rare occasions, embrace disapproval, mockery and ridicule are much more poisonous.

Another irritant, imposed upon the rest of the international community by the world's most ridiculous deliberative body, is the lack of U.S. diplomatic representation in key spots. Brazil went nearly a year without an ambassador because of a senatorial hold, while important positions at the World Trade Organization and other bodies still remain unfilled.

Of course, the Senate's arcane rules and the hyper-partisan atmosphere in DC are only partially to blame for Obama's inability to carry out his Gitmo promise. He simply didn't think through the consequences of his announcement before making it. (And, while our European cousins were thrilled, they weren't exactly eager to take the detainees off our hands, either.)

And with climate change and cap-and-trade, there's hardly a consensus even among Senate Democrats. The fact of the matter is that Americans are simply not as willing as those in Western Europe to submit to international regulation of our industry.

Alex is absolutely right that the process for confirming ambassadors and other officials is too cumbersome. But, as I argued last October, the solution is professional ambassadors. Having the president appoint and the Senate confirm 5000-0dd officials every four to eight years is just insane.

The overarching complaint, though, is systemic. Even if our legislators suddenly became more mature and less petty (and I agree with Dave Schuler that they won't) our system of governance was designed with the primary intention of making it difficult to get anything done. Our Framers feared tyranny much more than inefficiency and designed our institutions accordingly.

For many, the idea that a party can win an election and yet not be able to govern as they wish is shocking. Because the United States is unusual — if not unique — in that regard, it's unfathomable to those overseas. Indeed, having taught the subject to college freshmen, I can attest that most Americans don't understand it, either. But, if you happen to be on the losing side of things, it's very much a feature rather than a bug.

It doesn't help that our media, historians, and even presidents and would-be presidents all pretend that the system is something different. Presidents and presidential candidates make ridiculously bold promises to do things clearly outside their power to deliver. At the same time, they're given credit for good things that happen on their watch they had precious little to do with and are blamed for not fixing things they couldn't possibly fix.

James Joyner is managing editor of the Atlantic Council. Photo: Saul Loeb/Getty Images.

Guantanamo Detainees: The View from Europe

Andrew Kessinger — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 13:49:12 -0500

Thanks to renewed transatlantic cooperation, President Barack Obama is one small step closer to keeping his campaign promise to close the controversial Guantanamo Bay detention center.

On Wednesday, Ireland's Justice Department announced its intention to resettle two detainees cleared of terrorist affiliation. Add to that figure France's symbolic transfer of one prisoner in May, and the official EU total of accepted foreign prisoners stands at three. The Czech Republic, Austria and Germany have so far refused to resettle any inmates; Italy, Portugal, Belgium and Spain have each pledged to accept several under strict conditions. A modest start, for sure, but notable given Europe's reticence to help clean what is arguably America's own dirty laundry.

"America created Guantanamo. It has to come up with the solution," quipped Austrian Interior Minister Maria Fekter. "None of these prisoners has anything whatsoever to do with Denmark," echoed Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moller. "Why should they be taken in?"

Such prickly indifference in Europe is hardly surprising and stems in part from the tactics used during the Bush Administration's "War on Terror".

The intelligence used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which many Europeans viewed as overstretched at best and faulty at worst, combined with an "either with us or against us" approach to coalition building, alienated Atlantic allies for years to come. Convinced the US would push ahead with its military objectives without respect to international consent, input or standard procedure, many in the EU were left feeling sidelined, even satisfied to let the US reap its whirlwind. Such lingering popular resentment explains the disconnect between Europe's expressed desire to see Guantanamo closed and its feet-dragging when it comes to actually helping to do so.

Nonetheless, Ireland's decision to take in detainees will revive the ongoing debate over Europe's moral obligation to help close the facility, which has long symbolized an outstanding obstruction to international law. Detainees – ambiguously defined as "unlawful enemy combatants" – have been held without charge or trial for years, denied legal representation, and in some cases tortured, effectively circumventing the Geneva Conventions which, in principle, outlaw such practices.

In April, the EU Council announced that European efforts in closing Guantanamo "would allow both [the US and the EU] to pave the way for strengthening cooperation on counter-terrorism and justice and home affairs in the future."

Anthony Dworkin of the Guardian agrees that the timing is ripe:

The shift under Obama opens the possibility that Europe and the US could – for the first time since 9/11 – agree upon a common framework of principles for counterterrorism based around respect for fundamental rights and the rule of law. By working with the US on Guantanamo, the European Union might gain influence over the development of US policy, where many key decisions remain to be taken.

In addition to appeals based on respect for international law and human rights, Amnesty International alleges that European countries also bear responsibility for their complicit role in transferring suspected terrorists to overseas detention centers, including Guantanamo.

Just this week, allegations over Britain's participation in CIA rendition continued to surface. The Guardian's David Vine:

Piece by piece, the truth is finally coming out about Britain's own Guantanamo Bay – Diego Garcia. Today the human rights lawyers group Reprieve began a legal case on behalf of Saad Iqbal Madni, who they say was transited through the UK-controlled Indian Ocean island as part of the CIA's secret rendition programme.

Madni, whom Reprieve says was tortured in Egypt, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay after his stopover in Diego Garcia, has been released in Pakistan where – according to Clive Stafford Smith, the Reprieve director – he is "effectively crippled by his torture".

…

If [the US and Britain] are to repair the damage that secret rendition and torture have done to our democracies, to our security and to our moral standing in the world, the two governments must fully air the sad record of British-American collaboration on Diego Garcia and finally reject the use of secret detention facilities and torture everywhere on earth.

Meanwhile, Britain has yet to accept any of the current 70+ Guantanamo prisoners needing resettlement, though it has already repatriated fourteen former residents.

British hesitation has not stopped US authorities however from negotiating a deal last month in which Bermuda, one of Britain's overseas territories, took in four Chinese detainees. Surprisingly, the majority of British parliament was kept in the dark.

The UK's shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague grumbled:

It is astonishing that an agreement of such significance … could have taken place without a ripple reaching Whitehall. The UK is responsible for Bermuda's external relations, defence and security and for appointing its governor. Yet the [Foreign and Commonwealth Office] appears to have had no idea that these discussions were taking place.

Adding to the row, Chinese Foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang objected to the "handing over [of] terrorist suspects to any third country" and demanded the return of all Chinese detainees. Many fear there is a strong risk of torture or abuse to any repatriated Chinese Muslims.

The Bermuda-British-Chinese commotion over issues of national security is not the only snag to the ongoing transfers.

Further complicating matters, the resettlement of prisoners in individual EU member states, in theory, affects all members of the 25-country Schengen zone. The open-border EU zone permits its citizens free movement without passport checks, leaving many Europeans worried as to whether a former detainee could relocate to another country. As such, the EU has recently agreed upon a framework whereby any individual country that decides to accept prisoners share dossier information with all others beforehand. Such coordination is a "must," noted EU Justice Commissioner Jacques Barrot, which in turn leaves open the possibility for concerned member states to "impose movement restrictions" as they see fit.

As Europe sorts out its willingness to accept further prisoners, many are left wondering why the US has yet to resettle even one inmate. Initial attempts to do so in June ended in failure when the US Congress, afraid of public backlash, enacted a law to delay the transfer of citizens to American soil for at least another two months. In addition, they stripped $50 million worth of funding for the closing of Guantanamo until after the administration submitted a detailed plan for their approval.

"If none of the U.S. states are ready to take in Guantanamo inmates, then you will have to explain to the European public why the rules for Europe should be different from those in the US," German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble presaged.

Indeed, while Obama's latest round of transatlantic diplomacy persuaded Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to accept three detainees in the near future, the resulting US-EU agreement stressed that "the primary responsibility for closing Guantanamo and finding residence for the former detainees rests with the United States."

For Obama to fulfill his national pledge of closing the "misguided experiment" by January 2010, he still has much convincing to do overseas and even more so domestically. Before wearing thin the goodwill of his European counterparts, he should save some of his persuasive power for home. If the United States is to restore its reputation as a respected world leader, it must lead by example.

Andrew Kessinger is an intern with the New Atlanticist. He is a graduate student pursuing a double degree in International Security at the Institut des Etudes Politiques in Paris (Sciences Po) and Columbia University (SIPA). Photo Credit: Reuters.

Torture a Looming Crisis in Transatlantic Relations

Bernard Finel — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:21:58 -0500

Blogger Andrew Sullivan has likened torture to a cancer on America’s democracy, that “metastasizes quickly and poisons everything it touches.” Today’s Washington Post reports that "European prosecutors are likely to investigate CIA and Bush administration officials on suspicion of violating an international ban on torture if they are not held legally accountable at home, according to U.N. officials and human rights lawyers." This has the potential to cause a great deal of tension in trans-Atlantic relations.

Leaders in the United States remain largely unaware of the political pressures on their European counter-parts. But anger in Europe at torture and the use of “black sites” in Europe combined with the political pressure from human rights groups creates a powerful dynamic for action.

First, if the United States fails to cooperate with these investigations, it raises the possibility of future difficulties in intelligence sharing and cooperation on criminal justice matters. Our failure to take active measures to investigate and punish torture taints our entire justice system, potentially causing problems on issues of extradition and sharing of evidence until the U.S. system is “clean.”

Second, uncertainty about the extent of our torture activities means that many current and former U.S. government officials may be in legal jeopardy if they travel to Europe. The challenge is somewhat muted during a Democratic administration but when the next Republican president is elected he or she will inevitably appoint large numbers of former mid-level Bush Administration officials who may be tainted by their role in authorizing and implementing torture. This is not just an individual problem but rather places at risk the ability of a future Republican administration to work with European allies on a wide range of issues.

Third, we are likely to face problems in the area of military cooperation as European militaries worry about cooperating with or serving under the command of officers who might be deemed war criminals. This clearly could pose problems for NATO.

The challenge is that our European allies are democratic states, responsive to political pressure at home, and with independent criminal justice systems that are bound by statute and treaty law. It is not a matter of simply reaching some sort of agreement to sweep it all under the rug with European leaders. European leaders may, in many cases, be constrained in their ability to look ahead rather than back as President Obama is urging.

Obama’s efforts to avoid a divisive and politicized fight at home over the punishment of Bush Administration officials for torture may lead to deep divides in the Atlantic alliance. The fact that none of the worst case scenarios has yet occurred is no reason to assume they won’t arise in the future. As long as we fail to excise the torture cancer from our system at home, it will hang like a Sword of Damocles over our relations with our closest and most important allies.

Dr. Bernard I. Finel, an Atlantic Council contributing editor,is a senior fellow at the American Security Project. An earlier version of this essay was published at ASP's FlashPoint blog. Photo: Reuters Pictures.

Spain Rejects 'Bush Six' Torture Trial

Valerie Nichols — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 14:26:02 -0500

Spain’s Attorney General today rejected a judge’s decision to open an investigation against six Bush Administration officials. The AG’s recommendation was sought by a group of human rights lawyers and the judge hoping to bring cases against “The Bush Six” for their alleged sanctioning of torture.

Judge Baltasar Garzon, who requested the recommendation, has gained international exposure for his use of Spain’s universal justice doctrine, which, according to the Associated Press, “gives its courts jurisdiction beyond national borders in cases of torture, war crimes and other heinous offenses.” Garzon is famous for indicting ex-Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in 1998. In addition, The BBC reports that Spain has employed universal jurisdiction to investigate alleged crimes in Argentina, Tibet, El Salvador and Rwanda.

Now, Garzon wants to apply the same principle in cases against former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, ex-Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, David Addington, Justice Department officials John Yoo and Jay S. Bybee, and Pentagon lawyer William Haynes. Garzon accepted and provisionally passed the 98 page complaint in late March. The complaint, which was filed by a group of human rights lawyers, was sparked by the fact that five Spanish citizens or residents held at Guantanamo claim to have been tortured there.

But Attorney General Candido Conde-Pumpido is apparently attempting to reign in this Spanish practice, arguing that any charges should be handled by a U.S. court and that Spain’s National Court should not be turned “into a plaything” used for political ends. He has also argued against charging anyone with torture who was not physically involved in its execution. As Spain’s top law enforcement official, Conde-Pumpido’s opinion matters.

Is an opinion enough to stop Garzon from moving ahead with a probe? Apparently not. Although the AP reports that it would be “highly unusual” for an investigative judge to proceed with a case without the support of National Court prosecutors, he or she is not bound by their decision.

Indeed, this has not halted Garzon in the past. Reuters reported that, “The attorney general's office had advised him not to try to extradite Pinochet, but that did not stop him going ahead and almost succeeding.” What the Judge must actually avoid to continue with his case are any legal objections and an attempt to replace him with another judge who is already investigating the entry of secret CIA flights to or from Guantanamo into Spanish territory.

What is the response of “The Bush Six” to this group of human rights lawyers that claims, according to AFP, “they "participated in elaborating and putting in place the legal framework of Guantanamo" that allowed torture to take place by adopting a very narrow definition of what interrogation techniques constituted torture”?

The individual response has been one of general silence. According to the AP report, only Feith has spoken, calling Spain’s claims of universal jurisdiction, “a national insult with harmful implications.”

The Manchester Guardian reports on the administration’s response:

The Bush administration repeatedly argued that the fact that it was acting against foreign nationals outside US borders made its actions legal. It maintained that foreign nationals held at Guantánamo had no constitutional rights, that the international treaty prohibiting cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment did not protect foreigners held abroad, and that foreigners rendered to torture in other countries were similarly unprotected.

To David Cole, author of the Guardian article, the whole situation holds a certain “poetic justice”: “Globalisation is often criticised for allowing the powerful to avoid legal obligations through outsourcing. But here globalization may work in the other direction, bringing international pressure to bear on the powerful to compel it do what it would rather not.”

Cole remains hopeful that this poetic justice will be carried out:

Judge Garzon's investigation will be run not by a diplomat or politician concerned with avoiding embarrassment and division, but by a judge bound by international and domestic law. As he showed in the Pinochet case, Garzon will do what the law obliges him to do.

And when it comes to torture, the law is clear. Under the international law principle of "universal jurisdiction," if the US does nothing to investigate torture by its own officials, the door is open to prosecution elsewhere.

Since Conde-Pumpido announced his rejection of the probe today, the pressure is on for Garzon. Moving ahead with the case would be a gutsy move for the Judge, but he is not historically lacking in the daring department.

What are the chances of President Obama initiating a criminal investigation at home should Garzon be unable or unwilling to proceed? According to Cole, chances are slim:

What's blocking a criminal investigation in the US is not evidence or law, but politics. An indictment of many of the former administration's cabinet officials seems almost as unthinkable as torture itself seemed before 9/11. Even in developed countries with an unbroken history of peaceful democratic transitions, holding former high-level government officials responsible can be extraordinarily difficult.

Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic believes Obama is being strategic: “I think Obama knows what happened; and he knows that, in the end, America will have to face it. He will not defend it, but he will not be the prosecutor either. It's the long game he knows. And it's the long game that will bring these people to justice.”

There could, however, be interesting implications for U.S.-Spain relations should the case move forward. CNN explored this possibility:

Some analysts and bloggers have suggested in recent days that the case could damage relations between Spain's Socialist government and President Barack Obama's administration.

But a U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told CNN on Wednesday that a German court once had an investigation of then U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, but that did not hurt U.S.-German bilateral relations.

What about U.S.-International Criminal Court relations? With the Obama administration attempting to warm the nation to the idea of supporting the ICC, it would be interesting to monitor the public’s response to a case held in Spanish courts against U.S. citizens.

Valerie Nichols is a Web Editor at the Atlantic Council. Photo Credit: AP Photo.

Fred Kempe on Morning Joe

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:00:00 -0500

Atlantic Council president and CEO Frederick Kempe was a guest on Morning Joe at MSNBC. He talked about the planned closure of Gitmo, among other issues. The video is provided below.

Beyond Closing Guantanamo: Rebuilding a Transatlantic Partnership in International Law

Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:02:42 -0500

In one of his first acts as president, Barack Obama signed an executive order closing the Guantanamo Bay prison camp within a year. According to a new paper published by the Atlantic Council, Beyond Closing Guantanamo, this is a step in the right direction, but the new U.S. administration should undertake several additional measures aimed at restoring the United States as a leader in the international legal system.

The administration should start by enhancing existing legal cooperation between the United States and its European allies, including dialogues between justice ministers and among foreign ministry legal advisers. These talks have reduced transatlantic tensions by providing a forum for exchanging views, but it is now time to move beyond dialogue. The new administration, working with its European partners, can take the following steps to strengthen the international rule of law and demonstrate its commitment to the international legal system:

The Obama administration should identify a few key treaties and push strongly for ratification in an effort to demonstrate U.S. willingness to take a leading role in the development of international law. “Moving quickly to push for ratification of a few key treaties, namely [the Convention on the] Law of the Sea and [the Convention] on Biodiversity would help enormously in reassuring others of the U.S. commitment to international law,” according to William H. Taft IV, Council board member and former State Department legal adviser.

The United States should become a party to Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, which addresses the treatment of combatants and prisoners of war, and has been ratified by 165 countries. Based on the U.S. experience in Afghanistan, accepting the protocol would not be far from present practice, but it would send a very positive signal.

U.S. and European governments should adopt clear guidelines and non-binding codes of conduct regarding the treatment and detention of persons captured in armed conflict. All NATO states should ensure that their domestic legal systems provide jurisdiction over war crimes committed overseas by private military and security companies based in their territories.

The United States should continue to strengthen cooperation with the International Criminal Court (ICC), including by participating in the Special Working Group which seeks to define the crime of aggression and the conditions under which the ICC can exercise jurisdiction. The United States should stop efforts to convince others not to surrender U.S. personnel to the ICC, if warranted, and should review the American Service Members Protection Act.

The paper presents the conclusions of the Council’s Transatlantic Dialogues on International Law, co-chaired by William H. Taft IV, and Elizabeth Wilmshurst, associate fellow at Chatham House and former deputy legal adviser at the U.K. foreign office. The Dialogue brings together leading U.S. and European international lawyers, including several with foreign ministry experience.

The paper was published with the generous support of LexisNexis. The Transatlantic Dialogues on International Law, are sponsored by the German Marshall Fund of the United States, LexisNexis, and the Washington Delegation of the European Commission.

Photo from Getty Images.

5 Questions for Jim Inhofe

James Joyner — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 06:00:36 -0600

Senator James M. Inhofe is the second ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee and is a former chairman of (and now ranking Republican on) the Environment and Public Works Committee. I had the opportunity to get his thoughts on some key issues of interest to the Atlantic Council community.

1. One of the dividing lines between the United States and its European allies is our much stronger support for Israel, which many claim has hurt us in our attempts to be seen as an honest broker in the region. Why is it in America's national interest to be seen as so staunchly in Israel's corner?

Israel is a unique nation among its neighbors in the Middle East for many reasons and, perhaps most importantly, the strongest and most committed nation to democracy and freedom in a very tough neighborhood. It has been a consistent friend and ally in the region and our strong friendship and alliance with Israel is vital to maintain a strategic partnership in the Middle East. I can’t speak for the various European countries and their varying degrees of support for Israel but, as an American, our relationship with Israel is imperative to strengthen the U.S. presence in the Middle East and allow our two nations to fight terrorism that is bent on the destruction of Israel.

Being an ‘honest broker’ in the Middle East should not take precedence for the United States over doing what is right in defense of freedom and to promote the national security of Americans and the United States is going to continue with our strong support for Israel, helping Israel defend itself. We have authorized and appropriated $2.5 billion for military aid. This is significant to both the US and Israel because we need each other. It was the Israelis who developed the Lightning Pod, the Hunter UAV, and the Bradley Reactive Armor Tiles. These Armor tiles have played a central role in Iraq due to roadside mines, explosive charges and rocket-propelled grenades.

As we help provide for the defense of Israel, Israel has helped us save countless American lives. Since its independence in 1948, Israel has fought five wars and in each one Israel has not been the aggressor. It considers a level playing field being outnumbered two to one. Israel held back for months as Hamas launched hundreds of rockets and mortars into Israeli neighborhoods, until December of last year when they finally responded with assaults into the Gaza strip. Israel has demonstrated restraint in the face of this persistent assault. Few countries would have tolerated such risks to their people. Israel is a tiny nation that stands as a beacon of freedom in the midst of great threat and intimidation.

2. A few years back you were famously "outraged over the outrage" over Abu Ghraib. Now, you're a leading opponent of President Obama's plans to close the detention facility at Guantanamo. Do you disagree that these incidents became unfortunate symbols that hurts us in the war on terror? Or are you think the trade-off was worthwhile in terms of protecting the country from terrorists?

The United States does not condone or permit torture, and believes that anyone in the government’s custody should be treated humanely and in accordance with applicable law and international norms. After the attacks September 11, 2001, senior administration officials confronted grave issues of policy and tried to resolve them in a way they consonant with applicable law.

Many of those issues have not gone away and will confront future administrations with the same painful dilemmas faced. In the wake of the incidents at Abu Ghraib, 12 non-partisan investigations were conducted into various aspects of detainee operations. 492 recommendations were made to improve detainee operations and thoroughly investigate allegations of detainee abuse. There have been over 900 investigations in the Department of Defense alone on detention operations. Comprehensive improvements have been made to the detainee operations system in Iraq, a program that is of the utmost importance to the continuing success of the War on Terrorism. Significant improvements have been made to this system, ensuring our military is able to responsibly continue removing al Qaeda and other terrorist extremists from Iraqi society.

The abuses made by a small group of individuals must not distract from the important progress being made on a larger scale in Iraq in which detainee operations are key. When evidence of detainee abuse came to light, all allegations of abuse were investigated and properly prosecuted.

On January 20th, President Obama instructed military prosecutors to seek a 120-day suspension of legal proceedings at the Guantanamo Bay (GTMO) Detention Facility or what administration officials called “a continuance of the proceedings" so that his administration can review the military commissions process. On January 22nd, President Obama ordered the closing of the Guantanamo Bay prison within a year. In light of these announcements by President Obama, I believe it is important for the American people to know the truth and the real value of this installation and its contribution to the security of the United States.

On February 2nd, I led a Congressional Delegation to GTMO in order to give an eyewitness account of the conditions at GTMO and allow the American public to hear the truth from someone who had actually been there, rather than the scores of Members of Congress who hold blind objections without any attempts to look into it on their own. I also introduced legislation (S.370) to prevent any transfers of detainees from Guantanamo to anywhere in the United States or its territories.

Since the United States began its Global War on Terror, the U.S. has detained almost 800 Al-Qaeda and Taliban combatants at GTMO, and since 2002, more than 525 detainees have been tried and departed GTMO for other countries. Today, there are approximately 245 detainees remaining at GTMO. The military detention facilities at GTMO meet the highest international standards and are a fundamental part of protecting the lives of Americans from terrorism. Current treatment and oversight exceed any maximum-security prison in the world. There are 127 doctors, nurses and medical technicians dedicated to caring for and maintaining the health of each detainee - a ratio of 1:2 (one health care professional for every two detainees). There are on average, two lawyers for every detainee that has been charged or had charges preferred against them. The Expeditionary Legal Complex (ELC) located at GTMO is the only one of its kind in the world. It provides a secure location to secure and try detainees charged by the US government, full access to sensitive and classified information, full access to defense lawyers and prosecution, and full media access by the press. The detainee complex at GTMO is the only complex in the world that can safely and humanely hold these individuals who pose such a grave security risk to the United States. It is a secure location away from population centers, provides the maximum security required to prevent escape, provides multiple levels of confinement opportunities based on the compliance of the detainee, and provides medical care not available to a majority of the population of the world.

GTMO is also the single greatest repository of human intelligence in the War on Terror. This intelligence has prevented terrorist attacks and saved lives in the past and continues to do so today. New intelligence is continually being collected from detainees at GTMO and is being used to fight terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the globe. This intelligence information obtained from questioning detainees includes a variety of issues of value to U.S. security, including: the organizational structure of al-Qaida and other terrorist groups; the extent of the terrorist presence in Europe, the United States, and the Middle East; al-Qaida's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction; the methods of recruitment and locations of recruitment centers; terrorist skill sets, including general and specialized operative training; and how legitimate financial activities are used to hide terrorist operations.

The United States will continue to capture, hold and detain enemy combatants, and we must therefore have a location to safely detain and care for these detainees. There is a thorough legal process to determine whether detainees are a threat to the United States, and each year, formal military commissions/tribunals reassess whether detentions should be continued. These reviews have led to the release of a number of detainees with some that have returned to their home countries or have been given asylum in other countries. Others are awaiting release while the United States ensures that the countries receiving them will treat them in a humane manner.

Finally, others will be tried as war criminals under a military commission process that is established and authorized by law. Recent report on GTMO directed by President Obama’ Executive Order stated the conditions of confinement at GTMO are in conformity with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and that there were no evidence of violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. The report also found that the chain of command responsible for the detention mission at Guantanamo consistently sought to go beyond the minimum standard in complying with Common Article 3.

In 2007, the Senate passed a resolution by a vote of 94-3 stating, "detainees housed at Guantanamo should not be released into American society, nor should they be transferred stateside into facilities in American communities and neighborhoods." The United States is still in a global War on Terror, engaged in armed conflict with terrorist organizations, and will, in all probability, continue to capture terrorists who will be detained in a facility. If the detention facility at GTMO is closed, some United States domestic or overseas prison will have to house these detainees while they await disposition.

For our nation’s security, detainees at GTMO must not be allowed to be transferred or housed in the United States or its territories. Before we rush to close GTMO, I have asked President Obama and my colleagues who have never visited GTMO to make time and visit GTMO. They owe it to themselves and the American public to see and understand what is going on there, how detainees are being held, and the legal process that has been put in place to ensure detainees receive a fair and impartial trial.

3. Given the difficulties in getting European powers to spend more and send more troops to fight in Afghanistan, what do you see as the future of NATO?

I recently returned from Afghanistan in December 2008. I met with Met with General David McKiernan, Commander of ISAF and US Forces Afghanistan, and General Raheen Wardak, the Afghani Minister of Defense who was trained in Oklahoma at Fort Sill. I was briefed on the current situation in Afghanistan, the status Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), and the outlook for Afghanistan’s future. The Afghan National Security Force (ANSF) is now stronger than ever with over 2/3rd of the forces now capable of leading operations.

Supporting the ANA is smart investment of our resources, as it less expensive than deploying ISAF troops and has the dual result of allowing more Afghans to defend their own nation. Over 60% of the Afghan National Army is now capable of leading operations in Afghanistan. General Wardak informed me that 89% of the population of Afghanistan respects the ANA and believes it to be effective. Together with ISAF, Afghanistan’s government is taking a regional approach to winning by building the will and capacity of the Afghanistan National Security Forces (ANSF) and the Afghan government. ‘Clear – Hold – Build Strategy’: clear segmented areas of Afghanistan of all Taliban and extremists, then put the ANSF in place to maintain security, allowing the Afghan government and ISAF to rebuild the area with a renewed focus on the Afghan people.

Today we have a coalition of 41 troops contributing nations (26 NATO and 15 non-NATO). ISAF force size is approximately 55 thousand troops which includes 23 thousand US troops…an 18,000 additional US soldiers in country as part of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). When NATO sent forces into Afghanistan in 2003, it mission was focused on a stability and reconstruction. Unfortunately, the Taliban’s hold on Afghanistan coupled with thirty years of continuous war required both combat force capable of fighting a counter-insurgency and a complete rebuilding of a nation.

In order for Afghans to begin to feel secure, the Afghan Government must work to establish trust and credibility with the people. If we are to be successful in Afghanistan, NATO must fulfill its commitment in Afghanistan. NATO members have pledged to do more and need to do more. I commend our allies that have committed substantial forces to Afghanistan…I appreciate their friendship, their sacrifices, and welcome further cooperation. However, there are other countries that have not come forth with the additional troops that are needed in Afghanistan. NATO needs to step up to the plate and provide the forces it agree to provide. There continues to be a need for additional ISAF troops in the role of trainers and mentors of the Afghan National Army (ANA), as well as ANSF troops. Unfortunately, as the US announces a commitment of more troops to Afghanistan, some NATO members are just sitting back waiting to see what happens next. It is imperative that each NATO country understand the threat terrorists pose to the future of NATO and its members and NATO government must explain to their constituencies that it is in each NATO’s country’s interest to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan, bring stability to that part of the region.

The Taliban is not only global threat but a clear threat to the democracies of Europe…the very backbone of NATO. Recently, an Atlantic Council of the United States report [Editor's note: He's referring to "Alliance Reborn: An Atlantic Compact for the 21st Century"] recommended that instead of forcing nations to undertake operations that will not be approved by domestic legislatures, those nations should provide commitments in kind such as civil support, both in financial and human resources. While NATO’s future is not tied to the success or failure in Afghanistan, failure to each member country to engage as a coalition of forces could result in a two-tiered Alliance…a concept that goes against the very fiber of NATO. We continue to make progress with increasing NATO commitments and operations in Afghanistan. NATO and non-NATO partners have increased their troop contribution by about 15,000 over the past 18 months. Increases in 2009 include the Czech Republic, Slovakia, United Kingdom and Canada. On 20 Feb 09, Sec Gates has said at the end of a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Krakow that up to 20 nations offered to boost their civilian or military commitments to Afghanistan. Unfortunately, there were no firm commitments.Sec Gates made a change in the command structure, making General McKiernan both the commander of ISAF and commander of all U.S. forces Afghanistan eliminating command problems and difficulties with respect to unity of command. We are still having a problem with caveats but some countries have either removed their caveats or decreased their impact – we must continue to work this issue.

4. You have said that "America is far too dependent upon foreign powers for our sources of oil." How would you propose we change that?

As America faces mounting energy challenges, now is not the time for politics as usual -- now is the time for common sense solutions. That’s why I consistently push for legislation that will increase access to domestic supplies, expand the nation’s refinery capacity, and promote market-based alternatives for our energy future. Put simply, America’s energy supply should be stable, diverse, and affordable. Through my leadership position on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee I have worked to craft legislation and conduct hearings to meet these goals. I continue to call on the Democrats to act to expand refinery capacity and to open the nation's access to the Outer Continental Shelf, ANWR, and the Rocky Mountain oil shales, as well as preserve access to Canadian oil sands. Today's American oil producer operates with the most sophisticated environmental technologies and policies on the planet. It’s time to end the Democratic Party’s obstruction to increasing American energy supply. Unfortunately, with little more than six weeks since inauguration day, the Obama administration has instead launched an onslaught of policies to restrict access to resources and increase taxes on America’s home-grown oil and gas industry. President Obama’s unprecedented $31 billion proposal in new oil and gas taxes will significantly curtail the operating budgets of all exploration and production companies big and small. Every marginal well operator in the country should be gravely concerned that these proposals will force the premature plugging of low-production marginal wells. And, despite the rhetoric, America’s oil companies are already paying taxes at the highest rates. Figures from the Energy Information Agency indicate that America’s major oil producers already pay on average more than a 40% income tax rate. After President Jimmy Carter imposed a similar Windfall Profits Tax on the oil and gas industry back in 1980, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service later determined that its results were hugely counterproductive: ‘The WPT reduced domestic oil production between 3 and 6 percent, and increased oil imports from between 8 and 16 percent… This made the U.S. more dependent upon imported oil.’ For American jobs, for the international competitiveness of American companies, and for the consumers at the pump, Congress must reject Obama’s energy tax increases. These counterintuitive policies will undoubtedly make our nation more dependent on foreign oil, not less.

5. Do you still believe that global warming is a "hoax"? What would you say to those who say this is now a matter of "settled science"?

Every day more and more reality checks are stripping man-made global warming fears away. The climate doom promoted by Gore, the UN and the media is proving “unsustainable” as more and more peer-reviewed studies and scientists publicly declare their dissent and call warming fears mistaken. The so-called “consensus” is now in a freefall collapse. It is unhealthy for any debate to be quarantined. As more and more Americans awake to the higher energy costs and futility of global warming policies, they will question the science on their own.”

_________________

Inhofe’s prominence and issue stances illustrate a recurring theme of mine on transatlantic relations: We simply have very different views of the world. To be sure, we have a common heritage and substantial overlapping values and interests. But how do you come to agreement on, say, the Kyoto accords when a substantial number of prominent American leaders doubt the science behind global warming?

On the other hand, it's very reassuring that Inhofe not only supports the NATO mission in Afghanistan but understands the importance of working with our European allies.

James Joyner is managing editor of the Atlantic Council.

EU Agrees to Take Non-Dangerous Gitmo Prisoners. Maybe. Some Day.

James Joyner — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 06:18:39 -0600

The foreign ministers of several EU members say that will consider taking prisoners released from Guantanamo Bay, provided that the United States can prove to a degree of absolute certainty that they are not dangerous. Shawn Pogatchnik for AP:

European Union leaders said Monday they are willing to take prisoners being released from the U.S. detention camp at Guantanamo Bay — but only after detailed screening to ensure they don't import a terrorist. Foreign ministers from the 27-nation bloc discussed the fate of up to 60 Guantanamo inmates who, if freed, cannot be returned to their homelands because they would face abuse, imprisonment or death. The prisoners come from Azerbaijan, Algeria, Afghanistan, Chad, China, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, whose nation played a lead role in Monday's discussions on Guantanamo, said the European Commission will draft a formal plan in coming weeks defining a common course for EU members to pursue with the new U.S. administration of President Barack Obama. In his first week in office, Obama ordered Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba to be closed within a year. Kouchner said the European plan was likely to include a formal EU request for legal and security experts to visit the prison — and interview potential immigrants about where they wanted to resettle and why.

But Kouchner said Europe still had far too many unanswered questions to commit to accepting any particular prisoners. He said the U.S. and EU had yet to nail down whether prisoners would be legally treated as refugees or asylum-seekers, whether they would face heavy security restrictions in their new homes — and whether some prisoners were simply too dangerous to come to Europe at all. "Yes, of course this is risky," Kouchner told The Associated Press in an interview. "So we have to think about each case, and not to accept anything or anyone easily. It will be a long process." He said France would accept released prisoners "under extreme, precise conditions only." "Legally this is difficult. Each of the 27 nations, they have different positions and different legal frameworks to accept or to refuse such people," he said.

While the French appeared keen to press other EU members on the issue, their successors as EU president — the Czechs — admitted that most nations were hoping to minimize their involvement with Guantanamo's homeless. "Nobody is hot about it, that's perfectly true," said Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg, referring to Monday's informal lunchtime talks about taking Guantanamo prisoners. "We have to clear (up) a lot of things with the other side, too," he said, referring to the Obama administration.

[...]

Some EU foreign ministers said their own countries — long critical of the Bush administration's operation of Guantanamo — would be accused of hypocrisy if they didn't take at least one ex-prisoner and were seen to be helping Obama with the shutdown. "There is no question that chief responsibility to do with solving the problem of this detention center lies with those who set it up, the Americans themselves," said German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier. "But it is also a question of our credibility — of whether we support the dismantling of this American camp or not."

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said Britain had its plate full in dealing with its own nationals in U.S. custody and ruled out taking ex-prisoners from other nations. He said Britain had already taken nine British nationals and three foreigners who have British residency rights, while the cases of two others still in Guantanamo were being processed. "We feel that is already a significant contribution," Miliband said. "We're happy to offer our experience to other European countries, as they think about what steps they want to make, to help in the closure of Guantanamo Bay."

Finland's foreign minister, Alexander Stubb, emphasized the widespread view that the U.S. administration was not yet in position to clear any terror suspects. "We are jumping the gun here a little bit, because the Americans haven't given us an offer or required us to take anyone on board," Stubb said.

These objections illustrate the complexity of the situation. While there is almost universal agreement that locking up accused terrorists indefinitely without due process is unacceptable, it's also the case that no democratic leader wants the responsibility of housing potential terrorists in their own country. Further, given the dubious nature of the human intelligence available, ascertaining whether a given prisoner is really a member of al Qaeda or otherwise dangerous is incredibly difficult. To say nothing of the fact that, even if a given prisoner was not a likely candidate for terrorist activity when captured, several years of being locked up by Americans and treated as a terrorist may have changed their attitude.

James Joyner is managing editor of the Atlantic Council. AP Photo by Amr Nabil.