General Counsel Calls for Flexibility in Detainee Cases

WASHINGTON, Oct. 18, 2011 — Recent laws and leg­is­la­tion dic­tat­ing how the Unit­ed States han­dles and pros­e­cutes mil­i­tary detainees tie the exec­u­tive branch and military’s hands and risk nation­al secu­ri­ty set­backs, not gains, Pen­ta­gon Gen­er­al Coun­sel Jeh C. John­son said today.

Speak­ing at a Her­itage Foun­da­tion forum here, John­son said Con­gress’ efforts to restrict how the exec­u­tive branch deals with detainees com­pli­cates the process and threat­ens to undo improve­ments.

“Con­gress must be care­ful not to micro­man­age, com­pli­cate and impose across-the-board lim­its on our options,” he said. “Both the Con­gress and the exec­u­tive branch must be care­ful not to impose rules that make mil­i­tary deten­tion more con­tro­ver­sial, not less.”

John­son not­ed pro­vi­sions in the 2012 Defense Autho­riza­tion Act he said lim­it government’s flex­i­bil­i­ty to han­dle detainee oper­a­tions.

One pro­vi­sion in the House bill pro­hibits DOD funds from being used to trans­fer non‑U.S. cit­i­zen detainees to the Unit­ed States. As writ­ten, the bill allows for no waivers or exemp­tions.

“Such an unqual­i­fied, across-the-board ban is not in the best inter­est of nation­al secu­ri­ty,” John­son said.

The House bill also spec­i­fies that mil­i­tary com­mis­sions, not fed­er­al courts, must be used to pros­e­cute defen­dants charged with a broad range of ter­ror­ist acts.

Deci­sions about the most appro­pri­ate forum for pros­e­cut­ing ter­ror­ists should be deter­mined by pros­e­cu­tors and nation­al secu­ri­ty pro­fes­sion­als on a case-by-case basis, John­son said.

“A flat leg­isla­tive ban on the use of one sys­tem … in favor of the oth­er is not the answer,” he said.

Anoth­er House pro­vi­sion rewrites the peri­od­ic review process for Guan­tanamo Bay detainees by man­dat­ing the use of mil­i­tary review pan­els.

John­son called the pro­vi­sion “con­trary to our best judg­ment” in large part because it undoes a care­ful­ly craft­ed nation­al secu­ri­ty team process.

“Our expe­ri­ence shows that inter­a­gency review is valu­able and pre­ferred to take advan­tage of the exper­tise and per­spec­tives across the nation­al secu­ri­ty com­mu­ni­ty in our gov­ern­ment,” he said.

The Sen­ate ver­sion of the 2012 Nation­al Defense Secu­ri­ty Act man­dates that cer­tain mem­bers of al-Qai­da or its affil­i­ates be held in mil­i­tary cus­tody “pend­ing dis­po­si­tion under the law of war.” The only excep­tion comes if the defense sec­re­tary directs in writ­ing to “give him up,” John­son said, not­ing that the bill rais­es ques­tions about who it applies to and what would trig­ger it.

The 2012 defense bud­get bill isn’t the first to dic­tate the way the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment han­dles, detains or pros­e­cutes sus­pect­ed ter­ror­ists or ene­my com­bat­ants.

The 2011 Defense Autho­riza­tion Act pro­hibits the use of DOD funds to trans­fer any Guan­tanamo Bay detainee to the Unit­ed States “for any con­ceiv­able pur­pose,” even as a defen­dant or coop­er­at­ing wit­ness in a fed­er­al pros­e­cu­tion. No waivers or excep­tions are allowed, John­son said.

Anoth­er pro­vi­sion man­dates that before any Guan­tanamo Bay detainee can be trans­ferred to a for­eign coun­try, the defense sec­re­tary must cer­ti­fy to Con­gress details about the arrange­ment. The only excep­tion is when a court order directs the detainee’s release.

Near­ly a year after the law took effect, John­son declared it “oner­ous and near-impos­si­ble to sat­is­fy.” Not a sin­gle Guan­tanamo Bay detainee has been cer­ti­fied for trans­fer since this legal restric­tion was imposed, he said.

John­son cit­ed steps tak­en over the last sev­er­al years to build a “cred­i­ble, sus­tain­able and more trans­par­ent sys­tem” regard­ing detainees. “The over­all goal should be to build a coun­tert­er­ror­ism frame­work that is legal­ly sus­tain­able and cred­i­ble, and that pre­serves every law­ful tool and author­i­ty at our dis­pos­al,” he said.

That, he said, includes oppos­ing leg­is­la­tion that com­pli­cates efforts and makes mil­i­tary deten­tion more con­tro­ver­sial.

“For this and future admin­is­tra­tions, we will oppose efforts to make mil­i­tary deten­tion more con­tro­ver­sial and restrict the exec­u­tive branch’s flex­i­bil­i­ty to pur­sue our coun­tert­er­ror­ism mis­sion,” he said.

“The exec­u­tive branch, regard­less of the admin­is­tra­tion in pow­er, needs the flex­i­bil­i­ty, case by case, to make well-informed deci­sions about the best way to cap­ture, detain and bring to jus­tice sus­pect­ed ter­ror­ists.”

Source:
U.S. Depart­ment of Defense
Office of the Assis­tant Sec­re­tary of Defense (Pub­lic Affairs)

Team GlobDef

Team GlobDef

Seit 2001 ist GlobalDefence.net im Internet unterwegs, um mit eigenen Analysen, interessanten Kooperationen und umfassenden Informationen für einen spannenden Überblick der Weltlage zu sorgen. GlobalDefenc.net war dabei die erste deutschsprachige Internetseite, die mit dem Schwerpunkt Sicherheitspolitik außerhalb von Hochschulen oder Instituten aufgetreten ist.

Alle Beiträge ansehen von Team GlobDef →