<!–Sam Sacks–>
Sam Sacks is a political commentator and journalist, the last five years spent covering politics in Washington, DC.
This week, four House Armed Services Subcommittees begin their markups of the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act. And thus begins the debate over how to program the American war machine.
Not only does the National Defense Authorization Act establish
funding levels for the various agencies in charge of our national
defense, but it also sets the guidelines under which that money
will be spent. If you remember what’s been in previous NDAA
guidelines regarding the president’s war powers, Guantanamo Bay or
indefinite detention, then you know this coming debate is extremely
important.
The President knows it, too. He’s set to deliver a national
security speech on Thursday outlining his programming vision for
the American war machine, including how to handle Guantanamo Bay
prisoners of the ‘War on Terror,’ where authority over drone
targeted killings should lay, and what powers the Executive Branch
should have in confronting threats around the planet (or, just how
broadly the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force should be
interpreted).
Reining in Drones
With the nomination of its architect, John Brennan, to head the
CIA earlier this year, the White House’s drone targeted killing
program caught the eye of Congress, which is now eager to inject
more oversight into the policy.
Congressman Mac Thornberry (R-TX), the Vice Chair of the House
Armed Services Committee, recently introduced legislation requiring
notification to Congress of any target killing missions in
countries not currently at war with the United States.
“
As we work to keep Americans safe from evolving threats, we
must ensure that every action is consistent with our civil
liberties and freedoms. This balance can only be achieved by
proper oversight and accountability, and it is Congress’s job to
provide both, ” Rep. Thornberry said in a press release.
The legislation, so far, has garnered more than two dozen other
co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle. And, as chair of the
Emerging Threats and Intelligence Subcommittee in charge of writing
portions of the new NDAA, Rep. Thornberry reportedly intends to
insert this targeted killing oversight legislation into the 2014
NDAA.
There could be broader support for the measure coming from the
Congressional Left — the Progressive Caucus, which recently held a
hearing on the Executive’s drone program and called for more
Congressional oversight.
“
Congress has been yielding too much power to the
executive ,” Rep. Keith Ellison, the co-chair of the
Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), told me.
“
The President has said let’s put a legal architecture around
this thing, ” he added. “
The Progressive Caucus said we’re diving in head first.
”
Rep. Ellison laid out his vision of what codifying the drone
program would look like: “
We’ve got to put some real rules on this, ” he said.
“
There’s no way anyone should be killed by an American drone
unless they are actively in pursuit of killing American and there
is a legitimate internationally recognized justification on the
basis of self-defense. ”
When asked if the NDAA is the place to fight this battle over
drones, Rep. Ellison said, “Yes. That is a good vehicle to raise
these issues. We plan to really push back on this endless war
program in the process.”
The White House is expected to announce on Thursday its
intention to partially move the drone program out of the Central
Intelligence Agency and to the Department of Defense, where more
oversight is possible. However, the White House reportedly would
like to keep the CIA operating drones in Pakistan, where it can
“maintain deniability.”
But the CPC is willing to go a step further beyond drones and
push to repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force,
which President Obama has used to justify drone strikes abroad in
countries we’re not currently at war with. Rep. Ellison has signed
on with Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) on a bill to completely repeal the
AUMF.
This is a bicameral interest. A recent hearing in the Senate
exposed a dangerously broad interpretation of the AUMF by the
Department of Defense. Officials with the DoD suggested that the
AUMF gives the White House authority to use military force anywhere
in the world, from the Congo to Boston, against terrorist
organizations affiliated with Al-Qaeda. It was also argued by the
Pentagon that this authorization for a worldwide War on Terror will
likely last 20 to 30 years.
Sen. Angus King (I-ME) reacted to the Pentagon’s AUMF
assertions, saying, “
This is the most astounding and most astoundingly disturbing
hearing that I’ve been to since I’ve been here. You guys have
essentially rewritten the Constitution today .”
Any action to change the AUMF in the NDAA would have significant
impact not just on drones, but also on issues of indefinite
detention that have been raised in previous years’ NDAAs and, in
particular, what to do about the detention facility at Guantanamo
Bay.
Closing Guantanamo
With the current hunger strike at Guantanamo now well beyond 100
days, there’s been renewed attention on the facility on both ends
of Pennsylvania Avenue.
At the end of April, President Obama once again promised to
close the facility. According to White House Press Secretary Jay
Carney, the President will put forward his new plan to close Gitmo
in Thursday’s speech.
In last year’s NDAA, Congress put up a series of restrictions on
transferring prisoners out of Gitmo. Those will all be addressed
again in the coming weeks and months. And there’s recently been a
new push in Congress to close Gitmo.
Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) wrote a letter to the White House urging
the President to use a “national security waiver” to transfer the
86 Gitmo prisoners who’ve been cleared for release or transfer.
Also, Sen. Dianne Feinstein wrote to the White House asking them to
“
revisit the decision to halt [Guantanamo] transfers to
Yemen .” And Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) held a rare hearing on
Capitol Hill about Gitmo, alleging that torture has taken place at
the facility and that it needs to be closed.
Republicans, including Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Rep. Buck
McKeon (R-CA), have suggested they may be willing to revisit the
issue of closing Guantanamo, but have bemoaned the White House’s
lack of a clear plan on how to close it. And considering the
Pentagon has recently asked for $450 million to renovate Gitmo,
there are legitimate questions about just how serious the White
House is when it comes to closing the facility.
The coming NDAA debate will also address issues related to a
missile defense shield on the East coast, changes to how the
military responds to sexual assault and recommendations on how to
better secure diplomatic missions around the world.
So, with that, let the programming of the American war machine
begin!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
This article originally appeared on : RT