{"id":35471,"date":"2013-05-23T11:03:04","date_gmt":"2013-05-23T10:03:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/breaking-news\/ndaa-debate-us-programming-the-war-machine\/35471\/"},"modified":"2013-05-23T11:03:04","modified_gmt":"2013-05-23T10:03:04","slug":"ndaa-debate-us-programming-the-war-machine","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/breaking-news\/ndaa-debate-us-programming-the-war-machine\/","title":{"rendered":"NDAA debate: US programming the war machine"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t\t\t\t\t<!–Sam Sacks<\/a>–><\/p>\n

Sam Sacks is a political commentator and journalist, the last five years spent covering politics in Washington, DC. <\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Not only does the National Defense Authorization Act establish
\nfunding levels for the various agencies in charge of our national
\ndefense, but it also sets the guidelines under which that money
\nwill be spent. If you remember what\u2019s been in previous NDAA
\nguidelines regarding the president\u2019s war powers, Guantanamo Bay or
\nindefinite detention, then you know this coming debate is extremely
\nimportant.<\/p>\n

The President knows it, too. He\u2019s set to deliver a national
\nsecurity speech on Thursday outlining his programming vision for
\nthe American war machine, including how to handle Guantanamo Bay
\nprisoners of the \u2018War on Terror,\u2019 where authority over drone
\ntargeted killings should lay, and what powers the Executive Branch
\nshould have in confronting threats around the planet (or, just how
\nbroadly the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force should be
\ninterpreted).<\/p>\n

Reining in Drones<\/h2>\n

With the nomination of its architect, John Brennan, to head the
\nCIA earlier this year, the White House\u2019s drone targeted killing
\nprogram caught the eye of Congress, which is now eager to inject
\nmore oversight into the policy.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Congressman Mac Thornberry (R-TX), the Vice Chair of the House
\nArmed Services Committee, recently introduced legislation requiring
\nnotification to Congress of any target killing missions in
\ncountries not currently at war with the United States.<\/p>\n

\u201c<\/p>\n

As we work to keep Americans safe from evolving threats, we
\nmust ensure that every action is consistent with our civil
\nliberties and freedoms. This balance can only be achieved by
\nproper oversight and accountability, and it is Congress\u2019s job to
\nprovide both,<\/i> \u201d Rep. Thornberry said in a press release.<\/p>\n

The legislation, so far, has garnered more than two dozen other
\nco-sponsors from both sides of the aisle. And, as chair of the
\nEmerging Threats and Intelligence Subcommittee in charge of writing
\nportions of the new NDAA, Rep. Thornberry reportedly intends to
\ninsert this targeted killing oversight legislation into the 2014
\nNDAA.<\/p>\n

There could be broader support for the measure coming from the
\nCongressional Left \u2014 the Progressive Caucus, which recently held a
\nhearing on the Executive\u2019s drone program and called for more
\nCongressional oversight.<\/p>\n

\u201c<\/p>\n

Congress has been yielding too much power to the
\nexecutive<\/i> ,\u201d Rep. Keith Ellison, the co-chair of the
\nCongressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), told me.<\/p>\n

\u201c<\/p>\n

The President has said let\u2019s put a legal architecture around
\nthis thing,<\/i> \u201d he added. \u201c<\/p>\n

The Progressive Caucus said we\u2019re diving in head first.<\/i>
\n\u201d<\/p>\n

Rep. Ellison laid out his vision of what codifying the drone
\nprogram would look like: \u201c<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve got to put some real rules on this,<\/i> \u201d he said.
\n\u201c<\/p>\n

There\u2019s no way anyone should be killed by an American drone
\nunless they are actively in pursuit of killing American and there
\nis a legitimate internationally recognized justification on the
\nbasis of self-defense.<\/i> \u201d<\/p>\n

\"AFP<\/p>\n

When asked if the NDAA is the place to fight this battle over
\ndrones, Rep. Ellison said, \u201cYes. That is a good vehicle to raise
\nthese issues. We plan to really push back on this endless war
\nprogram in the process.\u201d<\/p>\n

The White House is expected to announce on Thursday its
\nintention to partially move the drone program out of the Central
\nIntelligence Agency and to the Department of Defense, where more
\noversight is possible. However, the White House reportedly would
\nlike to keep the CIA operating drones in Pakistan, where it can
\n\u201cmaintain deniability.\u201d<\/p>\n

But the CPC is willing to go a step further beyond drones and
\npush to repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force,
\nwhich President Obama has used to justify drone strikes abroad in
\ncountries we\u2019re not currently at war with. Rep. Ellison has signed
\non with Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) on a bill to completely repeal the
\nAUMF.<\/p>\n

This is a bicameral interest. A recent hearing in the Senate
\nexposed a dangerously broad interpretation of the AUMF by the
\nDepartment of Defense. Officials with the DoD suggested that the
\nAUMF gives the White House authority to use military force anywhere
\nin the world, from the Congo to Boston, against terrorist
\norganizations affiliated with Al-Qaeda. It was also argued by the
\nPentagon that this authorization for a worldwide War on Terror will
\nlikely last 20 to 30 years.<\/p>\n

Sen. Angus King (I-ME) reacted to the Pentagon\u2019s AUMF
\nassertions, saying, \u201c<\/p>\n

This is the most astounding and most astoundingly disturbing
\nhearing that I’ve been to since I’ve been here. You guys have
\nessentially rewritten the Constitution today<\/i> .”<\/p>\n

Any action to change the AUMF in the NDAA would have significant
\nimpact not just on drones, but also on issues of indefinite
\ndetention that have been raised in previous years\u2019 NDAAs and, in
\nparticular, what to do about the detention facility at Guantanamo
\nBay.<\/p>\n

\"Senate<\/p>\n

Closing Guantanamo<\/h2>\n

With the current hunger strike at Guantanamo now well beyond 100
\ndays, there\u2019s been renewed attention on the facility on both ends
\nof Pennsylvania Avenue.<\/p>\n

At the end of April, President Obama once again promised to
\nclose the facility. According to White House Press Secretary Jay
\nCarney, the President will put forward his new plan to close Gitmo
\nin Thursday\u2019s speech.<\/p>\n

In last year\u2019s NDAA, Congress put up a series of restrictions on
\ntransferring prisoners out of Gitmo. Those will all be addressed
\nagain in the coming weeks and months. And there\u2019s recently been a
\nnew push in Congress to close Gitmo.<\/p>\n

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) wrote a letter to the White House urging
\nthe President to use a \u201cnational security waiver\u201d to transfer the
\n86 Gitmo prisoners who\u2019ve been cleared for release or transfer.
\nAlso, Sen. Dianne Feinstein wrote to the White House asking them to
\n\u201c<\/p>\n

revisit the decision to halt [Guantanamo] transfers to
\nYemen<\/i> .\u201d And Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) held a rare hearing on
\nCapitol Hill about Gitmo, alleging that torture has taken place at
\nthe facility and that it needs to be closed.<\/p>\n

Republicans, including Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Rep. Buck
\nMcKeon (R-CA), have suggested they may be willing to revisit the
\nissue of closing Guantanamo, but have bemoaned the White House\u2019s
\nlack of a clear plan on how to close it. And considering the
\nPentagon has recently asked for $450 million to renovate Gitmo,
\nthere are legitimate questions about just how serious the White
\nHouse is when it comes to closing the facility.<\/p>\n

The coming NDAA debate will also address issues related to a
\nmissile defense shield on the East coast, changes to how the
\nmilitary responds to sexual assault and recommendations on how to
\nbetter secure diplomatic missions around the world.<\/p>\n

So, with that, let the programming of the American war machine
\nbegin!<\/p>\n

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

This article originally appeared on : RT<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

<!–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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[487],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-35471","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-breaking-news"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35471","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=35471"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35471\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=35471"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=35471"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=35471"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}