War on Terror: Closing Gitmo? - GD 3.1

This is a note I shared on facebook.com on December 9, 2011. The bill I originally referenced in this note (S. 1867) was not the one that passed, but a virtually identical bill originating in the House of Representatives passed -- HR. 1540 -- and became Public Law 112-81. The House version of this bill had a slightly different organization, however it includes identical verbiage on all sections mentioned in this note.
I have edited the note to reference the correct bill, and I have added hyperlinks to basically every mention of the relevant bills/laws so that you can read them for yourself over & over again.


The original (but edited & updated) note:

Commentary on [HR.1540] (a draft of NDAA for FY2012) -OR- Demand Repeal of the USA PATRIOT Act and Restore The Bill of Rights


First I'd like to point out that I'm against this bill being passed and that I've already called and written to my Congressional representatives making my stance clear. But this bill is not exactly what is being portrayed in the media and on the internet [Indefinite Detention of Terrorism Suspects].

The National Defense Authorization Act is a law that must be passed each year, as a specific authorization of how the budget will be spent at the Department of Defense. It is considered a "must-pass" piece of legislation since without it there would be a big pile of cash (which amounts to between 1/3 and 1/2 of our federal discretionary spending) that no one could touch. One way or another, Congress will pass something called "The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012" before the 112th Congress is concluded. They do it every year. True, sometimes it's called "The Department of Defense Authorization Act" or something like that.

[The bill did not reach the president's desk until Dec. 31st, 2011 - over two months into Fiscal Year 2012. Whatever objections Obama had to it - if any - had to be suspended or the military would literally cease to function. So in a way, Congress intentionally held the US military hostage over this bill.]

Every year, there are several different drafts introduced in the House of Representatives (denoted by "H.R." and followed by a 3 or 4-digit number) and the Senate (represented with an "S." followed by a 3 or 4-digit number). This year, some of those drafts (I don't know if I can find them all) are called: 

• H.R. 1540 Sponsor: Rep McKeon, Howard P. "Buck" [CA-25] (by request) (introduced 4/14/2011)
• S. 981 Sponsor: Sen Levin, Carl [MI] (by request) (introduced 5/12/2011)
• S. 1253 Sponsor: Sen Levin, Carl [MI] (introduced 6/22/2011)
• S. 1254 Sponsor: Sen Levin, Carl [MI] (introduced 6/22/2011)
• S. 1867 Sponsor: Sen Levin, Carl [MI] (introduced 11/15/2011)

One thing you have to understand about bills in the House and Senate is that they get voted down for silly reasons like the way one line reads or because certain members of Congress are bent on inconveniencing the President. Because of this, whether bills originate in the House or Senate, they are often made in multiple drafts- this is especially true of the ones which are required to be passed into law each year. One Congress member, in this case Senator Carl Levin (D-MI)- Chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, submits several incredibly similar drafts in the hope that one will pass. It is unclear to me whether the good Senator actually wrote this bill or if he is in fact just "sponsoring" it. That calls into question whether he (or anyone else, for that matter) has actually even read it.

If you watch C-SPAN, you may be aware that they do in fact read aloud entire bills during sessions of Congress, which is why so many of the seats are empty. None of them wants to be caught sleeping on the job.

Sometimes bills are written by lobbyists, delivered to Congressmen, and are read in session and then voted on... Yes, even passed into law. These become public law just like any other. It's a shame and a travesty of our democratic process-- but our Congress is too busy, it seems, to write- or to even read- the laws which they pass.

Another thing you have to know about these laws is that, like the lyrics of a Steve Miller song, they are endlessly self-referential. Mostly, they read like this excerpt from S. 1253 -- 

"Sec. 315. DISCHARGE OF WASTES AT SEA GENERATED BY SHIPS OF THE ARMED FORCES.: `(F) This paragraph shall not apply during time of war or a national emergency declared by the President or Congress.'.(b) Conforming Amendments- Section 3(f) of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1902(f)) is amended-- (1) in paragraph (1), by striking `Annex V to the Convention on or before the dates referred to in subsections (b)(2)(A) and (c)(1)' and inserting `subsection (b)'; and(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting `and subsection (b)(3)(B)(i) of this section' after `Annex V to the Convention'."

...So you have to find this previous piece of legislation and find out what they require in all of these sections-- while you pray that it has actual text and doesn't reference some earlier law which is yet another endless list of "strike this- insert that". It sucks, really. I think I understand why Congress "works" the way it does. 


HR. 1540 (also known as The NDAA of 2012)

Since this piece of legislation came to national attention, I have read and re-read it. Now that The Daily Show has done a spot on it-- I really have to make some kind of official statement [Also see Stephen Colbert's piece on the Authorization for Use of Military Force], because the people commenting on this bill don't have a clear picture of the entire situation.

Here is the specific section in question:

"Subtitle D--Detainee Matters SEC. 1021 . AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.(a) In General.--Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war. 

    (b) Covered Persons.--A covered person under this section is any person as follows: 

            (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.                                

            (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
    (c) Disposition Under Law of War.--The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

            (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force. 

            (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)). 

            (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction. 

            (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

    (d) Construction.--Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

    (e) Authorities.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States. 

    (f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress.--The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ``covered persons'' for  purposes of subsection (b)(2)." 

(Sec. 1021 Public Law 112-81)

Yes, it does include the text, " (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force." 
This does NOT mean that the law of war extends into the Continental United States. 
Read "(e)" - I have put this one in bold face.



Here is the entire text of the "Authorization for Use of Military Force"  
(Public Law 107-40): 

" Public Law 107-40  

Joint Resolution

     To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States. <<NOTE: Sept. 18, 2001 -  [S.J. Res. 23]>> 
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and 

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; andWhereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and 

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and 

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Authorization for Use of Military Force. 50 USC 1541 note.>> 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of Military Force''.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
    (a)  <<NOTE: President.>> In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
    (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.-- 

            (1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
[[Page 115 STAT. 225]]
            (2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.     Approved September 18, 2001."

So, in fact S. 1867 Sec. 1031 [HR. 1540 -- which became Public Law 112-81] "only applies" to this circumstance of the President sending troops to apprehend those responsible for 9/11. 

Nevermind that Congress basically gave the President carte blanche to make war with anyone in the world, be it "...nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

The President already had these powers of authority- this law is still on the books- this is one piece of hastily passed legislation that went through immediately following 9/11 ( none of which have been repealed) that actually rescind (or suspend) the Bill of Rights.

The most famous one of all is the USA PATRIOT Act (UNITING AND STRENGTHENING AMERICA BY PROVIDING APPROPRIATE TOOLS REQUIRED TO INTERCEPT AND OBSTRUCT TERRORISM) of 2001 (Public Law 107-56).

This is the law passed on October 26, 2001 that more or less suspends the Bill of Rights-  Amendments 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 -and possibly 1, 3, 9 & 10 depending on your interpretation of the law.
The USA PATRIOT Act allows government agents to enter and search your home without your knowledge or consent, sift through every communication you have made since- perhaps October 26, 2001- (be it email or web pages browsed or phone calls or text messages), to freeze (or seize) your assets and holdings, to apprehend you in secret and hold you without access to anyone- indefinitely- all because they "suspect" you *might* be a terrorist. No holds barred. Whether you are a US Citizen or a Legal Resident Alien or whether you are a foreign insurgent on a distant battlefield. It doesn't even necessarily include "those responsible for the attacks on 9/11".

What does the law say? It's a very long text, so I'll point out some parts and you can use the links to the document to read it for yourself.

Read "Title IV, Subtitle B, Sec. 411- Definitions Relating to Terrorism" -- that one is specifically for "Aliens" AND- for everyone else: "Title VIII - Strengthening Criminal Laws Against Terrorism", especially Sections 801-814. 
However I will summarize the definition of who is a terrorist, since it's rather lengthy and scattered throughout the lengthy text in rash-like blisters--

[paraphrase]: Terrorism/a terrorist act/a terrorist is defined as anyone who carries out, plans, has previous knowledge of, has provided funds directly or indirectly (whether they know or "SHOULD know" where their money went), or conceals any activity which threatens life, injury or property of US persons or residents with the aim of affecting the policy or actions of the United States government.

This is another law which almost all of Congress failed to read, and some people believe- with good reason- that it was actually written well before 9/11 and was waiting to be printed and rushed through Congress given the opportunity. It has been re-authorized and amended in countless ways since then. I have not read all of the new parts.

Bush's Executive Order defining what terrorism actually is:

Executive Order 13224 (September 23, 2001)

“Sec. 3. For purposes of this order:(a) the term "person" means an individual or entity;(b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, corporation, or other organization, group, or subgroup;(c) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States; and(d) the term "terrorism" means an activity that --(i) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and(ii) appears to be intended --(A) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;(B) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or(C) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking.” 

[http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/122570.htm]

Hmm. It really depends on who's asking the question, "Who is a terrorist?" doesn't it?
What if Afghanistan or Iraq were to ask this question? Who would they determine the terrorist is, really? 
Perhaps the United States.

Our commitment to Bush's foreign policy and rejection of international law has set us up for increasingly contradictory and complicated lawmaking- and has made our country quite officially a hypocrisy and a contradiction in terms. Our unilateral action creates a self-perpetuation/self fulfilling prophecy of terrorist activity the world over. 

Terrorist activity in other countries is treated as a crime: Bush over-reacted to the events of 9/11 and upended international order. The only reason his actions have been allowed in the international community (with a considerable amount of grimacing) is that it is we- the United States- are the single greatest military power of our time. No one can enforce international law against us but ourselves. 

So, back to HR. 1540. This bill actually limits the scope of persons who can be detained. It attempts to define who are to be considered "enemy combatants" and where those combatants can be held, by informing us that they are required to be handled just like any POW- held "... under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force." Also, it implies that US Citizens must still be charged and tried in the civilian criminal court system.
I think Senator John McCain, a former POW and torture victim, supports this bill because it requires persons detained under suspicion of being terrorists to be handled under the law of war like any other POW-- not to be swept off to some secret CIA black-ops prison to be tortured (which has happened dozens of times since 2001). Moreover, this bill also tells us that these persons are not to be tried in criminal courts, as they are Prisoners of War.
Then, as if directly referencing those American Citizens who were held by the Bush administration under suspicion of being terrorists or as enemy combatants, the bill HR. 1540 states this:

"SEC. 1022. <<NOTE: 10 USC 801 note.>> MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN                           AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.
    (a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War.--            (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war 

            (2) Covered persons.--The <<NOTE: Applicability.>>  requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1021 who is determined-- 

                    (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and 

                    (B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners. 

            (3) Disposition under law of war.--For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1021(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1028. 

            (4) Waiver for national security.--The President may waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.
    (b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens.-- 

            (1) United states citizens.--The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States. 

            (2) Lawful resident aliens.--The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States."

(Public Law 112-81 Sec. 1022.)

So US Citizens and Legal Resident Aliens are not required to be held by the military-- meaning that they can be held in civilian prisons and tried in civilian criminal courts [or, they can be held in military prisons-- they are not required to be held by the military, but if deemed "necessary" they can be, if they are dubbed "Enemy Combatants"]. The Senate Committee on Armed Services is trying to make sure that "terrorists or enemy combatants" captured on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan or in other foreign countries are held as Prisoners of War and are NOT allowed to be processed under the civilian legal system of the US.
It is only based on these unconstitutional laws (the USA PATRIOT Act and the Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001) that the offending sections of HR. 1540 and similar bills have any relevance or validity at all, but their relevance is in terms of defining (limiting) the "special" powers granted to our President in the year 2001.


Tailored Specifically to Inconvenience Pres. Obama

Why this bill is specifically designed to prevent President Obama (whose campaign promises included closing Gitmo) from moving detainees currently held at the facility in Guantanamo Bay (with added emphasis):

 "SEC. 1026. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO CONSTRUCT OR MODIFY FACILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES TO HOUSE DETAINEES TRANSFERRED FROM UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA.
    (a) In General.--No amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2012 may be used to construct or modify any facility in the United States, its territories, or possessions to house any individual detained at Guantanamo for the purposes of detention or imprisonment in the custody or under the control of the Department of Defense unless authorized by Congress. 

    (b) Exception.--The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply to any modification of facilities at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 

    (c) Individual Detained at Guantanamo Defined.--In this section, the term ``individual detained at Guantanamo'' has the meaning given that term in section 1028(e)(2). 

    (d) Repeal of Superseded Authority.--Section 1034 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383; 124 Stat. 4353) is amended by striking subsections (a), (b), and (c)."  

(Sec. 1026 of Public Law 112-81)

and:

 "SEC. 1027. PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FUNDS FOR THE TRANSFER OR                           RELEASE OF INDIVIDUALS DETAINED AT                           UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO                           BAY, CUBA.
    None <<NOTE: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.>>  of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act for fiscal year 2012 may be used to transfer, release, or assist
[[Page 125 STAT. 1567]]
in the transfer or release to or within the United States, its territories, or possessions of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other detainee who-- 

            (1) is not a United States citizen or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States; and 

            (2) is or was held on or after January 20, 2009, at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the Department of  Defense."  

(Sec. 1027 of Public Law 112-81)

Similar sections have been added to the NDAA of 2013 (read Title X, Subtitle D). 

A reassuring addition to the NDAA of 2013 is this:

"SEC. 1029. <<NOTE: 10 USC 801 note.>> RIGHTS UNAFFECTED. Nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus or to deny any Constitutional rights in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution to any person inside the United States who would be entitled to the availability of such writ or to such rights in the absence of such laws."

[a dissenting opinion to my analysis of this law can be found here]

So my personal objections to this bill LAW are simple and fundamental: 

• I do not believe that terrorism is an act of war. It is a crime.
• I believe that a terrorist act is nothing more than a politically or religiously motivated criminal act of murder (or mass murder, or attempted murder, or kidnapping, or hostage-taking) and sometimes may include conspiracy to commit those crimes.
• I believe that if a terrorist act occurs in a war zone- it is a War Crime and the perpetrators must be held as Prisoners of War and tried before a military tribunal, as well as charged with War Crimes under International Law.
• I do not believe that an "Authorization for Use of Military Force" counts as war, as only Congress can declare war (and Congress has not declared war since WWII). 
• The "War on Terror" is not really a war at all, and the legislation surrounding this crime enforcement is excessive and draconian.
• All provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act (Public Law 107-56) and all subsequent and related provisions and amendments must be repealed as they are unconstitutional.
• The Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001 (Public Law 107-40) must be repealed, as it grants the President unbelievable power and breadth of action in a way that is also unconstitutional. The AUMF of 2001 broadly and vaguely expands the president's authority to use military force with little or no oversight and with no expiration date.
• Specific portions of this bill are intentionally designed, quite spitefully, to prevent the president from making simple policy decisions that would otherwise be well within his power and jurisdiction to make unilaterally.
• I also object to the bill on many other points, most broadly the total amount of money we're spending on defense, when some very specific no-strings-attached foreign aid programs and corporate regulations could work just as well in deterring terrorism for about 1/100th of the price and without all of the unnecessary death and dismemberment.

Go to thomas.loc.gov to search for public documents... or for current legislation with links to sending letters to your Congressional reps: www.opencongress.org - this also has a lobbyist activity tracker so you can see who is getting money in support of (or against) each bill currently being considered in Congress.

The War on Terror - Historical Overview (GD Part 3)

For the Record,

My statement as a citizen of the United States is as follows:

The United States is in a state of distress. Our way of life is under attack and the very fundamentals of our republican democracy are threatened. If We, The People, do not act quickly and decisively, we risk losing the core values that truly make this nation great.

Our nation is in peril, not because of the actions of hijackers or jihadists, but because of the US government's unilateral move toward ceaseless revenge and the stripping away of protections guaranteed to citizens by the US Constitution.

The US government response to the events of September 11, 2001 was flawed and disproportionate. Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive war and divisive foreign policy has created an aura of hostility and distrust, both at home and internationally-- and has put our soldiers in unnecessary harm by engaging in conflicts which were illogical, immoral, and illegal.

The US government has established an undeclared and never-ending war of aggression, with neither a clear battleground, nor a clear enemy- an illegal engagement with any person, nation or organization (anywhere!) that chooses to engage our nation with violence or the [perceived] threat of violence. This conflict continues to be waged under the current President.

The US government's heavy-handed military reaction to the events on September 11, 2001 has created far more terrorists and dissidents than ever had existed before, and continues to create more every day.

The War on Terror must end.


A Rapid Transformation

Things happened very quickly in the days and weeks following September 11th. First, Congress passed The Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40), which continues to authorize any current US President to use military force against any person, nation or organizations that he determines planned, carried out, or harbors/supports terrorists, or otherwise participated in the attacks of September 11, 2001. This law is still in effect today, has no expiration date, and has been applied more and more broadly as time has progressed. It has led to an undeclared war with neither clear boundaries, nor specific enemies. It can be fought anytime, anywhere, and against anyone.

Second, George W. Bush penned an Executive Order for the purposes of freezing and seizing assets of persons or organizations suspected of ties to terrorist organizations. The selection is an apt (and official) description of terrorist activity:

Executive Order 13224 (September 23, 2001):
“Sec. 3. For purposes of this order:
...
(d) the term "terrorism" means an activity that --
(i) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and
(ii) appears to be intended --
(A) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(B) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(C) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking.”.

George W. Bush at the ruins of the World Trade Center.
"...and the people who knocked these buildings down
will hear all of us soon..."

Third, George W. Bush threatened the government of Afghanistan with the use of military force to unseat them from power, unless they handed Osama bin Laden and any members of his organization dubbed al-Qaeda over to the US immediately. US intelligence agencies thought these suspects were hiding in the notoriously difficult terrain along the Pakistani-Afghan border, which would have made even locating these suspects nearly impossible.

Bush was convinced that the Afghan government (the Taliban regime) was harboring Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. He decided to influence the policy of the government of Afghanistan through intimidation and coercion, and gave them a next-to-impossible deadline. When that failed to produce the specific results desired, Bush used violent acts dangerous to human life, property and infrastructure intended to intimidate and coerce a civilian population and influence the policy and conduct of the Afghan government- tactics he had personally described as "acts of terrorism" only a few weeks before- and informed the entire world that these were the types of tactics that he would also be using on other nations if they didn't cooperate.

After the bombing began, the Taliban claimed they could deliver bin Laden to Saudi Arabia for detention, given evidence of his involvement in the terrorist acts of 9/11. Bush refused. We all know what happened after that. It's been over 10 years.

Fourth, the USA PATRIOT Act (Public Law 107-56) was passed by Congress giving government, law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and the military broad sweeping powers (which were originally designed to expire) to investigate and apprehend anyone it suspected of being a terrorist or otherwise tied to designated terrorist groups. Civil rights advocate groups insist that the USA PATRIOT Act infringes on and erodes the protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. This law has been re-authorized several times by both the Bush and Obama administrations and now has several new parts and additional legislation based upon it.

While all of this was happening, most Americans were still in a state of disbelief and shock. Some were outraged by the events on 9/11, and rightly so. However, it primed the population to accept the terms presented by the government. Citizens permitted them to pass unconstitutional laws and to take away their liberties. Those Americans who objected were branded "cowards," "terrorist sympathizers," "anti-American," or- my personal favorite- "Communists."

When confronted with the fact that these laws were dangerous, unconstitutional and anti-American themselves, the most common response was, "Why should I care-- I'm not a terrorist!" I personally had this conversation many times and was called any number of foul epithets for questioning my government's actions and motives.

Fifth, the US government began "arresting" persons they suspected of terrorist activities and hiding them in secret prisons. The US military installation at Guantanamo Bay was begun to be used as a major holding location for "enemy combatants," which was the term used by the Bush administration (and later by Obama) to avoid having to adhere to procedures and preconditions set forth both by United States criminal law and by the Geneva Convention's International Law regarding the treatment of Prisoners of War.

Sixth, a number of scandals erupted regarding the US government's operations in apprehending and detaining these enemy combatants, including widespread incidents of warrantless secret searches/wiretapping, entrapment and torture. Several US law enforcement agencies including the FBI and the DHS have been accused of using the "tools" provided to them under the USA PATRIOT Act to obtain information for investigations that are not related to terrorism. Many of these have not officially come to light since there is a "Patriot Act gag order" that makes it a federal offense and a breach of national security to discuss them in detail.


Roots of the Conflict

As is nearly always the case in history, the conflict did not begin with a single episode. September 11, 2001 was not the beginning of this particular string of events, any more than it was the end of it. The roots of the conflict emerged during and following the Cold War.

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
-Albert Einstein

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, US policymakers felt that a hard-won victory had been achieved. The US had engaged in conflicts with the Soviets indirectly (by proxy), most notably during the US-Vietnam Conflict and during the USSR-Afghanistan Conflict.

Both sides of the Cold War had engaged in relentless covert operations: psy-ops, influencing elections, funding and training armies, assassinations, hostage-taking, selective missile strikes, sanctions and economic embargoes.

While it seemed prudent to engage each other indirectly throughout the Cold War, these tactics sculpted an increasingly dangerous world. Nations (mostly in the "Third World") were used as pawns, abandoned- often in a state of ruin- at the end of their usefulness, leaving power vacuums presiding over undereducated and tormented populations. They often became breeding grounds for fundamentalism of all kinds.

The CIA has done a lot of things you don't know about. If you are motivated enough to spend the rest of your life reading declassified CIA documents filed by date of creation, go to http://www.foia.cia.gov/  for more details.

History will show that while the US had the chance to decisively win the Cold War, there really was no winner. The US failed at the most critical stage. It didn't help rebuild the world that fifty years of Cold War had ravaged; it didn't even try.

While many assumed an era of peace and prosperity would be ushered in by globalization, what many nations experienced was a new wave of imperialism and domination at the hand of western nations- economic imperialism.

Having installed and/or supported dictatorships and warlords all over the world based merely on the fact that they were not Communists, the US began experiencing what the intelligence community calls "blowback," which is a kind of secularized euphamism for "karma."

The people (and sometimes the governments) of the nations who had been used as proxies in the fight against Communism all over the world were left with a rather bad taste in their mouths. They had been manipulated and discarded. In some cases, people had no recollection of how it happened or why, but remembered that the US had a hand in causing their trauma.

As the US came to see itself as a beacon of hope and a liberator of the world, others came to see it as a great evil that had tormented them during the Cold War and now was attempting to "own them" in the aftermath.

The US government was careless, and in the aftermath of the collapse of the USSR, the US virtually abandoned or ignored everyone it had used or abused- claiming victory. In a sense, it was the arrogance of US policy-makers and their faith in neo-liberal economics that created the world we lived in on September 11, 2001.


Pax Americana

When George W. Bush announced his cabinet members, it was clear that the administration would follow a fairly predictable agenda. Most of his senior staff were members of a group of neoconservatives engaged in a foreign policy think tank called The Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

***PLEASE NOTE***
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) has been disbanded, and all of these links are now dead.
There is currently a movement of denialists who attempt to denounce & discredit anyone who even mentions PNAC as some kind of "conspiracy theorist" and attempts to shut-down any argument that follows on that basis.
If you are interested in reading primary sources, you can search for them-- many have been reposted on separate websites.
PNAC was a legitimate neo-conservative think tank, and many prominent Republicans drafted letters & missives-- or at least signed them.
What follows is a non-"tinfoil hat" account of what that organization's objectives & concerns were, and a quick look at the members who "happened to be" also members of the Bush administration:

This group seemed fixated on punishing Iraq- most notably Saddam Hussein- and harshly criticized President Bill Clinton for not doing more to dispose of this madman and to control Iraq. They also put forth their theory that Iraq had been coordinating with terrorists in an article by Gary Schmitt in The Weekly Standard (a conservative political magazine edited by PNAC member William Kristol) in November 2000. Among other concerns were the objective of building a missile defense shield that was a direct violation of the ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) Treaty, and establishing a period of peace relying on unquestioned American military superiority- Pax Americana.

They argued that the Cold War world was a bipolar world, where there were two superpowers keeping the world in line, but that since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US government had the opportunity- nay, the duty- to create a unipolar power structure, with the US as the unchecked guardian of peace and the sole military superpower. They even went so far as to suggest that the only viable strategy was to also prevent any other government or coalition of governments to rise to a status that would threaten this position. In short, they were talking about an implicit American Empire that would more or less rule the world. You know, since Americans are the "good guys."

The Project for the New American Century published a paper called Rebuilding America's Defenses in September 2000, one month before election day and one year before 9/11, which argued strongly in favor of permanent American military preeminence and stated that due to the lack of popularity of defense expenditure,

"...the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor," (Thomas Donnelly, Rebuilding America's Defenses, Sept. 2000, pg. 51).

It added,

"A sensible plan would add $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually through the Future Years Defense Program; this would result in a defense “topline” increase of $75 billion to $100 billion over that period, a small percentage of the $700 billion onbudget surplus now projected for that same period. We believe that the new president should commit his administration to a plan to achieve that level of spending within four years." (Donnelly, pg. 75)

President Clinton had drawn down US Defense spending to around $250 billion. Members of The Project for the New American Century thought it was reckless to spend any less on defense than the entire rest of the world combined.

George W. Bush did this in only two years, and over the next eight years he doubled spending, from around $250 billion to over $525 billion... Not included in this figure is the cost of creating and maintaining an entirely new cabinet-level governmental department that seems a bit redundant, unless you're establishing a police state: The Department of Homeland Security (also not included in the Defense budget: Iraq and Afghanistan).

For perspective, here is the United States' defense expenditure compared to the rest of the world:

The questions nobody seemed to ask, as the foreign policy of the nation was hijacked by neoconservative extremists, were:

1. Does the US have the right or the authority to preside over its own specific brand of "peace" or "freedom," anywhere in the world outside its own borders?

2. Does the US have the right or authority to dictate the terms of government or economic conditions in sovereign nations?

3. Does spending more money on the military actually translate to a state of peace? Or does it cause more opportunity for war?

4. Isn't it both Ethical and Rational to solve the problems that cause violence, rather than answering violence with more violence?

5. Does it advantage anyone to remain locked in a cycle of violence?

I believe that the members of the Bush administration manipulated Congress and the American public into this War on Terror and used 9/11 as a springboard to achieve their agenda.

Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq

When the Bush administration turned their sights on Iraq, they claimed that Saddam Hussein was collaborating with the terrorist group al-Qaeda, that he had weapons of mass destruction including chemical and biological weapons, that he was "very close" to building a nuclear weapon and that he was "an imminent threat to national security." None of the evidence turned out to be true. So why did the administration use these specific reasons to justify an invasion? Because Congress would only authorize (and fund) such an operation if all of these things were a concern.

Further, such funding & authorization was subject to review every 60-90 days under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which is why the Iraq invasion and occupation was never included in the Defense budget, and why Bush had to go before Congress and ask for money piecemeal- $60 billion here, $80 billion there.

The administration sought international approval and Secretary of State Colin Powell was sent to deliver a very misleading testimony to the United Nations. The UN was wholly unconvinced of Iraq's threat to the US and Kofi Annan (the UN Secretary General at the time), said in 2004 that the invasion, "...was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal." The Bush administration ignored these allegations and proceeded with the operation even though the international community was against it.

Once again, Bush used threats of military force to influence and coerce the civilian population and the government of Iraq. Following the threats, the invasion began. It was an unprovoked act of aggression, employing violent acts dangerous to human life, property or infrastructure and appeared to be intended --

"(A) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(B) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(C) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking.” [ http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/terror.pdf ].

Reading between the lines, the message put forth by the US government appears to be, "It's not terrorism when we do it."

The entire way through, from conception to execution, Operation Iraqi Freedom was so poorly managed it's hard to believe it was merely due to incompetence:

1. All of the "reasons" for invading were false-- some were cherry picked, some delivered out-of-context, and some were intentionally fabricated.

2. The invasion began with "Shock and Awe," in which thousands of Iraqi civilians were killed- "collateral damage"- by US missiles aimed at about 1,000 military and infrastructure targets. Electricity and water systems were damaged. Seven years later, Iraqi civilians were still subject to complete power outages/rolling blackouts, lack of drinking water and waste management, a broken roadway & transit network, and limited access to medical care.

Bush delivered his "Mission Accomplished" speech on May 1, 2003,
 after landing on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln Aircraft Carrier in his own fighter jet.

3. There was no plan for occupation or for reconstruction, as administration officials believed the US would be welcomed as liberators and that Iraqi oil would fund the reconstruction. When US officials were sent to implement reconstruction, they were under-funded, under staffed, had a paucity of resources- including limited access to desks, chairs, phones, telephone directories, translators, and had revolving staff members that were frequently pulled out of Baghdad after six month stints, never to return. Some staff members were described as "fresh out of college" and had little to no experience. Most staff members spoke none of the local dialects. Their superiors- those making policy (most notably L. Paul Bremer "Governor of Iraq" under Bush, and a PNAC member)- did not speak the language, had little grasp of the culture and spent very little time in the country overall. Persons involved in the reconstruction effort said these factors crippled their potency and caused them to waste time and effort continually searching for new leadership contacts within the community.

4. There was no exit strategy.

5. Bush asked insurgents and terrorists to engage our troops in Iraq. One could say he even taunted them to do so by saying, "Bring 'em on," during a televised press briefing.

6. The administration had little to no knowledge of or concern over the sectarian tensions that existed in Iraq, and thus, no plan for dealing with them.

7. Operations by US officials and private contractors (mercenaries AKA "private military contractors" and corporations) were notoriously under-managed and ran amok, typically running wildly over budget while delivering shoddy, substandard services. The activities of several such companies have been described as "fraudulent" and "criminal."

8. The Defense Department mismanaged funds and "lost" billions of dollars on several occasions.

9. US troop levels were insufficient to adequately secure Iraqi Army weapons and ammunition dumps, markets, museums and cultural centers, but not the oil fields.

10. The administration decided to "fire" the Iraqi Army in May 2003 and the Iraqi National Guard late in 2004, leaving over 250,000 angry men unemployed, but well armed.

11. Terrorists and insurgents from elsewhere began migrating to Iraq to engage the US military, as Bush had suggested. Iraq became an on-the-job training program for anti-American terrorists and militants.

12. Many of these factors contributed to an unconscionable amount of civilian casualties. There are no official accounts of how many, to date, as the Army claimed they "don't do body counts." Media outlets disagree on the specific amount of civilian casualties, but civilian deaths due to the conflict are known to be somewhere between 100,000 to 120,000. It depends on who you ask. Some surveys estimate as many as 500,000 civilian deaths. Most of those numbers are based on reports from Iraqi morgues and reports by international journalists. These figures do not include persons who died non-violent deaths that may be related to the invasion, such as lack of access to food, medical care or clean water.

Suicides outnumbered combat fatalities in 2010. 
US military suicides were at 30-year highs in '09 and'10.

13. In contrast, a 2007 estimate of terrorists and/or insurgents killed in the conflict was around 19,000. According to Wikipedia's 2011 estimate, that number may be as high as 26,000.

14. There is a high incidence of PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder) among American troops coming home from Iraq, and GI suicides have been at unprecedented rates for several years.

President Obama promised to bring the troops home and in December of 2011, after almost nine years of occupation he made good on that promise, beginning the withdrawal. However, he did intend to leave a small number of troops in place, but the Iraqi government "refused to grant American troops immunity from prosecution under local laws," so he withdrew all troops who were not assigned to the US Embassy security team.


Indefinite Detention

A deceased prisoner at Abu Ghraib, Iraq.

Once the US had engaged in acts of torture and mishandling of terrorism suspects and "enemy combatants," it had little choice but to keep these suspects out of the US criminal justice system. After all, the methods used in apprehending, detaining and interrogating many of the suspects would mandate their release under traditional US criminal laws; i.e., they would be set free "on a technicality," and therefore could not be tried in criminal courts. Additionally, many of the detainees had been captured in countries over which the US has no legal jurisdiction, unlawfully transported internationally, and had been held without charges in secret facilities-- a court might ask whether the suspect was arrested or if he was actually a victim of kidnapping.

Map of some secret prison facilities used by the CIA and other US government agencies

Terrorism suspects at a military detention center.
(No official explanation as to why their pants are pulled down)

In December of 2011, Congress passed the NDAA of 2012 with some notes on detention of terror suspects. It was now legal for the US to hold suspects "without trial, until the end of hostilities under the law of war," which basically means that these suspects will never be released. If they ever do see trial, it will be before a US military tribunal.

The law, inserted into a routine defense spending bill, has been cited by civil rights groups as being an unconstitutional attack on civil liberties. It would be an effective tool of oppression in the wrong hands, and like the Authorization for Use of Military Force, it has no specific expiration date. As careful read-through implies there is no requirement of military detention for US citizens or legal resident aliens, but it does not specifically prohibit military detention without trial for US citizens/legal resident aliens accused of terrorism. President Obama signed this into law on December 31, 2011, despite having serious reservations about Sec. 1021. Since a major campaign promise of Obama's was to close "Gitmo," the actual reasons for drafting this bill and the political maneuvering surrounding it may have had less to do specifically with the War on Terror than to inconvenience and discredit a president who was disliked by certain members of Congress.

Jose Padilla, a US citizen, was held in military custody
as an "enemy combatant" for three and a half years.

Senators Joe Lieberman and Scott Brown have co-sponsored a bill aimed at stripping citizenship from terror suspects, whether they are natural-born or naturalized US citizens, to remove those pesky Constitutional Rights altogether. The net result would be that if a government agency believes a US citizen is a terror suspect (if they are engaged in acts of terrorism directly or indirectly, or if they materially support/harbor known terrorists, directly or indirectly, whether they know or should know that they have done so), they could be held in a military prison without trial until the end of the War on Terror (perpetually)-- without the burden of proof and without providing any of the legal rights guaranteed to US citizens.


Drone Warfare

Given the problematic state of fighting global terrorism with ground troops or extradition treaties, the Obama administration has turned to using drone aircraft to assassinate individuals the President determines are involved in terrorist activity. Drone strikes have been used to eliminate targets in several countries. This is entirely of presidential discretion. No authorization from Congress is necessary.

A Predator drone fires a missile.

Bill Clinton used "surgical missile strikes" to assassinate individuals and influence the policy of other governments throughout his presidency, so it's not unheard of, but Obama has taken this a bit further-- some of his targets were US citizens. Attorney General Eric Holder insists that "due process is not the same as judicial process," and therefore the administration is justified in killing terrorism suspects wherever they may be in the world- even if they are US citizens. What exactly does he think "due process" means?

Disturbingly, these drone aircraft are often piloted from within the US- bringing the battlefield home. Now, the bases from which these aircraft are piloted remotely are legitimate military targets. That means that the War on Terror is officially being waged from inside the United States.

While using drones may ensure the relative safety of our military personnel, these assassinations are still bombings that kill innocent bystanders and have been used to assassinate US citizens. Innocent bystanders and children are often killed along with suspected militants.

What do you think the response would be from the US government, if a nation sent drone aircraft into US airspace to perform a missile strike on their perceived enemies? What if that missile strike killed even one innocent civilian child? Why does the United States government believe the rules do not apply in their case?


Entrapment

The FBI, the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) and several other government agencies have been using aggressive means to identify and apprehend terrorism suspects. Translation: entrapment. The FBI was involved in several counter-terrorism cases in which they approached persons who they identified as "radicals" or "extremists" undercover, and provided them with encouragement to commit acts of terrorism-- including supplying weapons and/or explosives, specific targets, and a plan for executing the attack. In the case of Amine El Khalifi, a 29 year-old Moroccan  immigrant who was targeted by the entrapment program, the weapons and explosives provided had reportedly been "rendered harmless" by FBI agents.

"In the wake of 9/11, it no longer is enough for law enforcement officers to solve crimes after their commission. Investigative activity that preempts crimes, particularly terrorism in a post-9/11 world, has become commonplace. To help ensure a successful prosecution, law enforcement officers need to recognize the risks associated with proactive investigations and anticipate affirmative defenses, such as entrapment, as they initiate undercover operations. With proper planning and execution, law enforcement officers can use all available tools to prevent another terrorist attack and to help effectively overcome an entrapment defense."  

- Avoiding the Entrapment Defense in a Post-9/11 World, By David J. Gottfried, J.D.  
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/january-2012/avoiding-the-entrapment-defense-in-a-post-9-11-world

Entrapment, aside from being an extremely unethical and illegal method in law enforcement, can also have other more terrible consequences. For example, the ATF implemented a program (created by the Obama administration's Justice Dept.) called "Fast and Furious" in which they supplied guns to weapons traffickers in Mexico using undercover agents posing as gun runners. Apparently the plan was to be able to keep track of the weapons and expose every step in the trafficking process to ATF agents who could then make arrests in connection to drug cartels. Unfortunately, the ATF lost the ability to track the guns-- many have been found to be related to miscellaneous cases-- and one turned up later as the murder weapon during the investigation of the death of a US Border Patrol agent.

What if the FBI, the JTTF or the Dept. of Homeland Security "loses" their terrorism suspect, whom they have incited, trained and armed? What if that person is able to pull off an attack?


A Never-Ending State of Emergency

The powers granted to the executive branch of the US government with which to engage the "emergency" of terrorism are broad and sweeping. These are powers that are marginally constitutional-- and are meant to be temporary. The very terms by which the US has conducted the War on Terror, paradoxically, imperils national security at every step. The result is that unless the United States chooses a more Ethical and Rational path, it cannot return to a state of peace.

There are several reasons why the War on Terror will never be over, much less ever be won:

1. Terrorism is a CRIME that is politically motivated. It is NOT an act of war. When terrorism occurs in a war zone (whether perpetrated by soldiers or other agents), it is a War Crime.

2. The US government picks and chooses which groups, agents and/or individuals are considered terrorists- depending on what government or agency is being attacked. More important than that, the United States itself has (and continues to be) engaged in activities which can be interpreted as acts of terrorism by an outside observer.

3. The US's attacks of aggression and disregard for the protection of innocents continues to manufacture terrorists and extremists all over the world, as well as within the United States.

This is a never-ending, un-winnable war, with no borders or boundaries; one that compromises both national security and the "inalienable rights" of US citizens. The War on Terror must be stopped at any cost.