Two developments today highlight the divide between overheated political rhetoric on counterterrorism and the reality of effective counterterrorism in practice. In Detroit, "Underwear Bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab begins his trial, an example of how cooperation among the civilian legal system, the FBI and the military produced both successful intelligence-gathering and a prompt day in court. Yet back in Washington, the Senate is considering controversial detainee provisions in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would remove civilian courts and law enforcement from counterterrorism, handing the military a role it does not want. Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson will voice the Defense Department's concerns, adding to the concerns raised by Senators Reid, Feinstein and Leahy. It is strange to see these attacks on a set of tools that are core to U.S. constitutional values, proven effective, and supported by the public. As Lawrence Wilkerson writes, "the defense bill could actually weaken our counterterrorism efforts."

Bipartisan senior officials speak out against extreme provisions in defense bill. A different version of the NDAA containing controversial provisions on detainee policy passed the U.S. House of Representatives earlier this year despite objections from security experts. However, in a letter to the chair and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid singled out three provisions with which he, Senate colleagues and the White House are concerned: "the authorization of indefinite detention in Section 1031, the requirement for mandatory military custody of terrorism suspects in Section 1032, and the stringent restrictions on transfer of detainees in Section 1033."

Former FBI Director William S. Sessions, Abner Mikva, who served as chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C., and John J. Gibbons who served as chief judge of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, explain in the Chicago Tribune that, "Legislation now making its way through Congress would seek to overmilitarize America's counterterrorism efforts, effectively making the U.S. military the judge, jury and jailer of terrorism suspects, to the exclusion of the FBI and local and state law enforcement agencies... Not only would such an effort ignore 200 years of legal precedent, it would fly in the face of common sense." The authors explain: "The bill in question, the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, would codify methods such as indefinite detention without charge and mandatory military detention, and make them applicable to virtually anyone picked up in anti-terrorism efforts - including U.S. citizens - anywhere in the world, including on U.S. soil... Stripping local law enforcement and the FBI of the ability to arrest and gather intelligence from terrorism suspects and limiting our trial options is counterintuitive and could pose a genuine threat to our national security. ... Further restricting the tools at our disposal is not in the best interest of our national security." [Harry Reid, 10/4/11. Abner Mikva, William S. Sessions, and John J. Gibbons, 10/7/11]

Civilian trials are part of a successful counterterrorism approach, which enjoys strong public support. John Brennan, career CIA officer and President Obama's chief counterterrorism advisor, calls the civilian justice system "our single most effective tool for prosecuting, convicting, and sentencing suspected terrorists-and a proven tool for gathering intelligence and preventing attack." It is part of a broader, comprehensive strategy to combat terrorism that includes everything from actions like those that took out Osama bin Laden to breaking terrorist finances to leveraging actions from allies and partners -- who in turn look to our legal system for inspiration.

In a speech earlier this year, Brennan, outlined how this multifaceted strategy is paying off: "We have affected al-Qa'ida's ability to attract new recruits.  We've made it harder for them to hide and transfer money, and pushed al-Qa'ida's finances to its weakest point in years.  Along with our partners, in Pakistan and Yemen, we've shown al-Qa'ida that it will enjoy no safe haven, and we have made it harder than ever for them to move, to communicate, to train, and to plot. Al-Qa'ida's leadership ranks have been decimated, with more key leaders eliminated in rapid succession than at any time since 9/11.  For example, al-Qa'ida's third-ranking leader, Sheik Saeed al-Masri-killed.  Ilyas Kashmiri, one of al-Qa'ida's most dangerous commanders-reportedly killed.  Operatives of AQAP in Yemen, including Ammar al-Wa'ili, Abu Ali al-Harithi, and Ali Saleh Farhan-all killed.  Baitullah Mahsud, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban-killed.  Harun Fazul, the leader of al-Qa'ida in East Africa and the mastermind of the bombings of our embassies in Africa-killed by Somali security forces.  All told, over the past two and half years, virtually every major al-Qa'ida affiliate has lost its key leader or operational commander, and more than half of al-Qa'ida's top leadership has been eliminated."

Additionally the public supports this results-based approach. The New York Times reports that, "More than six of 10 Americans approved of his handling of terrorism threats in a Times/CBS poll in June." [John Brennan, 6/29/11. NY Times, 10/2/11]

"Underwear Bomber" trial, evidence of effectiveness.  As this debate occurs, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the "Underwear Bomber" who tried to take down a commercial flight over Detroit on Christmas day 2009 with explosive-laden underwear, goes on trial in a federal court. Lawrence Wilkerson, a retired U.S. Army colonel who also served as State Department chief of staff in the Bush administration, writes, "The swiftness with which federal law enforcement officials were able to bring Abdulmutallab to trial is the latest powerful argument against overreliance on the military to combat terrorism. Unfortunately, too many in Congress are not listening... By limiting the use of the traditional criminal justice system -- and, specifically, the unparalleled experience and talent of the FBI and other domestic law enforcement officers -- the defense bill could actually weaken our counterterrorism efforts." [Lawrence Wilkerson, 10/2/11]

Over-militarization hurts America's abilities to conduct important counterterrorism cooperation. The pending legislation is not only ineffective, it is also harmful to our counterterrorism efforts. A group of retired generals and admirals recently wrote, "The military custody and prosecution provisions would also mean that we would not be able to extradite some foreign terror suspects to the United States because allies might refuse to transfer them to military custody or for prosecution before a military tribunal.  A Canadian judge recently denied a request to transfer a terror suspect to the United States because of concerns that commissions, with lower standards of due process, are inferior to federal court."

In a recent speech at Harvard Law School Brennan further explained the importance of international cooperation: "The effectiveness of our counterterrorism activities depends on the assistance and cooperation of our allies-who, in ways public and private, take great risks to aid us in this fight." He explains, "For when we uphold the rule of law, governments around the globe are more likely to provide us with intelligence we need to disrupt ongoing plots, they're more likely to join us in taking swift and decisive action against terrorists, and they're more likely to turn over suspected terrorists who are plotting to attack us, along with the evidence needed to prosecute them. When we uphold the rule of law, our counterterrorism tools are more likely to withstand the scrutiny of our courts, our allies, and the American people.  And when we uphold the rule of law it provides a powerful alternative to the twisted worldview offered by al-Qa'ida.  Where terrorists offer injustice, disorder and destruction, the United States and its allies stand for freedom, fairness, equality, hope, and opportunity. [Generals and Admirals Letter, 2011. John Brennan, 9/16/11]

What We're Reading

A United Nations report finds systematic torture in Afghanistan at sites run by the Afghan intelligence service and the Afghan National Police.

The Syrian economy is buckling under the pressure of sanctions by the West and a continuing popular uprising, posing a growing challenge to President Bashar al-Assad's government.

Iraq's Nuri al-Maliki says U.S. troops serving as trainers in Iraq might be able to stay in country beyond the December 2011 withdrawal date.

Libya's interim government forces say they have pro-Gaddafi troops "cornered" in two small areas of Sirte.

As Coptic Christians mourn the death of protesters slain by security forces, Egypt's military leaders face unprecedented public anger and growing doubt about their ability to oversee a promised transition to democracy.

British Prime Minister David Cameron backed embattled Defense Minister Liam Fox, but called for more thorough answers to allegations that Fox allowed a close friend with ties to the defense industry undue access to government meetings.

African Union troops have driven Islamist al-Shabab militants out of their last stronghold in the north of Somalia's capital, Mogadishu.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez will return to Cuba next week to undergo a series of medical tests to evaluate his cancer treatment.

China announced that it was suspending passenger and cargo traffic in the headwaters of the Mekong River after the Thai border police heard gunfire on the river and found two Chinese cargo vessels adrift.

The Slovakian parliament votes on whether to approve the latest round of euro zone bailout funds, which must receive unanimous support from all 17 Euro states.

An Associated Press fact check finds that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney promised in his first major foreign policy speech to reverse "massive defense cuts" that actually have not happened, and that he pledged to deploy missiles and ships that already are largely in place.

Commentary of the Day

Hillary Clinton writes that global politics will be decided in Asia, not Afghanistan or Iraq, and the United States will be right at the center of the action.

A New York Times editorial asserts that despite the failure to pass a resolution condemning Syria's brutal crackdown, the United States and Europe were right to push for a vote in the United Nations Security Council and more must be done.

Paul Richter states that many advisors to President Obama see Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan's government as a possible model for others in the Middle East, but the Turkish premier's feud with Israel and a tendency to make threats are problematic.