September 30, 2015

Vote “NO” on the Conference Report for H.R. 1735, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016

NDAA Would Block Closure of the Guantanamo Detention Facility and Continue Indefinite Detention Without Charge or Trial

Dear Representative:

The undersigned human rights, civil liberties, national security, and religious organizations write to strongly urge you to vote “NO” on final passage of the conference report for H.R. 1735, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (NDAA). The harmful and unwarranted transfer restrictions in the bill could block the closing of the Guantanamo detention facility and continue the practice of indefinite detention without charge or trial. We ask you to vote against final passage of the bill.

The Obama administration, both through its Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) on the NDAA, during House consideration earlier this year, and through recent public statements on Guantanamo transfer restrictions, has threatened to veto the bill over transfer restrictions. In its veto threat based on similar language before the House in June, the administration stated, the NDAA “continues unwarranted restrictions, and imposes additional ones, regarding detainees at Guantanamo Bay.” The administration characterizes the restrictions in the bill as “onerous,” “unwise and unnecessary,” “imped[ing] efforts to responsibly close the facility,” inconsistent “with our national security and our humane treatment policy,” and in violation of “constitutional separation of powers principles,” and “interfere[ing] with a detainee’s right to the writ of habeas corpus.”

The ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Adam Smith, stated yesterday that, “The president is going to veto the bill. Everyone keeps telling me, ‘Well he said that before.’ No, read my lips the president is going to veto the bill.” Referencing the Guantanamo transfer restrictions, among other objections, Congressman Smith reiterated the warning of an impending veto today, during testimony before the House Rules Committee.

The conference report would impose the most comprehensive set of obstacles to closing Guantanamo that have ever been included in a conference bill. The bill continues to ban all transfers to the United States. It then effectively reinstates, albeit with a more streamlined rearrangement of the substantive transfer standards, a series of restrictive overseas transfer requirements that a bipartisan majority of Congress rejected and replaced in the NDAA for FY 2014 and FY 2015. The core foreign transfer section (section 1034) does not have any explicit time restriction, raising the question of whether those transfer restrictions would become permanent. In addition, the bill layers on new restrictions, including for the first time, country-specific prohibitions. The bill also includes certain reporting requirements that could impede the willingness of foreign countries to accept detainees for resettlement. While the conference report does provide for the president to submit a plan to close Guantanamo, the bill’s restrictions effectively thwart closure efforts.

The transfer restrictions in the NDAA would further the inhumane continued detention of men at Guantanamo Bay, squander scarce resources, and—according to top national security officials under both the Bush and Obama administrations—make us less safe.

We urge you to vote “NO” on the conference report.

Thank you for your attention to this issue, and please call on any of us with any questions.

Sincerely,

American Civil Liberties Union
Amnesty International USA
Appeal for Justice
Bill of Rights Defense Committee Center for Constitutional Rights
The Center for Victims of Torture
Council on American-Islamic Relations
Defending Dissent Foundation
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Human Rights First
Human Rights Watch
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
National Security Network
Win Without War

To read this letter as a PDF, click here.

The Restoration of the U.S. Capitol Dome in progress, October 2014. [USCapitol, accessed 10/1/15]

The post Letter to House of Representatives Urges ‘No’ Vote on NDAA Conference Bill appeared first on National Security Network.

October 1, 2015 | THE HILL

A group of 14 human rights, civil liberties, national security and religious nonprofits is urging lawmakers to vote against the defense policy bill before them Thursday because it would keep the Guantanamo Bay military facility open for another year.

“The harmful and unwarranted transfer restrictions in the bill could block the closing off the Guantanamo detention facility and continue the practice of indefinite detention without charge or trial,” the groups wrote in a letter to representatives. “We ask you to vote again final passage of the bill.”

The House is scheduled to vote on the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act on Thursday…The bill would also make it slightly more difficult to transfer detainees to foreign countries by requiring Defense Secretary Ash Carter to certify that the transfer is in the interest of national security. It would continue a ban on transfers to Yemen and add bans on transfers to Syria, Libya and Somalia.

“The conference report would impose the most comprehensive set of obstacles to closing Guantanamo that have ever been included in a conference bill,” the nonprofits wrote. “While the conference report does provide for the president to submit a plan to close Guantanamo, the bill’s restrictions effectively thwart closure efforts.”

The nonprofits that signed the letter are the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International USA, Appeal for Justice, Bill of Rights Defense Committee, Center for Constitutional Rights, the Center for Victims of Torture, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Defending Dissent Foundation, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Security Network and Win Without War.

TO CONTINUE READING, CLICK HERE.

To read the text of the letter itself, click here.

Honor Bound Guard Tower at JTF Guantanamo. [The National Guard, accessed 10/1/15]

The post NSN Cosign Letter on NDAA Cited in Hill Article appeared first on National Security Network.

Brian Katulis, Chairman of the Board at NSN

September 18, 2015 | WALL STREET JOURNAL

Five hours of debate among Republican presidential candidates Wednesday provided some insights into GOP views on national security. Sharp internal divisions remain, but glimmers of a new overall political narrative have started to emerge.

Republicans have been in political disarray on foreign policy since at least 2010 over the Iraq war, the new START arms-control agreement, and defense spending. These internal divides help explain why Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign offered a lot of rhetoric on the Middle East uprisings but no sharp substantive policy contrast to the Obama administration… Republican vulnerabilities include a lack of clear details on what they would do alternatively in situations such as Syria and some key emerging security questions such as cybersecurity and climate change. Democrats might benefit from shifting more focus to the security debate.

Ideally, Republicans and Democrats would seek to build consensus on some of these challenges. The country would benefit from a more strategic, forward-looking discussion of foreign policy. But this is a political season. Consensus is unlikely while rhetoric and sloganeering are inevitable. The best that we can hope for is a debate that seeks to elevate the discussion with clearer ideas and looks ahead more confidently about what the United States can do in the world in the coming years.

TO CONTINUE READING, CLICK HERE.

Donald Trump speaking at CPAC in 2011. [Gage Skidmore, accessed 9/21/15]

The post Is Republican Narrative on National Security Drawing on 2014 Playbook? appeared first on National Security Network.

Brian Katulis, Chairman of the Board at NSN

September 13, 2015 | WALL STREET JOURNAL

Hillary Clinton‘s speech Wednesday about the Iran nuclear deal and the tea-party rally against the deal headlined by Donald Trump and Ted Cruz may help shift foreign policy to a more prominent place in the 2016 presidential campaign.

So far, candidates who have raised the topic of national security, including Marco Rubio and Scott Walker, have not gone much beyond sloganeering. And most skirmishes have been retrospective, such as the back and forth between Jeb Bush and Secretary Clinton on Iraq.

It’s common this early in a campaign cycle to hear more rhetoric than clear policy positions about the way ahead. But a more forward-looking debate that deals with real-world challenges is needed, especially on issues where Congress has been deadlocked: cybersecurity legislation is stalled, no authorization has been passed for the use of military force against Islamic State one year into that campaign, and China’s evolving role in U.S. politics raises questions ahead of this month’s bilateral summit.

Three factors make it difficult for candidates to get into details of forward-looking policies, especially at this stage of the political process…Overall, policy changes from the Obama administration to the next administration are likely to be incremental no matter who is elected next November. But candidates seeking an edge at this early stage might look to move beyond slogans and offer details on approaching key foreign policy challenges. Doing so could fashion a framework that helps Americans understand the complicated changes in our world.

TO CONTINUE READING, CLICK HERE.

Secretary Kerry giving a speech on the Iranian Nuclear Deal at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. [U.S. Department of State, accessed 9/14/15]

The post What’s Holding Back the 2016 Foreign Policy Debate appeared first on National Security Network.

By Jeffrey Witter, NSN Intern
August 13, 2015

Last week, Prime Minister David Cameron forcefully argued that the UK needs to step up its efforts to combat ISIL and other Islamic terrorist organizations. Coming on the heels of an ISIL attack on a resort beach in Tunisia that killed at least two dozen British tourists, Cameron called for renewed efforts to combat homegrown Islamic extremism, and announced plans to push Parliament to authorize British airstrikes in Syria as well as Iraq. The move is certainly welcome news to the Obama administration, which has been pushing for increased involvement by coalition partners in the Middle East to combat ISIL. However, the amount of political capital that Cameron will expend in pushing for a fairly minor contribution to the international effort to combat ISIL demonstrates that many European powers are unwilling, and increasingly unable, to combat substantial threats to international security.

According to the most recent data from NATO (2013), only four countries out of the 28 member states met the defense spending target of 2% of GDP: the US, the UK, Estonia, and Greece. As recently as the early 1990’s, European NATO countries were spending an average of 2.5% of GDP on defense, but since the end of the Cold War, most member states have cut their defense budgets significantly. The UK and France, the traditional European partners of the US on matters of international security, are increasingly unable to project global force. In 2013, France released its “White Paper,” which sought to articulate France’s strategic vision and layout the defense budget. In the foreword, President Hollande rather prematurely stated, “the European continent has ceased to be the epicentre for global strategic confrontation.” The White Paper dramatically cut the size of the French Army and French Air Force, and abandoned plans for a second aircraft carrier to complement the aging Charles de Gaulle. Similarly, the UK will barely spend 2% of GDP on defense next year, after personal lobbying from President Obama. The UK will also cut its army to record-low levels, and despite the construction of two new aircraft carriers, seems resigned to abandoning its ability to project global force. Germany, the main economic powerhouse of Europe, barely spends 1% of its GDP on defense , and the military equipment it possesses is in a woeful state of disrepair, with many of its tanks and planes not in operational condition.

It’s not only the capacity to project military force that has waned for European NATO states. Despite the dangers posed on the European continent by a bellicose Russia, and the danger of terrorist attacks perpetrated by ISIL on European soil, European NATO members are increasingly reluctant to participate in international military campaigns. The UK has contributed about 1 airstrike a day to the anti-ISIL campaign in Iraq, less than 6% of the coalition airstrikes in Iraq. It is estimated that Australia has a larger presence than the UK in Iraq. France, despite a slightly more robust role in Iraq and ongoing counterterrorism efforts in Mali, seems reluctant to take a more active role in the global fight against terrorism. Both nations have denounced President Putin and warned him against European aggression, but have left the majority of the NATO-led beefing up of defenses in Eastern Europe to the United States. Some of this reluctance can be attributed to the Afghanistan and Libya interventions, which failed to achieve stability or peace despite billions of dollars and sustained coalition efforts.

The disengagement from the global stage is not unique to just France or the UK. In a recent poll, less than half of the publics in all major European NATO states would support military action to defend a NATO member state from an attack under Article V, even though NATO states are obligated by treaty to do so. At least half of all Germans, Italians, and the French say that their country should not use military force to defend a NATO state from an attack by Russia, though the threat of an attack from a foreign actor on European soil was the main impetus for the creation of NATO in the first place. Although NATO has frequently met to discuss Russian aggression and how to combat terrorist groups such as ISIL, it is increasingly clear that most NATO countries are unable and unwilling to do much more than issue strongly-worded statements.

It would be historically disingenuous to pretend that NATO has ever existed as anything other than a vehicle for American-led security endeavors. During the Cold War, as today, the United States provided the bulk of the money and manpower. At the height of the Afghanistan War, the only NATO-led military effort to be triggered under Article V, the United States contributed over 70% of the troops in NATO-led ISAF. With the exception of the British, most European soldiers in Afghanistan were responsible for policing relatively calm provinces in the north of the country. In all of NATO’s military interventions, the US has supplied the vast majority of the firepower. Although to date NATO has existed as a primarily US-led organization, the time has come to reexamine its operational structure. The economic and political integration of Europe that has occurred in the past three decades minimizes the risk of another major war between the powers of Western Europe, and it would be foolish to believe that NATO and European disarmament is the only thing preventing a German invasion of France.

The existence of NATO as a paper tiger masking American-led military efforts under the guise of the word “coalition” is unsustainable. In an era that presents an increasingly complex array of international security threats, the existence of a military alliance in which the United States does all the heavy lifting is no longer feasible. The US faces its own set of budgetary constraints on defense spending, and it is unrealistic for the world to expect that the US continues to defend the territorial integrity of rich, developed countries while it simultaneously attempts to tackle a host of security challenges in the Middle East and lead the West’s global strategic “pivot to Asia.”

Part of the reason that European NATO states have been reticent about spending national treasure on defense is that they feel that it is not necessary to spend money on their militaries while the United States exists to combat security threats. If the partial annexation of a European country by a foreign power for the first time since the Second World War isn’t enough to force European nations into taking their territorial defense seriously, the US needs to make it clear that all NATO states need to pull their weight. The growing complexity and breadth of international security challenges requires a multilateral response, and the United States cannot be expected to foot the bill for every security threat in the world. At the very least, the US should begin to encourage a transition of responsibility for Europe’s territorial defense to European NATO countries. There is a place for NATO in the 21st century as an important actor in addressing international security challenges, but only if its operational and funding structures truly reflect a multilateral relationship between the United States and Europe.

Photo Credit: U.S. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and other members of NATO Ministers of Defense and of Foreign Affairs meet at NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, Oct. 14, 2010. [DOD photo by U.S. Air Force Master Sgt. Jerry Morrison, accessed 9/9/2015]

The post Not Able To Operate: The European Retreat from the Global Stage appeared first on National Security Network.

By John Bradshaw, Executive Director of NSN
September 4, 2015

Although he seems to be sinking rapidly in the polls, Scott Walker remains a viable candidate and his continuing effort to stake out a credible foreign policy is relevant because it builds on themes that are representative of most of the rest of the large field of candidates.   In keeping with the general Republican line, Walker’s speech at the Citadel last Friday, read in the lugubrious cadences of a Midwestern preacher, was long on hawkish posturing and short on policy substance.

The hollowness of his approach was evident even in the title of his speech:  “America Unintimidated”. Harkening back to his campaign book, “Unintimidated,” which chronicles his battles with Wisconsin’s labor unions, Walker asserted that “he has been tested like no other candidate in this race.”  When Walker translates his experience as governor into foreign policy the result will be that, “Our forces will be strong, our weapons will be modern and, America will be unintimidated.”  Hard to argue with that broad prescription, but does it reflect any actual problems with America’s current national security posture?   The U.S. military has more firepower than all of potential peer competitors combined and no nation spends nearly what we spend on developing advanced weapons, so it is unclear what specific changes Walker would make on the overall size and shape of the military.  The real thrust of Walker’s declaration is that the U.S. is suffering national security setbacks because we are routinely being “intimidated.”   In a world of complex security challenges and continually evolving threats is the most serious problem for U.S. foreign policy really that the Obama Administration and the military establishment are somehow cowering in fear, afraid to tackle global challenges?   The Administration has taken extensive action against ISIS, launching over 5000 air strikes and placing 4,500 U.S. troops on the ground.   While this effectiveness of this strategy can be debated, it hardly looks like the U.S. is “sitting on the sidelines” as Walker asserts, and is not the approach of a nation that is “intimidated.”

After shaping his speech around the theme of “intimidation” Walker gives no examples of cases in which the U.S. has not taken action because it was “intimidated.”  Instead he drops that line as a serious critique and lays out his own confused and reckless approach to dealing with ISIS, Syria, and Iran.  Walker contends that Iran and ISIS are “feeding off each other,” when in fact they are in direct conflict within Iraq and have contending visions for the future of the region.   In Walker’s unsophisticated view, Iran and ISIS are two parts of the phenomenon of “radical Islamic terrorism” and should be conflated and approached the same way.  The U.S. should be working to oust Assad from power in Damascus and “rolling back” the regime in Tehran, while enforcing a no-fly zone in Syria.  Walker does not engage with the likely consequences of this major regional escalation, asserting that American leadership can resolve the chaos in the Middle East by getting its rhetoric right and understanding that radical Islamic terrorism is evil.  Walker fails to make his case that America is currently intimidated from taking action in the world, but he does make the case for “Walker:  Uninformed”.

Photo Credit: Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin speaking at the 2013 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland. [ Gage Skidmore, accessed 9/3/2015]

The post Scott Walker’s Shallow Posturing on Foreign Policy appeared first on National Security Network.

By Julianne Smith, NSN Board of Directors Member, and John Bradshaw, NSN Executive Director
August 31, 2015 | The Hill

Hardline conservatives in the U.S. congress who are eager to repudiate the nuclear agreement reached with Iran act as if the deal is just between the U.S. and Iran. The indispensable role of our close European allies hardly gets a mention. This short-sighted approach risks undercutting alliances and partnerships that have been the bedrock of American security for decades, and fails to appreciate the role European partners played in creating the international sanctions regime that brought Iran to the negotiating table. Six countries – not just the United States – negotiated the July 14th Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, and after years of intense negotiations, they have all concluded that this deal is the best and only way to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions. A rejection of that deal will erode U.S. credibility and raise questions about our reliability as an international partner.

Without the cooperation of our European allies both in implementing the sanctions regime and negotiating the deal, it isn’t clear if we would have reached this historic agreement. Our European partners, notably the French, acted in accordance with their long-standing commitment to non-proliferation in the Middle East, backing a strong sanctions regime against Iran, even though they were much more affected by the sanctions than the U.S. The sanctions, especially those tied to the oil and banking sectors, have been especially onerous for European members of the P5+1, who are more integrated economically with Iran. Bloomberg estimates that trade between Europe and Iran has plummeted to about $9 billion from almost $32 billion in 2005 when sanctions were first tightened. Europe’s willingness to abide by the sanctions regime for years on end during a period of economic hardship demonstrated their commitment to the process, and, with the participation of China and Russia, had a profound impact on Iran’s economy, driving the Iranians to see the talks through to their conclusion.

To continue reading, click here.

[Photo Credit: Secretary Kerry Poses for a Group Photo With Fellow EU, P5+1 Foreign Ministers and Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif After Reaching Iran Nuclear Deal [U.S. Department of State,  06/14/2015]

The post John Bradshaw and Julie Smith on Credibility with European Allies appeared first on National Security Network.

Daniel Benjamin: Schumer’s unconvicing argument

August 12, 2015 | NY Daily News

Sen. Chuck Schumer owes us more.

Although in the statement explaining his opposition to the nuclear deal with Iran, he adopts a Solomonic pose and recounts that he has engaged in “deep study, careful thought and considerable soul-searching,” Schumer’s reasoning is seriously flawed on key issues. He avoids issues that need to be faced squarely, and he delivers judgments that do not hold up under scrutiny.

To continue reading, click here.

Is Iran About to Unleash a Wave of Terrorism Against the United States?

August 13, 2015 | Foreign Policy

Yes, some of the potential $150 billion windfall coming to Tehran will help support Assad. But it isn’t quite as dangerous as opponents of the deal are making it out to be.

Just last week, David Brooks warned in his New York Times column that “Iran will use its $150 billion windfall to spread terror around the region,” echoing numerous U.S. legislators who were themselves echoing former CIA director Mike Hayden’s comment, “that an absolutely inevitable byproduct of the deal would be to strengthen the Iranians in doing all these other things that are causing us such great grief throughout the Middle East and Persian Gulf.” Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), expressed his concerns to the Daily Beast: “if under a final deal, as reports are indicating, the Iranian regime gets as much as $150 billion back [in] sanctions relief payments, even more money will be freed up for Iran to export aggression and support terrorists targeting the United States, Israel and other allies.” Even Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz’s loopy claim that Barack Obama’s administration “will become the world’s leading state sponsor and financier of radical Islamic terrorism” still reverberates.

Indeed, this claim that that nuclear pact will result in a record-setting spate of terrorist attacks has been leveled so frequently and countered so poorly by the White House — which seems locked into talking points that focus solely on the agreement’s value on the nuclear front — that it has become Beltway gospel.

To continue reading, click here.

Photo Credit: Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) speaks to the crowd at the 2013 Iowa Democratic Party Jefferson Jackson Dinner in Des Moines, IA. [Gregory Hauenstein, accessed 8/19/2015].

The post Advisory Board Member Daniel Benjamin on Sen. Schumer, Iran Deal appeared first on National Security Network.

August 14, 2015 | The Zero Hour

NSN Policy Analyst, Bill French, discusses the high cost and low benefits of the F-35 program.

To watch the original interview posting, click here.

The post Bill French Discusses the F-35 Program on The Zero Hour appeared first on National Security Network.

August 12, 2015 | CNBC

Sandy Berger, NSN Advisory Board Chairman, discusses how the deal makes the region safer.

To watch the original interview posting, click here.

The post Sandy Berger Discusses Iran Deal on CNBC appeared first on National Security Network.