Security - What's New - Archive

WomenMatter will continuously post updates on all this and other issues as we monitor the continuing philosophical and practical debates nationwide. Please check back often for updates. Past updates are available for reference on the Security Archives page.

Security Briefing: Freedom, Fairness, and Fear

When the United States was attacked on September 11, 2001, everything changed. Our fears, attitudes, and perspectives were forever altered and our need for leadership and information intensified.

U.S. defense strategy transformed as well, with President Bush authorizing the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to carry out covert operations in order to kill or detain members of al Qaeda.

This endorsement, called a presidential finding, may have allowed the CIA to create secret prisons for terror suspects. These clandestine jails, called "black sites," were recently discovered and reported by The Washington Post.

Black sites

The CIA has not admitted to maintaining a covert prison system for suspected terrorists, but a report by Dana Priest of The Washington Post strongly suggests that such "black sites" do exist outside of the United States.

Since it is illegal for the U.S. government to hold prisoners without due process in the U.S., the CIA set up undisclosed holding cells overseas. Little is known about their specific locations or procedures, but many suspect that black site interrogations spiral down into torture and even death for some prisoners.

Many Americans liken these black sites to the torture and rape rooms made famous by Sadaam Hussein and his Baath party. They believe that the continued reports of prisoner abuse (beginning with those at Abu Ghraib prison) have damaged the U.S. reputation abroad, therefore weakening the war on terror. Harsh interrogation tactics and torture, they say, violate the U.S. commitment to human and civil rights.

Others believe that the president and counterterrorism agencies should be allowed to do whatever they see fit to protect American lives. Although this group does not sanction torture, it does not condemn it either. From this point of view, imposing limits on the commander in chief could immobilize the war on terror.

Vice President Dick Cheney leads this second camp and has been fiercely campaigning to block any legislation that might hinder the president and the CIA. For example, Cheney has been the chief opponent to Senator John McCain’s amendment to prohibit inhumane treatment of enemy combatants.

Anti-torture legislation

Senator John McCain (R-Arizona), himself a victim of torture for five years in Vietnam, has been fighting for a new law that would outlaw the torture of prisoners of war.

Specifically, the provision would require military interrogators to abide by an Army field manual that is already in compliance with a series of international laws on warfare or, the Geneva Convention.

Although the Geneva Convention and the Army manual already prohibit torture, the cruel acts performed at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq demonstrate a need for further action. Senator McCain said that there is a lot of confusion in the field about what is permitted and he believes that his amendment to the Defense spending bill would help to clarify the rules.

But Bush and Cheney believe that adding another law to the books is unnecessary and redundant since Congress passed a similar provision in 2004. That law, buried deep in the 2005 defense authorization bill, requires that the Defense secretary ensure humane treatment of detainees and that the Defense Department regularly report to Congress on any criminal investigations arising from detentions. This language, which is more vague and less effectual than the McCain amendment, has been the only legislation to come out of the Abu Ghraib scandal so far.

White House opposed

Vice President Cheney feels that the amendment would impede on the president’s powers as commander in chief, but fellow Republican Lamar Alexander of Tennessee contends that the Constitution provides Congress with the authority to regulate the treatment of prisoners of war. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution says that Congress may "declare war, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water."

Nevertheless, some are concerned with making a distinction between the treatment of uniformed military personnel and that of unlawful enemy combatants; much of the administration believes that these combatants/terrorists are not protected by the Geneva Convention.

McCain explains that he has no problem with differentiating types of detainees, but that Congress needs to pass a law that details the rules regarding all prisoners of war.

McCain has been trying to pass this legislation all session, with his last attempt in July foiled by those opposed. In the Senate, only nine legislators out of 100 are against it: Republicans Wayne Allard of Colorado, Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Tom Coburn and James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, John Cornyn of Texas, Ted Stevens of Alaska, and Pat Roberts of Kansas. But in the House of Representatives, there is substantial opposition.

Conference battle

The House already passed its Defense spending bill without any language on the treatment of detainees. Therefore, House and Senate conferees will have to battle over including the McCain amendment. So far, there has been no authorizing conference, and McCain worries that it may be indefinitely postponed, killing both the spending bill and his amendment.

President Bush has threatened to use his power of veto for the first time in order to block any bill including the anti-torture amendment. It should be noted that many members of the Bush administration are in favor of clarifying the rules to protect detainees from torture, including Condoleezza Rice.

The Patriot Act

The Patriot Act has put Bush at odds with Congress as well. Many legislators would like to see the 2001 law curtailed in order to preserve Americans’ civil liberties.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle want to prevent the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) from issuing subpoenas in terror investigations without a judge’s approval. The Bush administration is in favor of these "administrative subpoenas" since they would help investigators to track terror suspects more quickly, possibly improving national security. They note that the FBI already uses this power when investigating 300 other types of crimes, including drug trafficking and health care fraud. It makes sense, they say, to extend the same authority to the war on terror.

Democrats have argued that extending the Patriot Act in this way would give the FBI unrestricted authorization over personal documents like financial, medical, and tax records. They say that investigators should have to go to a judge before having access to such information.

Privacy versus protection and what are the rules?

It goes without saying that an increase in surveillance equals a decrease in privacy. To what extent are you willing to give up your privacy for protection? How do you think the United States should conduct itself during wartime? Is torture ever justified? Do you think the U.S. is violating human rights?

What do you think?

WomenMatter is a place to discuss life issues with other women. We don’t want to wedge women apart, but rather bring them together to dialogue. To participate in our blog, click here.

WomenMatter encourages women to educate themselves on the issues and then approach their representatives with ideas.

Your voice is vital. Make sure your leaders know what’s important to you. To see how your representatives vote and to contact them, click here.

WomenMatter is dedicated to empowering women to participate in the political process. To do this we have invested in the most in-depth NONPARTISAN information, because we trust each woman to make up her own mind.

• We track nine issues every week and update this website several times a week.
• We launch after school GirlsMatter Clubs in middle and high schools to grow the next generation of politically aware women through a full curriculum and startup kit on girlsmatter.com.
• We do continuous research to make sure that we are meeting the needs of women across the country of all ages, races, incomes, preferences, and religions.
• We provide partnerships with nonpartisan organizations that provide services to women and advocate for them.

We offer all our services free of charge without memberships or subscriptions. To help us maintain this work - not just in election years but as a continuing part of women’s lives - please make a tax deductible donation, click here.

Update Posted on: 11/11/2005