The London Times is reporting (behind the greed wall) that General David Patreus’s days as leader of coalition forces in Afghanistan are numbered.
|By: Spencer Ackerman Tuesday December 21, 2010 4:20 pm|
In other words: Combatant Status Review Tribunals/Administrative Review Boards 2.0: Now With Lawyers. And that means the executive is going to have to come up with another series of rules, from scratch, to govern this review process. The courts have accepted — to the dismay of civil libertarians — wide prerogative for the executive in detention. But they’ve taken a dim view of ad-hoc solutions.
|By: Spencer Ackerman Friday December 17, 2010 3:20 pm|
Rep. Peter King will hold hearings on “the radicalization” of American Muslims when he gets his gavel for the House’s homeland-security committee. Framing the question that way predetermines its outcome: millions of Americans will be presumptively guilty of drifting into fellow-traveling with al-Qaeda. But King is right that even a statistically miniscule rise in homegrown terrorism deserves thorough analysis. The question is how real King will allow his hearings to get.
|By: Spencer Ackerman Friday November 19, 2010 8:54 am|
I have a hard time believing that anyone quoted in this piece actually believes what they’re telling the public. “We’ve taken the gloves off, and it has had huge impact,” for instance. Or how “you’re connecting the government to the people” by making them travel to a district-government office and submit a claim for a NATO-demolished house.
|By: Spencer Ackerman Tuesday November 16, 2010 4:30 pm|
I wasn’t sure that New START actually would have died when Sen. Kyl argued today against voting on it during the lame-duck. But this statement from Vice President Biden makes me think it’s lights-out.
Failure to pass the New START Treaty this year would endanger our national security. Without ratification of this Treaty, we will have no Americans on the ground to inspect Russia’s nuclear activities, no verification regime to track Russia’s strategic nuclear arsenal, less cooperation between the two nations that account for 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons, and no verified nuclear reductions. The New START treaty is a fundamental part of our relationship with Russia, which has been critical to our ability to supply our troops in Afghanistan and to impose and enforce strong sanctions on the Iranian government.
|By: Spencer Ackerman Monday November 15, 2010 7:15 pm|
As I tweeted and wrote for Danger Room today, the incoming chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Buck McKeon, briefly argued in a speech today that Congress should “reaffirm — in statute — the Authorization to Use Military Force of 2011.” To expand on that: McKeon mentioned the AUMF in the context of detainee policy — that is, to keep terrorism detainees out of federal courts. But it clearly goes beyond that. Here’s what a McKeon aide told me.
|By: emptywheel Tuesday October 26, 2010 9:49 am|
The government is just writing its own novel about Gitmo detainees and the war on terror now.
|By: Spencer Ackerman Saturday October 16, 2010 12:45 pm|
It would be quite an irony if the chief counterinsurgent prosecuted a hit-em-n-quit-em campaign that helped convince the Taliban that enough is enough. How conventional!
|By: Spencer Ackerman Wednesday September 22, 2010 4:45 pm|
Here I was, set to write a long post about the new Woodward book excerpts, when Gulliver distills my intended point in a tweet:
Does not compute: if we could “absorb” another 9/11, why are we wasting $70B/yr on war that won’t prevent it anyway?
|By: Spencer Ackerman Thursday September 16, 2010 7:15 pm|
Ever since the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the U.S.-Russia New START nuclear-reductions accord this afternoon, I’ve received statements from President Obama, Vice President Biden, Secretaries Gates and Clinton and Senator Kerry. All of them are cheering the vote, in order to get the press to write about the Big Victory they recorded today. And indeed: it’s a step forward for a treaty that any sensible person would have to conclude deserves ratification.
The trouble is that none of these statements actually explain, hint at or otherwise indicate how to get 67 votes in the Senate for the treaty.