Two weeks ago in this column I took issue with critics of the administration who cavil at the idea that the United States is engaged in a "war on terror." This may not be an ordinary war, I argued, but it is nonetheless a kind of war: To use that term is not to exaggerate what is at stake. America is fighting a determined and extraordinarily dangerous enemy. Jihadist terror cannot be confronted as though it were merely a criminal conspiracy. To prevail against it, I said, the country will most likely need to pay some price in surrendered civil liberties. The need to strike this grim balance, much as we might regret it, has to be faced.
So I hope I will not be accused of knee-jerk opposition when I say that the Military Commissions Act—the heralded compromise on the treatment of jihadist detainees fashioned by Congress and the White House last week—is a mistake. To be sure, it makes quite a sacrifice of civil liberties. Its efforts in that regard are impressive. But I cannot see that its provisions make the country safer. On balance, in my view, this law is going to make the war on terrorism harder to win.
Whether that turns out to be the case depends, admittedly, on what the law actually means, and this is not altogether clear—which is odd, because the idea was to bring clarity to the issues that the law touches upon. Legal scholars and politicians are speculating that the Supreme Court, if it chooses to consider challenges to the measure, will throw it out. Let us hope so. If it stands, and if it means what it appears to mean, it is a gift to the enemy.
The law gives the president remarkable new powers. It appears to extend the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" to anybody the president (or any "competent tribunal" appointed by him) chooses to designate as such. People deemed to have "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States"—a definition much broader than the ordinary meaning of the term "combatant"—would qualify. These people—again, if the law means what it seems to mean—can then be detained indefinitely, and in the case of noncitizens (including legal residents) without recourse to judicial review. From now on, the president can, after satisfying minimal procedural requirements, and effectively at his own initiative, lock up whomever he wishes and throw away the key.
As this "compromise" was being drawn up, attention focused not so much on who may be detained, for how long, and with what rights to a court hearing, but on the rules governing the interrogation of detainees. Would the Geneva Conventions, and their prohibition of "humiliating and degrading treatment" of prisoners, apply? Torture, presumably, would continue to be forbidden, as it has been throughout, according to the White House; but what about "coercive interrogation" and "highly coercive interrogation"? The administration has apparently regarded simulated drowning as falling into this second category: Such methods, it says, do not amount to torture.
Incredibly, after all the discussion that preceded the measure, and the almost universal agreement that rules at least had to be clear, the law leaves these issues unresolved. John McCain and the other senators who pressed for, and subsequently defended, the new law insist vociferously that it does not authorize simulated drowning. But waterboarding—which surely is torture in the ordinary meaning of the word—is not expressly forbidden, either. In this regard, then, what has actually changed?
Well, the law does recognize the Geneva Conventions' prohibition of humiliating and degrading treatment, and it bars certain grave offenses of the kinds of abuse the treaty refers to. But it lets the executive branch, without judicial or congressional oversight, interpret the conventions' meaning. (And according to this administration's earlier interpretation, as we just noted, simulated drowning is not torture.) What else? The new law bars the admission into evidence of information obtained by cruel and inhuman treatment (unless, that is, it was extracted before December 2005, when the earlier Detainee Treatment Act became law). But this rule of evidence applies only to detainees who actually come before military tribunals for their cases to be heard, and there is no obligation to bring detainees before military tribunals. If, for certain suspects of its own choosing, the administration prefers a policy of perpetual detention without trial, combined with extraction of intelligence by any and all means, it is difficult to see how this law will get in its way.