Leon Panetta: New Detention Provisions Will Harm National Security

<a target="_blank" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/freshconservative/3854507676/sizes/m/in/photostream/">Fresh Conservative</a>/Flickr

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday that the bipartisan compromise mandating indefinite military detention of non-citizen terrorism suspects apprehended in the US would damage national security. 

The detainee provisions may “needlessly complicate efforts by frontline law enforcement professionals to collect critical intelligence concerning operations and activities within the United States,” Panetta wrote in a letter first reported on by the Associated Press, and “restrains the Executive Branch’s options to utilize, in a swift and flexible fashion, all the counterterrorism tools that are now legally available.” (The detainee provisions would also authorize the indefinite military detention of American citizens suspected of being members of Al Qaeda or an “associated force.”)

At a press briefing yesterday, Pentagon spokesman Capt. John Kirby said Panetta had not yet recommended vetoing the bill. “He has not, to our knowledge, recommended to veto this,” Kirby said. “Again, he really—he wants to work with them as they move forward [on] this.” Critics of the bill contend that the administration’s skittishness in issuing veto threats suggests that the White House’s warnings about the bill’s detention provisions won’t be taken seriously by Congress. 

“If Congress is going to take the president seriously, it has to believe the president is prepared to use the National Defense Authorization Act as toilet paper,” says Ben Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “If it’s not convinced of that, the president has given away his negotiating leverage.”

In an interview with the Associated Press, Senator Lindsey Graham suggested that the armed services committee had altered the bill in response to the administration’s concerns:

The military custody provision has been changed to accommodate what I thought were some legitimate concerns of the administration…There’s been a criminalization of the war that makes a lot of members uncomfortable and this is congressional involvement that brings balance.

The Obama administration has largely maintained the trajectory of Bush-era policies on national security, and the detention provisions represent a substantial militarization of the Bush-Obama policy, not a return to the status quo ante. Moreover, the White House threatened a veto over similar detention provisions in the House version of the defense bill in May. White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan blasted the detainee provisions in September, and Pentagon Counsel Jeh Johnson criticized them in a speech at the Heritage Foundation in October. Graham is concern-trolling the White House. 

“What has to happen is the president needs to express that this is something that they’re going to veto over, and make very clear that threat is real,” says ACLU Legislative Counsel Chris Anders. “These are provisions that really deserve a veto if they end up on the president’s desk.”


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend