Commentary: Internment Camps: A 20th Century Solution for a 21st Century Problem?

U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class William Weinert
[Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

In my military professional endeavors, I have come across a variety of counter-terrorism theories and practices.  One which I always find myself "sitting on the fence" on is warrantless detentions or internment camps.  While I can appreciate the operational necessity to capture, detain, and thus incapacitate certain rogue individuals who are involved in ongoing terrorist operations, I grow concerned due to the lack of accountability and need for legal justification when making such detentions.

We've been down this road before in World War II and the results weren't so great.  One only has to look at The Ringle Report to find evidence of this.

Here's a film about what those camps were like:

Are we entering a world where our fear is governing our national security strategy and allowing for certain or "inalienable" rights to be stripped away?  Don't get me wrong.  I like the fact my government has assets whose sole job is to seek and take whatever legal actions are necessary to prevent the loss of life.  I am one of those sentimental people who says they sleep easier at night knowing this.  However, I cannot but wrestle with the notion we are regressing whether than growing in our current security paradigm.

I recently came across an interesting editorial on the Mercury News' site.  According to the author, S. Floyd Mori,

"A bill on the Senate floor raises the question of whether the Senate has forgotten our history. S. 1253, the National Defense Authorization Act, has a provision in it, unfortunately drafted by Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and John McCain, R-Ariz., that would let any U.S. president use the military to arrest and imprison without charge or trial anyone suspected of having any relationship with a terrorist organization. Although Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and more than a dozen of her colleagues are bravely calling for a halt to a damaging bill, they face significant opposition.

The troubling provision, Section 1031, would let the military lock up both Americans and noncitizens in the 50 states. There would be no charges, no trial, no proof beyond a reasonable doubt. All that would be required would be suspicion."

I went online to further research the bill and I've attached the section of concern:

a) In General- The Armed Forces of the United States are authorized to detain covered persons captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) as unprivileged enemy belligerents pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person, including but not limited to persons for whom detention is required under section 1032, as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Long-term detention under the law of war without trial until the end of hostilities against the nations, organizations, and persons subject to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity

(d) Constitutional Limitation on Applicability to United States Persons- The authority to detain a person under this section does not extend to the detention of citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

Here's the lowdown on three subsections:

1. Subsection (b) makes it a point to leave out the specifics of what particular operations would be eligible.  In other words, anyone who is not a citizen or legal resident alien suspected of participating in a terrorist action could be detained without so much as a warrant.
2. Subsection (4) says a person could then be transferred to another foreign country or foreign entity to be detained as well.  Why would someone want to "transfer custody" of these individuals to a foreign country or entity?  In other places, they may not have the legal restraints against certain kinds of detention activities which could be useful in obtaining critical intelligence or they may have a more compelling reason for having them.
3. The only bit I like about this bill is contained in subsection (d) which says that it does not pertain to citizens and legal alien resident who are conducting suspected activities within our borders.  However, those protections do not extend outside of them.  The only negative side effect I see here is the application of indefinite detention within the US or outside of it for activities our government could see as being terrorist related.  Given the often "shaky" nature of the definition of terrorism and who you're asking, those activities could range from financing to operating a website which post terrorist related materials.

The bill's supporters will claim Guantanamo as a success.  They will allude to the lack of attacks on US soil since its inception ten years ago.  While its detractors will allude to its failures in gathering reliable information and only detaining very few real operators and masterminds.  They will point Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, the 9/11 plotter who while at Guantanamo Bay reportedly told lie after lie in an effort to mislead his interrogators.  

Like these Senators, I want to give our government more powers to act on against ongoing operations.  I sincerely believe some extreme measures would be necessary in certain circumstances such as operations which could result in a large loss of life or cause massive chaos and public unrest.  However, I'm troubled by the bill's lack of specific language or limitations.  Troops and operators on the ground hate such restraints and I can understand why.  The persistent question I ask is, "Where and when does it end?"