Also see below:     
An "F" for Anti-Terrorism    [

    Three Years On, Lone "Enemy Combatant" Lingers on US Soil
    By Michelle Chen
    The NewStandard

    Monday 26 June 2006

    Last Friday marked the third anniversary of an episode human rights activists consider among the darkest in the domestic campaign against terrorism: the imprisonment as of Qatari national Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri as an "enemy combatant."

    In the three years since Al-Marri was relegated to indefinite isolation in a South Carolina military brig by President Bush, he has not been formally charged with any crime. In fact, tangible charges were rescinded in order to bestow upon him the murky enemy-combatant label.

    The human-rights group Amnesty International issued a statement on Friday demanding Al-Marri's release unless he is formally charged with a crime, and in the meantime, immediate measures to improve his condition, which, according to written complaints, have entailed physical as well as emotional mistreatment.

    Al-Marri shares the label applied to several hundred terrorism suspects now detained at the Guantánamo Bay facility in Cuba, which the Bush administration claims is largely outside the jurisdiction of US courts. Al-Marri is the only enemy combatant currently known to be held within domestic territorial borders.

    In a legal complaint filed in a South Carolina district court against Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield in 2005, Al-Marri's attorneys alleged he had "suffered inhumane, degrading, and physically and psychologically abusive treatment at the brig in violation of this country's most basic laws and fundamental norms."

    The complaint charged that he had been confined in a tiny cell, unable to access religious materials or to engage in prayer, was not given hot meals, and was deprived of necessary medical and psychological care. Al-Marri also claimed through his attorneys that his handlers had censored his mail and confiscated correspondence with legal counsel.

    Reflecting similar testimony by Guantánamo detainees, the complaint also described deliberate exposure to extreme hot and cold temperatures, humiliating treatment in interrogations, and painful shackling.

    Amnesty International said of the alleged abuse, "The detention regime created by this ambiguous status of 'enemy combatant' … creates the legal equivalent of Guantánamo on the mainland."

    Al-Marri, who said he came to the United States in 2001 to pursue a graduate degree, was apprehended in December of that year by FBI agents as a "material witness," supposedly tied to the September 11 terrorist attacks. The government claimed he was an Al-Qaeda operative and said he had trained at one of the terrorist network's camps.

    According to legal filings, Al-Marri was initially charged with credit-card fraud, making false statements to FBI authorities and other counts, but he pleaded not guilty. As he prepared to go to trial in July 2003, the initiation of strictures known as "special administrative measures" abruptly terminated Al-Marri's access to legal counsel in late May that year. Less than one month later, Bush signed an order changing his status to enemy combatant, and the charges were dismissed.

    The Justice Department's criminal division stood by its original charges shortly after dropping them.

    "We are confident we would have prevailed on the criminal charges," Deputy Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher told the Associated Press. "However, setting the criminal charges aside is in the best interests of our national security."

    Al-Marri filed a habeas corpus petition in July 2003 challenging his detention as an enemy combatant, which was denied first by an Illinois federal district court and again on appeal. A ruling by the South Carolina court is expected soon on another petition filed in July 2004.

    Al-Marri's brother, Jarallah, is currently detained at Guantánamo Bay as an enemy combatant.

    In addition to Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, the government has held two other enemy combatants in the territorial United States. One, former US national Yassir Hamdi, was deported to Saudi Arabia after agreeing to relinquish his American citizenship.

    And Jose Padilla, a US citizen, has been removed from the South Carolina brig and now faces an ordinary criminal trial in Florida. The Justice Department rescinded his enemy-combatant status just before the Department was due to respond to a challenge from Padilla before the Supreme Court..

    In a brief filed last November in the South Carolina court, lawyers with the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School noted that Al-Marri was deemed an enemy combatant far away from any actual combat zone and long after any alleged crime linked to him had actually taken place. In light of this, the brief said, Al-Marri's case "presents the fundamental question of whether the government can sweep people off the streets of the United States and confine them without the benefit of a trial, and without affording them the familiar due process protections guaranteed by the Constitution."

    Go to Original

    An "F" for Anti-Terrorism
    Foreign Policy and The Center For American Progress

    Monday 26 June 2006

    In the face of persisting threats, including a growing number of terrorist attacks around the world, numerous reports show that Americans are losing faith in their government's ability to successfully wage the global war on terror as well as to protect them from the terrorists' next attack. Barely half of Americans today approve of the way in which the war on terror is being handled, and more than one third believe the United States is less safe today than it was before 9/11.

    These pessimistic public perceptions could easily be attributed to the high cost, in both treasure and lives, of counterterrorism efforts. After all, Americans are constantly being told by their elected leaders that their pessimism is wrong, that the war is being won. But they're also told that another attack is inevitable. Which is it? To find out, Foreign Policy and the Center for American Progress teamed up to survey more than 100 of America's top foreign-policy experts - Republicans and Democrats alike. The Foreign Policy/Center for American Progress Terrorism Index is the first comprehensive effort to mine the highest echelons of America's foreign-policy establishment for their assessment of how the United States is fighting the war on terror.

    Despite today's highly politicized national security environment, the index results show striking consensus across political party lines. A bipartisan majority (84 percent) of the index's experts say the United States is not winning the war on terror. Eighty-six percent of the index's experts see a world today that is growing more dangerous for Americans. Overall, they agree that the U.S. government is falling short in its homeland security efforts. More than eight in 10 expect an attack on the scale of 9/11 within a decade. These dark conclusions appear to stem from the experts' belief that the U.S. national security apparatus is in serious disrepair.

    Respondents sharply criticized U.S. efforts in a number of key areas of national security, including public diplomacy, intelligence, and homeland security. Nearly all of the departments and agencies responsible for fighting the war on terror received poor marks. Only the National Security Agency received an above-average score of 5.2, on a 0 to 10 scale, where 0 represents the worst possible job of guarding the United States. Every other agency received below-average marks. Experts gave the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the worst grade; its average score was just 2.9. In fact, 36 percent of the experts indicated that the newly created DHS has had a negative impact on America's national security, and nearly one in five thought the department's funding should be slashed. In addition, more than half of the index's experts said that creating the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has had no positive impact in the war against terror.

    The index's experts were similarly critical of most of the policy initiatives put forward by the U.S. Congress and President George W. Bush since 9/11. Majorities believe that the war in Iraq (87 percent), the detention of suspected terrorists at Guantánamo Bay (81 percent), the U.S. energy policy (64 percent), and U.S. policy toward Iran (60 percent) have a negative impact on our national security. The index's experts also disapprove of how America is handling its relations with European allies, how it is controlling the spread of weapons of mass destruction and its dealings with failing states, just to name a few.

    These conclusions about the United States' performance in the war thus far are all the more troubling considering that the index's experts appear to believe that the battle has just begun. A majority of experts agree that the war requires more emphasis on a victory of ideas and not just guns. That is hardly surprising considering that nearly 80 percent believe a widespread rejection of radical ideologies in the Islamic world is a critical element to victory. Yet the experts simultaneously rated America's public diplomacy efforts the lowest of any policy initiative, with a median score of just 1.8. Clearly, few believe that the United States is doing its best to win friends and influence people.

    To win the battle of ideas, the respondents say, America must place a much higher emphasis on its nonmilitary tools. More than two-thirds say that U.S. policymakers must strengthen the United Nations and other multilateral institutions. At the same time, the experts indicate that the U.S. government must think more creatively about threats. Asked what presents the single greatest danger to U.S. national security, nearly half said loose nukes and other weapons of mass destruction, while just one-third said al-Qaida and terrorism, and a mere four percent said Iran. Five years after the attacks of September 11, it's a reminder that the greatest challenges may still lie ahead.

    --------

     "The Center for American Progress and Foreign 0aPolicy are co-authors of this article, which is based on their recent 0areport."

    Complete results and a list of participants taking part in the index are available at ForeignPolicy.com and AmericanProgress.org. Reprinted with permission from Foreign Policy 155 (July/August 2006), where a longer version appears.