In a return to the policies of 9/10, the GWOT Long War Overseas Contingency Operation(s) are now to be increasingly prosecuted as a law enforcement issue, rather than as a military/intelligence problem:
The FBI and Justice Department plan to significantly expand their role in global counter-terrorism operations, part of a U.S. policy shift that will replace a CIA-dominated system of clandestine detentions and interrogations with one built around transparent investigations and prosecutions.
Under the “global justice” initiative, which has been in the works for several months, FBI agents will have a central role in overseas counter-terrorism cases. They will expand their questioning of suspects and evidence-gathering to try to ensure that criminal prosecutions are an option, officials familiar with the effort said.
Though the initiative is a work in progress, some senior counter-terrorism officials and administration policy-makers envision it as key to the national security strategy President Obama laid out last week — one that presumes most accused terrorists have the right to contest the charges against them in a “legitimate” setting.
See you in court.
We’ll bring forensics.
**facepalm**
Because that worked so well after Khobar Towers. And the Cole. And the Beruit Embassy bombing…
Seriously, there certainly is a place for the FBI, but to pretend that they are the most efficient way to approach this is bordering on stupidity.
As to the courts, there is virtually no place for them in this “long war” and their (all too successful) efforts to inject themselves into it would have stunned any President or Congressman from the 18th or 19th Century, and damn near any up until the end of the 20th.
“Under the “global justice” initiative, which has been in the works for several months, FBI agents will have a central role in overseas counter-terrorism cases. They will expand their questioning of suspects and evidence-gathering to try to ensure that criminal prosecutions are an option”
Hmm, I guess these FBI guys will be present on the Battlefield where we collected the current crop of “detainee’s”. You know, to establish and then protect the ‘chain of evidence’ (yeah, I watch CSI too) against those that have the misfortune of not getting killed in action. Read them their rights, recommend counsel, you know to more even the playing ground between them poor old guys in robes living in caves against our superbly trained Military. I hope that they make these “Special Agents” wear a distinctive uniform so that everyone knows they are there and they don’t get caught up in you know the “war”. Perhaps they can wear something stripped black and white and they could carry a whistle, maybe they could even carry yellow flags which they can throw out onto the Battlefield when an inhuman infraction has occurred, you know like a roughing penalty, or un-sportsman like conduct. You know, just to be fair!!
Don’t you just love the new ‘touchy-feely’ way this administration is going about protecting us? I am sure they used real harsh language in their latest communiqué to the NORKS too!!
BT: Jimmy T sends.
Anyone here ever see the (very) short film “Bambi Meets Godzilla”? If not, find it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXCUBVS4kfQ
. . . or another version here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPFxBzlFe94&NR=1
My version of how we should be dealing with the problem(s) of the GWOT and NK, Syria, et al., follows that script to a “T”. And I don’t intend that the USA be ‘Bambi’, either.
No reasonable person should put us in that position. However, the apparent focus on viewing the terrorists and their State supporters / sponsors as criminals (with all sorts of rights, no doubt to be enforced by our friends in the ACLU) makes it far more likely for us to get zapped. I’m enjoying these times just about as much as I thought I would when the election took place. Damn.
SteveC, thanks so much. I haven’t seen Bambi Meets Godzilla since I was in high school, and my father and I laughed so hard we were crying and breathless.
Yes, Bambi vs Godzilla was a fav fast clip, sorta Monty Pythonish.
Given that this is to be a “Lawfare” situation, where the terrorists are to be given criminal trials and all that, I am interested in seeing how that whole “cross-examine the accuser” thing will be handled.
Who gets to be labled the accuser? The troops who captured the bad guy? the officers in charge? CentCom? POTUS? Will they face a subpoena to appear and testify under oath? Really? Pulled out of action and sent stateside to testify?
Jag Officers will now be the new Zampolit, I suspect.
I’m concocting a screenplay of a SGT sitting in the witness chair, being badgered by some attorney: “How do you know the bullet that killed your platoon leader was fired by my client? Did you see him pull the trigger? Were you standing over his shoulder and knew EXACTLY that he was aiming at your LT? Do you know, beyond a showdow of a doubt, that he intended to cause actually bodily harm to your leader, or might he have been just checking to make sure his rifle was cleared before cleaning it, like he testified he was doing? ANSWER THE QUESTION!”
It actually turns my stomach, knowing our leadership has such a simple minded view of combat, and, worse yet, thinks it can be solved by putting lawyers into the mix.
Good reason to demand that POTUS has some real world experience, informally from a requirement standpoint, before taking the Oath of Office as C-in-C.
Now, maybe we can make a requirement for combat leaders to all be law school grads…except then we’d have no one signing up, them not wanting ROTC on their campuses and all at the really “great” schools. Full employment for the excess of lawyers comes to mind, but who am I to follow the money…:)
Since BOH is using military reservists in civilian clothes to be the ‘civilian’ face on the new policy in Afghanistan, don’t we at some point run into a posse comitatus issue? Will Army patrols now be required to have an FBI ‘rider’ just like frigates with coasties doing LEO ops in the Caribbean?
I guess, according to the current President, Bin Laden’s DECLARATION OF WAR against the U.S. was just a misstatement that should be overlooked.
I am close to having lost all faith in having a responsible government with adults in charge.
Wasn’t the FBI involved in the Cole and Embassy bombings investigations?
I think the CIA’s cavalier attitude is what got them into the current hot water – something about “we’re the CIA, we can do what we want!” rubs folks the wrong way?
Of course, if we just shoot them in place the whole problem disappears.
Always be sure the judge hears only your side of the story.
mojo, that denies us intel. We have rolled up on some bad guys through capture. It sucks this is the stance the “leadership” is taking.
So only shoot 90% of them…
All but one…then send him home.
Similar to my philosophy: “You have to come home to be courts-martialed. Only one has to come home to tell the story so the rest will get medals.”
In this case, to tell the stroy as to why you don’t want to go chasing “medals” (or virgins, as it were…)