Bush's "War On Terror" Comes To Sudden End

Washington Post: With Stroke Of Pen, President Obama Erases Controversial Measures

(Washingtonpost.com)  This story was written by Dana Priest.

---

President Obama yesterday eliminated the most controversial tools employed by his predecessor against terrorism suspects. With the stroke of his pen, he effectively declared an end to the "war on terror," as President George W. Bush had defined it, signaling to the world that the reach of the U.S. government in battling its enemies will not be limitless.

While Obama says he has no plans to diminish counterterrorism operations abroad, the notion that a president can circumvent long-standing U.S. laws simply by declaring war was halted by executive order in the Oval Office.

Key components of the secret structure developed under Bush are being swept away: The military's Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, facility, where the rights of habeas corpus and due process had been denied detainees, will close, and the CIA is now prohibited from maintaining its own overseas prisons. And in a broad swipe at the Bush administration's lawyers, Obama nullified every legal order and opinion on interrogations issued by any lawyer in the executive branch after Sept. 11, 2001.

It was a swift and sudden end to an era that was slowly drawing to a close anyway, as public sentiment grew against perceived abuses of government power. The feisty debate over the tactics employed against al-Qaeda began more than six years ago as whispers among confidants with access to the nation's most tightly held secrets. At the time, there was consensus in Congress and among the public that the United States would be attacked again and that government should do what was necessary to thwart the threat.

The CIA, which had taken the lead on counterterrorism operations worldwide, asked intelligence contacts around the globe to help its teams of covert operatives and clandestine military units identify, kill or capture terrorism suspects. They set up their first interrogation center in a compound walled off by black canvas at Bagram air base in Afghanistan, and more at tiny bases throughout that country, where detainees could be questioned outside military rules and the protocols of the Geneva Conventions, which lay out the standards for treatment of prisoners of war.

As the CIA recruited young case officers, polygraphers and medical personnel to work on interrogation teams, the agency's leaders asked its allies in Thailand and Eastern Europe to set up secret prisons where people such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh could be held in isolation and subjected to extreme sleep and sensory deprivation, waterboarding and sexual humiliation. These tactics are not permitted under military rules or the Geneva Conventions.

Over time, a tiny circle of federal employees outside these teams got access to some of the reports of interrogations. Some were pleased by the new aggressiveness. Others were horrified. They began to push back gingerly, as did an even smaller number of congressional officials briefed on the reports.

Eventually their worries reached a handful of reporters trying to confirm rumors of people who seemed to have disappeared: a Pakistani microbiologist spirited away in the dead of night in Indonesia. An Afghan prisoner frozen to death at a base code-named the Salt Pit. A German citizen who did not get back on his bus at a border crossing in Macedonia.

Front companies and fictitious people were used to hide a system of aircraft that carried terrorism suspects to "undisclosed locations" and to third countries under a little-known practice called rendition.

Unlike the federal employees, who could go to jail for disclosing the classified program, the reporters and their news outlets were protected by the Constitution -- but not from government pressure. Then-CIA Director Porter J. Goss and, later, Bush summoned top editors of The Washington Post to press their case against disclosing the existence of the secret prison network.

The published reports in The Post and elsewhere earned the news media sharp recriminations from the administration, the Republican leadership in Congress and the public. Government leak investigations were launched. Bush administration officials argued that such methods and operations were necessary to effectively thwart terrorism, noting to this day that there have been no major attacks since 2001.

If there were dissenters back then, they were largely silent.

But in Europe, the reports set off a firestorm of criticism and government investigations in nearly every capital. Washington was pressured to move prisoners out of the secret jails. U.S. government officials scattered throughout the national security and foreign policy agencies scrambled to learn more about operations they knew little about. A growing chorus within the CIA and the State Department began to question how long the secret system of detention and interrogation could survive, and drew up plans for an alternative.

By then, the color-coded terrorist alerts had ended. Police disappeared from roadblocks around the Capitol. Washington the fortress drew millions of visitors again. Some Democratic members of Congress replaced the "war on terror" phraseology with language indicating vigilance and persistence, but not unending combat and military-only options.

On Sept. 6, 2006, Bush announced the transfer of 14 "high-value detainees" from secret prisons to Guantanamo. He suspended the CIA program, but defended its utility and reserved the right to reopen it. The secret was officially out.

Over the next 2 1/2 years, as Democrats gained power in Congress, as the violence in Iraq sapped public support for the president and as the fear of another terrorist attack receded, the debate over secret prisons, renditions and harsh interrogations grew louder. Presidential candidates felt comfortable to include these sensitive subjects in the debate on the efficiency of Bush's war against terrorists, and even on the notion that it was still a war.

During his campaign and again in his inaugural address Tuesday, Obama used a different lexicon to describe operations to defeat terrorists. "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals," he said. "... And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you."

[nibaru]

Washington is controlled by the Banking system and Wall Street and they don''t care about any of us. And sometimes I wonder when America is going to sober up and take this country back?

[nibaru]

The Constitution is only followed when it is convenient,
and it suits the personal agenda of Washington.

[mnguyen4]

Regarding the CIA, I have nothing but disdain for this government agency. Created to help the Executive Branch with the ability to make critical decisions concerning this country%u2019s security interests in times of peril, it has failed time after time from the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam to Afghanistan and Iraq. Maybe the public gets bombarded by the media and Hollywood about the capability of the world%u2019s most expensive intelligence organization.

Over 7 years after 911, we can still get audio tapes from El Qaeda leaders commenting on American politics and world affairs, thanks a lot to American technology. Meanwhile, American troops overseas seem to have their hands full, fighting and dying every day without knowing who your enemies are and where they are. What has the CIA done in the last 7 years, other than breaking American and International laws or engaging in scandals after scandals?

[bedwetter777]

I can''t believe that there are so many uniformed folks out there with such poor reading comprehension to misunderstand the article and world history in general. They can''t be that ignorant. They must be trolls or maybe Al Queda trying to divide Americans against each other.

[bedwetter777]

If the war on terror has ended, then the terrorist won.

President Obama, YOU are the one responsible for that terrible outcome.---wango2007 at 02:25 PM

No, the U.S. will not stop going after terrorists. The only thing that has changed is that we will not violate the Constitution to do that. Just like nohop09, you misunderstand the title of the article. Bush =/= U.S.. So, you need not worry about the "terrible outcome" that you''ve mistakenly claimed.

[wango2007-2009]

If the war on terror has ended, then the terrorist won.

President Obama, YOU are the one responsible for that terrible outcome.

[hetup-2009]

The only terror I face is the bank and credit card companies calling. That and the misery inflicted by my employer who deserves to go to jail for tax evasion.

[bradkt1]

It was asinine to declare a "war on terror" in the first place. Who are we fighting? There have been terrorists for decades...even centuries! WWI was started by a terrorist from Serbia. What is victory? When will it be over? President Bush and his people should have asked Congress to simply declare war on Al Quaida. By relying on the President''s wartime powers under the Constitution, this "war on terror" was a vaguely-defined prescription for a never-ending war, never-ending incaration without trials and the use of torture to elicit confessions and to obtain intelligence (which was inherently unreliable). It stained our nation''s honor in the eyes of the world and in the eyes of at least 1/2 of the American people...we were hopelessly divided. This time, let''s do things the right way...consistent with our values and our Constitution...and we will do just fine! Only dangerous zealots who shouldn''t be entrusted with the power of government in the first place think that they know better than the people, our laws and our Constitution. This was a dangerous experiment and thank God it is over!

[bedwetter777]

To all the followers of Obama...---bushy15 at 09:39 PM

Also, we don''t follow Obama or any person, we follow the Constitution of the United States. There seems to be a confusion among far righties that the duty of an American citizen is to defend the Constitution. Your assertion that anyone follows Obama seems to be a projection of your own following of Bush and his party over the Constitution of the U.S.. Or maybe it is just your attempt to divide Americans against eachother. Are you working for Al Queda or something? Another far righty, nohope09, on the previous page seemed to have that problem also when he misread the titles assertion that ''Bushes war on terror was over'' to mean that the U.S. was no longer going to go after terrorists. He just assumes that "Bush" and the "U.S." are transposable concepts without a thought.

[bedwetter777]

But at least he has a lefties ideals.---bushy15 at 09:39 PMDwight

Well if Eisenhower was a lefty, he was a Republican lefty. I know that you probably haven''t missed an episode of "24" and all, but other than that, what do you have in your resume to compare with Eisenhower''s national defence experience to convince anyone to value your anonymous opinion over Eisenhower''s?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower
David "Ike" Eisenhower (October 14, 1890 %u2013 March 28, 1969) was the 34th President of the United States from 1953 until 1961 and a five-star general in the United States Army. During the Second World War, he served as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe, with responsibility for planning and supervising the successful invasion of France and Germany in 1944%u201345. In 1951, he became the first supreme commander of NATO.[1]

As President, he oversaw the cease-fire of the Korean War, kept up the pressure on the Soviet Union during the Cold War, made nuclear weapons a higher defense priority, launched the Space Race, enlarged the Social Security program, and began the Interstate Highway System. Eisenhower also was highly involved in the 1953 Iranian coup d''itat, the overthrow of Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mossadegh and replacing him with the pro-Western Shah. He has been consistently ranked by scholars as one of the greatest U.S. Presidents.

[bushy15]

To all the followers of Obama, following is a summary of the military code of conduct on prisoner interogation:

Since it was issued by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who took office shortly after the famous Nuremberg Trials that prosecuted prominent German officials for alleged war crimes committed in World War II involving treatment of detainees and prisoners of war, U.S. military forces have been trained to follow a General Order known as the Code of the U.S. Fighting Force. [1] It provides in relevant part:

b. When questioned, a prisoner of war is required by the Geneva Convention and this code to give name, rank, service number (Social Security number) and date of birth. The prisoner should make every effort to avoid giving the captor any additional information. The prisoner may communicate with captors on matters of health and welfare and additionally may write letters home and fill out a Geneva Convention "capture card."

c. It is a violation of the Geneva Convention to place a prisoner under physical or mental duress, torture or any other form of coercion in an effort to secure information.

So now, we may ask for name, rank and serial number, and whether or not they would like their pillow fluffed.

Obama is an idiot and his policies will put more American''s in danger. But at least he has a lefties ideals.

[actornaught]

I guess I''d like to have a "War on Tailgaters".

And you probably don''t know who you are, either. I''ll make hats for you...

[leeanna58]

The left should now be orgasmically happy.

[msmabuse]

Bushes war is over and this is true, But we as a nation connot afford to knukle under to the pressures of these mad men. Muslims want to kill all who live here!
unless your name in abdul or mohamad, barack, or such.
Then my friend u are screwed too.

[bedwetter777]

How do you declare war on a noun? I always wondered.---LMartinK at 01:10 PM

It''s well known that Bush didn''t like to read. Had the American people not voted his party into the minority, he''d have likely declared a war on verbs and adjectives too. ;D

[bedwetter777]

U.S. end to the war on terror, sure...but is the terrorists war against us over?---nohope09 at 08:24 AM

The title of the article is "Bush''s "War On Terror" Comes To Sudden End." Interesting how you substituted "Bush" for "U.S." because they are not the same and changing that one word changes the whole meaning of the sentence. That seems to be par for a lot of Bush supporters. They''ve misunderstood that the duty of an American citizen is not to a president but to the Constitution. So, they don''t see any difference between referring to a president (at least former president Bush, were getting a very different reaction to president Obama so far from the far right. Maybe their true affiliation is not to the Constitution or a specific president, but their political party?) as opposed to the nation as a whole. I think the far rights loyalties are a bit misplaced and they should return to their duty of an American citizen to defending the Constitution rather than political party.

[indamiddle]

I beg to differ..the only difference here is i would be more discreet..

drones..other ethnic armies doing our jobs..

[starleo146]

But one thing remains clear: As we enter the Obama era, there are many unanswered questions about the full extent of the domestic spying that took place under Bush, including whether it is still going on. "The NSA has far greater capability than it''s ever made public," Risen told Olbermann on Thursday night. Among its endless list of things to do, the Obama administration must take a close, hard look at the NSA''s activities -- activities that have already led to heated dissent in the ranks of his supporters who decried Obama''s support for the Protect America Act and his support, in the end, on telecom immunity.

As far as what is already in the government''s hands, said Tice, "this [information] could sit there for 10 years and then potentially it marries up with something else, and 10 years from now they get put on a no-fly list and they, of course, won''t have a clue why."

[starleo146]

In its first week, the Obama administration has been silent for now about cases like Tamm''s or Tice''s. (Tice told Olbermann that he has volunteered his service to the Obama team but that "they never really utilized me.") Meanwhile, Friday morning still saw little in the news about the latest spying disclosures, apart from various blog posts, a story on Wired''s newsblog and pieces in scattered local and alternative media. Among civil liberties organizations, even groups like the ACLU and Amnesty International have been (justifiably) focused on the news out of the Obama camp regarding Guantanamo and have not released statements on it.

[starleo146]

After the raid, Justice Department prosecutors encouraged Tamm to plead guilty to a felony for disclosing classified information -- an offer he refused. More recently, Agent (Jason) Lawless, a former prosecutor from Tennessee, has been methodically tracking down Tamm''s friends and former colleagues. The agent and a partner have asked questions about Tamm''s associates and political meetings he might have attended, apparently looking for clues about his motivations for going to the press, according to three of those interviewed.

In the meantime, Tamm lives in a perpetual state of limbo, uncertain whether he''s going to be arrested at any moment. He could be charged with violating two laws, one concerning the disclosure of information harmful to "the national defense," the other involving "communications intelligence." Both carry penalties of up to 10 years in prison. "This has been devastating to him," says Jeffrey Taylor, an old law-school friend of Tamm''s. "It''s just been hanging over his head for such a long time %u2026 Sometimes Tom will just zone out. It''s like he goes off in a special place. He''s sort of consumed with this because he doesn''t know where it''s going."