It would seem the freshman senator from Arkansas has been chomping at the bit to get to work in his new position on the Senate Armed Services Committee. In his grilling of National Counterterrorism Center director, Nicholas Rasmussen, and Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Brian McKeon, this week it doesn't take long for him to devolve into a rabid, incoherent partisan hack. The fresh-faced senator starts off attempting to get Rasmussen on the record as to what the Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. and receiving countries says regarding "recidivism" by former residents of the Hotel Gitmo. Cotton is curious why, in his opening statement, Director Rasmussen, said that ". . . anti-American incitement or statements . . ." do not necessarily equal recidivism or "re-engagement." Notice Cotton's focus on not only "incitement" but also on the much more broad and innocuous activity of making "statements."
I can't speak in this [public] session about the specific understandings we have with the partners with whom, the counties with whom we have worked to transfer detainees, but one of the key features of any of those agreements is of course monitoring ongoing activity by the detainees, which covers a wide range of factors, which would certainly include all manner of their activities. My comments in my prepared statement just spoke to a definitional threshold of re-engagement for the purposes of a threat assessment.
In other words, I'm not going to divulge the details of national security agreements with other countries in this open session, you stupid idiot.
Cotton kept at it.
"We consider anti-American incitement by Islamic terrorists [as opposed to anti-American government nut job, would-be snipers training their guns on federal agents] pretty serious business, don't we?"
Rasmussen: "Absolutely."
Cotton: "And Anwar al-Awlaqi [the first United States citizen to be targeted and killed in a United States drone strike] would say we consider it very serious business, wouldn't he?"
Rasmussen seems to struggle with the irony and pointlessness of this question but answers respectfully nonetheless, "Absolutely."
Running into a dead end with this line of questioning, Cotton turns to Brian McKeon, Principal Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Policy.
Mr. McKeon, you also said earlier to Senator Graham the United States, the administration is barred from bringing Guantanamo detainees to the United States mainland; it's also barred from releasing detainees without 30 days Congressional notification. Why should the American people [read the GOP's right wing, Tea Party base, out to prove Obama is a lawless dictator] believe that that obligation will be any more respected than the prior notification obligation was last year?
McKeon: "Sir, the lack of notification in the Bergdahl [swap of prisoners] case has not been repeated and I don't expect it to be repeated."
Frustrated, Cotton interrupts with his main point that Obama is a dictator who has no regard for the rule of law.
". . . there was a law that required prior notification, it was not followed; there is a law that prohibits detainees from coming to Guantanamo Bay this administration has a habit of surprising the American people on national security matters."
McKeon remains patient. "Senator, what I can say as to the 30 day notice issue is that our lawyers believed we had a valid legal reason for the action we took and we will get you that explanation"
In an apparent attempt to debunk the theory, held by many terrorism analysts, that Guantanamo provides propaganda for terrorists Cotton can't wait to lay his logic trap, ". . . how many recidivists are there at Guantanamo Bay right now?"
McKeon, taken back, stares quizzically, blinks several times and leans forward before responding. Right wingers have taken McKeon's attempt to respectfully answer what he should have expected would be legitimate questions, failing to anticipate that Cotton would not be asking questions as much as setting up a trap, as the response of a clueless bureaucrat.
"I'm not sure I follow the question . . . we don't have any . . ."
Cotton tersely interrupts: "How many detainees at Guantanamo Bay are engaging in terrorism or anti-American incitement?"
While the rookie senator is asking this ridiculous question (of course the answer is zero) the camera is focusing on McKeon who is clearly struggling to make any sense of Cotton's ramblings. His shiny brow furrows slightly and his eyes blink and squint quizzically while his head nods from side to side. "They're pretty locked down . . . I don't think that they're . . ."
Cotton angrily talks over McKeon's response and answers his own question, basically from here on giving up any pretense of civility, resorting instead to an emotional rant.
"There are none, because they're detained, because they only engage in that kind of recidivism over seas."
Cotton then asked, “How many detainees were at Guantanamo Bay on September 11, 2001?”
The answer, of course, was zero; the facility had not yet been established. Cotton argued that this fact disproved the theory, held by many terrorism analysts, that Guantanamo provides propaganda for terrorists. Because terrorism existed before Gitmo did, he implied, therefore Gitmo could not inspire terrorism.
http://wonkette.com/...
After continuing this tack by citing other terrorist attacks that occurred before Gitmo was opened, as if this laundry list proved his theory, Cotton closed his "questioning" with this bit of manufactured outrage:
Islamic terrorists don't need an excuse to attack the United States. They don't attack us for what they do, they attack us for who we are. [Okay . . . what?] It [Obama's decision to close Gitmo] is not a security decision, it is a political decision based on a promise the President made on his campaign. To say that it is a security decision based on propaganda value that our enemies get from it is a pretext to justify a political decision. In my opinion the only problem at Guantanamo Bay is there are too many empty beds and cells there right now. We should be sending more terrorists there for further interrogation to keep this country safe. As far as I'm concerned every last one of them can rot in Hell, but as long as they don't do that they can rot in Guantanamo Bay."
So after all that it appears the main reason Cotton made any pretense of asking questions at all was to get to his opinion out there, and to show his Tea Party base how outraged he could be, not to advance the discussion or find out anything. The argument held by many terrorism analysts, that Guantanamo provides propaganda for terrorists has clearly got him upset. “Islamic terrorists don’t need an excuse to attack us,” he said.
There are many reasons terrorists, or in Cotton's focus, Islamic terrorists have attacked us and will continue to do so, but to deny that Gitmo is one of those reasons is just plain stupid.
Former Air Force interrogator Matthew Alexander, the pseudonymous author of the indispensable book How to Break a Terrorist, who have said that detainees he questioned said that both Gitmo and Abu Ghraib had been part of the reason they hated America, but why would you trust a terrorist anyway? Alexander also wrote in 2012, “The longer it stays open the more cost it will have in U.S. lives.” http://wonkette.com/...
Cotton is Harvard educated and I'm embarrassed to find out that he also attended my alma mater, Claremont Graduate University. His questions were cynical, his rhetoric inflammatory and his temperament and tone unbecoming of a such a highly educated, United States senator. This does not bode well for anyone else called to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee, but at least they should be forewarned that Tom Cotton has no intention of acting in good faith, and is more interested in scoring points with the Tea Party than he is the future of this country.