The NDAA, and the Latest in Passing the Buck on GTMO-Closure

On Thursday, the Senate Armed Services Committee passed its markup of the annual defense authorization bill by a vote of 22-4. Shortly after the vote, committee chairman Senator John McCain told reporters that “very importantly, this legislation contains a bipartisan compromise on the issue of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.” Some news outlets apparently read more into this than they should have. Defense One even ran the rather bold headline “McCain Brokers Compromise That Would Let Obama Close Gitmo.” Alas, McCain had brokered nothing of the sort. Although the language of the NDAA Guantanamo “compromise” has not yet been published, it’s clear that there’s not much new here. This isn’t a bipartisan breakthrough on Guantanamo closure, but another round in a long game of hot potato. As McCain told the press after the markup, “this legislation would require the president to present a comprehensive plan to the Congress on how they intend to close Guantanamo and all the associated aspects, which would then have to be approved by both houses of congress.” This is an elaborate way of telling the president (again) “tag, you’re it.” The NDAA language on Guantanamo will apparently offer little even in the way of a general direction. According to a statement released by the Senate Armed Services committee, the legislation “requires a plan from the Secretary of Defense that details a case-by-case determination on the disposition of each detainee at Guantanamo Bay.” Such a plan would need to include “a discussion of the legal challenges of bringing detainees to the United States,” “language limiting the rights and claims that could be asserted by detainees if transferred to the United States,” and “address how the Department will ensure continued detention and intelligence collection from future combatants captured under the laws of war.” In other words, any substantive recommendations are left for the president to put forward. (The “legal challenges” requirement also seems at least somewhat redundant---Congress having already asked, and the Administration having already explained, the key legal issues associated with transferring Guantanamo detainees stateside.) On Thursday, McCain emphasized that he has supported the closure of Guantanamo for years, telling the press how early on in the Obama administration, the White House legal counsel had visited him and Lindsey Graham to rally support for the base’s closure. According to McCain, he and Graham asked “what’s your plan?” at the time--and have been asking ever since. The “compromise that would let Obama close Gitmo” is really no such thing; it’s just a fancy reformulation of McCain’s same question.