Today's Headlines and Commentary

Let's take a brief detour from Iran, Syria and NSA surveillance, and talk about GTMO: Adam Goldman and Matt Apuzzo write, for the Associated Press, about "Penny Lane," a secret site at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility from 2003-2006 in which the CIA turned and deployed captured terrorists as double agents. Cue humming of Beatles songs. It turns out the pair of envoys tasked with closing the facility made a secret visit there, and had some words on the status quo. Said Paul Lewis, the DoD envoy: “For us, it is not merely about treating detainees humanely, it is about ensuring that our operations reflect the values for which America stands." Carol Rosenberg, as always, has the story at the Miami Herald. Ms. Rosenberg also tells of the latest film screened by troops stationed at GTMO: The Fifth Estate, the movie about Wikileaks. The New York Times editorializes on Guantanamo today, albeit with a slight oversimplification of the Senate's NDAA provisions: it would retain a certification process, which the Times doesn't mention, but it would be less stringent than the one mandated under current law. Historical fact: the NDAA is the only authorization bill that's stood the test of time, and partisan polarization, to be passed by Congress  every year for the last 51 years. Will it survive the hyper-partisanship and legislative stalemate this year? Donna Cassata speculates over at the AP. Yesterday, Connecticut's Division of Criminal Justice released its report on its investigation of the Sandy Hook shooting. It concludes that Adam Lanza acted alone, and did not identify his motive for killing 26 children and school staff last year. Here's an NPR story. Back to Iran: part of the nuclear deal includes easing global sanctions, and the execution of that particular term depends on whether SecState Kerry and President Obama can convince their former colleagues up on Capitol Hill to go along with it. Here's a pair from the Wall Street Journal on the political maneuvering, and a National Journal piece discussing Congress's legislative challenges as a result of the deal's vague timeline. House Intel Chairman Mike Rogers says he hasn't been included in the negotiations. The Hill has a piece on that snub, while David Ignatius argues that the secrecy inherent in this particular diplomatic maneuver was key to reaching a deal. And the AP reports that members of Congress are hedging, and have a pile of back-up legislation at the ready in case Iran fails to fulfill its side of the deal. A prominent Washington player has "serious concerns" about the particulars of the Iran deal---the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, that is---reports The Hill. Meanwhile, the European Union is moving quickly to ease sanctions in order to match the deal's terms, reports a pair from the Journal. Want to know what political scientists are saying about the Iran deal? Check out the Monkey Cage blog for a roundup. Senator Ted Cruz penned a piece in Foreign Policy arguing that the deal is "wrongheaded" and dangerous. Participants in another ongoing international negotiation are looking to use the Iran deal as a catalyst for progress in its negotiations, regarding Syria; here's an AP story on that. The Times' Nicole Perlroth and John Markoff report on the speculation that NSA has quite literally tapped into fiber-optic cables to access otherwise (presumably) inaccessible Internet company data. Big op-ed in the Times today, by a trio of Democratic Senators: Ron Wyden, Mark Udall, and Martin Heinrich. They write, among other things, that:

The usefulness of the bulk collection program has been greatly exaggerated. We have yet to see any proof that it provides real, unique value in protecting national security. In spite of our repeated requests, the N.S.A. has not provided evidence of any instance when the agency used this program to review phone records that could not have been obtained using a regular court order or emergency authorization.

You can catch a short "Op-Doc" video answering the question of whether Americans should be concerned about Internet surveillance here. Sari Horwitz reports in the Post that the DOJ will likely not charge Julian Assange for publishing classified documents. Why, you ask? Well, if it did, the government would also have to prosecute journalists who've done the same, and we all know the DOJ won't be doing that. On to Afghanistan, where President Hamid Karzai is playing hardball. He's not keen on the U.S. proposal for its post-2014 presence in the country, which was endorsed by the Loya Jirga, the assembly of Afghan elders, over the weekend. Among his conditions: returning the remaining Afghan GTMO detainees to Afghanistan, and for the U.S. to not be involved in the next year's presidential elections. Here's a Reuters piece. Do you remember oh-so-long ago, when that whole "Pivot to Asia" thing was supposed to be a major component of U.S. foreign and military policy (before all those revolutions, terrorism, and other issues took priority)? Apparently, it's back, or something, writes Tom Vanden Brook in USA Today. And what's this? A Times story marking President Obama's shift from "military might" to diplomatic dialogue in his second-term foreign policy approach. A one-star general in the Air Force has been nominated to become a three start general---that is not the usual course of things, but he's slated to be the next Judge Advocate General of that service, thus the step-skipping. The Air Force Times has the story. More news in the defense world: the Army is reconfiguring unit formations. Read more at Army Times. A new voice has emerged in the debate over targeted killing: Pope Francis. Here's the Holy See's representative letter to the international community, which argues:

Lethal autonomous weapons and drones, although distinct, share much the same humanitarian implications and raise several questions of grave ethical concern. Most critical is the lack of ability for pre-programmed, automated technical systems to make moral judgments over life and death, to respect human rights, and to comply with the principle of humanity.

And the CIA is loathe to relinquish its role in the targeted killing program, as evidenced by who was in charge during the latest strikes. Greg Miller explains at the Post. Republicans are up in arms over the Obama administration's handling of the Benghazi attack, and while many officials have argued that more resources are needed to maintain embassy security to prevent future attacks, the DoD is forced to comply with mandatory cuts a la sequestration, which the Republicans are at least partly responsible for. But the DoD isn't touching U.S. military presence in Afghanistan as it trims to meet those mandatory budget cuts. So where does that leave embassy security? Apparently on the chopping block, as Carlo Munoz points out at The Hill: Service leaders are issuing a 30 percent cut across the board for all service combat units that aren't preparing for deploying to Afghanistan, which includes embassy security units.  Email the Roundup Team noteworthy law and security-related articles to include, and follow us on Twitter and Facebook for additional commentary on these issues. Visit our Events Calendar to learn about upcoming national security events, and check out relevant job openings on our Job Board.