Washington rethinks anti-terrorism strategy

July 11, 2006

By Dana Priest of The Washington Post

WASHINGTON — Five years after the attacks on the United States, the Bush administration faces the prospect of reworking key elements of its war on terror in light of challenges from the courts, Congress and European allies crucial to counter-terrorism operations.

The Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee and other members of Congress have complained about not being briefed on classified surveillance programs and huge, unprecedented databases used to monitor domestic and international phone calls, faxes, e-mails, and bank transfers.

European governments and three international bodies are investigating secret prisons run by the CIA, and some countries have pledged not to allow the transport of terrorism suspects through their airports.

Six European allies have demanded that President Bush shut down the prison for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, citing violations of international law and mistreatment of detainees.

And the U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a rebuke of the military commissions created by the administration to try detainees, declaring that they violated the Geneva Conventions and were never properly authorized by Congress.

Accustomed to having its way on matters related to the nation’s security, the administration is being forced to respond to criticism that it once brushed aside. The high court ruling rejected the White House’s assertion that the president has nearly unlimited executive powers during time of war, and now executive branch lawyers are reviewing whether other rules adopted in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington will have to be revised, especially those concerning the Geneva Conventions.

‘‘Part of the consideration internally is how to move forward and if the (court) decision does apply more broadly,’’ said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. ‘‘We’re weighing all the issues and taking a very careful look.’’

She disputed reports of a tug of war within the administration over changing the rules, characterizing the atmosphere instead as an ‘‘all hands on deck’’ debate in an effort ‘‘to find a path forward.’’

Congress, meanwhile, has signaled that it intends to play a major role in shaping the government’s response to the court ruling. Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will begin debating new legislation for trying detainees at Guantanamo Bay. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees will begin considering their own proposals. Those two committees pushed through legislation late last year to bring prisoner interrogation rules in compliance with U.S. military and international law.

Also Tuesday, a subcommittee of the House Government Reform Committee will conduct a hearing raising questions about the administration’s strategy in Iraq, which Bush has described as an essential front in the war on terrorism.

‘‘The Bush doctrine of ‘trust us’ is being questioned by the courts, Congress and the country, which is insisting on changing and strengthening their involvement,’’ said former Rep. Timothy J. Roemer, D-Ind., a member of the independent commission that studied the Sept. 11 attacks.

‘‘We are not a parliament, and when we function like a parliament we’re unfaithful to the process and our system of government,’’ said Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., who will preside over the Iraq hearing. ‘‘We hurt our country and both branches of government. If we had been more forceful ... Abu Ghraib would have never happened.’’

In the international arena, the administration and the CIA are re-examining procedures for capturing, transporting and detaining terrorist suspects.

Pierre-Richard Prosper, formerly the State Department official charged with negotiating the return of Guantanamo prisoners to their country of origin, said most countries agree with the goals of counter-terrorism.

‘‘But once you started actual implementation, you see the fractures taking place,’’ he said. ‘‘I think what has to happen is the world will really need to take a look at these issues. This is a new game; what are the new rules going to be?’’ Beyond Congress, the administration faces a barrage of legal challenges by privacy and civil rights groups such as the one that led to the Supreme Court decision.