Category Archives: Presidential campaign

Plan B for Gitmo? Plan A in Garbage Can

Posted on by

White House mum on Plan B after GOP rejects Gitmo plan

Examiner: A White House spokesman isn’t saying whether President Obama will try on his own to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in light of Republicans’ promise to ignore the closure plan he sent to Congress on Tuesday.

Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the administration wants to work with lawmakers on the details of closing down the facility built to hold suspected terrorists caught in the post-Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks dragnet. He underscored that Obama has already said that is his preference, rather than taking unilateral action.

“What we’re focused on right now is congressional consideration of a plan that they specifically asked for so that we can have a discussion about the best path forward,” Earnest said hours after the White House met the congressionally mandated deadline.

Earnest said the White House plan was lacking key details, such as where prisoners would be moved to, because Congress has barred the administration from spending money on seeking alternatives.

“What they have done thus far… is put in place barriers that have prevented the administration from moving forward,” Earnest lamented. “But by putting those barriers in place, they have led us down the path of a policy that wastes taxpayer dollars and makes the United States of America more vulnerable to terrorist organizations.”

Earnest said the immediate rejection of the administration’s plan by many Republicans is just the latest sign of the GOP’s unwillingness to work constructively on any issue.

“[T]here is this emerging trend … where Congress isn’t simply in a position of just saying, ‘No,'” he said. “Congress is actually refusing to engage … They’re refusing to do the basic function of their job,” Earnest said. He pointed to Republican intransigence on other matters, such as an authorization for use of military force against the self-proclaimed Islamic State, the president’s budget or expected inaction once he nominates someone to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

“They’re doing just about everything, except for fulfilling their basic constitutional responsibilities,” Earnest said.

****

BI: There’s nothing subtle about Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts’ reaction to President Obama’s idea to close the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Roberts literally threw it in the trash.

Pat RobertsVerified account ‏@SenPatRoberts 6h6 hours ago

., this is what I think of the “plan” to close and send terrorists to the United States.

***

Even Obama’s New Plan to Close Gitmo Can’t Say How It Will Happen

DailyBeast: The report states that detainees could be transferred to one of 13 U.S. other prisons, but it doesn’t say which ones. It also doesn’t explain how the administration calculated the $475 million price tag for building a new facility in the U.S. to hold detainees. Nor did it explain why moving detainees to U.S. soil reduce criticism across the world that the U.S. should stop holding such prisoners all together. Any construction of a new prison is unlikely to be completed in the next year, and any executive order would require funding and congressional approval. Moreover, none of the proposed costs associated with moving detainees to the U.S. are allocated in the current defense budget. For those reasons, the prison in Guantanamo is likely to remain open when Obama leave office in January 2017. Full article here.

Defense Department: The United States obtains two types of assurances from a receiving country: security assurances

(i.e., measures to sufficiently mitigate the threat posed by the detainee) and humane treatment

assurances (i.e., measures to ensure that the transfer comports with the U.S. Government’s

humane treatment policy). These assurances are obtained following consultations among

diplomatic, military, law enforcement, and intelligence professionals from the United States and

the receiving country.

This Administration works extensively with receiving governments to obtain their assurances

that appropriate security measures will be in place to substantially mitigate the risk that the

transferred individual will engage or reengage in any terrorist or other hostile activity that

threatens the United States or U.S. persons or interests. In particular, the Administration seeks

assurances from receiving governments that they will take certain security measures that, in the

U.S. Government’s experience, have proven to be effective in mitigating threats posed by former

detainees. The specific measures that are ultimately negotiated vary depending on a range of

factors, including the specific threat a detainee may pose, the geographic location of the

receiving country, the receiving country’s domestic laws, the receiving country’s capabilities and

resources, and, where applicable, the receiving country’s international legal obligations.

Importantly, the Administration will transfer a detainee only if it determines that the transfer is in

the national security interest of the United States, the threat posed by the detainee will be

substantially mitigated, and the transfer is consistent with our humane treatment policy. The

security assurances obtained from receiving countries generally cover:

  • restrictions on travel, which can include the denial of travel documents and other

measures to prevent transferred detainees from leaving the country (or specific cities or

regions in the country) for a specified period of time;

  • monitoring of the detainee, which may include physical and electronic monitoring, or

other measures available under the receiving country’s domestic laws;

  • periodic sharing of information concerning the individual with the U.S. Government,

including any information regarding attempts to travel outside of the receiving country;

and

  • other measures to satisfy the United States’ national security interests and to aid the

detainee in reentering society, such as medical support, skills training, language training,

enrollment of the detainee in a reintegration or rehabilitation program, family relocation,

and assistance in accessing a variety of public services.

 

In each case, the specific security assurances negotiated take into account the individual facts

and circumstances of the transfer, including the detainee’s specific threat profile, as well as the

capabilities and domestic legal authorities of the receiving government.

Approach to Transfers. Of the 147 detainees transferred during the current Administration: 81

have been transferred to countries in the Middle East, Africa, and the Arabian Peninsula; 47 have

been transferred to countries in Europe and Asia, 13 have been transferred to the Americas; and

6 have been transferred to the South Pacific. The Administration generally aims to transfer

detainees to their home countries. Where that is not feasible, the Administration seeks

resettlement opportunities in third countries. The Administration intends to continue working to

secure transfer and security commitments from countries around the world, including transfers to

rehabilitation programs, so long as these arrangements satisfy security and humane treatment

requirements.  Full Pentagon summary here.

 

Judge Orders Full Discovery of Hillary’s Server

Posted on by

It appears the Judge has almost lost his wig and he is keeping the option of delivering a subpoena to Hillary herself. What is the problem? What was deleted before emails were delivered to the State Department and who deleted them. Further, there is still the matter of the other people in Hillary’s circle and their emails, were any of those deleted? Heck there are countless questions and the Judge is about out of patience.

U.S. judge orders discovery to go forward over Clinton’s private email system

WaPo: A federal judge on Tuesday ruled that State Department officials and top aides to Hillary Clinton should be questioned under oath about whether they intentionally thwarted federal open records laws by using or allowing the use of a private email server throughout Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of Washington came in a lawsuit over public records brought by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal watchdog group, regarding its May 2013 request, for information about the employment arrangement of Huma Abedin, a longtime Clinton aide.

A State Department official said that the department is aware of the order and that it is reviewing it but declined to comment further, citing the ongoing litigation.

Although it was not immediately clear whether the government will appeal, Sullivan set an April deadline for parties to lay out a detailed investigative plan that would extend well beyond the limited and carefully worded explanations of the use of the private server that department and Clinton officials have given.

Sullivan also suggested from the bench that he might at some point order the department to subpoena Clinton and Abedin, to return all records related to Clinton’s private account, not just those their camps have previously deemed work-related and returned.

“There has been a constant drip, drip, drip of declarations. When does it stop?” Sullivan said, adding that months of piecemeal revelations about Clinton and the State Department’s handling of the email controversy create “at least a ‘reasonable suspicion’ ” that public access to official government records under the federal Freedom of Information Act was undermined. “This case is about the public’s right to know.”

In granting Judicial Watch’s request, Sullivan noted that there was no dispute that senior State Department officials were aware of the email set-up, citing a January 2009 email exchange including Undersecretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy, Clinton chief of staff Cheryl D. Mills and Abedin about establishing an “off-network” email system.

The watchdog group did not ask to depose Clinton by name, but its requests in its lawsuit targeted those who handled her transition, arrival and departure from the department and who oversaw Abedin, a direct subordinate.

Sullivan’s decision came as Clinton seeks the Democratic presidential nomination and three weeks after the State Department acknowledged for the first time that “top secret” information passed through the server.

The FBI and the department’s inspector general are continuing to look into whether the private setup mishandled classified information or violated other federal laws.

For six months in 2012, Abedin was employed simultaneously by the State Department, the Clinton Foundation, Clinton’s personal office and a private consulting firm connected to the Clintons.

The department stated in February 2014 that it had completed its search of records for the secretary’s office. After Clinton’s exclusive use of a private server was made public in May, the department said that additional records probably were available.

In pursuing information about Abedin’s role, Judicial Watch argued that the only way to determine whether all official records subject to its request were made public was to allow it to depose or submit detailed written questions about the private email arrangement to a slew of current and former top State Department officials, Clinton aides, her attorneys and outside parties.

“We know discovery in FOIA cases is not typical, and we do not ask for it lightly,” Judicial Watch President Thomas J. Fitton said before the hearing. “If it’s not appropriate under these circumstances, it’s difficult to imagine when it would be appropriate.”

Fitton noted that the State Department’s inspector general last month faulted the department and Clinton’s office for overseeing processes that repeatedly allowed “inaccurate and incomplete” FOIA responses, including a May 2013 reply that found “no records” concerning email accounts that Clinton used, even though dozens of senior officials had corresponded with her private account.

Justice Department lawyers countered in court that the State Department is poised to finish publicly releasing all 54,000 pages of emails that Clinton’s attorneys determined to be work-related and that were returned to the State Department at its request for review.

The case before Sullivan, a longtime jurist who has overseen other politically contentious FOIA cases, is one of more than 50 active FOIA lawsuits by legal groups, news media organizations and others seeking information included in emails sent to or by Clinton and her aides on the private server.

The State Department has been releasing Clinton’s newly recovered correspondence in batches since last summer with a final set due Monday.

Meanwhile, former Clinton department aides Mills, Abedin, Jacob Sullivan and Philippe Reines have returned tens of thousands of pages of documents to the department for FOIA review, with releases projected to continue into at least 2017.

The State Department also has asked the FBI to turn over any of an estimated 30,000 deleted emails deemed personal by Clinton’s attorneys that the FBI is able to recover in its investigation of the security of the private email server.

“There can be no doubt that [the State Department’s] search for responsive records has been exceedingly thorough and more than adequate under FOIA,” according to filings by Justice Department civil division lawyers, led by Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer.

They argued that FOIA requires the agency to release records only under its control — not under the control of its current or former officials — and that “federal employees routinely manage their email and ‘self-select’ their work-related messages when they, quite permissibly, designate and delete personal emails from their government email accounts.”

Sullivan’s decision will almost certainly extend through Election Day an inquiry that has dogged Clinton’s campaign, frustrating allies and providing fodder to Republican opponents.

FOIA law generally gives agencies the benefit of the doubt and sets a high bar for plaintiffs’ requests for discovery. However, one similar public records battle during Bill Clinton’s presidency lasted 14 years and led to depositions of the president’s White House counsel and chief of staff.

Because of the number of judges hearing the FOIA cases, there is likewise a chance that the fight over Hillary Clinton’s emails could “take on a life of their own,” not ending “until there are endless depositions of top [agency] aides and officials, and just a parade of horribles,” said Anne L. Weismann, executive director of the Campaign for Accountability. Weismann also is a former Justice Department FOIA litigation supervisor who oversaw dozens of such fights from 1991 to 2002.

Still, she said, such drawn-out legal proceedings could be valuable if they shed light on whether the State Department met its legal obligations under open-government laws or systematically withheld releasable records.

Last month, one of Sullivan’s colleagues, U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg, dismissed lawsuits brought by Judicial Watch and the Cause of Action Institute that sought to force the government to take more aggressive steps to recover Clinton’s deleted emails under the Federal Records Act.

Plaintiffs “cannot sue to force the recovery of records that they hope or imagine might exist,” Boasberg wrote Jan. 11, adding that, to date, recovery efforts by the State Department and the National Archives under that law “cannot in any way be described as a dereliction of duty.”

The server’s existence was disclosed two years after Clinton left, in February 2013, as secretary of state and as the department faced a congressional subpoena and media requests for emails related to scores of matters, including attacks that killed a U.S. ambassador in Benghazi, Libya, and fundraising for the Clinton family’s global charity.

In seeking records related to Abedin’s employment, Judicial Watch asked to be allowed to depose or submit written questions to current and former State Department employees and Clinton aides, including Kennedy; John F. Hackett, director of information services; Executive Secretary Joseph E. Macmanus; Clinton’s chief of staff, Mills; lawyer David E. Kendall; Abedin; and Bryan Pagliano, a Clinton staff member during her 2008 presidential campaign who helped set up the private server.

More broadly, the group’s motion targets who oversaw State Department information systems, Clinton’s transition and arrival at the department, her communications, and her and Abedin’s departure from the agency.

“What emails . . . were deleted . . . who decided to delete them, and when?” Judicial Watch asks in filings.

The group also asks whether any archived copies of sent or received emails on the private server existed, including correspondence with Clinton technology contractors Platte River Networks and Datto.

 

Top Cop Says Obama is Spiteful, Schumer

Posted on by

Politics over policy and politics over safety. Iran gets first billing at all costs when it comes to the Obama administration.

The NYPD Commissioner, Bratton is furious.

Bratton furious over Obama’s anti-terror funding cut

White House slashed NYC terror funding to punish Schumer, former top cop says

WashingtonExaminer: New York City’s former top cop said Sunday that the Obama administration cut funding to fight terrorism in the city to retaliate against Sen. Chuck Schumer for opposing a nuclear deal with Iran.

“There’s a certain amount vindictiveness on the part of Washington aimed at Sen. Chuck Schumer,” Ray Kelly, New York City’s police commissioner under former Mayor Michael Bloomberg, said in an interview with John Catsimatidis on AM 970 in New York.

“Apparently they remember very well that Sen. Schumer did not support their Iran deal,” Kelly said, arguing the proposed cut “was aimed at getting a reaction from Sen. Schumer.”

Schumer was the most senior Democrat in Congress last year to oppose an international agreement under which Iran agreed to give up its nuclear weapons program in exchange for relief from economic sanctions.

Schumer, a Democrat set to become the party’s Senate leader, joined New York Mayor Bill de Blasio and the city’s police and fire commissioners to blast a White House budget plan that would cut annual funding for the city’s Urban Area Security Initiative from $600 million to $330 million.

As the country’s largest city and the only U.S. location repeatedly attacked by terrorists, including the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, New York officials have long sought extra consideration in allocation of federal anti-terror funds.

“New York is an enduring target,” Kelly said. “It always will be.”

Schumer statements drew a pointed White House response, an unusual reaction aimed at a key Democratic ally.

“At some point, Sen. Schumer’s credibility in talking about national security issues, particularly when the facts are as they are when it relates to homeland security, have to be affected by the position that he’s taken on other issues,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Wednesday.

“Sen. Schumer is somebody that came out and opposed the international agreement to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. He was wrong about that position,” Earnest said. “And when people look at the facts here when it comes to funding for homeland security, they’ll recognize that he’s wrong this time too.”

Earnest said financing for the program was cut because New York failed to spend the money it had already received.

Kelly, though a de Blasio critic, is a Schumer ally. The senator has unsuccessfully proposed Obama nominate Kelly a head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security.

*** New York Congressman King is not happy either.

Slashed funding for local counterterrorism and other security measures in the White House’s budget proposal is a “punch in the gut” that couldn’t come at a worse time, Sen. Chuck Schumer said Sunday.

From across the aisle, Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) agreed the pot shouldn’t be “decimated” with the threat of the Islamic State looming.

President Barack Obama’s fiscal blueprint recommended funding the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Urban Area Security Initiative grant program — which goes toward NYPD counterterrorism training, FDNY tiered-response training and other first-responder preparedness — with $330 million for the upcoming fiscal year, compared with $600 million in the current year.

“This year, bureaucrats got through a very serious mistake that must, must, must be reversed,” Schumer (D-N.Y.) said at a Manhattan news conference. “Do your homework, bureaucrats, on New York City, on the NYPD, on all the groups on Long Island that have gotten this money. . . . The dollars can save lives.”

The senator said it’s “not an accident” that the region hasn’t seen a successful terror attack since 9/11.

King said security funding across the board was reduced in the budget proposal.

“Here’s time when ISIS has never been more of a threat, when al-Qaida has never been more of a threat,” said King, a former chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.

He said he would fight alongside Schumer for restoration of the funds.

“This is not a Republican or a Democratic issue,” King said. “In many ways, it’s an issue of life or death.”

NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton called the initiative the “lifeblood” for antiterrorism funding in major American cities.

Among those urban areas, New York City is statically the No. 1 terror target, and the “terrorism threat is more complex and layered than any time since 9/11,” Bratton said in a statement.

“We would hope, in the aftermath of a series of recent plots against New York, as well as the attacks from Paris to San Bernardino, that any such cuts be reconsidered,” he added.

An official with the U.S. Office of Management and Budget said Sunday night the Obama administration has no higher priority than keeping Americans safe.

The grant program was restructured recently for efficiency, and the new funding level is expected to meet demand, the official said, adding that the proposed budget includes $139 million in other regional and state grants to help prepare and respond to complex terror threats.

Obama released his $4.2 trillion spending plan Tuesday. It requests $40.6 billion in net discretionary funding for the Department of Homeland Security, including $2 billion in grants for state and local governments for terrorism and other catastrophes.

Aside from the Urban Area Security Initiative reductions, the budget cuts state homeland security grants to $200 million from $467 million, port security grants to $93 million from $100 million and transit security grants to $85 million from $100 million.

Schumer said he didn’t get a “good explanation” from the administration on why the money would be withheld.

King said the impression he gets is that “because these programs are working, there’s no need to be giving more money — which makes no sense at all.”

 

New Anti-Terrorism Commission via Blair and Panetta

Posted on by

Frankly this mission appears to be riddled with political correctness and even more a robust agenda to influence the candidates running for the Oval Office. They want to study radical or militant Islam? Really? What more needs to be learned and understood?

This new commission also speaks to the fact that Obama and Cameron both refuse to speak the truth on the effects of militant Islam, such that all existing approaches have been feeble and feckless. Wonder if this commission will include Iran, Syria, Russia, Iraq, Libya, an Nusra, Hamas, Hezbollah or al Qaeda, much less the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

Tony Blair, Leon Panetta to launch antiterrorism commission

WaPo: Former British prime minister Tony Blair and former U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta are launching a commission on violent extremism that will aim to help the next U.S. administration counter radicalization among Muslims.

The soon-to-launch effort, which also hopes to guide European leaders, will unite experts to study extremist groups like the Islamic State and recommend ways to blunt their appeal among disaffected youth. It is being sponsored by the CSIS Commission on Countering Violent Extremism.

Commission organizers said they plan to produce a report by the end of July to coincide with the Republican and Democratic political conventions, where party nominees will be decided.

“Whoever is the next president is going to have to deal with this,” Blair said Sunday during an interview in Washington.

“I want to produce a practical policy handbook … something that, if I was sitting in office today, would give me a comprehensive view of the different dimensions of this issue.”

Panetta, who led the CIA from 2009 to 2011, said government leaders do not yet fully understand the problem.

“We haven’t been very effective at developing a strategy to reduce the allure of extreme ideologies both at home and abroad, to understand what we can do to undermine this narrative that attracts so many recruits to violence,” he said in a phone interview on Friday.

The problem of competing for the hearts and minds of Muslim youth has dogged experts for years. But the rapid rise of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, and recent attacks in Paris and San Bernardino have made a solution more urgent for world leaders.

Radical Islam has also become a topic of discussion on the presidential campaign trail.

Amid a contentious primary, Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has vowed to “quickly and decisively bomb the hell out of ISIS … [so] no one will mess with us.” At one campaign event, candidate Ted Cruz said he would “carpet bomb” ISIS “into oblivion.”

“I don’t know if sand can glow in the dark, but we’re going to find out,” Cruz said.

While declining to criticize the candidates directly, Panetta lamented the “simplistic solutions” offered on the campaign trail and suggested the commission could broaden the debate.

“It is is our nature to want to hear simple solutions to complex problems,” Panetta said. “But the reality is that this threat, which I think is a clear and present danger, requires a much more thoughtful and comprehensive approach.”

Blair argued that Republicans’ plans to counter to ISIS with vast bombing campaigns are unwise.

“Anything that ends up alienating a large part of the Muslim world is counterproductive. So let’s be clear: We need allies in this fight, and they are our allies. They’re also the biggest victims of this terrorism.”

“The religion of Islam in its nature is peaceful and honorable and has made great contributions to the world,” he added.

For Panetta, the venture represents a kind of unfinished business in Washington. Since 2013, the former congressman has been retired in California, running his Panetta Institute for Public Policy and tending his walnut farm. Few expected him to return to D.C. for commission work.

“Whether it was a Republican or Democratic administration, I think a lot of the response to the terrorism threat has been based on the crisis of the moment,” said Panetta, who has criticized President Obama’s leadership on foreign policy. “What we have not done is taken in the bigger picture of violent extremism and tried to understand the root causes.”

Asked what would constitute success for his effort, Panetta called it a “damn good question.”

“A lot of these commission reports have stayed on the shelves for a long time,” he said, pointing to the failure of the 2010 Simpson-Bowles deficit commission to produce reforms. “But history tells us that if we care enough about a problem we’re confronting, that ultimately we can find a way to deal with it. For that reason, I think this effort is worth it.”

The commission’s executive director is Shannon Green, a former Obama administration official who worked on the National Security Council and in the U.S. Agency for International Development. Green is director and senior fellow with the CSIS Human Rights Initiative.

Members will include academics, former government officials and several technology leaders, including Microsoft President Brad Smith and Google general counsel Kent Walker. The presence of tech executives speaks to the need to counter ISIS and other groups online, where they maintain vast recruitment and radicalization networks, organizers said.

Blair, who served as prime minister during the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and was criticized for involving British troops in the invasion of Iraq, works on issues of radicalization at his Tony Blair Faith Foundation.

Officials at CSIS called him a natural fit to lead a commission on violent extremism.

He argued against using the term “clash of civilizations,” a favorite of GOP presidential candidate Marco Rubio, to describe conflicts between the West and extreme versions of Islam.

“I don’t think it’s accurate,” he said. “The majority people in Islam want to counter this. … It’s a tragedy that their religion is hijacked by the extremists but that’s a reality that we have to face and have to deal with.”

 

Is There a Future for Gitmo?

Posted on by

For the Obama administration when it comes to terrorists or enemy combatants, the title of the playbook is ‘Let Some Other Country Handle It’.

Guantánamo parole board OKs release of Osama bin Laden bodyguard

Majid Ahmed at Guantánamo in a photo from his 2008 prison profile provided to McClatchy Newspapers by WikiLeaks.

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVY BASE, Cuba

MiamiHerald: The national security parole board, in just a month, has approved a former Osama bin Laden bodyguard for release to another country as the Pentagon-run panel works on accelerating reviews.

The board has six more hearings scheduled into May — two of them so-called “forever prisoners” like the man whose approval to go was disclosed Friday and four of them who were at one time considered candidates for war-crimes trial.

In the latest decision, the board recommended release of Yemeni Majid Ahmed, 35, to an Arabic-speaking country with security precautions. An intelligence assessment concluded that he was recruited to join the Taliban at age 18 or 19 and became a bin Laden bodyguard at 21, a month before the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

The decision to approve the release of Ahmed means that, of Guantánamo’s 91 captives, 35 are approved for transfer, 10 are in war crimes proceeding and the rest are either forever prisoners or candidates for war crimes trial.

The board said Ahmed “has been relatively compliant during his time at Guantánamo, although he has been largely uncooperative with interrogators.” The intelligence profile said he “still harbors anti-U.S. sentiments and holds conservative Islamic views that may make transfer and reintegration to many countries difficult.”

The board’s three-paragraph statement disclosing Ahmed’s approval for transfer, dated Feb. 18, recommended release to resettlement in an Arabic-speaking country, “with appropriate security assurances.” It was available on the Pentagon’s parole board website Saturday, a month after his Jan. 19 hearing. Full story here.

*** What will a new U.S. president do on the war on terror and will there be an approval for capturing future terrorists?

What to do if U.S. begins capturing more suspected terrorists?

MilitaryTimes: WASHINGTON — President  Obama has refused to send any suspected terrorists captured overseas to the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. But if the U.S. starts seizing more militants in expanded military operations, where will they go, who will hold them and where will they be tried?

Those are questions that worry legal experts, lawmakers and others as U.S. special operations forces deploy in larger numbers to Iraq, Syria and, maybe soon, Libya, with the Islamic State group and affiliated organizations in their sights.

Throughout Obama’s presidency, suspects have been killed in drone strikes or raids, or captured and interrogated, sometimes aboard Navy ships. After that, they are either prosecuted in U.S. courts and military commissions or handed over to other nations.

This policy has been enough, experts say — at least for now.

“If you’re going to be doing counterterrorism operations that bring in detainees, you have to think through what you are going to do with them,” said Phillip Carter, former deputy assistant defense secretary for detainee policy. “If the U.S. is going to conduct large-scale combat operations or large-scale special ops and bring in more detainees, it needs a different solution.”

Rebecca Ingber, an associate law professor at Boston University who follows the issue, warns that if the U.S. engaged in a full ground war in Syria, “chances are there would need to be detention facilities of some kind in the vicinity.”

Obama has not sent a single suspected terrorist to the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where many have been detained for years without being charged or tried — something the president says is a “recruitment tool” for militant extremists.

He is to report to Congress this month on how he wants to close Guantanamo and possibly transfer some of the remaining detainees to the United States. That report also is supposed to address the question of future detainees.

Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., believes that the absence of a long-term detention and interrogation facility for foreign terrorist suspects represents a “major shortcoming in U.S. national security policy.”

Republican candidates who want to succeed Obama are telling voters that they would keep Guantanamo open.

“Law enforcement is about gathering evidence to take someone to trial, and convict them,” said Florida Sen. Marco Rubio. “Anti-terrorism is about finding out information to prevent a future attack so the same tactics do not apply. … But, here’s the bigger problem with all this: We’re not interrogating anybody right now.”

That’s not true, said Frazier Thompson, director of the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group. The tight-lipped team of interrogators from the FBI, Defense Department, the CIA and other intelligence agencies gleans intelligence from top suspected terrorists in the U.S. and overseas.

“We were created to interrogate high-value terrorists and we are interrogating high-value terrorists,” Thompson said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Since it was established in 2009, that team has been deployed 34 times, Thompson said, adding that other government agencies conduct independent interrogations as well. “We are designed to deploy on the highest-value terrorist. We are not going out to interrogate everybody,” he said.

Thompson would not disclose details of the cases his team has worked or speculate on whether he expects more interrogation requests as the battle against IS heats up.

“If there is a surge, I’m ready to go. If there’s not, I’m still ready to go,” Thompson said.

The U.S. has deployed about 200 new special operations forces to Iraq, and they are preparing to work with the Iraqis to begin going after IS fighters and commanders, “killing or capturing them wherever we find them, along with other key targets,” Defense Secretary Ash Carter said.

Brett McGurk, special presidential envoy for the global coalition to counter IS, told Congress this month that in the final six months of 2015, 90 senior to midlevel leaders were killed, including the IS leader’s key deputies: Haji Mutazz, the top leader in Iraq, and Abu Sayyaf, the IS oil minister and financier.

Sayyaf was killed in a raid to rescue American hostage Kayla Mueller; his wife, known as Umm Sayyaf, was captured.

Her case illustrates how the Obama administration is prosecuting some terrorist suspects in federal courts or military commissions or leaving them in the custody of other nations.

Umm Sayyaf, a 25-year-old Iraqi, is being held in Iraq and facing prosecution by authorities there. She also was charged Feb. 9 in U.S. federal court with holding Mueller and contributing to her death in February 2015.

Ali Soufan, a former FBI agent who investigated and supervised international terrorism cases, including the U.S. Embassy bombings in East Africa and the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen the 1990s, said sending suspected terrorists through the American criminal justice system works. He said the courts are more effective than military commissions used at Guantanamo that have been slow in trying detainees who violate the laws of war.

“The current practice of investigating and prosecuting terror suspects has proved incredibly effective,” Soufan said, noting that since the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001, only seven people have been tried and convicted under military commissions. “During that same time period, hundreds of terrorists have been convicted in federal courts and almost all are still in jail.”

But it’s hard to evaluate the effectiveness of the system.

The Justice Department declined to provide the number of foreign terrorist suspects who have been prosecuted or the number handed over to other countries, or their status. Lawmakers, including Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., have asked the Defense Department for the numbers.

Reports on how other countries handle the suspects are classified.

Raha Wala, senior counsel at Human Rights First, also is concerned about detention operations abroad.

“The government needs to be more transparent to the American people — and to the world — about who it is transferring overseas, and what procedures are in place to make sure we are not transferring individuals into situations where human rights will be abused,” he said.