Amidst the elections frenzy, a little known provision offered by the Bush administration laid the groundwork for putting the United States in a state of permanent war.

The provision, part of a legal proposal for Guantanamo Bay detainees, seeks to reaffirm that the United States is still at war with al-Qaida, the Taliban and associated networks and retains the power to detain, as enemy combatants, those who have supported these organizations, according to the New York Times.

“Such a reaffirmation of war carries broad legal implications that could imperil Americans’ civil liberties and the rights of foreign nationals for decades to come,” reported John Byrne, writer for the news site The Raw Story.

Byrne points to the administration’s claims of “war powers” that have occurred in recent years, including the indefinite detention and torture of U.S. citizen José Padilla without habeas corpus rights, detention of suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and the National Secruity Agency’s warrantless wiretapping program.

“This seems like a final push by the administration before they go out the door,” said former lawyer for the CIA, Suzanne Spaulding to the New York Times, noting that this puts pressure on the next administration to uphold the Bush administration.

Some Republicans support the measure, reminding others that “we have been at war” since Sept. 11 with unconventional enemies. Others say the Bush administration is trying to stir up political fear and justify its actions.

“I do not believe that we are in a state of war whatsoever,” said former Reagan Justice Department official Bruce Fein in the New York Times. “We have an odious opponent that the criminal justice system is able to identify and indict and convict. They’re not a goliath. Don’t treat them that way.”

Fein’s argument seems to be supported by a recent government study that concluded the administration’s current “war on terror” strategies are counterproductive.

In a report titled “How Terrorist Groups End,” the Pentagon-sponsored RAND Corporation concluded that “there is no battlefield solution to terrorism.”

The study analyzed 600 terrorist movements since 1968, and concluded that the United States should rely on “policing and intelligence gathering rather than a ‘war on terrorism’ approach that relies heavily on military force.”

The authors concluded that “[t]errorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors” and points to allies such as the United Kingdom, France and Australia — all of which have shunned the phrase “war on terror.”

In a related development, MI5, the UK’s domestic intelligence service, released a report that concluded “profiling” terrorists would not work. The report comes out during the proposal for new FBI powers; powers that would allow the FBI to conduct investigations with less legal restrictions, former FBI agent Michael German said to McClatchy news service.

The MI5 study states that “assumptions cannot be made about suspects based on skin color, ethnic heritage or nationality,” The Guardian reported.

“Far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly,” according to The Guardian. “Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices ... MI5 says there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalization.”

Reach reporter Aditya Ganapathiraju at news@dailyuw.com.