Obama Considers Detaining Terror Suspects Indefinitely

[GaryC 7]

Obama Considers Detaining Terror Suspects Indefinitely

By EVAN PEREZ

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is weighing plans to detain some terror suspects on U.S. soil -- indefinitely and without trial -- as part of a plan to retool military commission trials that were conducted for prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The proposal being floated with members of Congress is another indication of President Barack Obama's struggles to establish his counter-terrorism policies, balancing security concerns against attempts to alter Bush-administration practices he has harshly criticized.

On Wednesday, the president reversed a recent administration decision to release photos showing purported abuse of prisoners at U.S. military facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Obama cited concern that releasing the pictures could endanger U.S. troops. Mr. Obama ordered government lawyers to pull back an earlier court filing promising to release hundreds of photos by month's end as part a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The decision to block the detainee photos contrasts with the administration's release last month of Bush-era Justice Department memorandums outlining the interrogation tactics used on prisoners by the Central Intelligence Agency. The release of the memos set off a heated political fight, with supporters of the Bush administration accusing the Obama White House of endangering the country and some of the current president's supporters calling for criminal probes of those responsible for the interrogation policies.

The administration's internal deliberations on how to deal with Guantanamo detainees are continuing, as the White House wrestles with how to fulfill the president's promise to shutter the controversial prison. But some elements of the plans are emerging as the administration consults with key members of Congress, as well as with military officials, about what to do with Guantanamo detainees.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), who met this week with White House Counsel Greg Craig to discuss the administration's plans, said among the proposals being studied is seeking authority for indefinite detentions, with the imprimatur of some type of national-security court.

Sen. Graham said he wants to work with the administration to pass legislation to increase judicial oversight of military commissions, but noted the legal difficulties that would arise.

"This is a difficult question. How do you hold someone in prison without a trial indefinitely?" Sen. Graham said.

The White House had no comment Wednesday about its detainee deliberations.

The idea of a new national security court has been discussed widely in legal circles, including by Bush administration Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Neal Katyal, a former Georgetown law professor and now Obama Justice Department official.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, at a hearing last month, hinted at the administration's deliberations, saying that there were "50 to 100 [detainees] probably in that ballpark who we cannot release and cannot trust, either in Article 3 [civilian] courts or military commissions."

The administration's move to block the release of military detainee photos was welcomed by Republicans in Congress and by some military family groups but condemned by the ACLU and others.

Mr. Gates, Gen. David Petraeus and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had all raised concerns with the White House about releasing the detainee photos. Mr. Gates and the commanders worried that the pictures would spur new anti-American violence in Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124223286506515765.html

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Tony Blair eat your heart out.

[Peikko 1,575]

Exactly. While it should be noted, that a little more forethought may have prevented the situation, dealing with it is murky at best, and glib promises suddenly turn putrid.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The Obama WH has already cited National Security in relation to the disposition of several detainees (much to the disappointment of human rights groups).

Its certainly following a pattern.

One substantive thing the Obama administration could do (if they were serious about this human rights stuff) would be to sign up to the International Criminal Court. They won't of course.

[AlHayatZween 2]

if we can't prove them of any wrongdoing, can't we just send them to their own countries... ?

[Peikko 1,575]

The Obama WH has already cited National Security in relation to the disposition of several detainees (much to the disappointment of human rights groups).

Its certainly following a pattern.

One substantive thing the Obama administration could do (if they were serious about this human rights stuff) would be to sign up to the International Criminal Court. They won't of course.

I agree - I expect that would put pay to any idea of a second term in office. Oh the joys of politics.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

if we can't prove them of any wrongdoing, can't we just send them to their own countries... ?

Well we can (and have) but there are some who have been released without charge (the Uighurs) who won't be sent back to China because they'll be imprisoned or executed as dissidents.

[mawilson 2,133]

The Obama WH has already cited National Security in relation to the disposition of several detainees (much to the disappointment of human rights groups).

Its certainly following a pattern.

I suspect that Obama knows things that we don't. These guys must be serious hard-core terrorists if he

wants to hold them in custody indefinitely.

[GaryC 7]

On a related note, it seems Obama will continue with military tribunals. Could it be that Bush was right in the first place and now that Obama has the full facts he realizes that?

U.S. May Revive Guantánamo Military Courts

By WILLIAM GLABERSON

Published: May 1, 2009

The Obama administration is moving toward reviving the military commission system for prosecuting Guantánamo detainees, which was a target of critics during the Bush administration, including Mr. Obama himself.

It is not clear how many detainees are likely to be prosecuted, but officials said Friday that some would be in federal courts.

Officials said the first public moves could come as soon as next week, perhaps in filings to military judges at the United States naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, outlining an administration plan to amend the Bush administration’s system to provide more legal protections for terrorism suspects.

Continuing the military commissions in any form would probably prompt sharp criticism from human rights groups as well as some of Mr. Obama’s political allies because the troubled system became an emblem of the effort to use Guantánamo to avoid the American legal system.

Officials who work on the Guantánamo issue say administration lawyers have become concerned that they would face significant obstacles to trying some terrorism suspects in federal courts. Judges might make it difficult to prosecute detainees who were subjected to brutal treatment or for prosecutors to use hearsay evidence gathered by intelligence agencies.

Obama administration officials — and Mr. Obama himself — have said in the past that they were not ruling out prosecutions in the military commission system. But senior officials have emphasized that they prefer to prosecute terrorism suspects in existing American courts. When President Obama suspended Guantánamo cases after his inauguration on Jan. 20, many participants said the military commission system appeared dead.

But in recent days a variety of officials involved in the deliberations say that after administration lawyers examined many of the cases, the mood shifted toward using military commissions to prosecute some detainees, perhaps including those charged with coordinating the Sept. 11 attacks.

“The more they look at it,” said one official, “the more commissions don’t look as bad as they did on Jan. 20.”

Several officials insisted on anonymity because the administration has directed that no one publicly discuss the deliberations.

Administration officials said Friday that some detainees would be prosecuted in federal courts and noted that Mr. Obama had always left open the possibility of using military commissions.

Still, during the presidential campaign Mr. Obama criticized the commissions, saying that “by any measure our system of trying detainees has been an enormous failure,” and declaring that as president he would “reject the Military Commissions Act.”

The military commissions, which were established specifically for trying Guantánamo detainees, have been subject to repeated delays and court challenges that argued that detainees were being denied basic rights of American law. Only two trials have been completed in the nearly eight years since the Bush administration announced that it would use military tribunals.

Any plan to adjust the military commissions would walk a tightrope of granting the suspects more rights yet stopping short of affording them the rights available to defendants in American courts. Several lawyers say the commissions are only beneficial for the government if they make it easier to win a prosecution than it would be in federal court.

The Bush administration’s commission system was criticized in part because it permitted evidence that would often be barred in federal court, like evidence obtained through coercive interrogations and hearsay.

The administration is likely to make it more difficult for prosecutors to admit hearsay, while not excluding it entirely, the lawyers said. The hearsay issue is central to many Guantánamo cases because they are based on intelligence reports and detainees may never be permitted to cross-examine the sources of those reports.

Human rights groups said Friday that using any form of military commission would be seen as permitting shortcuts that would not be available in existing American courts.

Anthony D. Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said that Mr. Obama had pledged to return the country to the rule of law and that “continuing with the military commission system would be a retreat from that promise.”

Gabor Rona, the international legal director of Human Rights First, said military commissions would only be necessary if the administration wanted to assure convictions that might not otherwise be certain.

“The administration is making a huge mistake,” Mr. Rona said, “if they believe getting convictions through suspect methods is more valuable than letting justice take its course.”

It is not clear how many of the remaining 241 detainees are likely to be prosecuted. The four-month suspension of military commission proceedings Mr. Obama ordered is to end May 20. As a result, administration officials are considering whether to ask military judges at Guantánamo for an additional delay. In making such a request, administration lawyers might outline their proposed changes.

In recent days, senior administration officials have hinted publicly that commissions were far from dead, yet offered no specifics and their comments drew little attention. In Congressional testimony on Thursday, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said, “The commissions are still very much on the table.”

In a news conference this week, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. emphasized that if the administration did use military commissions, the rules must give detainees “a maximum amount of due process.”

But, speaking of detainees whom American officials have accused of involvement in major terrorist plots, Mr. Holder added, “It may be difficult for some of those high-value detainees to be tried in a normal federal court.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/polit...ref=todayspaper

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It doesn't mean bush was right, only that the circumstances obama is presented with limit the available options.

[GaryC 7]

It doesn't mean bush was right, only that the circumstances obama is presented with limit the available options.

So if Bush did the wrong thing doesn't that mean that Obama is thinking about doing the wrong thing also?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It means obama wouldn't be the first politician to abandon his idealism in the face of political pressures.

There is more than likely a pragmatic element to this. Perhaps this is the only practical thing to do, but that isn't a satisfactory answer.

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

so where's the outrage about obama doing this?

[GaryC 7]

so where's the outrage about obama doing this?

6 seems rather miffed. But the Obamabots will just turn the other way and say, " Gee, isn't Obama great?".

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The WSJ, thanks to Murdoch, has now become part of his Right Wing propaganda machine.

Search for yourself and see if you can find anyone else with an original story on this...