EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Indefinite Detention Possible for Suspects at Guantanamo Bay
The Obama administration is preparing an executive order that would formalize indefinite detention without trial for some detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but allow those detainees and their lawyers to challenge the basis for continued incarceration, U.S. officials said.
The administration has long signaled that the use of what the administration calls prolonged detention, preferably at a facility in the United States, was one element of its plan to close Guantanamo. An interagency task force found that 48 of the 174 detainees remaining at the facility would have to be held in such conditions.
"We have a plan to close Guantanamo, and this detainee review process is one element," said an administration official who discussed the order on the condition of anonymity because it has yet to reach the president.
However, almost every part of the administration's plan to close Guantanamo is on hold, and it could be crippled this week if Congress bans the transfer of detainees to the United States for trial and sets up steep hurdles to the repatriation or resettlement in third countries of others.
Officials worked intensively on the executive order over the past several weeks, but a senior White House official said that it had been in the works for more than a year. If Congress blocks the administration's ability to put detainees on trial or transfer them out of Guantanamo, the official said, the executive order could still be implemented.
"I would argue that you still have to go ahead because you can't simply have people confined to a life sentence without any review and then fight another day with Congress," the administration official said. "One of the things we're mindful of is [that] you can't have a review conducted by the same people, in the same process, who made the original decision to detain. You have to have something that is different and is more adversarial, which the Bush administration never had."
Under the system established by the previous administration, Guantanamo detainees could go before military review panels with "personal representatives," also military officers, who explained the process but could not act as lawyers. The system envisioned under the executive order would be more adversarial and would allow detainees to challenge their incarceration periodically, possibly every year.
"There isn't a single serious commentator on the subject who hasn't thought something like this wasn't necessary as part of a rule-of-law approach," said the senior White House official, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Provisions in the defense authorization bill, which has passed the House and is before the Senate, would effectively ban the transfer of any detainee to the United States for any purpose. That rules out civilian trials for all Guantanamo detainees, including Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. His potential prosecution had remained possible even though the administration had balked in the face of political opposition to a trial in New York.
The defense bill would effectively force the administration to conduct only military commissions, and, they would be at Guantanamo Bay, which would also have to remain open to house those held indefinitely. The bill would also create new requirements before the administration could repatriate or resettle detainees cleared for release by the interagency task force.
"If it passes, it is the final, decisive blow to the president's plan," said Tom Malinowski, head of the Washington office of Human Rights Watch.
In a speech at the National Archives in May 2009, President Obama said his administration would use criminal trials, reformed military commissions, transfers to other countries, releases and continued detention in pursuit of its commitment to close Guantanamo.
An administration task force ultimately determined that at least 48 detainees were too dangerous to release but could not be put on trial. Officials have said the evidence against these detainees has been tainted by torture or cannot be used in court because it is classified or would not meet legal standards.
"When the review panel puts someone in the category of long-term detention, the 48 people, what happens then?" the administration official said. "Are they there for the rest of their lives? What's the review mechanism? How impartial is it? Do they have a chance to contest it? All of that stuff has to be answered. And we have been working on an executive order laying out these elements."
Those designated for prosecution but who are not charged could also have their cases reviewed under the proposed system in the executive order, the White House official said.
Detainees at Guantanamo would continue to have access to the federal courts to challenge their incarceration under the legal doctrine of habeas corpus. Officials said the plan would give detainees who have lost their habeas petition the prospect of one day ending their time in U.S. custody. And officials said the International Committee of the Red Cross has been urging the administration to create a review process.
Some civil liberties groups oppose any form of indefinite detention, even with a built-in mechanism to challenge incarceration.
"Indefinite detention without charge or trial is wrong, whether it comes from Congress or the president's pen," said Laura W. Murphy, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington legislative office. "Our Constitution requires that we charge and prosecute people who are accused of crimes. You cannot sell an indefinite detention scheme by attaching a few due-process baubles and expect that to restore the rule of law." That is bad for America and is not the form of justice we want other nations to emulate."
The executive order, however, could be an effort to preempt legislation supported by some Republicans, which would create a system of indefinite detention not only for some Guantanamo detainees but also for future terrorism suspects seized overseas.
Malinowski said there is a "big difference" between using an executive order, which can be rescinded, to handle a select group of detainees that Obama inherited, and legislating a general indefinite detention scheme.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

70 Comments so far
Show AllObomber will go down the history as the Hitler of our time.
and our children will have to wonder what their parents were thinking.
Nah. Our children and everyone after will be so indoctrinated and used to the new fascism which makes up the US now, that they won't think anything of it. It will - hell, already is - the new "normal." The only people who are shocked by the spiralling fascism of the US are those of us progressives who remember when it wasn't so, and we are a pretty small voice in the wilderness of the growing police state.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross."
Yes, how many young Americans blame their parents for voting for Nixon or Reagan ?
Why will today's children be any different ?
Team Obama and Team Dubya refined the blame the victims strategy and refined the boiling frog strategy to the point that not only are we being slowly cooked into submission, we are accepting blame for cooking ourselves.
Fascism has come to America wrapped in the flag of false patriotism, much like the Nazi flags of Nazi Germany. The average and majority of the American sheeple are soooo dumbed down; so brainwashed by church insanity; and so apathetic, and since they are the overwhelming majority in America, we now have the Government they deserve! But I do not like being on the Titanic with them!
The kleptocapitalist Republicans and Teabuggerers will be known as his complicit captains of industry and SA. Many of your children will join the SA and right-wing youth camps.
It is a Dimo congress that has prevented the detainees from having their day in a USA court.
Even though the Citizens of Florence Colorado, with their supermax are only to happy to incarcerate the guilty.
The whole idea of using torture tainted evidence agaisnt anybody is travesty remniscent of Charles I"s Starchamber in England which the people there put an end to when they got rid of Charles I. We need to do the same. This is just another Starchamber with the attendant torture.
In the Nuremberg War Crimes trials alll defendants got due process. Now we get this silliness. What the hell kind of country are we becoming?
AD
Of course, the extremist Puritan theocrats that replaced Charles I were at least as bad, most notably, comitting widespread ethnic/religious cleansing apporaching genocide in Ireland.
Indeed, much of the most pernicious and vile aspects of the USAn character - the genocidal arrogance of US exceptionalism, the self-righteous hyper-individualism, the sense of zion-esque god-chosenness, are drectly descended from the ideo-theology of the Puritians.
It wasn't Charlie's Star Chamber, it was HenryEight's. It was during his reign that it was used as the political kangaroo court that made its name odious.
On the bright side there's a chance that some of the torturers might be openly gay.
i know right!
Now gays can torture, maim and murder too, without being humiliated because of their sexuality! What a fantastic victory!
Truly we will define history as beginning from this date. The day gays could serve openly. Pretty much the only complaint you've ever heard about, right? What could possibly be left to accomplish?
I think Obama should propose building a detention center in Crawford, Texas. Think of all the jobs it would bring to a place that is so backward that Bush lives there.
In 2004 Team Dubya paid Haliburton a fortune to build "detention centers" across the southwestern states bordering Mexico, so there is no shortage of these facilities.
Glenn, sheepherder & raydel -
There are only 48 Gitmo detainees left in need of continued housing, according to the Obama administration's calculation. Without even addressing how those 48 were determined to be "too dangerous to release" even though they cannot be convicted of any crime apparently, I think we should (to steal the rhetoric of Barack) look forward rather than backward.
I disagree that these designated worst-of-the-worst 48 detainees should be sent to Florence, Colorado, Crawford, Texas, or a refurbished unit of the Halliburton gulag in the southwestern United States. The fittest and most proper place to house these guys while the legal system runs its course is Leavenworth, Kansas - where one of the largest, most hi tech secure, and infamous of the Bureau of Prisons' facilities has housed those decreed the most dangerous of the dangerous criminals convicted in federal courts and court martials for years.
The reason I suggest Leavenworth is not only that it blunts the whole "what if they escape and get over the wall" fear scenario. If miraculously any of them did get over the wall, they will have a hell of a time blending in or spiriting themselves away from good old Kansas. More basically, these 48 should be housed squarely in Senator Pat Roberts neighborhood. These chickens deserve to come home to roost.
Senator Pat Roberts was the GOP head of the Senate Intelligence Committee under Bush and Cheney at the time Gitmo was turned into the centerpiece of the war on terror. Senator Pat Roberts received classified briefings from the CIA about the use of waterboarding, sleep deprivation, stress positions, and other enhanced interrogation/torture techniques starting on February 4, 2003 according to declassified Central Intelligence Agency records. In this oversight capacity on behalf of his Congressional colleagues, Senator Pat Roberts deserves to be held accountable for enabling torture and indefinite detention without trial to be embraced as the official policy of the United States.
Senator Pat Roberts created this problem. Therefore Senator Pat Roberts should answer to his own constituents - the good people of red state Kansas - when the torture victims he helped create in cahoots with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Yoo, and Gonzales get housed on American soil. If they are to remain housed, they should be housed right in Mr. Roberts' neighborhood.
President Obama, as Commander-in-Chief, could achieve this with the stroke of a pen tomorrow. Let Pat Roberts, Jon Kyl, Lindsey Graham, and the rest of the GOP troglodtes bellow and yeowl to the heavens. The louder they scream about Gitmo detainees posing a threat to innocent American lives, the faster should be the response that you created this problem, and it's only fair you shoulder responsibility for the consequences of your torture/detention policies. Enough with the not-in-my-backyard demagoguery. Pat Roberts' backyard is precisely where those who aren't released from Guantanamo very righteously should be held.
The idea that closing Guantanamo has become a bargaining chip that Barack Obama has to offer Congressional Republicans something in return for is absolutely pathetic, particularly when what he's about to sign off on undermines the rule of law yet further.
Bill from Saginaw
Both Nancy Pelosi, and Diane Feinstein were also briefed about EIT.
Obama proposed codifying indefinite detention months ago, in his appeal to Congress, to come up with a system "not outside the law".
I was amazed how little attention that got from "progressives".
The logic is so skewed, that the acceptance of such by so many is terrifying, and testimony to the fact that the rule of law is completely dead in this country, relative to the Constitutional framework.
We are now in a nation of law by decree.
When I was writing on this subject back around Patriot Act time, many people wrote me to say, "If you don't break the law, you have nothing to fear."
I pointed out at the time, what if the law changes and what you are doing legally is suddenly against the law and the fact that you have been doing it makes you a criminal?
Every day, something we have been doing is now building a dossier because it is now illegal. Using your first amendment rights now makes you a homegrown terrorist. The latest thing is to identify "resentment toward government," which puts you on a terrorist watch list. Hundreds of thousands of law abiding citizens are now on "no fly" lists and border watch lists. Any cop or border guard may take your computer and other electronic media, your notebooks, anything in your pockets, your cell phones at whim. You are ordered to give them any passwords or access codes and if you refuse, you will get nothing back. You have no right of privacy in any form. Security goons at airports may shove a finger or two up your vagina or your rectum if they don't feel you are being sufficiently servile.
We are now living in an overt fascist state. Obey the gestapo and the SS, or suffer and die. When I was a kid, we put a whole generation into the meat grinder to rid the world of a similar cancer. It must have metastasized, for now the world's tumor is the US. The CIA invented the "underwear bomber" so now we have to submit to full body x-rays and strip searches at whim. When everybody is used to this and accepts it as a matter of course, they will catch the "vagina bomber" or the "rectal bomber" and soon the people will accept probes, having to drop 'em and bend over or spread it at the whim of the various "security forces."
We used to be CITIZENS of a Constitutional Republic.
Now we are SUBJECTS of a bloodthirsty, greedy, fascist empire.
Soon we will be SERFS of a greedy Oligarchy, begging for food, fighting one another for any job, for whatever pittance is offered.
"Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it." Santayana
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Pogo
minitrue,
This is indeed frightening, if I believe in god, I would have pray as hard as I can, but I dun. Is the US Constitution worth anything?
This is why Democrats are even WORSE than the Repugs, at least when Repugs were in charge (actually they really are--it's ONE PARTY), there was less exceptance of this law breaking activity. With them Dems and Oily Bomber at the helm, the phony "progressives" give the Dems a pass for carrying out the very same crimes committed by GW Bush/Cheney.
At this juncture,I feel things over all are worse now.
Chelsey, you are becoming like me! You might wanna vote "Repugs" (your favorite). comes 2012 to denial "Oily Bomber" a second term.
I would only retain people found guilty in a traditional court of law,
I suggest Florence because it is the only place where the local town folk said no problema. I believe the Leavenworth locals said no way ( perhaps not). Giving Congress the excuse to block USA based detentions, as they ignored the rough and ready cowfolk of Florence.
Ummm, if the US Government actually wants to restore the 'rule of law' then all the detainees, _all_ of them, including KSM and the Khadr kid, need to be freed now. Those who ordered, participated and executed the unlawful orders of kidnap, torture, murder and unlawful confinment need to be put on trial.
As that is so not going to happen, the premise that this 'order' will work to 'restore' the rule of law is a bad joke.
Bush II, meet Bush III.
I miss Georgie.
Indeed. Obama is worse than Bush.
The tentacles of the govorporation grow longer & more numerous.
What shall we do? What can we do at the local level first?
How do we wean the fat Amerikkkans from the TV?
Perhaps by this point nothing can be done & only destruction of the U.S. & rebirth at a smaller scale will reduce the negative impact the U.S. strikes upon the planet.
America has irrevocably stained its reputation and its legacy. Can it get much worse? Apparently so.
Imagine the outcry in the USA if the article started off like this.....
The Kim Jong-il government is preparing an executive order that would formalize indefinite detention without trial for detainees at the military prison at Pyongyang, North Korea.
Exactly. And the late gonzo journalist Hunter Thompson summed it up perfectly:
“We have become a Nazi monster in the eyes of the world… a nation of bullies and bastards who would rather kill than live peacefully. We are not just Whores, but killer Whores with hate and fear in our hearts. We are human scum and that is how history will remember us.”
Our leaders and congress are actually, and it's because of corporate interests behind them - something all governments are suffering from.
And may his cannon-scattered remains rest in peace.
I share the sentiment, but somehow I think that the LAST thing Thompson himself would want to rest in is "peace".
Sometimes when I'm drifting off to sleep, I hear the faint but unmistakeable sounds of large-caliber bullets hitting gongs stationed along a mountainside slope.
But I can't tell if the sound is coming from above or below.
I confess to be one of the unhappy citizens who, like many, believe we have passed the tipping point on many levels: Climate, sustainability, justice, to name a few. The vast majority are mindless robots who do not question, and will never resist no matter what command is given them. If given the order, there are millions of mindless robots who would kill/imprision you, or me, or their mother. They would strip you naked, keep you in a damp, cold, concrete cell, and force you to listen to Obama's campaign speeches till your mind succumbs to insanity.
Because everyone knows that Bushs Speeches and executive orders to put the Patriot Acts into law were far more entertaining.
Its Amazing how everyone has forgotten the Bush /Cheney war mongering regime and constitutional violations that put this country in a collision course to fascist control.
Sure , Obama has not changed anything, but he was elected cause he said he would change the stasi Fascist control,,,
Who do you want to elect ,, Sarah Palin,,,
If right produces a constitutional champion, or at least some one that can string more than 5 words in a sentence or REMEMBERS what news papers , magazines , and books they have read, I WILL VOTE FOR THAT PERSON.
bornfreemen: We may have been born free men, but if Americans keep thinking like you do, we may not be free much longer.
I'm convinced that Obama mugged some guy who believed in civil rights - stole his speeches, then used them for his campaign.
That person is probably in a military prison right now having his constitutional right to a trial taken away.
The Obama administration runs the risk that a courageous Federal judge will declare this monstrosity unconstitutional forcing the current AG to explain in court why this is a constitutional monstrosity.
The comparison with Hitler's incarcerations of political opponents in 1933 is only partially correct. My father was arrested (I still have the original of his arrest warrant) in April 1933 on the basis of a law that already existed when Hitler became Germany's chancellor. The incarceration was popularly known as "Schutzhaft" or "Protective Custody" that is to say to protect the German people from imaginary violence my father was thought of planning and to protect him from the deadly ire of the German people. "Schutzhaft" was indefinite. No accusation nor any trial was needed to keep my father in jail. He was not allowed to contest his arrest and incarceration. He survived twelve years of jail and concentration camps including Auschwitz.
The planned "ukase" of Obama is therefore pre-Hitlerian. The baffling aspect of this ukase is that the prisoners may contest their incarceration but are denied their day in court. Does that mean that they can only become free if Obama or any future president orders them to be released without trial? That will never happen, ergo the "right to contest" is a joke.
We're such an international embarrassment at this point there's not much need to say anymore.
Can't the supreme court stop this? Getting a trial is a constitutional right.
Now, that's funny.
I know, it's the RW anti-liberty supreme court.
Even better: let's throw the detainees into an arena filled with starving lions, wolves and the like. Tickets can be sold to view the spectacle live and it can be televised nationally and could generate millions in profits for the sponsors and media companies.
It's a win-win situation: we can take care of the "detainee problem" while making profits for the Corporate Media at the same time. Now that's good for business baby!
Obama, you're going to lose the election for the Democrats
*stares in astonishment at ezeflyer*
You still believe in 'elections'? In America?!
*blink blink*
So what?
The Democrats suck as bad as the Repugs.
At least with the Repugs, you know what you're getting.
Vote Green and/or Independent--not for the duopoly.
Well said, Chelsey!
This is the 400th aniversary of the Magna Carta which put an end to such dictatorial doings.
We are doomed. Between AIPAC and the US Chamber of Commerce this Judeo-Corporate government has turned upon it's subjects.
Missed it by thaaaat much.... It's the 795th anniversary of the Magna Carta of 1215.
To be joined by anti-war activists, Prt. Manning and Julien Assange. No democratic government allows one person this kind of power. It's a sign of how desperate the power elite have become that they are willing to drop the curtain of benignity and show their malice.
"That rules out civilian trials for all Guantanamo detainees, including Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."
Yeah, he "self-proclaimed" during waterboarding.
Over 9 years later, and we still know nothing of the financiers, or the network associated with this "mastermind"
But whatever you do, NEVER, and I mean NEVER, question the events of 9/11.
Ugly, wrong, and typical of the Bush/Bama reign of terror. I think that's all clear.
More subtle is the rolling, dispassionate tone of this article. It waits until the third-to-last paragraph to introduce the idea (from the ACLU) that Obama's actions (like Bush's before him) defy U.S. jurisprudence and break with longstanding U.S. and international laws.
What was the writer thinking? Clealy, this plan is just a further violation of habeas corpus, no matter how you slice and dice it. The details of Bama's triangulations don't matter, so the author should quit the pretence that they do matter.
-TIA