SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Obama Slides Further Down Bush's Hill on Indefinite Detention
Jul 08, 2009
The Obama Administration is looking more and more like the Bush Administration every day when it comes to the policy of holding prisoners indefinitely, without trial, or even after a trial and an acquittal.
Obama himself is already on record favoring indefinite detention of some prisoners.
"We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country," Obama said in May. He alluded to the problem of trying prisoners who were coerced into testifying against themselves. "Even when this process is complete," he said, "there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States."
Now the chief lawyer at the Pentagon has expanded the prospects of indefinite detention to include those who actually have already been prosecuted and have even been found not guilty.
Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson told the Senate on Tuesday that this was a "policy decision officials would make based on their estimate of whether the prisoner posed a future threat." Johnson said that the legality of this position "was never tested."
Well, not exactly. The Supreme Court ruled in the Boumediene case last June that the judiciary has the authority to order the release of an "individual unlawfully detained."
And holding a prisoner after he's been found not guilty is the very definition of "unlawfully detained."
Justice Anthony Kennedy was the author of the court's 5-4 decision, and he minced no words. Our security depends not only on the skill of our intelligence agencies and the might of our Armed Forces, he wrote. It also depends on "fidelity to freedom's first principles. Chief among these are freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to the separation of powers." He added: "Few exercises of judicial power are as legitimate or as necessary as the responsibility to hear challenges to the authority of the Executive to imprison a person."
The general counsel of the Pentagon ought to bone up on the Supreme Court's decision. As should Obama.
Johnson did acknowledge that his view happened to be the same as the Bush Administration's.
And that's a huge problem.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 The Progressive
Matt Rothschild
Matt Rothschild is the executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. Prior to joining the Democracy Campaign at the start of 2015, Matt worked at The Progressive Magazine for 32 years. For most of those, he was the editor and publisher of The Progressive.
The Obama Administration is looking more and more like the Bush Administration every day when it comes to the policy of holding prisoners indefinitely, without trial, or even after a trial and an acquittal.
Obama himself is already on record favoring indefinite detention of some prisoners.
"We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country," Obama said in May. He alluded to the problem of trying prisoners who were coerced into testifying against themselves. "Even when this process is complete," he said, "there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States."
Now the chief lawyer at the Pentagon has expanded the prospects of indefinite detention to include those who actually have already been prosecuted and have even been found not guilty.
Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson told the Senate on Tuesday that this was a "policy decision officials would make based on their estimate of whether the prisoner posed a future threat." Johnson said that the legality of this position "was never tested."
Well, not exactly. The Supreme Court ruled in the Boumediene case last June that the judiciary has the authority to order the release of an "individual unlawfully detained."
And holding a prisoner after he's been found not guilty is the very definition of "unlawfully detained."
Justice Anthony Kennedy was the author of the court's 5-4 decision, and he minced no words. Our security depends not only on the skill of our intelligence agencies and the might of our Armed Forces, he wrote. It also depends on "fidelity to freedom's first principles. Chief among these are freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to the separation of powers." He added: "Few exercises of judicial power are as legitimate or as necessary as the responsibility to hear challenges to the authority of the Executive to imprison a person."
The general counsel of the Pentagon ought to bone up on the Supreme Court's decision. As should Obama.
Johnson did acknowledge that his view happened to be the same as the Bush Administration's.
And that's a huge problem.
Matt Rothschild
Matt Rothschild is the executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. Prior to joining the Democracy Campaign at the start of 2015, Matt worked at The Progressive Magazine for 32 years. For most of those, he was the editor and publisher of The Progressive.
The Obama Administration is looking more and more like the Bush Administration every day when it comes to the policy of holding prisoners indefinitely, without trial, or even after a trial and an acquittal.
Obama himself is already on record favoring indefinite detention of some prisoners.
"We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country," Obama said in May. He alluded to the problem of trying prisoners who were coerced into testifying against themselves. "Even when this process is complete," he said, "there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States."
Now the chief lawyer at the Pentagon has expanded the prospects of indefinite detention to include those who actually have already been prosecuted and have even been found not guilty.
Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson told the Senate on Tuesday that this was a "policy decision officials would make based on their estimate of whether the prisoner posed a future threat." Johnson said that the legality of this position "was never tested."
Well, not exactly. The Supreme Court ruled in the Boumediene case last June that the judiciary has the authority to order the release of an "individual unlawfully detained."
And holding a prisoner after he's been found not guilty is the very definition of "unlawfully detained."
Justice Anthony Kennedy was the author of the court's 5-4 decision, and he minced no words. Our security depends not only on the skill of our intelligence agencies and the might of our Armed Forces, he wrote. It also depends on "fidelity to freedom's first principles. Chief among these are freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to the separation of powers." He added: "Few exercises of judicial power are as legitimate or as necessary as the responsibility to hear challenges to the authority of the Executive to imprison a person."
The general counsel of the Pentagon ought to bone up on the Supreme Court's decision. As should Obama.
Johnson did acknowledge that his view happened to be the same as the Bush Administration's.
And that's a huge problem.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.