.Obama Considers Detaining Terror Suspects Indefinitely
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.
WSJ
It's like someone showed Obama the area 51 file...Or maybe he's figured out that all the boogiemen were not just Bush fantasies.
"There really is someone out there."
Who would have guessed.
Personally, I'm still for the release of the photos and the all the files. I would rather walk with eyes open. But that's just me, and I'm not the President.
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.
WSJ
It's like someone showed Obama the area 51 file...Or maybe he's figured out that all the boogiemen were not just Bush fantasies.
"There really is someone out there."
Who would have guessed.
Personally, I'm still for the release of the photos and the all the files. I would rather walk with eyes open. But that's just me, and I'm not the President.
posted by madtom at 10:04 PM
11 Comments:
You weren't the president when bush was in office, either. but that didn't stop you from bitching endlessly, did it?
What O realized was that he would pay a political price and distract from the distractions designed to push through nationalized medicine in less than 10 weeks of legislative session. Every soldier death, every terrorist action will be looked at through the prism of a senseless release. Did you miss that? another major part of the economy is about to become mandated and controlled by the executive branch? And, according to what I read, O can't claim concerns of national security when he declined to assert that claim in the original hearing. You don't get to make a new argument on appeal, you can only assert your argument was not fairly heard or correctly decided. All O can do is sign an executive order suspending FOIA in a time of war. Either way, he has stepped in it again, but that train keeps on a rollin'.
And I'll bitch some more as soon as I hear his arguments.
And about the executive taking over. I don't think so, I don't think the public will go for it. The poll numbers are out, and people are OK with the government stepping in to work a crisis, but nationalization is out of bounds. And I think Obama has got the message. Not to mention that almost all the economic big heads are coming out against the stimulus. Even on Charlie Rose and NBR, they are not exactly Rush Limbaugh, yet they have comeout with dire warnings. The promised good effects of the Stimulus are not showing any progress, yet the unwanted ill effects are starting to materialize...the word is out.
Oh, I think they know his numbers will go down by the end of the year. They may drop off a cliff. and that's why he and NP are going to push it through in 8 WEEKS of open session. It won't be blatant nationalization, it will be consolidation of a few major insurers who will be mandated to by the executive branch. They won't mind because they will get richer. the little guys will get squeezed out, but who cares? they can work for O. And we will all take part, like it or not.
I just don't think so. Would you buy and car from Obama Motors, or insurance from Obama life and Casualties, or deposit a cent in "O"Bank, invest in O-Man Securities?
The answer is no, neither will anyone else.
They will if they have no choice. Or if O uses the ability to print money to undercut the competition or uses his power to put mandates on the 'competition'. He's doing it now with cars and banks. They won't be government owned or employees--- they'll be 'partners'.I am looking to buy a car for my latest high school grad, and Ford is it as far as I'm concerned. Government Motors can burn as far as I'm care. I'd let them go bust and let some competent, innovative ambitions young people buy some of the pieces and see what they can come up with in 5 years or so.
On that subject, you know how government all but forced GM to develop a hydrogen car? They spent hundreds of millions and were set to produce in 2012--- this week O canceled all spending on promoting hydrogen fuel. Such bullshit is what you get from centralized government and fucked up mandates. And don't even get me started on ethanol and biofuel---
"Government Motors can burn as far as I'm care."I woudn't take one for free. But it was Bush that had a hydrogen high.
Levin is not the artist that Rush is, I agree. But Rush, get some new material. Even subliminally, I've heard this already....But Levin is intellectually superior to Rush, especially when it comes to Constitutional Law and history. I bet even Rush would admit that. I used to listen to Rush every day back in the day when Levin started as a caller and then became an adviser to Rush. Rush is just too damn polite and restrained sometimes, and he is really a little insecure and concerned about how people feel about him. Especially celebrities. So many called him fat and made some jokes about his outfit when he did that CPAC thing that he went on a crash diet. What a pussy. Levin doesn't give a shit, and I like that about him.
No such thing as a 'free' GM car. I paid on April 15th. Go ahead and take one. My gift to you.
And beyond his courage to stick with Iraq and not run when things turned against him--- and then to make a change when it became obvious even to him that a change was past due--- and understanding that somethings are good and evil at the most important level--- I have no love for Bush and never did. He lost me with his education bill. And damn him for prescription drugs and completely passing on social security privatization and nationalized health care based on health savings accounts.
But, on that one very important thing, I think he did the best that we could really expect with our recent history of presidential elections. Imagine if he had folded two, three years ago?
How would you even know all that about Rush. Is there like a TMZ for right wingers out there?
Gee thanks, but I will have to pass.
I give Bush a pass because, he tried and failed. Had he failed to try, I would be out for blood. As it is I blame the voting public.
Post a Comment
<< Home