Welcome to DCW

Donate to DCW

Health Insurance: Fighting the Lies (Updated 9/14/09)
House Forecast: 242.4 (-14.6)

Senate Forecast: 57.1 (-2.9)



2012 Democratic Convention
2012 Republican Convention
Primary Calendar
List of Key Nominees
Confirmation Hearing Schedule
Ambassador Nominations

Nomination Count
Nominated389
Confirmed293
Last Updated 12/21/09

Follow DCW on Twitter
A Guide to DemConWatch
Tags
FAQ
2008 Democratic Primary Links
2008 Democratic National Convention Links
DemConWatch Archives '05-'08
DemConWatch Speeches
Inauguration Information
DCW Store

HOME
Mobile Version


Search


Advanced Search
Contributors:
MattOreo
DocJess

This site is not affiliated with the DNC, DNCC, or any campaign.

Email us at




Blog Roll
Frontloading HQ
The Field
MyDD
Swing State Project
DemNotes
DemRulz

DCW in the News
AP
Politico
Wall Street Journal
The New York Times
NPR
Wired
US News & World Report

Indefinite Detention of Terror Suspects

by: DocJess

Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 17:56:08 PM EDT


From Wapo:

The Obama administration, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close Guantanamo, has drafted an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely, according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations.


Update from Matt: The White House has denied that the executive order has already been drafted, and the Washington Post has revised the story to reflect this. It now reads:

The Obama administration, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, is crafting language for an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely, according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations.
...
White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said that there is no executive order and that the administration has not decided whether to issue one.

DocJess :: Indefinite Detention of Terror Suspects
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Indefinite Detention of Terror Suspects | 53 comments
Bad (0.00 / 0)
Reprehensible. Need I say more?  

"Is profit and greed the only conceit on a scale between mere prosperity and inhumanity? It may well be." -Bad Religion
one more in a lengthening list of disappointments (0.00 / 0)

Keith (0.00 / 0)
One can hope that Keith Olbermann will have his regular show today, suspending the 24 hour coverage of Michael Jackson's death, to talk about this. It's something right up his alley, and we need him to call President Obama out on this.

"Is profit and greed the only conceit on a scale between mere prosperity and inhumanity? It may well be." -Bad Religion
[ Parent ]
Bad (0.00 / 0)
There are places for nuance, compromise, and thinking outside the box.

This is not one of them. This issue goes to the soul of the country.

Just No. (0.00 / 0)
He just threw out the baby with the bathwater.
Considering who is in charge of this. (0.00 / 0)
I don't have a problem with President Obama's administration having this tool. They won't abuse it like the Bush administration did.

When it's time, all held will go through the trial system or released if there is no evidence of criminality.

Well (0.00 / 0)
I wouldn't call this a tool, I'd call it a violation of US law and the values our nation stands for. There is no reason for anyone, including President Obama, to possess these powers. And whether he uses this authority or not, this means it will be available for future Presidents, including Republican ones. No, this is not OK under any circumstances.

"Is profit and greed the only conceit on a scale between mere prosperity and inhumanity? It may well be." -Bad Religion
[ Parent ]
Exceptions (0.00 / 0)
These folks are not US citizens, so they do not fall under US law. They would have to fall under laws that are agreed with their country of origin. If none exist then they sometimes fall under US law, but only in the case that they are guilty of a crime against a US asset.

There are complications because of how these folks were rounded up.  

[ Parent ]
Suspects (0.00 / 0)
Yes, and the key word I find in this story is "suspects," these are people who have not been convicted of anything, some not even formally accused of anything. Why does the US government propose to have the authority to detain people of other nations without due process? Where did we get the right to do this? This is a road every American should fear to tread.

"Is profit and greed the only conceit on a scale between mere prosperity and inhumanity? It may well be." -Bad Religion
[ Parent ]
Haven't heard any country asking for these folks back (0.00 / 0)
They should have been killed instead of being picked up. Then this wouldn't be something people are getting their panties in a wad over.
[ Parent ]
........ (0.00 / 0)
I don't even know how to respond to that, so I won't.

"Is profit and greed the only conceit on a scale between mere prosperity and inhumanity? It may well be." -Bad Religion
[ Parent ]
And yet you did. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Mister Ed (4.00 / 1)
Mister Ed, I am wondering how you would like being "killed instead of picked up" or held forever without trial if someone in a government thought you might be a dangerous person.  Of course, maybe you never set foot outside the U.S.  So you're safe until this is extended to U.S. citizens.

Human rights are not a function of national boundaries.

[ Parent ]
Howard (0.00 / 0)
I would rather be killed. And I have been in more continents than most of the people that post here, in some of the worst hell holes around.

Those that don't honor human rights have not earned any. I have no sympathy for any of the actual terrorist, but do have compassion for those that Bush's folks picked up and locked up unfairly. President Obama's administration is working as quickly as they can to determine who should be tried, and who should be released. And where they can be released. I say drop them off exactly where they were picked up.

[ Parent ]
Innocents (0.00 / 0)
We've found a lot of innocent people at Guantanamo. And we say how hard it was to get other countries to take them! (The Uighurs, for instance.) Countries not wanting to take them back is not a sign of guilt, doesn't mean they should have been killed, and doesn't absolve us from figuring out something just to do with them.
[ Parent ]
Yes (0.00 / 0)
And the innocent, when determined like the Uighurs, are released.  
[ Parent ]
innocent (0.00 / 0)
There are clearly many innocent people at Gitmo, who have been there for years without any hope of release.  Often their families have no idea where they are, or even if they are alive.

And without human rights, they are rotting there.  Every time I hear or read someone defending this, I hope that karma gets them and they find themselves or a family member in a similar situation.

Anyone with an understanding of the reasons for the Bill of Rights should find this indefensible.

[ Parent ]
Yes (0.00 / 0)
Yes, there are complications.

But why draft an executive order reasserting the ability to do this, rather than slogging through the complications? This sounds like throwing up our hands and giving up on the very concept of due process.

Prisoner of war, war criminal, spy, etc.--figure out how to deal with it! Don't just say we can lock them up and throw away the key.

Of course, we haven't seen the executive order yet. I hold out a slim hope that it's not what's reported above, but rather an order laying out how these people are going to be processed. But that's sure not what it sounds like!

(We'll see if wecanhope08 beats me to the post again...)

[ Parent ]
Report on future legislation - serendipity? (0.00 / 0)
On NPR's Morning Edition this morning, there was a story about a report that may turn into proposed legislation. It seems like somewhat of a compromise and would institute some restrictions and repeated reviews by the judicial system and detainees could only be held if a judge approved it every 6 months. http://www.npr.org/templates/s...

...I'm not saying the two events are linked but I wouldn't be surprised if they are and that some of the complications mentioned above are addressed either in the executive order or some sort of legislation.

[ Parent ]
Doesn't matter (0.00 / 0)
The problem is that once one President asserts this power, then every President can. That's already happened, of course--GWB asserted it and got away with it, so now Obama can.

What about the next time we elect a President like Nixon? Someone willing to use the powers of the office to suppress dissent? What prevents someone like that from doing the same?

[ Parent ]
For Shame (0.00 / 0)
I'd also add, is this not the very thing candidate Obama ran against? I'm sure he mentioned something about rule of law, habeas corpus, etc. This from a constitutional law scholar, for shame Mr. Obama, for shame.

"Is profit and greed the only conceit on a scale between mere prosperity and inhumanity? It may well be." -Bad Religion
[ Parent ]
I type too slow sometimes (0.00 / 0)
By the time I hit "post," wecanhope08 had made the same point...
[ Parent ]
LOL (0.00 / 0)
Great minds think alike, heh.

"Is profit and greed the only conceit on a scale between mere prosperity and inhumanity? It may well be." -Bad Religion
[ Parent ]
If (0.00 / 0)
KSM is still a prisoner at that time, and hasn't gone to trial (doubtful)........
[ Parent ]
i cannot accept the notion that we can trust ANY president with the right to violate human rights (0.00 / 0)
it doesnt matter that THEY arent citizens. if we are America, we cannot support indefinite detention of people who have not been convicted.

Obama, you are becoming what you promised to rid us of, a president who thinks he is above the law, and above a sense of moral decency......

Indefinite Detention of Terror Suspects (4.00 / 1)
I am so very tired of these people who "jump to conclusions" and immediately think the worst!  I read that IF the administration at some point decided to execute this order it would only be for a "handful of very dangerous" people that no one would take!  The President has been in office for 5 months and here you fools go already!  Where were all of you when the last disgusting administration was taking away all of "our" rights, starting wars and creating fear and hate everywhere?!  Grow up people, get a life, give our President a chance.  He's already done more good in the few short months he's been in office than the last idiot did in 8 years.  You people have the patience level of a 2 year old.  Stop looking for trouble, stop complaining about everything, stop the whining!
where I was (0.00 / 0)
Well, I was complaining loudly, writing letters to the editor, and donating and volunteering for the guy who promised to change all this.

As to the "handful of very dangerous people," prove they are dangerous in court, then you can lock them up forever with my blessing.  Without that, it's just a lynch mob.

[ Parent ]
Well said! (0.00 / 0)
I worry about the blood pressure of some of these folks in here.

Personally, I would leave Gitmo open, but close it in the public eye. Just announce that it has been closed and the prisoners relocated. You could have then change cells and it's technically not a lie.

I personally would like to go back to the day when the CIA operated in the dark from the public eye, and ruthless truly evil people were simply made to disappear. I know that is 100% wrong in most cases, but when the public didn't know what was going on, life was much more enjoyable than the growing hate everyone seems to have now.

But we have a President that is being 99% more transparent and thus leaves himself open to more criticism/hate from folks that don't get everything their desired way. He is trying to work a solution that all (or enough of) the knuckle headed politicians in DC will pass funding to shut down the prison at Gitmo. Once the prisoners are relocated I have a feeling that all, yes all, will see their day in court. Just like President Obama said he wanted to see when he was on the campaign trail.

Final thought.... President Obama has kept more campaign promises than any other person running for President in my entire long lifetime. I'll trust him on this one.  

[ Parent ]
suzyku, most of us spent most if not all of the previous 8 yrs fighting the loss of the rights, and that is why we are so upset that obama is LIED to us. (4.00 / 1)
on many things, he promised little and made grand inferences, but on some, and this is one, he clearly stated this was wrong and that we cannot ignore the rule of law. you like anybody on this thread was a fan of W and cheney and co.?
dont be silly. we are just trying to make obama live up to his promises. no one is bemoaning the fact that the GOP gang are no longer in power.

i dont think people who oppose a president they believed in, when he lies to us, are fools. and the 5 months argument only works on his "sins of omission" when he DOES something, the time factor is irrelevant!

sorry "is lied" should read "has lied" (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
suzyku, i dont think you are supposed to be calling people fools here (0.00 / 0)
it pretty much violates the term of civility required by the mgt. as to whether he lied or is 'cleaning up the mess' i have no doubt that he has to clean up the mess, but a lie is still a lie and when he said he would do one thing and does the opposite, it is hard to see where W's screw ups come into play/
Shocked (0.00 / 0)
A politician that tells a lie. Never thought I would see that day come. ;o)
[ Parent ]
no, mr ed, that isnt a surprise (0.00 / 0)
and i had a little previous experience with the campaign's willingness to be less than honest, but i didnt think he would do so so early and so clearly. he is approaching "read my lips"
The Republicans are winning (0.00 / 0)
That fact that some of you have gone off on this demonstrates that. They are trying to distract and get support away from President Obama and the other Dems. You are falling into their trap.
Doesn't that mean Obama has fallen into their trap? (0.00 / 0)
If the trap is:

--Make noise when President Obama tries to close Guantanamo...

--...causing President Obama to pull back on some of what he promised regarding civil liberties and the rule of law...

--...causing many who supported him on the left and center left to object...

--...distracting us from other issues like health care and draining support from President Obama

then it seems to me that the second link is where this should have been stopped. Call their bluff and do what is right.

In addition, the fourth step doesn't seem to be working. Is this distracting us from health care and climate change? Doesn't seem like it. The President isn't the only one who can walk and chew gum at the same time.

I will agree with suzyku on one point, which is this hasn't actually happened yet (see Matt's update in the main story). I think they actually do have to craft the language for the order, so that the President can understand what all the options are in case Congress somehow blocks them from closing Guantanamo. But I think this also is a case where we should "overreact" and make as big a fuss as we can, because knowing the opposition in the netroots will make the President less tempted to take that option.

This may still all work out, but we shouldn't be complacent and assume it will when we're getting mixed signals.

[ Parent ]
Back your President (0.00 / 0)
He knows what he is doing.

It's the stupid Congress that messed this up and caused the need for the extra measure by President Obama.

[ Parent ]
mr ed. our president is very smart, but that doesnt mean we should trust him (0.00 / 0)
i am not doing the GOPs heavy lifting, but i am going to always keep any democrats' feet to the fire whenever they forget what the democratic party stands for
Observation (0.00 / 0)
Use the Reply button and drop the name usage. When you use the name like that it's too much like a personal attack, whether intended or not.

You are entitled to your opinion, so an I. I don't need a response from you, because you will never change my mind. I am not trying to change yours. You are too set in your ways.  

[ Parent ]
Goodness Gracious (0.00 / 0)
A person cannot use the other individuals name?  In a discussion?  Set in their ways so don't talk to me?
"You will never change my mind", so I guess you don't want new information?  

This decision has not been made.  The question I have is if the USA states this why can't EVERY country in the world do this too THEIR JUDGEMENT AND DEFINITION.  What is the UN for?  Why did we join?  Bush really screwed up, or well Cheney.

Any non-US Citizen then need to know that IF the USA thinks they are a terrorist we can put them in a black hole and that's it.

What would you do if your son, daughter, or grandkid was on vacation in a country, and they took that person saying they were a terrorist and there was no due-process to get them out.
Are you going to trust that dictator's or president's judgement?

Does that sound like the USA or another place?
If the United States goverment cannot figure out a way for a due-process for questionable individuals really makes us look like morons.  Last I heard we championed and are trying to change this kind of stuff.  But of course during the Bush administration it was a double dip and YUP, we looked like morons.

It has been only 5 months and I think the President is working on it with a pack of lawyers.  He also needs to know what we think since he does represent you and me.
Last I heard that was how he got elected.

I am now off my soap box.

 

[ Parent ]
Problem is (0.00 / 0)
Under US law, you simply have to let them go. They were not read any Myranda rights and much of any evidence may be tainted by obtaining it through illegal means under the Bush administration. And many of the individuals are guilty of what? Simply belonging to a terrorist organization?

Thus the problem for the current administration, and why there may need to be "special" rules in this circumstance to be able to keep them in prison long enough to figure out how to prosecute them and under what charges/evidence.

Or let them all go back to where they were picked up.

Personally, I would put them all in house arrest with Bush and Cheney.

[ Parent ]
i am pretty sure the "clarification" is due in no small part to the outrage (4.00 / 1)
from the base
Well (0.00 / 0)
Keep breaking recognized national law or correct it.
We have many terrorist groups, example White Supremacist, in the USA and do not forget Timothy McVeigh and many more.  I live in Southern CA and unfortunately they are coming down hear in droves.  I personally feel what they do is hateful and I know they break the law but they are not caught, and if they do, they have their due-process.  

We screwed up plain and simple.  Thank you Bush and Cheney.

Two wrongs don't make a right.  Makes your stomach hurt, sure, no doubt.  Hopefully the Obama lawyers can find someway to make it go down easier and I do think it is a major priority.  
100,000's died for democracy and due-process.  No President should ever have the power to take that away.
And no this is not a Marshall Law instance:

The martial law concept in the U.S. is closely tied with the right of habeas corpus, which is in essence the right to a hearing on lawful imprisonment, or more broadly, the supervision of law enforcement by the judiciary. The ability to suspend habeas corpus is often equated with martial law. Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion, the public Safety may require it."

I think that this is the rub (0.00 / 0)
"Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion, the public Safety may require it.""

The previous administration felt there was a threat of invasion (though we have seen no proof of valid additional attack planning) and used that loophole to incarcerate without habeas corpus. You really can't turn back the clock so you either have to release them, try them in a Military Tribunal that has different rules, try them under the US civilian court laws (where most would get off due to a number of "technicalities"), or hold them indefinitely until they are no longer a proposed threat.

So like you stated, hopefully the new Administration's lawyers can sort through it all and do the right thing. But if they have to close the prison at Gitmo, and the only way to move these know or suspected terrorist to a prison facility in the USA is to have such an Exec Order in place, then so be it. I trust the Obama administration a lot more than the previous administration and honestly feel they will do the right thing to get out of the box they are in.

[ Parent ]
Dissent is the highest form of patriotism- Howard Zinn (0.00 / 0)
So in keeping with the message of that quote, all of us here were critical of the Bush administration, right? So then, it's acceptable for a liberal to dissent against one administration, but not against this one? What the two hostile people (since one doesn't like his name used) are trying to say is that a liberal cannot in good faith criticize a Democratic administration. And my answer is, why the hell not? I don't recall these words from Barack Obama: "I am Barack Obama, lord and savior, heed my every word; hear me and obey!"

But that's how suzyku is acting. Yes, I'm being sarcastic, but I take offense at people simply trying to have a civilized and rational debate being called fools, 2 year olds, liars, whiners, need I go on? What happened to respecting other viewpoints, huh? Wasn't that something our President values? Then why don't you, you who think every word or deed he does is sacred? That's all I have to say, and suzyku, I have a life and a damn good one, one that allows me to make my own decisions about the world.  

"Is profit and greed the only conceit on a scale between mere prosperity and inhumanity? It may well be." -Bad Religion

Don't lump the two together (0.00 / 0)
MisterEd hasn't been hostile. Even though I completely disagree with him on this issue, I admire him for continuing to present reasoned arguments in the face of near-unanimous comments from people who believe as we do. (Yes, he got testy once or twice, but that happens to almost all of us now and then.) And MisterEd has not said that we can't criticize a Democratic administration; he just disagrees with this particular critique.

On the other hand, suzyku did engage in name-calling and personal attacks. That's not the way DCW does things. I hope she takes the contrast to heart and rethinks how she presents her views.

[ Parent ]
You missed the point (0.00 / 0)
but that is normal around here. I was trying to have that individual hit the reply to make a comment back at a particular person or thread.

I have yet to disagree with any way President Obama has handled anything in his short term as President. No other President has ever been left with a greater mess, and gotten more done.

Being a leader sometimes means making compromises. That sometimes means delaying campaign promises until differences can be worked out. We just got rid of a bull headed administration. Nice to have one that is willing to work with multiple parties.

[ Parent ]
Sorry (0.00 / 0)
Yes, I admit it I wrote that in a huff, but it was not about you nearly so much as the other person. So I apologize for singling you out, but I won't apologize to suzyku. Sometimes I get ahead of myself, but other than the unfair portion about Mr. Ed, I stick by everything else I said.

"Is profit and greed the only conceit on a scale between mere prosperity and inhumanity? It may well be." -Bad Religion
[ Parent ]
No problem (0.00 / 0)
I'm often misunderstood. I like to hear others opinions, but when attacked I do stand up and sometimes don't say things the way I should.

Guess we are all guilty of that sometimes.

[ Parent ]
Thanks (0.00 / 0)
Apparently so. Thanks for understanding. Wouldn't want you or anyone else to get the wrong impression about me. We all get carried away sometimes, that's all. Especially on an issue like this.

"Is profit and greed the only conceit on a scale between mere prosperity and inhumanity? It may well be." -Bad Religion
[ Parent ]
i do find it odd that some people can use the name of another person in the subject line, and then be offended to see their own name there (0.00 / 0)
generally i find there are a few folks here i disagree with, but am glad to have them to bounce off my perspective and get a feel for how someone else sees it, and that includes mr ed. i thought he was out of line with those comments, but then, i have on more than one occasion gotten out of line and needed a gentle nudge from the administration around here.

i will be happy to try to stay on track. and i do not doubt the sincerity of most of those i disagree with.

i apologize for any discomfort my part in the conversation has caused anyone.

[ Parent ]
Think I was misunderstood (0.00 / 0)
The name in the title deal I mean. Examples are probably the best way for me to explain it. When Howard used Mister Ed in a reply above, you will see that it was via hitting the reply button. My reply back to him was subject lined Howard. But we used the reply so it was more conversational in the same thread. When you used mr ed. it was to start a new thread under the subject and seemed condescending. We have often disagreed, so it seemed like an attack as opposed to expressing an opinion or trying to educate.

I apologize about the set in your way comment, that was uncalled for. Where is that dang edit button. LOL

[ Parent ]
Upland shakes hands with Mr Ed and heads back to his corner for another round:) (0.00 / 0)
all's well here, back to the fray!
[ Parent ]
Indefinite Detention of Terror Suspects | 53 comments



Menu


Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

Make a New Account
Currently 3 user(s) logged on.



Subscribe to Posts

DemConWatch on Twitter


View blog authority

Add to Technorati Favorites

Wikio - Top Blogs - Politics

custom counter

Who links to my website?

Powered by: SoapBlox