Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Obama is Courting Disaster With His New Detention Plan

Posted by Ari Melber, The Nation at 1:00 PM on June 27, 2009.


According to a new Washington Post/ProPublica piece, Obama is drafting a new executive order to reassert authority over indefinite detention.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

 The Obama administration is rushing towards a unilateral plan to imprison people without trial, according to a huge, new jointarticle from the Washington Post and ProPublica. The proposal would completely cut Congress out of the process by using an executive order to essentially bring Gitmo stateside:

 

The Obama administration, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, is drafting 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. Such an order would embrace claims by former president George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war. Obama advisers are concerned that bypassing Congress could place the president on weaker footing before the courts and anger key supporters, the officials said.

 

That is a terrible idea. For its part, the White House dispatched aides to push back. From the article:

 

White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said there is no executive order and that the administration has not decided whether to issue one. But one administration official suggested that the White House was already trying to build support.

 After publication, another Obama official issued an odd denial to The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder:

 

An administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, flatly denied the report to me. "There is no executive order. There just isn't one." (emphasis added)

 

First, there is no legitimate reason for a government official to claim anonymity here. It simply echoes the official line from the article, which is likely to be Robert Gibbs' line when reporters press the issue in Monday's briefing.

Second, the response is a classic dodge -- there is no executive order now, and no decision has been made. Of course, the article is not reporting that an order has already been issued. The news is that Obama officials are preparing to advance President Bush's Gitmo detention regime through a unilateral executive order soon, cutting out Congress, and thus any democratic accountability, while extending a controversial, unpopularpolicy.

Even though Obama's National Archives speech asserted the importance of working with other branches of government. ("We must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded," he said, "They can't be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone.")

Even though the Bush administration already tried this unilateral tack, only to have its system invalidated by the Supreme Court precisely because Congress was shut out. (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.)

And even though decades of legal precedent show, as Professor/President Obama knows, that the executive branch operates at the nadir of its constitutional power when acting without the cooperation of Congress, even in the national security arena. (A point most famously established for President Truman in the Youngstown case.)

Obama's argument for preventive detention "violates basic American values and is likely unconstitutional," warned Sen. Russ Feingold in a recent letter to the President, cautioning that detention without trial "is a hallmark of abusive systems that we have historically criticized around the world." Advancing such a controversial precedent on American soil, without the participation of Congress or the American people, would be disastrous.

UPDATE: The AP reports that two administration officials said Obama is considering an executive order for preventive detention. The article includes responses from the ACLU and CCR, two human rights organizations that have battled the Bush and Obama administrations:

 

Christopher Anders, [from] the American Civil Liberties Union Washington office, says the organization strongly opposes any plans for indefinite detention of prisoners."We're saying it shouldn't be done at all," he said Friday.... Civil rights advocates and constitutional scholars accused Obama of parroting [Bush's] detention policies. "Prolonged imprisonment without trial is exactly the Guantanamo system that the president promised to shut down,' Shayana Kadidal, a senior attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights, said in a statement Friday, [adding,] "If the last eight years have taught us anything, it's that executive overreach, left to continue unchecked for many years, has a tendency to harden into precedent."

Digg!

Tagged as: torture, obama, detainees, gitmo, aclu, detention, guantanamo bay

Ari Melber served as a national staff member of the John Kerry presidential campaign and as a legislative aide in the U.S. Senate.


Dogs Going Crazy as Their Soldiers Return Home
Priceless.
Post by Joshua Holland. November 11, 2009.
Laura Flanders Live on GritTV: The Powerful Forces Keeping Status Quo in Place
Watch John Perkins, Russ Baker and filmmaker Chris Smith.
Post by Laura Flanders. November 11, 2009.
MIT: Eating Local Food Is the Key to Solving Our Obesity Epidemic
It's nice to hear someone other than Michael Pollan driving that point home.
Post by Tara Lohan. November 11, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Support???
Posted by: Kitty Lady Oregon on Jun 27, 2009 1:34 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am becoming more and more sorry that I supported Obama for president.
If he goes through with this Cheney/Bush atrocity, I shall work actively to unseat him.
What the hell is our constitution for? Window dressing?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Support??? Posted by: Erin
» RE: Support??? Posted by: clvngodess
» RE: "to unseat him." Posted by: oregoncharles
Home of the Brave?
Posted by: OICU812 on Jun 27, 2009 3:38 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Y’know, I sit here silently reading, watching, and thinking about everything going on for the last half-century in this country. I spend a lot of my time in disbelief at the amount of abuse the American People are willing to put up with from their elected leaders. It’s as if they believe they deserve to be punished for having been naïve enough to vote for this collection of putzes.
Given our history of intolerance on economic matters like representation versus taxation, I find myself wondering why there is such a muted outcry from the public when our president asserts the dictatorial authority to jail someone without charge or any vestige of due process. I mean, I’m just a poor, struggling student of history. So correct me if I am in error, but wasn’t that one of the most prominent charges leveled against King George when we threw off the British yoke of colonialism?
I wonder when Joe Public is going to finally realize that the present resident of the White House really isn’t any different in his agenda than his predecessor. He isn’t paid to be any different. His corporate masters put out a lot of money and PR effort to ensure he was put where he is now. They expect a return on that investment. Obama will not disappoint them since he is essentially beholden to them for his political future. For one thing, it is not in their interests to bring a quick end to the Middle East conflicts due to the potential for arms sales in that region. So, the Obama response is to escalate the conflict by shipping in more troops. Besides the armaments and aerospace industries, this also serves to benefit the energy industry by opening the door in places like Iraq for an increased presence on their part. Afghanistan serves as a corridor for energy flow if the U.S. manages to quell any significant opposition. Fat chance with that one since history is on the side of the Pashtu. Not for nothing has Afghanistan been labeled the “Graveyard of Empires.”
A brief examination of our own history shows what a time-honored tradition this corporate influence has been in Washington. In order to understand the hold that the Lords of Finance and Industry exercise over the policies of our government, one only needs to look at the machinations of the railroads and banks, under people like J.P. Morgan, that were behind the mid-nineteenth century Gadsden Purchase. We were warned in 1960 about not allowing what Dwight Eisenhower called the “unwarranted influence of the military-industrial complex.” Yet, we seemed more concerned with the availability of the latest Frigidaire than with the theft of what remained of our democracy.
Although we have skirted the edges for a great many years, we are now to the point of becoming a full-blown fascist state complete with a Gestapo, otherwise known as the Department of Homeland Security. Yet, none of this really seems to bother a majority of our population.
We might do well to remember a couple of things. The first is that what we are doing now is no different than what was done forty-five years ago in Indochina. Even most of the rationalizations voiced by our “leaders” are the same. Secondly, the policies carried out under the auspice of totalitarian regimes like Nazi Germany, including the massacre of 11.5 million people in the Holocaust, were deemed completely legal by their own system of justice.
If we don’t become more mindful of where our own society may be headed in this respect, we could easily wake up some morning to find ourselves part of the new gulag formerly known as “the land of the free.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Home of the Brave? Posted by: luzmejor
» RE: Home of the Brave? Posted by: clvngodess
» RE: Excellent Essay Posted by: oregoncharles
America was critically wounded on 9/11
Posted by: weathered on Jun 27, 2009 5:24 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and placed on a life support system of Lies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dictator
Posted by: QQOblivion on Jun 28, 2009 7:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This, if anything, should prove to everybody that Obama is as just about as EVIL a DICTATOR as Bush was.

And keep in mind that those who are illegally and unconstitutionally indefinitely-detained as part of the "war on terror" (Might as well keep calling it that -- since nothing has changed when Obama took over) are likely being tortured in prison -- yes, even under Obama.

And I don't see how things are EVER going to get better in America. This country will only continue to oscillate between the far right (Democrats) and the ultra-far-far right (the Republicans.) We will NEVER again even be governed from the center, let alone from the left.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Dictator Posted by: Erin
» RE: Self-fulfilling prophecy. Posted by: oregoncharles
Makaainana
Posted by: Makaainana on Jun 28, 2009 10:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is a legal war determined by a President saying his is going to have a war on terror? Poverty? Drugs?

Of course not. So you don't get war powers without war...right?

Without war what you get is a dictator saying I'm the boss and the Constitution does not apply.

This is where Congress comes in right...right? Don't say Congress who!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Congress/Supreme Court Posted by: weathered
» RE: Congress/Supreme Court Posted by: luzmejor
» RE: Congress who? Posted by: clvngodess
"Lying lips" President once again.
Posted by: Mrs. Jefferson on Jun 29, 2009 7:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/06/27

Impeach President "lying lips" Obama. He spits in the face of our laws, international laws and treaties, and our Constitution. This is no "change" but more of the same.

No politician today can stand on the shoulders of past patriots and our founders claiming they represent a democracy. We look like a Police State and Empire Builder.

Happy Fourth of July America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The ONLY way
Posted by: willymack on Jun 29, 2009 10:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any good could come of this insanity is if the bushies are clapped in jail awaiting trial, as an extraordinary measure, to prevent their flight, and after the trials is immediately rescinded. If this happens, I'll support Obama's action. If not, I'll seek his impeachment and removal from office. Enough is (more than) enough.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama's Dentention Plan
Posted by: aztopping on Jun 29, 2009 10:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Preventive detention goes back to 1984 when Congress passed the Bail Reform Act which allowed the courts to keep what they considered a "lethally dangerous" criminal in jail if they thought (consider the word thought and 1984) bail or release conditions could not "guarantee the safety of individuals or the community." It is a Reagan Administration policy/law that was as we all know exploited by the Bush Administration. If the Obama administration pursues this policy as Bush did my guess is we will see another Supreme Court case trying to strike down the law for good. The more time Obama spends as President the more we are seeing that his way of spelling change is much different than the general public's way of spelling change and what change he is pursuing is not what most of us want.

His reversal on single payer health care, increase in troops in Afghanistan, the shifting of prisoners from Guantanamo to more clandestine prisons may turn him into a "Black Bush." The shifting of prisoners does not close Guantanamo, it only moves it to a more distant and out of sight and out of mind location. Which also moves the concept of preventive detention farther from the public's mind. Until it would become a common practice in the U.S.

It is a bad policy. Obama has stated he has no intention of prosecuting members of the Bush administration who committed acts of torture on detainees. He wants to put things in the past and move on and not make the same mistake again. Continuing preventive detention puts nothing in the past and only moves on to a newer version of the Bush era with newer versions of the same mistakes.

Jeff

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush Redux?
Posted by: Jaffe on Jun 29, 2009 10:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was easy to see the pistons working in Bush's small brain.

But how do we apprehend Obama? Can he think that his boyish intensity and rhetorical finesse are enough to obscure his hypocritical policy-making, especially abroad?

Does he believe what he's doing? Is he relying overmuch on a nasty clutch of advisers? Is he simply confused?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush and Obama
Posted by: ronniejw on Jun 29, 2009 2:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's getting hard to tell the two apart. Nothing ever changes in the United States.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The slippery slope to hell!
Posted by: bobtr900 on Jun 29, 2009 10:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush-Cheney, the GOP and the Religious Right started this slippery slope that may/will lead to hell. If Obama continues on that same slope he will set a precedent which will add to what Bush-Cheney/GOP began. They began it for economic(oil) reasons and theological (attack Islam) reasons. Then they spread it to attacking the 240+ million American people who are not Repub voters, that includes us godless libs.

Resetting/reaffirming that Bush-Cheney, GOP, Religious Right slope to hell could easily lead to almost anything, including the imprisonment of people by presidential fiat which can only be called the British Rule by Divine Right which was supposed to have been eradicated by the Magna Carta, wherein the king could no longer imprison people as he chooses and without the legal action by a court of law. That would mean that the president could imprison any one who is a political enemy. Do any of us want that in the hands of another GOP president.

Obama MAY use such powers sparingly, hopefully. But I am sure the next GOP president will use these powers of 'imprisonment without trial' to turn America into a GOP kingdom, forever.

That situation is exactly what Scalia called for in his speech, wherein he advocated for the end of our American Rule of Law and the end to democracy in America. As far as I'm concerned Scalia is a piece of Republikkkan scum.

David Neiwert has done some excellent reporting/writing on various militias (neo-nazis, etc) and related subversive groups in America, including Scalia, et.al. Everyone on this site/forum should read Neiwerts work which is at his blogsite: Orcinus. I strongly encourage every Alternet reader/poster to read Neiwerts work. It is as important and insighful as the research of Juan Cole (Univ. of Michigan) and Robert Pape from the Univ. of Chicago.
In my estimation Obama is opening a can of worms and will find that a bunch of Repub snakes emerge, if not now then certainly in the very near future. The GOP will turn this legislation to give total power to them selves and thusd totally empower the Cons, the Neocons and the Theocons, the Religious Reich.

Democracy in America will come to an end. The power of our military will be used to not only fight the usual unending string of economic wars but America will begin to fight wars for theological purposes. Does anyone want to see the resumption of the nine Crusades, wherein Muslims, Jews and even other non Roman (Eastern Orthodox) Catholics were killed.

If for no other reason, we should resist Obamas doing this because the next GOP president will really abuse this action and imprison all of us gofdless libs becausec we are godless abnd because we do not endorse their extremist economic policies, which arise from the Univ. of Chicago School of Economics, aka "The Chicago Boys".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]