Obama walks back on Guantánamo (Bush-era indefinite detention without trial will continue)

[Cali_Democrat]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/22/guantanamo-bay-obama-administration

Obama walks back on Guantánamo

The president's order for indefinite detention of 'war on terror' suspects marks continuity with Bush-era disdain for legal norms
By Karen Greenberg



The Obama administration, ProPublica's Dafna Linzer first reported, is about to issue an executive order that gives shape, contour and future life to indefinite detention for Guantánamo detainees. The order will provide for the continual detention of several dozen detainees – who will have access lawyers in order to periodically contest their detention.

<snip>

But there is more to be worried about than meets the eye. The problem is not just the disturbing fact that the Obama policy perpetuates a piece of the Bush detention regime. Indefinite detention was the very heart of the Bush policy. The idea that the United States could hold individuals, refuse to classify them in any recognised legal category and thereby deny them rights, was the doorway to a host of unacceptable policies, including enhanced interrogation techniques, excessive periods of solitary confinement (apart from interrogation), disappearances to "black sites", and most of all, the refusal to confront squarely the distinction between guilt and innocence. The several dozen individuals whom the Obama administration intends to hold are among those they believe there is insufficient evidence to convict. If the judgment of guilt is not certain, then these men cannot be tried.

<snip>

With the announcement of indefinite detention as a policy, rather than a possibility, the United States will cross a threshold that, as torture did, takes us back to the past, a past before the introduction of trials, when guilt and innocence were decided by signs from the heavens and an appeal to God, rather than to legal processes conducted by men.

Read more....http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/22/guantanamo-bay-obama-administration

[liberal N proud]

1. And he was on such a winning streak

That does it, I am sure more will proclaim him unfit for office.

[ProSense]

2. Actually,

no. Congress tied the President's hand.

US: Detainee Transfer Ban Will Hinder Terror Fight


He is putting in place a policy given the situation.

Executive Order Is First Step In Regaining Initiative On Detention Policy

[rug]

4. So, Congress gets credit for DADT and START?

[ProSense]

5. Here

Video and photo.

The beauty is that they are on the same team as the President.

[rug]

7. Ok, you linked this.

So, then it's not Congress' fault.

[ProSense]

10. Oh my

Kerry is all 100 members of Congress?

That's a really nice photo.

[rug]

13. So Congress gets the credit.

[boppers]

39. Congress only has 100 members now?

When did that happen?

[SpartanDem]

36. Of course they get credit

along with the prez it was a team effort

[BklnDem75]

40. Fail

Did anyone ever give Obama all the credit for everything passed this week? It's always been shared credit just like it's suppose to be shared blame. All I've seen are failed attempts to give this President ANY credit at all.

[johnaries]

9. Thank you, ProSense. The ThinkProgress article puts the lie,

or at least the "spin", to the article presented in the OP. Especially these paragraphs:

The Obama administration’s extensive review of the cases of Guantanamo detainees it inherited from its predecessor determined that 48 detainees would be held in this type of law of war detention. This Executive Order is a significant improvement on the process, such as it was, created by the Bush administration and in fact goes well beyond what is required by the Geneva Conventions.

Detainees will be represented by attorneys, the review will be conducted by a broad group of agencies — not just the military, and the review board will be separated from those who made previous decisions on that detainee’s detention. This is a real adversarial process that the American people can have confidence will come to the best possible determination about the necessity of each individual detainee’s continued detention.

(emphasis added)

So, although technically it does continue "indefinite detention", unlike the Bush-era policies it provides for extensive review complete with legal representation.

[AtomicKitten]

3. To be precise, Congress has blocked closing Guantanamo.

:eyes:

[Cali_Democrat]

6. Then Obama should have said that earlier

When Obama was campaigning he made it pretty clear that the closing of Gitmo and the ending of indefinite detention without trial was going to happen if he was elected.

He should have said that he will end indefinite detention only if Congress allows him to because he's not powerful to end the process by himself.

That way people would realize that no change from the status quo was a very real possibility and the USA would continue to be shamed before the world community, under Obama's watch. This would have been preferable to getting people's hopes up only to let them down as yet another Bush-era crime lived on as the finger is pointed at Congress.

[ProSense]

8. Actually

"He should have said that he will end indefinite detention only if Congress allows him to because he's not powerful to end the process by himself."

No he shouldn't have. What he will do is what he set out to do. There will be obstacles, no one expected his Presidency to be smooth sailing with everything on his agenda achieved by summer 2010.

Not everyone believes the President is sinister and trying is best to be like Bush.

He will make mistakes, but did anyone believe they were electing a person who doesn't?

There is a difference between holding the President's feet to the fire and cynical rejection of his accomplishments, the difficulty of the job and the realities of world.



edited typo

[Cali_Democrat]

11. "Not everyone believes the President is sinister"

I don't think Obama is sinister.

Unfortunately there are too many policies from the Bush era that are continuing and I'm not happy about it and you better believe I will speak out against those policies.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

12. Nicely done as always! n/t

[AtomicKitten]

17. The only finger-pointing I see is coming from you, repeatedly.

Thread after thread blaming ...

In answer to the points you've raised:

Most people understand how government works.

Congress moves to block Guantanamo Closure:
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2010/12/14/congress-moves-to-block-guantanamo-closure/

Senate blocks transfer of Guantanamo detainees:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30826649/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

Etc., But he announced today he's not giving up.

Pres Obama on change: "So let me remind you tonight that change will not be easy. That change will take time. There will be setbacks, and false starts, and sometimes we will make mistakes. But as hard as it may seem, we cannot lose hope."

[JoePhilly]

33. Every promise that a President makes has to go through Congress.

That is kind of how our government works. If people don't "realize" that when they vote, they aren't very bright.

btw ... this story line isn't really all that new.

As most articles on this note, back around May of 2009, the Obama administration laid out their approach to dealing with the remaining detainees that Obama inherited from Bush.

As I recall, there were about 5 categories, the first 4 of which allowed for civil trials and/or military trials so that detainees could get a fair hearing.

And there was a 5th category. The one discussed here.

These were a small number of detainees for whom there was evidence that they were terrorists and that they would surely return to terrorism when or if released, but for whom, the evidence gathered was tainted in some way. In other words confidence was very high that they were guilty, but, thanks to Bush and his nitwits, a trial won't be able to convict them.

Back in 2009, and now, the administration has be honest in describing this group as the most difficult to deal with. We are sure they are guilty and would return to terrorism if released, and yet we are also sure we can't convict them thanks to Bush screw ups.

Should Obama just release them?

[SpartanDem]

34. I sure he didn't think his own party would leave him hanging

with few exceptions even Dems have not backed him on funding closing Gitmo

[ProudDad]

19. No, they haven't... (n/t)

[AtomicKitten]

21. Yes they have, repeatedly. nt

[jenmito]

24. Really? Did you read the post right above yours? n/t

[SpartanDem]

35. They haven't?

Then who has? Congress has refused to fund closing gitmo in both 09 and 10


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2009/05/20/4435379-senate-approves-stripping-gitmo-funding

http://news.antiwar.com/2009/05/19/senate-dems-to-block-funding-for-gitmo-closure/

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/1210/Ban_on_US_trials_for_Guantanamo_prisoners_passes_House_again.html

[totodeinhere]

27. Yes, and it's the president's job to convince Congress.

How do you think he got START and DADT passed? He did it with some Republican votes. He needs to show some leadership and do the same with this.

[AtomicKitten]

28. He's shown plenty of leadership.

This issue is obviously very important to him. He said again at his press conference yesterday it is a recruitment tool for al Queda and that he intends to continue to press for its closure. He's battling both parties on this particular issue.

That's leadership whether you acknowledge it or not.

[Hippo_Tron]

42. His own party's leadership was against closing Guantanamo

Harry Reid pitched a fit and said the same thing every other congressman and senator did "Not in my state/district". The President has shown leadership but leadership isn't magic.

[johnaries]

14. Your title is wrong - they ARE getting trials complete with lawyers.

At the same time, the draft order -- the existence of which was first reported by the Washington Post and ProPublica -- would evidently grant the detainees additional review/appeal rights, including the right to an attorney, the right of access to more evidence against them, and the ability to challenge their indefinite confinement before both federal judges and independent review boards, modeled after parole boards. The New York Times reported Wednesday that the order has not yet been reviewed by President Obama.
......
If implemented, the new procedures authorized by the executive order would be significantly different from those employed by officials during the Bush administration. Those earlier procedures, which were successfully challenged in federal court in a series of cases, generally prohibited the detainees from using lawyers and dramatically limited the ability of the prisoners to see or challenge the evidence against them.

edit to add source: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/22/obama-may-order-indefinite-detention-for-some-gitmo-prisoners/

[Cali_Democrat]

16. Ummmm...that is not a real trial....please tell me you're joking.....

The executive order would authorize indefinite detention for dozens of the prisoners have been deemed "too dangerous" to release. It definitely won't be a jury that determines this.

Also, the order....

"would evidently grant the detainees additional review/appeal rights, including the right to an attorney, the right of access to more evidence against them, and the ability to challenge their indefinite confinement before both federal judges and independent review boards, modeled after parole boards."

That is not a trial.

[johnaries]

25. Legal definition of "trial":

A judicial examination and determination of facts and legal issues arising between parties to a civil or criminal action
.....
Not all trials are jury trials. A case may also be tried before a judge. This is known as a court trial or a bench trial. A court trial is basically identical to a jury trial, except the judge decides both the facts and the law applicable to the action.

If they are allowed to appear before a Federal Judge with legal representation, that's a trial.

[former9thward]

23. You are the only one using the word "trials".

Please point to the word "trial" in what you quoted.

[Kdillard]

15. Anyone who has been following this knows this article is complete nonesense but whatever people will

believe what they want to believe.

[ProudDad]

18. How about that "Change", eh folks?

:grr:

Not to mention the largest expenditure for war in the history of the world...

[Cali_Democrat]

20. Didn't you get the memo?

It's all the fault of Congress. Obama has nothing to do with this or other rethug policies like tax cuts for the wealthy.

Apparently the buck stops.....with Congress.

I just don't know why we went after Bush so hard the last decade. Apparently, we should have been going after Congress only!

[AtomicKitten]

22. Why do you pretend you don't know how government works?

And I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you actually know how Congress works. Your incessant finger-pointing and blaming are ridiculous.

[jefferson_dem]

29. Actually, the memo was titled "Obamer...jest like Boooosh!11!!!!"

Surely, this is more evidence of that...or maybe Hitler.

[Cali_Democrat]

32. Nah Bro

The memo on DU right now is that Congress has tied Obama's hands and he's powerless to do anything about Gitmo so the policy of indefinite detention shall continue.

[boppers]

38. No, compared to Hitler, Obama is right-wing.

Hitler, you see, was a vegetarian, and fought for the rights of the working class German.

...

:sarcasm:

[Union Scribe]

30. Unless we get thrown a bone, then it's all Obama

And he's apparently the "best.president.ever."

[jefferson_dem]

37. What do you mean by "we"?

:shrug:

Curious use of personal pronoun there...

[JoePhilly]

31. Obama should use his Constitutionally mandated 10 Senatorial votes ...

So that when we have 50 dems ready to do something, Obama can add his 10 votes to make it pass, even when 41 Republicans, and 5 or 6 Democrats oppose it.

[PurityOfEssence]

26. Aaaah, so what? It's only for the duration...

Peace Prize.

[JCMach1]

41. In all seriousness, why doesn't he just then order their summary executions and get it over with

If we are going to ignore the Constitution, International Law, whatever... just go ahead. Give the right-wing their pound of flesh.

[Hippo_Tron]

43. Again, this is why declaring war on "terrorism" creates serious prblems

Because we're at war with "terrorism" these people are prisoners of war. You can legally hold prisoners of war without trial until a war is over. The problem is that the "war on terror" has no end.