Obama Administration Reportedly Drafting Order on Indefinite Detention
[Guest post by DRJ]
It’s late Friday afternoon and the media is dominated by the news of Michael Jackson’s death, which makes it a good time for the Obama Administration to release some inconvenient news. And, in fact, the Washington Post reports the Obama Administration is drafting an executive order that will allow dangerous detainees to be held indefinitely:
“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.”
If true, Obama will be taking the same position on this issue as the Bush Administration.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers has urged the Obama Administration to establish a National Security Court to supervise dangerous detainees, but the same three senior officials discounted that option because it “would be difficult to pass and likely to fracture Obama’s party.”
This is not like Bush, who IMO always put his Country before his Party on national security issues.
UPDATE 6/27/2009: Andrew Malcolm at the LA Times’ Top of the Ticket has turned up his sarcasm dial and is not impressed with Obama’s “refreshing” new leadership:
“This is an obviously inspiring sign of the new style of leadership the Democrat promised and is finally bringing to the White House. As one blogger put it, George W. Obama. And it shows the kind of powerful political pragmatism with which the ex-senator from Illinois approaches this job at such a crucial and globally turbulent time. Strangely, it was leaked to the Post on a slow summer Friday afternoon when it wouldn’t gain much attention.”
– DRJ
The celebrity worshippers will not even notice.
Comment by Patricia — 6/26/2009 @ 7:46 pm
And the courts won’t go for it.
Comment by Soronel Haetir — 6/26/2009 @ 7:51 pm
How long can President Obama continue the policies President Bush established that were so hated by the left, yet push for policies that the right hate and warned against before the election? I’m really having trouble seeing what is being done right.
Not posting bills or allowing public discussion before signing.
No change in WOT policies including renditions, interrogations, indefinite detainment, surveilance, etc…
Massive spending incurring record debt.
New taxes that he promised would not happen (I’m sure there are smokers who make less than $250,000 a year).
Incredibly inept relations with allies and appeasement of thug regimes.
I know I’m passing over a ton of other stuff, but really… when does the reality of this administration start to overcome the “historical” fantasy?
Comment by Stashiu3 — 6/26/2009 @ 7:59 pm
Stashiu, it really is mind boggling, isn’t it? Seems like all the stuff Obama has actuall pulled off are the laughable liberal ideas… like buying GM. all the moral urgency topics, from gay rights to gitmo, they don’t even seem to care much about.
I have to wonder why we spent so much on the Uighurs (SP) if we were going to keep the Gitmo prison.
Never mind… MJ is on TV.
Comment by Juan — 6/26/2009 @ 8:08 pm
I will give credit to timmah, as he has consistently been against Teh One on this.
My head hurts. I have to go sit down.
Comment by JD — 6/26/2009 @ 8:18 pm
I think he’ll get Camp Delta closed (pet peeve btw… it’s not Guantanamo that’s going to close, just the detention facility within it). I don’t think many people will like the way he ends up getting it done. I also don’t think it will stay closed.
Cabinet picks… how could I forget the tax dodgers, conflict-of-interest issues, and race-baiting idiots chosen to serve in the administration?
The DOJ firings and interference, influence peddling, political payoffs… *sigh*
Comment by Stashiu3 — 6/26/2009 @ 8:20 pm
The fact that they are not doing what they think they should do because they believe it will hurt their political party is disgusting.
Comment by JD — 6/26/2009 @ 8:20 pm
It’s a house of cards, Juan. It has to blow-up sooner or later, one way or another.
Was it Mr. Spock who said “In an insane society, the sane man must appear insane.”
Comment by Pons Asinorum — 6/26/2009 @ 8:22 pm
Stash – They are worse than I ever could have imagined, and they are only just getting started. We are well and truly fucked.
RACISTS
Comment by JD — 6/26/2009 @ 8:23 pm
All your Hope and Change got replaced by an Empty Suit(tm).
This is so hilarious.
Comment by SPQR — 6/26/2009 @ 8:24 pm
Comment by JD — 6/26/2009 @ 8:20 pm
Nailed it!
Comment by Pons Asinorum — 6/26/2009 @ 8:26 pm
One hell of a mess to clean-up when this is over.
Comment by Pons Asinorum — 6/26/2009 @ 8:27 pm
I assume this order will apply to any current and future terror suspects detained by the U.S. It will be interesting to see what kind of rights, if any, the Obama Administration grants detainees held outside the U.S. that aren’t taken to GTMO’s Camp Delta. (And thanks for the terminology pointer, Stashiu. I’ll try to remember to use Camp Delta in the future.)
Comment by DRJ — 6/26/2009 @ 8:29 pm
DRJ,
Closing “Guantanamo” is the administration’s and the media’s (but I repeat myself) terminology and we’ll never get them to change it. It’s just my pet peeve because few remember that Guantanamo was there long before Camp Delta (or Camp X-ray for that matter) and will remain there even if the detention facility is closed. You can bet that if President Obama does get Camp Delta closed, nobody in the media will ask why Guantanamo is still open. They’ll also applaud his political bravery and executive acumen when it’s re-opened due to “changing circumstances”.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 6/26/2009 @ 8:40 pm
Had you heard that last Friday, Obama fast tracked outsourcing to India? I’m infuriated that this hasn’t seemed to be reported any where, especially in lieu of this deplorable cap & trade legislation passed today.
Comment by Jenny — 6/26/2009 @ 9:08 pm
Let’s go glass half-full here and applaud Obama when he has the good sense to backtrack on his more irresponsible campaign promises. If the left wants to freak out over this, let them. All this just slowly and surely chips away at the image of Obama the high-minded statesman, above petty politics, bringing hopeandchange to the tired weary masses.
Comment by JVW — 6/26/2009 @ 9:20 pm
Speaking of Barry O’s non-stop lying and flip-flopping…
“…Obama will refocus our resources on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and finish the fight with the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.”–The New Messiah’s website
When’s the big push in Afghanistan going to start? It’s been about six months since the greatest military strategist in history took over the job of CinC, and I don’t see squat happening in Afghanistan.
Old Barry is starting to look more and more like G.B. McClellan.
Mucho talk (when he was trying to sabotage Bush’s efforts and campaigning for office), not too much action, now that he’s in the driver’s seat.
Comment by Dave Surls — 6/26/2009 @ 9:42 pm
Dave, the President has a new strategy called the “September Surprise”.
See, he is going to invite al Qaeda over for the Labor Day holiday, then at the last minute — wait for it — disinvite them!
Comment by Pons Asiorum — 6/26/2009 @ 9:52 pm
‘Indefinite detention’ for whom?
Comment by Tailgunner — 6/26/2009 @ 9:57 pm
This is not like Bush, who IMO always put his Country before his Party on national security issues. DRJ, IMHO Bush put his family honor ahead of his country. I’ve always been troubled by his light-hearted joking on a taped piece pretending to be searching for WMD in the Oval Office while troops in harm’s way were literally under the gun. I felt it was truly revealing about the kind of person he is. Very different from his father. I may have disagreed with W’s policies but in all honesty, he lost my complete support as CIC at that moment.
Comment by DCSCA — 6/26/2009 @ 10:18 pm
“Bush put his family honor ahead of his country.”
How about some examples, pops? Nobody but liberal conspiracy theorists seem to say this. Are you a truther?
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/26/2009 @ 10:23 pm
he lost my complete support as CIC at that moment.
Anybody seen the laugh track ?
Comment by MIke K — 6/26/2009 @ 10:26 pm
“See, he is going to invite al Qaeda over for the Labor Day holiday, then at the last minute — wait for it — disinvite them!”
That’ll learn ‘em!
Comment by Dave Surls — 6/26/2009 @ 10:35 pm
“IMHO Bush put his family honor ahead of his country”
What the hell are you talking about?
Bush honorably kicked the living crap out of two state sponsors of terrorism, and killed zillions of terrorists.
The New Messiah, OTOH, honorably invites state sponsors of terrorism over for barbecue and refuses to meddle in their business for fear of offending their tender sensibilities.
Comment by Dave Surls — 6/26/2009 @ 10:40 pm
There’s always the possibility that the “terrorism suspects” he’s talking about are conservatives.
Comment by jen — 6/26/2009 @ 11:32 pm
I’ve always been troubled
No argument there, you flatulent, hateful goon.
pretending to be searching for WMD in the Oval Office
Is that like when you pretend to be in two places at the same time in your voluminous and laughable employment history? Please try explaining how you could be working at NASA and Enron at the same time; then you could further detail how you could be playing dodgeball with the US Embassy staff in Moscow while ranting at Thatcher in London during the same time period. Are you trying to tell us that you’re some type of intergalactic time traveler? Does that mean that when your encounter with Von Braun in your underwear turned suddenly nasty you wrinkled your arse cheeks, then disappeared in a puff? Spock, set phasers on stun!
I felt it was truly revealing about the kind of person he is
Oh, no doubt – and your audience here is unaminous in telling you that you’ve revealed yourself to be a scumbag, worm – eaten idiot.
Comment by Dmac — 6/27/2009 @ 6:26 am
George Bush to Barack Obama: “How’s my ass taste? Now where’s my public apology, dumbo?”
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/27/2009 @ 8:51 am
Barack Obama: “I have been perfectly consistent about this policy.”
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/27/2009 @ 8:53 am
I’ve updated the post with a link to Andrew Malcolm at the Top of the Ticket.
Comment by DRJ — 6/27/2009 @ 8:58 am
Why are we even pretending that people not in America who are neither citizens nor residents are protected by the United States Constitution?
Comment by Michael Ejercito — 6/27/2009 @ 9:10 am
“Why are we even pretending that people not in America who are neither citizens nor residents are protected by the United States Constitution?”
Because a bunch of lefties in the courts and in the Democrat Party though they could use the issue to undercut Bush, make the Republicans look bad, and get lefties elected to office. And, they were right.
Comment by Dave Surls — 6/27/2009 @ 9:28 am
I’m waiting for Pelosi & Co. to begin impeachment proceedings against Obama for his ’shredding’ of the Constitution.
Comment by Apogee — 6/27/2009 @ 12:56 pm
#32. ROTLFMAO!
Comment by HeavenSent — 6/27/2009 @ 12:58 pm
Ugh.
If the executive has the power to detain someone indefinitely without conviction – regardless of what they are being detained for – then we are no longer a nation in which people are innocent until proven guilty, we are a nation in which people can be detained forever without anyone proving that they have or will do something wrong.
This can be mitigated a bit by restricting the power so that it only applies to non-citizens, but even then …
For me this was the single most important issue in the 2008 election.
If true, I feel like I’m basically compelled to vote Libertarian in 2012.
Comment by aphrael — 6/27/2009 @ 3:20 pm
Michael at 30, and Dave Surls at 31: because the constitution speaks of people, not citizens and residents. The terms are not coterminous.
Comment by aphrael — 6/27/2009 @ 3:21 pm
“Michael at 30, and Dave Surls at 31: because the constitution speaks of people, not citizens and residents. The terms are not coterminous.”
aphrael – We generally do not export our Constitution to other countries or permit other countries to import their laws into this country.
What is your point?
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/27/2009 @ 3:30 pm
aphrael (3:21 pm), I don’t think I am convinced. The preamble of the Constitution begins “We the people of the United States, in order to form. . .” It would seem that is pretty exclusionary — it doesn’t say “We the people of the United States and anyone else who happens to fall under our jurisdiction at any given moment. . .”
Comment by JVW — 6/27/2009 @ 3:33 pm
Once upon a time, Ex Parte Quirin was pretty clear on the limits of the Constitution …
Comment by SPQR — 6/27/2009 @ 3:39 pm
aphrael,
I will probably join you in voting Libertarian unless the GOP can get its act together (unlikely). However, I don’t agree that the Constitution applies equally to non-citizens, just as the Constitutions of other countries do not always apply to me, even when traveling there. I generally cannot buy property in Mexico, Canada, or South Korea for example, even though their citizens can do so in their own countries. There are plenty of situations where another country’s Constitution would not protect me as it would one of their own citizens. I would contend that there are many situations where the Constitution of the United States should apply, but the detainment of unlawful combatants is not one of them.
O/T from a previous thread: I’m still not sure what to think about Vietnam because, although they have made some changes since the war, I don’t know if they (or we) have done enough to justify normal relations. There’s been too much propaganda on both sides to really be sure. I do know that Iran hasn’t done enough and we shouldn’t be reaching out to them. Just my opinion though and I readily admit that I’m still angry about the embassy takeover.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 6/27/2009 @ 3:59 pm
“Michael at 30, and Dave Surls at 31: because the constitution speaks of people, not citizens and residents. The terms are not coterminous.”
The rights and privileges of foreign nationals (or traitors, according to Quirin) captured in war are covered in various treaties (like the Hague and Geneva conventions), which, by definition are the Supreme Law of the Land, along with the Constitution (per Article VI).
Captives taken in war don’t have protections like those mentioned in the body of the Constitution (e.g. “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus”) or in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, or 5th amendments (just to mention a few).
If we (stupidly) try to extend those privileges and rights to captured terrorists (or soldiers)…we’ll lose every war we fight.
I would think, that all this would be obvious…even to dense liberals on the SCOTUS or that fella in the White House, but apparently not.
Comment by Dave Surls — 6/28/2009 @ 4:23 am
At the end of WWII we had about 400,000 Axis POWs locked up in camps in the United States (and a ton more overseas). Think those guys were allowed to file writs of Habeas Corpus? Think they were allowed “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”? Think they were allowed to keep and bear arms?
Don’t think so.
The rights and privileges mentioned in the Constitution don’t apply to enemies captured during war time.
Comment by Dave Surls — 6/28/2009 @ 4:36 am
Not to hijack the thread, but check this new mess out:
What was the amendment (the AP article cited by yahoo does not mention it)?
I guess that means no hotdogs for the Hondurans, too.
Comment by Pons Asinorum — 6/28/2009 @ 10:13 am
Term limits are just something to be ignored, Pons.
Comment by JD — 6/28/2009 @ 10:22 am
“The rights and privileges mentioned in the Constitution don’t apply to enemies captured during war time.”
Dave – Agree 100%, although I would insert the word foreign for clarity and note the Supreme Court got it wrong on this subject in Boummedienne(?) partly because a colloquy was inserted into the Congressional record after the fact which they interpreted as part of the floor debate. Scalia had a masterful dissent on the case outline the history of the habeus corpus principle and how extending it in war time was completely unprecedented.
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/28/2009 @ 10:41 am
The rights and privileges mentioned in the Constitution don’t apply to enemies captured during war time.
So let’s cook them and eat them. In western civilization at least, human rights, as opposed to citizen rights, were recognized more than 2,000 years ago. And certain courtesies to captured enemies more than 3,000 years ago if you believe Homer. Our forefathers died to bring this land out of savagery and into civilization, exterminating or near-exterminating the native savages who tortured, and sometimes ate, their prisoners, and we should not go back into the jungle because a bunch of greasy ragheads think they can challenge us, or some empty suit can think of nothing better.
Comment by nk — 6/28/2009 @ 11:00 am
#43 — Comment by JD — 6/28/2009 @ 10:22 am
Term limits are just something to be ignored, Pons.
Heh, hope and change. Change the constitution and Hope nobody will do anything about it.
Yeah, look how fast it took the President to become “deeply concerned” about the Zelaya’s detention.
Wish he could have found the same urgency with Iran. Of course that was just a possible pro-democratic movement, so I guess it’s not a big deal to him. Or maybe he thought it’s even the wrong direction for Iran; he seems to like it when the government tells the people how it is gong to be.
Comment by Pons Asinorum — 6/28/2009 @ 12:10 pm
Well, add in this and its pretty obvious that Obama has in less than six months broken every campaign promise he made, and shown that he’s nothing bu a brazen liar and Empty Suit(tm).
Comment by SPQR — 6/28/2009 @ 7:35 pm