Military Commissions: Obama Clarifies Position

The White House released a statement Friday afternoon clarifying the president's position on the use of military tribunals:

Statement of President Barack Obama on Military Commissions

Military commissions have a long tradition in the United States. They are appropriate for trying enemies who violate the laws of war, provided that they are properly structured and administered. In the past, I have supported the use of military commissions as one avenue to try detainees, in addition to prosecution in Article III courts. In 2006, I voted in favor of the use of military commissions. But I objected strongly to the Military Commissions Act that was drafted by the Bush Administration and passed by Congress because it failed to establish a legitimate legal framework and undermined our capability to ensure swift and certain justice against those detainees that we were holding at the time. Indeed, the system of Military Commissions at Guantanamo Bay had only succeeded in prosecuting three suspected terrorists in more than seven years.

Today, the Department of Defense will be seeking additional continuances in several pending military commission proceedings. We will seek more time to allow us time to reform the military commission process. The Secretary of Defense will notify the Congress of several changes to the rules governing the commissions. The rule changes will ensure that: First, statements that have been obtained from detainees using cruel, inhuman and degrading interrogation methods will no longer be admitted as evidence at trial. Second, the use of hearsay will be limited, so that the burden will no longer be on the party who objects to hearsay to disprove its reliability. Third, the accused will have greater latitude in selecting their counsel. Fourth, basic protections will be provided for those who refuse to testify. And fifth, military commission judges may establish the jurisdiction of their own courts.

These reforms will begin to restore the Commissions as a legitimate forum for prosecution, while bringing them in line with the rule of law. In addition, we will work with the Congress on additional reforms that will permit commissions to prosecute terrorists effectively and be an avenue, along with federal prosecutions in Article III courts, for administering justice. This is the best way to protect our country, while upholding our deeply held values.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[KoolAidDrinkersAnonymous]

What about the Obama policy that keeps detainees in indefinite incarceration?

Obama is keeping yet another Bush policy in place.

just like rendition
just like continued wiretaps
just like keeping fifty thousand in iraq for the rest of time
just like dropping presents on innocent women and children from drone planes
just like keeping Big healthcare comapnies in charge
just like keeping the pictures secret

and on and on and on and on and on

[Dupree]

I need to make a correction to my post...I said that they "deserve to have their day in court ...rather federal or military..­..and I meant to say...WHET­HER federal or military. It is passed my bedtime and I need some sleep.

[Dupree]

It is a shame that we have been trained by the media pundits to be pulled into simplicity and ignore the larger picture about these complex situations. Life is complicated. I can not use that term enough for it captures our reality in a nutshell. Yes, we have the Constitution and it is a brilliant document that should never be compromised but it is not some dead lifeless dogma of rules and regulation­s...it is alive and in motion. WE do have a moral obligation to get our country back on the tracks of right but at the same identical time...as we move in that direction .....we can not afford to be naive to the reality that there are some people that have been captured that would like to do us harm. They are entitled to have their day in court ...rather federal or military. But we must be cognitive of the fact that some of the detainees.­..do indeed have an agenda. WE must try to separate the wheat from the chaff. The ones that were unjustly held for being at the wrong place or because of a particular background­...and that individual deserves to be released. However, the ones that have evidence that they are on a mission to hurt us must be dealt with in a very precise manner that upholds our values and laws...whi­le securing our protection as a country simultaneously.

[IsobelDeBrujah]

Everyone who understands and has participated in a military trial please raise your hands...


OK just me then? Great, these trials, assuming that they are held to the standard that military trials have been held to under every administration other than that of GW Bush will be fair and follow the rule of law. Our military trial system faltered because of a bad leader, not because of a bad system.

[jmpurser]

Agreed. I had no problem with Military commissions. Just the kangaroo court mockeries of the Bush admin.

Get them out of Guantanamo, make them open (as possible), and do it quickly.

[jordan3189]

Funny that a president that is supposed to to be so articulate, always has to come out the next day and clarify his statements.

[MIVOTE]

Because you mangle and distort them, bring in innuendo that he didn't say, so it's for those, like you, that can't understand or choose not understand the first time around. Teachers do it with school children all the time. It used for folk at certain intellectual levels.

[jordan3189]

Yeah, that's it. But he seems to be doing his clarifying to the left.

[Reighben Labilles]

The President needs to clarify his statements in order to counter a great deal of misinformation from the GOP and its allied media outlets. He wants the public to be informed of what he really says, and not just the right-wing interpretation.

[jordan3189]

Funny he can't say it right the first time.

[dc2nm]

Only because we live in an era of a soundbite media. They would rather stir up Jerry Springer style debates than truly cover the news.

[wonketteRAWKS]

Under that famous rethug Bush, Jr., what, there were maybe 12 or so military tribunals, and 0 is calling for about 20...sound­s like an increase. Perhaps 0bush is in the house!

[japobere]

Except that they're not even close to the same thing. Try doing some research.

[HappyRabbit]

A Guantanamo defense attorney said, last night on Rachel Maddow, that the proposed changes would make no functional difference to the prisoners. I agree that is seems to be pure politics and I am getting sick of seeing it every Friday.

[Dbos]

What does that mean ? No functional difference . they now are goig to get fair trials .

[mrh3]

Separate but equal. That’s catchy!

[finishcurve]

60 of the 2000 photos Obama doesn't want released:

http://www.smh.com.au/ftimages/2006/02/15/1139890768716.html

[judiNJ]

Well, those are pretty sick and what good would it do if they were released?

[finishcurve]

Knowing is always better than not knowing.

[finishcurve]

Knowing is always better than not knowing...­and there are still quite a few in our country who are in denial.
When you are in denial, it could happen again.

[1fine49]

Most of Americans who voted for Obama did so because they saw in him someone that they could trust to make the correct decisions in difficult situations. If the Bush years showed us anything, it was that the presidency is a hard job that should not be entrusted to a third class mind or a third class temperament. It is also not a job that can be entrusted to somebody that is a slave to ideology or a simplistic world view. We all wish that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan did not exist. We all wish that Guantanamo and detainees did not exist. So does Obama. But we just can't wish these things away without consequences. The question we have to ask ourselves is do we trust him to find his way through the minefield and make the correct decisions. For now, I think we can.

[judiNJ]

I, for one, certainly do. Some of the decisions he has made regarding the photos and the War in Afghanistan I agreed with myself. I also worried about how Guantanamo would be solved, even as I wished it closed. Folks on the right, I can see they bashing him as that is just what they do, but ones on the left I am beginning to get pretty disgusted with. They are walking us right into the trap the Bush administration set for the new President. This certainly is a mine field, and Cheney is waiting in the wings like big black spider, just waiting to jump out if there is another attack. I saw the last two (Feb 92 and Sept 2001). Knowing the US, people will just freak out and want DADDY if it happens again. Old Dick will be so willing to come front and center and I hope the left is happy with that disgusting development. Maybe the better question would be, "would we be better off with President McCain and what decisions would HE make.

[1fine49]

You're right about McCain. He would have been so beholden to the right wing and to the Bush policies it really would have been no change at all. I understand where those who are impatient with Obama are coming from, but the they will have to understand that single issues, no matter how compelling they are, can not be the way that this or any President should be judged. All the people who voted for Ralph Nader were essentially single issue voters and look where that got us.

[DWX]

The Rise and Fall of Barack Hussein Obama.

Obama is becoming more and more like George W. by-the-day, constantly flip-flopping and now becoming a Right-Wing junior.

[uneeda]

yes we can = no we won't

[notsostimulated]

Good stuff

[JackNasty]

This is sad because it's true.

[BrighterStar]

The more Obama thinks about these issues the more he realizes that Bush was right all along. Hopefully his education will continue.

[nomobull]

if you and the media read past headlines you would realize he's actually fixing something else bush made a mess of not following his lead. in other words basing on the laws we have not creating ones to justify a lie.

[mouselion]

"But I objected strongly to the Military Commissions Act that was drafted by the Bush Administration and passed by Congress because it failed to establish a legitimate legal framework and undermined our capability to ensure swift and certain justice against those detainees that we were holding at the time. Indeed, the system of Military Commissions at Guantanamo Bay had only succeeded in prosecuting three suspected terrorists in more than seven years."

Didn't actually read his response did you?

[BrighterStar]

Yes I did. Obama was critical of the Bush policy. His current changes are window dressing at best designed to give him some political cover for his change of view.

[rasputin999]

WHY is President Obama going back on every campaign promise he made?
Why is he turning into George Bush?
The only "Change" I see is a new puppy in the Whitehouse.

[mouselion]

The "he's changing his mind" meme doesn't hold up when you look at the facts.

[notsostimulated]

Obama agrees with his critics. In his own words...

"But the long-term deficit and debt that we have accumulated is unsustainable. We can't keep on just borrowing from China, or borrowing from other countries -- (applause) -- because part of it is, we have to pay for -- we have to pay interest on that debt. And that means that we're mortgaging our children's future with more and more debt, but what's also true is that at some point they're just going to get tired of buying our debt. And when that happens, we will really have to raise interest rates to be able to borrow, and that will raise interest rates for everybody -- on your auto loan, on your mortgage, on -- so it will have a dampening effect on the economy."

Obama May14th Town Hall Meeting in Rio Rancho,New Mexico

[nomobull]

your point is?.......

[notsostimulated]

Let me spell it out for you. OBAMA DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE IS DOING!

[mouselion]

Yes, and who started this massive borrowing from China?

[notsostimulated]

Good try but Obama has taken over the train and is breaking any and all spending of the previous administration. But you already know that.

[Ramirez]

From WSJ:
****

“In any event, Mr. Obama deserves credit for accepting that the civilian courts are largely unsuited for the realities of the war on terror. He has now decided to preserve a tribunal process that will be identical in every material way to the one favored by Dick Cheney — and which, contrary to the narrative that Democrats promulgated for years, will be the fairest and most open war-crimes trials in U.S. history. Meanwhile, friends should keep certain newspaper editors away from sharp objects. Their champion has repudiated them once again.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124242595415225131.html

[mouselion]

Did Dick Cheney decide to support Obama's reforms to military tribunal justice?

Now that, I was not aware of, at all. I guess the "liberal" media didn't want us to know of his change of heart.