iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Obama Huddles With Human Rights Groups Before Security Speech

First Posted: 06/20/09 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 02:25 PM ET

Obama

Under heavy criticism for a series of decisions on national security that resembled, for some, those of the Bush years, President Barack Obama hosted a lengthy meeting on Wednesday with the leaders of several key human rights and civil liberties groups.

Addressed were the topics that promise to be front and center during the President's major foreign policy speech scheduled for Thursday.

According to an attendee, Obama expressed frustration with Congress' decision to remove funding for the closure of the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay. The president declared that his hands were tied in some ways regarding the use of reformed military tribunals, though he pledged to try as many detainees as possible in Article III federal courts.

Hours after the meeting, the Associated Press reported that the administration plans to send Ahmed Ghailani, a top al-Qaida suspect held at Guantanamo Bay, to New York to face trial. Ghailani will be the first detainee held at GItmo to be brought to the United States, and the first to face trial in a civilian criminal court.

Speaking to human rights officials on Wednesday, the president also left the door open for the future release of detainee abuse photos, saying that his administration's current opposition to the release was dictated by immediate concern over the complications it could cause to America's mission in Afghanistan.

More broadly, Obama said he was determined to build a new structure for executive oversight that would last beyond his presidency, preempting the problems he currently confronts from happening again.

"We talked a lot about the framework in which he is operating, and he talked about his strong desire to reestablish a system under which the executive is not exercising unfettered authority," said Elisa Massimino, CEO of Human Rights First and an attendee at the Wednesday affair. "One of the chief differences between him and his predecessor was that he didn't think he ought to be making these decisions in an ad-hoc, unaccountable way. And so he said that, in thinking through this, he was focused on how his successor might operate."

In an interview with the Huffington Post, Massimino detailed what she described as a "lively and detailed and serious" discussion on some of the days most vexing national security issues. Over the course of roughly an hour and fifteen minutes, Obama, along with Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Attorney General Eric Holder, advisers Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod, foreign policy hand Dennis McDonough, and counter-terrorism chief John Brennan, held court with a group of academics, as well as officials with the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, and the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Asked to attend the meeting on Tuesday afternoon, the group came prepared with what Massimino described as "some pointed pushback and questions" on a variety of topics. The president, she added, spoke for roughly fifteen minutes before opening up the forum for questions.

"It was really a back and forth discussion," said Massimino. "It was not, one side makes a presentation and the other side listens and takes notes. It was really probing."

There was much to probe. According to Massimino, Obama had "two baskets of issues he wanted to talk about: one was Guantanamo and all of the things pertaining to closing it. And the other was transparency."

On Gitmo, Massimino said, the President "emphasized that he was in this for the long game. He said he realized that you can't change people's misperceptions overnight, that they have had eight long years of a steady dose of fear and a lack of leadership and that is not something that you wave a magic wand and make it go away."

As for the criticism of Senate Republicans, who suggest that moving terrorism suspects to America would be tantamount to releasing them on the streets, Massimino recalled Obama's remarks as being relatively brief. He dismissed it, she said, "as really an unfounded fear that is being fanned by people who are seeking political advantage."

While acknowledging that she did not have verbatim quotes from the president, Massimino nevertheless relayed some of the remarks he made on other key foreign policy topics. On the administration's decision to reverse course and oppose the release of photos depicting abuse of terrorist suspects, she said that Obama brought it up without being prompted. "He raised it," she said. "We didn't have to ask."

"He said that he became convinced that the particular timing of what we were dealing with in Afghanistan right now made this a particularly bad time to release those photos," she explained. "And he said that we should not conclude from his decision right now that those photos will not end up getting released. There are many ways that might happen. The court might order it. Circumstances might change the balance of consideration that would weigh in favor of transparency, which he reiterated would be his default position."

On his decision to maintain and improve the use of military tribunals to try terrorist suspects, Obama, she said, "seemed to imply that some of the circumstances of capture of some of the people of Guantanomo would lend themselves to trial in a military commission." He reiterated, she added, that "despite the announcement of military commissions on Friday, his strong preference was that we use Article III courts..."

Taking place in the West Wing, the meeting was a chance for the president and some of those most disappointed by his recent policies to come to grips with the contentious events in recent weeks. While contending that the president's recent declarations on the aforementioned issues do not constitute a change in policy, the White House has clearly begun the process of cooling the political flames. Wednesday's meeting will be followed by a major speech Thursday addressing these very same topics.

Asked whether the president had pacified some of the concerns she brought to the White House on Wednesday, Massimino said that she was pleased with the opportunity for engagement. Beyond that, she still registered concerns.

"I think that many of us were disappointed by the announcement about the military commissions and wondered what the reasoning was behind that. And to be honest, I am still wondering having been in this meeting today. I don't think that this fits the overall framework that the president had articulated about using our values to reinforce a counter terrorism strategy against al Qaeda."

An email to the White House for clarification or comment was not immediately returned.


Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

Under heavy criticism for a series of decisions on national security that resembled, for some, those of the Bush years, President Barack Obama hosted a lengthy meeting on Wednesday with the leaders of...
Under heavy criticism for a series of decisions on national security that resembled, for some, those of the Bush years, President Barack Obama hosted a lengthy meeting on Wednesday with the leaders of...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,473
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (19 total)
03:05 AM on 05/24/2009
Wow you guys are way out of touch. First Prove that ANY one was tortured in GITMO. You have listened to your own disinformation so long your believe it yourselves.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LinkSync
06:03 PM on 05/22/2009
BO needs to read the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution and Bill of Rights again.
Actually read them.
Then tell us how preemptive prolonged detention can be in any way legal in the face of those documents that are our nation's birth certificate.

No Health Care reform that could "harm" the for profit providers that have broken the system because to paraphrase Obama, they got there first so we can't do single payer....WTF?
No getting out of Iraq.
Escalation of our war in Pakistan.
No varifiable termination of illegal wiretapping.
No termination of kidnapping detainees and providing no Habeas Corpus rights to them in Afgahn military prisons, so we operate the same as in Gitmo.(less the troture or is it?).
BAIL OUT RICH BANKERS and INVESTORS but do NOTHING to help hurting HOMEOWNERS.
---that will be the undoing of the left for another 50 years I think.---

Bo is just more of the same.
From over here on the left all I see is profits and ongoing facsism.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
11907281
05:52 PM on 05/21/2009
This is becoming a version of "Transformers VS Gobots". 2 similar things trying to appear completely different. Can anyone tell me what list is longer, Obama's promises broken or his promises kept? Even then, IMO, his compromises out weigh any of the promises kept ... which are .... ummm ... I'm drawing a blank. Please don't get all NRO on me and accuse me of being a plant, this is the first time I had hope in any politician. All the major issues, dealing with security, have been sidelined so we can bail out rich people and essentially pardon Dubbya, a la Ford. Shame, indeed, has no boundaries. As a person, I love Obama (sacrificing wealth for what is right is the foundation of all moral philosophy), as a leader ... so far ... not so much.
04:48 PM on 05/21/2009
git mo to remain open and working.....thank god
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
11907281
05:54 PM on 05/21/2009
If your god is thankful for that, you and UBL have a lot in common!
07:09 PM on 05/21/2009
Give the person a break, he was honest using (perhaps in ignorance) the lower case 'g" meaning false-god. Reminds me of Bush (apparently peaking where he shouldn't and) saying he saw Putins soul, and liked it. Bush also admits getting instructions from (g)od. Try to remember these people are using language and expression of familiarity, and are not calling upon the true God.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
11907281
07:24 PM on 05/21/2009
A break??? Most of the people in "gitmo" were the result of human trafficking, ie. they were sold to YOUR government for profit by the NA and warlords.. Use your semantics to placate yourself and your loved ones, don't use it in debate.

P.S - Claiming to have knowledge of a "True God" is aboutel the most egotistical and megalomaniac thing one can do, like UBL does. But you are different, ... right?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:30 PM on 05/21/2009
The U.S. was very scared after 9/11, and we did'nt have anyone to tell us that the only thing we need to fear was fear itself. People do bad things when their afraid.
04:28 PM on 05/21/2009
Collage 707, I may not write as eloquently as you, but all I can say is - You have got to be kidding me. Are we not ever going to be happy until Obama brings charges to the previous administration? Will we then go back to the Clinton years? Bush Sr.? Carter? Regan? When would you like it to end?? Why can we just not move on, move forward? Don't forget that Obama will not be president forever. In 4 or 8 years from now do we want to review every little thing he does and treat him the same? Do
we really wish to set this precedent? Remember the House and Congress had a Democratic majority for a period of Bush's term. Do we really want to go there, because if we do then they must be investigated as well. Obama wants to plan for "Preventative Detention" facilities in which to hold people before they actually commit a crime. How is that any different that Gitmo, considering some detainees have actually killed Americans. Do we want him brought to trial for it in four years?? What about any other decisions he makes that the next administration doesn't like? We are walking a very fine line here and we must decide if we truly want to do this. Are we pushing for it out of hatred and years of frustration?
04:13 PM on 05/21/2009
A stack of rights issues. This right's for you, and this right's for you, and this, oh it's Reverend Wright, oh well, we won't have to worry about that one anymore.
04:12 PM on 05/21/2009
Please remember these detainees are NOT American citizens. Why do people think they fall under the Constitution or that these detainees have the same rights as you and I? The Constitution was established to protect American citizens, not people who want to kill those citizens. Read it.

They were not put in Gitmo because they were a little naughty, disobeyed traffic laws, or were in the wrong place at the wrong time. They are terrorist. They hate you and me because we are Americans. They hate us because we are Christian, Jewish, Morman, agnostic, atheist, and Muslim. They hate us because we are not them. They will continue hating us, and nothing we ever do can change that. They want us dead. Do you really want them released? Just where would you suggest they live? No other country, NOT EVEN THEIR OWN, wants them. If you want them released, why don't you sponsor one or two to live with you, or in your neighborhood. All this posting is just lip service. If you truly believe what you are saying, then sponsor a detainee or two to stay with you. Give them their freedom.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:29 PM on 05/21/2009
I just read the nytimes and what President was talking about, and it's in the article, was how to hold the ones in Gitmo who CAN"T be release because there's no were to put them. It's bad enough that the wrong gets it wrong but to read something not there and state it as fact PLEASE!!!! OBAMA's biggest problem with Gitmo is how do you change 7 1/2 years of wrong way cHENEY/bUSH bash. There ain't no LAW for OBAMA to fallow as the whole thing was illegal.
02:24 PM on 05/22/2009
Our Constitutional laws are not just for American Citizens.
These Constitutional protections are for all people who find themselves on US soil. We have the right to stay in the US as citizens, but not more general legal rights . Visiters to our fine nation are afforded the same protections that we are. When we travel to other countries we expect the same, conversly, we often are wary of travel to places that do not have constitutional liberties similar to our own.
Also know that some detainees either at Gitmo or other secret bases were US citizens. Some are Canadian citizens. Some are children.
Lastly, also please know that many of those detained after 9/11 were innocent. Over 800 were detained at Gitmo (This doesn't count the countless people detained elsewhere), and maybe 2 dozen are terrorist. We may have created more though through our Medieval "justice" of the last Admin.

We have trials in this country for a reason. It is so Govt. officials can't point at you and say "guilty" without you getting to offer evidence to the contrary. This is the basic right of any free society.

So to those who are afraid of trials I have to ask "why?"
I am afraid of my Govt. not giving me a trial, more than I am of terrorists.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/13/AR2005111301061.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/19/MNFH16JM02.DTL
03:19 AM on 05/24/2009
How do you know the circumstances of each and every one of the detainees?
Mere conjecture? They are and should be handled as POW's. Released when the Jihads are over.That makes sense. POW's are not able to access the courts so why has that happened? Better consider precedents
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:12 PM on 05/21/2009
You can take the detainees out of Gitmo, but you can't take gitmo out of the detainees.
04:11 PM on 05/21/2009
"No matter these barbs. The short of it is that sometime during Obama's administration, those people who manufactured the preemptive, destabilizing Iraqi war; the same core who OK'd torture on human beings (no matter what their offenses), destroyed America's adherence to International Accords; vested the executive branch with rights of dictatorship; strong-armed the judicial to execute political purges; secreted thousands of pages of evidence--constitutional abuses now seeing daylight--THOSE PEOPLE MUST UNDERGO OBJECTIVE INVESTIGATION, INCLUDING SUBPOENA POWER! If deemed guilty, no matter their vaunted previous positions, they must answer to the law! Obama doesn't want distraction. Understood. His plate heightens daily. BUT, he cannot complete this term (even accomplishing health care, credit reform, etc.) without addressing this "elephant in the room." Bushies are frantically pasting together "legacies"-- meaningless cardboard constructions. What really matters is Obama's legacy-- not great for him to be known as the good president, who for political expediencies, would not look back at high crimes and misdemeanors to
avoid partisan enmity (which he'll get anyway). We, who worked for his election, would view this as epically tragic. He's brilliant, ethical, nuanced--but to avert his gaze ties him to the perpetrators. We have frequently told our children, "If you don't say "no," you're saying "yes!" We are patient people/do understand current pressures--but with time, the bleep has to hit the fan. I'm keeping faith the finely tuned Obama won't protect those who led us into that snakepit of criminal government.
03:23 AM on 05/24/2009
For very simple reasons.........Your accusations do not add up to facts. Your interpretation of the alleged facts is faulty at best. Stick to animal rights causes you aren't up to the heavy lifting here
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Steamboater
Forget hope. Agitate.
03:35 PM on 05/21/2009
What about human rights for Americans who are Gay? All we get is talk and that means less than nothing.
01:21 AM on 05/22/2009
This is a horror and must be changed ASAP! Apparently, DADT is an actually law which must be rescinded, as opposed to Truman's integrating Blacks into the armed services after WW2 by presidential fiat--and the services are so neurotic about this that they'd rather do without honored servicemen/women, skilled translators, etc. than give in on this. What is this--fear that we all have a little gayness in us?? I have confidence that Obama will get this cruel and idiotic law changed during his first term. Gay and Lesbian individuals should of course have every right afforded to any American citizen--that they don't harkens back to slave days in many ways. Just keep this issue front and center--and keep getting married whenever you can--though I can't imagine why you want the same miseries as your fellow hetero's. Remember the old Abbott and Costello joke about the three rings of marriage--"the engagement ring, the wedding ring--and the suffering." Just kidding?
03:25 AM on 05/24/2009
What Human rights are you referring to?
03:28 PM on 05/21/2009
What were they talking about when Obama mentioned his plan for "Preventative Detention" facilities? Trying to hold people before they actually commit a crime. Isn't that the same logic as the last 8 years?

New York Times this morning. Page A18

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21obama.html

I thought we were rising above this sort of "lack of due process"
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
jsgaetano
"Conservative" is not a political party, genius.
03:56 PM on 05/21/2009
I'll bet if we throw all of Bush's campaign donors in prison, you'll see the total amount of fraud plummet. Pederasty too.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:31 PM on 05/21/2009
I just read the nytimes and what President was talking about, and it's in the article, was how to hold the ones in Gitmo who CAN"T be release because there's no were to put them. It's bad enough that the wrong gets it wrong but to read something not there and state it as fact PLEASE!!!! OBAMA's biggest problem with Gitmo is how do you change 7 1/2 years of wrong way cHENEY/bUSH bash. There ain't no LAW for OBAMA to fallow as the whole thing was illegal.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
gladys46
Know Your Interests, Vote
02:03 PM on 05/21/2009
"Judicial & Congressional oversights" ... that is America and that is the law ! Totally UNLIKE Cheyney/Bush illegal dictatorships & t or ture programmes !!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LynnW49
"A great democracy must be progressive." TR
01:34 PM on 05/21/2009
"he talked about his strong desire to reestablish a system under which the executive is not exercising unfettered authority"

We have had this system since the US Consitution was ratified. But the checks and balances already in place before Dick Cheney and George Bush urinated on them only work if you have a Congress that is not on the take and has a spine, an impartial Judicial branch, and an outspoken citizenry. THAT is what we need to reestablish.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
dianhow
former Repub till W
01:42 PM on 05/21/2009
TIME Give him time... only 4 + months !!!
Bush had 8 years to create disaster.....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FrankenPC
01:57 PM on 05/21/2009
Longer than that. The GOP has been working hard on this breakdown for decades.
12:47 PM on 05/21/2009
Obama expands the American warfare state:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Obama-Expands-the-American-by-Sherwood-Ross-090521-261.html

While the 'Black Shirts' of Guantanamo routinely terrorize prisoners, breaking bones, gouging eyes, squeezing testicles, and 'dousing' them with chemicals:

http://www.alternet.org/rights/140022/little_known_military_thug_squad_still_brutalizing_prisoners_at_gitmo_under_obama/