White House Drafts Executive Order To Allow Indefinite Detention Of Terror Suspects

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - White House Drafts Executive Order To Allow Indefinite Detention Of Terror Suspects stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS


First Posted: 06-26-09 05:32 PM   |   Updated: 06-26-09 06:17 PM

I Like ItI Don’t Like It
Gbay

The Obama administration, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close Guantanamo, has drafted 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.

After months of internal debate over how to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, White House officials are growing increasingly worried that reaching quick agreement with Congress on a new detention system may prove impossible. Several officials said there is concern in the White House that the administration may not be able to close the facility by the president's January deadline.

White House spokesman Ben LaBolt did not directly respond to questions about an executive order but said the administration would address the cases of Guantanamo detainees in a manner "consistent with the national security interests of the United States and the interests of justice."

One administration official suggested the White House was already trying to build support for an executive order.

"Civil liberties groups have encouraged the administration, that if a prolonged detention system were to be sought, to do it through executive order," the official said. Such an order could be rescinded and would not block later efforts to write legislation, but civil liberties groups generally oppose long-term detention, arguing that detainees should either be prosecuted or released.

The Justice Department has declined to comment on the prospects for a long-term detention system while internal reviews of Guantanamo detainees are underway. The reviews are expected to be completed by July 21.

In a May speech, President Obama broached the need for a system of long-term detention and suggested that it would include congressional and judicial oversight. "We must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. They can't be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone," the president said.

Story continues below
advertisement

Some of Obama's top legal advisers, along with a handful of influential Republican and Democratic lawmakers, have pushed for the creation of a "national security court" to supervise the incarceration of detainees deemed too dangerous to release but who cannot be charged or tried.

But the three senior government officials said the White House has turned away from that option, at least for now, because legislation establishing a special court would be both difficult to pass and likely to fracture Obama's own party. These officials, as well as others interviewed for this article, spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about internal deliberations.

On the day Obama took office, 242 men were imprisoned at Guantanamo. In his May speech, the president outlined five strategies the administration would use to deal with them: criminal trials, revamped military tribunals, transfers to other countries, releases and continued detention.

Since the inauguration, 11 detainees have been released or transferred, one prisoner committed suicide and one was moved to New York to face terrorism charges in federal court.

Administration officials said the cases of about half of the remaining 229 detainees have been reviewed for prosecution or release. Two officials involved in a Justice Department review of possible prosecutions said the administration is strongly considering criminal charges in federal court for Khalid Sheik Mohammed and three other detainees accused of involvement in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

The other half, the officials said, present the greatest difficulty because these detainees cannot be prosecuted either in federal court or military commissions. In many cases the evidence against them is classified, has been provided by foreign intelligence services, or has been tainted by the Bush administration's use of harsh interrogation techniques.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. agreed with an assessment offered during congressional testimony this month that fewer than 25 percent of the detainees would be charged in criminal courts and that 50 others have been approved for transfer or release. One official said the administration is still hoping that as many as 70 Yemeni citizens will be moved, in stages, into a rehabilitation program in Saudi Arabia.

Three months into the Justice Department's reviews, several officials involved said they have found themselves agreeing with conclusions reached years earlier by the Bush administration: As many as 90 detainees cannot be charged or released.

The White House has spent months meeting with key congressional leaders in the hopes of reaching agreement on long-term detention, even as public support for such a plan has wavered as lawmakers have sought to prevent detainees from being transferred to their constituencies.

Lawyers for the administration are now in negotiations with Sens. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) over separate legislation that would revamp military commissions. A senior Republican staff member said that senators have yet to see "a comprehensive, detailed policy" on long-term detention from the administration.

"They can do it without congressional backing, but I think there would be very strong concerns," the staff member said, adding that "Congress could cut off funding" for any detention system established in the United States.

Concerns are growing among Obama's advisers that Congress may try to assert too much control over the process. This week Obama signed an appropriations bill that forces the administration to report to Congress before moving any detainee out of Guantanamo and prevents the White House from using available funds to move detainees onto U.S. soil.

"Legislation could kill Obama's plans," said one government official involved. The official said an executive order could be the best option for the president at this juncture. Under one White House draft that was being discussed earlier this month, according to administration officials, detainees would be imprisoned at a military facility on U.S. soil but their ongoing detention would be subject to annual presidential review. U.S. citizens would not be held in the system.

Such detainees -- those at Guantanamo and those who may be captured in the future -- would also have the right to legal representation during confinement and access to some of the information that is being used to keep them behind bars. Anyone detained under this order would have a right to challenge his detention before a judge.

Officials argue that the plan would give detainees more rights and allow them a better chance to one day end their indefinite incarceration than they have now at Guantanamo.

But some senior Democrats see longterm detention as tantamount to reestablishing the Guantanamo system on U.S. soil. "I think this could be a very big mistake, because of how such a system could be perceived throughout the world," Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) told Holder.

One administration official said future transfers to the United States for long-term detention would be rare. Al-Qaeda operatives captured on the battlefield, which the official defined as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and possibly the Horn of Africa, would be held in battlefield facilities. Suspects captured elsewhere in the world could be transferred to the United States for federal prosecution, turned over to local authorities or returned to their home countries.

"Going forward, unless it's an extraordinary case, you will not see new transfers to the U.S. for indefinite detention," the official said.

Instituting long-term detention through an executive order would leave Obama vulnerable to charges that he is willing to forsake the legislative branch of government, as his predecessor often did. Bush's detention policies suffered successive defeats in the courts in part because they lacked congressional approval and tried to exclude judicial oversight.

"There is no statute prohibiting the president from doing this through executive order, and so far courts have not ruled in ways that would bar him from doing so," said Matthew Waxman, who worked on detainee issues at the Defense Department during Bush's first term. But Waxman, who waged a battle inside the Bush administration for more congressional cooperation, said the "courts are more likely to defer to the president and legislative branch when they speak with one voice on these issues."

Walid bin Attash, who is accused of involvement in the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000 and who was held at a secret CIA prison, could be among those subject to long-term detention, according to one senior official.

Little information on bin Attash's case has been made public, but officials who have reviewed his file said the Justice Department has concluded that none of the three witnesses against him can be brought to testify in court. One witness, who was jailed in Yemen, escaped several years ago. A second witness remains incarcerated, but the government of Yemen will not allow him to testify.

Administration officials believe that testimony from the only witness in U.S. custody, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, may be inadmissible because he was subjected to harsh interrogation while in CIA custody.

"These issues haven't morphed simply because the administration changed," said Juan Zarate, who served as Bush's deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism and is now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

"The challenge for the new administration is how to solve these legal questions of preventive detention in a way that is consistent with the Constitution, legitimate in the eyes of the world and doesn't create security loopholes that cause Congress to worry," Zarate said.

ProPublica is an independent, nonprofit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest.

The Obama administration, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close Guantanamo, has drafted an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism ...
The Obama administration, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close Guantanamo, has drafted an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism ...
Filed by Megan Slack  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
684
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (19 pages total)
- DinSea I'm a Fan of DinSea 25 fans permalink

*WRONG* ... another sen.sational ized story by HP that not only misleads, but incites dissension. BAD, very very bad HP!! Also, the photo and dramatic title about Obama "scoffing" at Iran's leader ... inacurate and misleading. Someone needs to raise the reporting standards here.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:36 PM on 06/27/2009

Where are stories about the Obama renditions?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:13 PM on 06/27/2009
photo

Where is the update HUFFPost????? The WH denies this story. Where is the UPDATE?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:20 PM on 06/27/2009
- sviolette I'm a Fan of sviolette 72 fans permalink
photo

Ther is another article about the denial. That way the republicans can say the same thing in the blogs about both stories.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:37 PM on 06/27/2009
- hapiday I'm a Fan of hapiday 94 fans permalink
photo

CORRECTION!!

"Will it be okay if Obama sends Muslims to internment camps because FDR did it with the Japanese?"

According to the neo-cons President Obama has a lil bit of Muslim in him. So I guess he wouldn't send them to internment camps. People are so confused.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:54 PM on 06/27/2009
- Joe Caps I'm a Fan of Joe Caps 35 fans permalink
photo

I think you sound confused you cannot make up whether or not he would send the Muslims to internment camps or not.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:14 PM on 06/27/2009
- hapiday I'm a Fan of hapiday 94 fans permalink
photo

"Will it be okay if Obama sends Muslims to internment camps because FDR did it with the Japanese?"

According to the neo-cons President Obama has a lil bit of Muslim in him. So I guess he would send them to internment camps. People are so confused.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:53 PM on 06/27/2009
- Jigglypuff I'm a Fan of Jigglypuff 18 fans permalink
    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:39 PM on 06/27/2009
- Joe Caps I'm a Fan of Joe Caps 35 fans permalink
photo

Open question:

What is more important?
(a) loyalty to BHO?
(b) convictions on human rights?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:18 PM on 06/27/2009
- eirrac I'm a Fan of eirrac 12 fans permalink
photo

Please, Joe...both loyalty to Obama and convictions on human rights are important need not be contradictory. A great many of us know that Obama has the right convictions on human rights. It's the nay-sayers in Congress that are subverting the rights of the people at Gitmo.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:03 PM on 06/27/2009
- Joe Caps I'm a Fan of Joe Caps 35 fans permalink
photo

Where do you draw the line? I would imagine a great many are drawing the line with indefinite detention...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:16 PM on 06/27/2009
- gbrooks I'm a Fan of gbrooks 57 fans permalink
photo

Why would a person be loyal to a politician?

Be loyal to your friends, your family, your spouse, your children--but a politician?

Naw.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:20 PM on 06/27/2009
- sviolette I'm a Fan of sviolette 72 fans permalink
photo

Convictions deffinately.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:39 PM on 06/27/2009
photo

Loyalty no matter what and i only watch MSNBC!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:48 PM on 06/27/2009
- Joe Caps I'm a Fan of Joe Caps 35 fans permalink
photo

Isn't this story more important than Sanford cheating? Why is this not front and center on the front page? Are we being distracted?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:07 PM on 06/27/2009
- Jigglypuff I'm a Fan of Jigglypuff 18 fans permalink
photo

Americans have been distracted for about 8 years.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:10 PM on 06/27/2009
- Joe Caps I'm a Fan of Joe Caps 35 fans permalink
photo

Really, Jigglypuff? Is that all you have? Why is that whenever lefties cannot come up with a counterargument, its always..."but but but BOOOSH did it"! I thought the whole point of electing Obama was he was supposed to be different than GWB? Now you are saying Obama can do whatever bush did and its OK this time around because he is not bush, or something? Is that your argument? Yeah that makes no sense whatsoever.

Will it be okay if Obama sends Muslims to internment camps because FDR did it with the Japanese?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:15 PM on 06/27/2009
- Joe Caps I'm a Fan of Joe Caps 35 fans permalink
photo

Why the Friday night news dump? Couldn't he have brought this up in his presser earlier this week?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:05 PM on 06/27/2009
- Joe Caps I'm a Fan of Joe Caps 35 fans permalink
photo

This thread seems kind of dead...Why is the week-old news that Sanford cheated on his wife more important than this? Ever feel like you are being purposefully distracted?

How about that Friday news dump, guys? Obama had a presser on foriegn policy earlier this week, why didn't he bring this up then?

Oh yeah, that's right, he spend two and a half years trashing GWB only to end up agreeing with him out of political opportunism. He does not want anybody to know or talk about this so that is why instead of being open and honest and coming out and saying GWB and Cheney had it right, he does this. Wow...what a stand up leader we elected.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:47 PM on 06/27/2009
- Joe Caps I'm a Fan of Joe Caps 35 fans permalink
photo

All those who voted for Obama mainly because he was black or because he was anti-war: Will you still vote for the Obama in 2012 when it turns out he is GWB II on these matters? Is your Obama cultism stronger than your "principles?"

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:40 PM on 06/27/2009
photo

I'll answer your meaningless question when you tell me who will be running against him.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:47 PM on 06/27/2009
- Joe Caps I'm a Fan of Joe Caps 35 fans permalink
photo

Meaningless? Don't you want to hold your elected leaders accountable? Why would you support somebody who you elected because he was against GWBs foreign policy who ended up following his lead? Obama should at least apologize to GWB for smearing him when Obama apparently has decided he had it right this whole time. He should apologize to Cheney too, I guess this means he won the debate.

Anywhoo, I'll answer your question. What if somebody an honest politican with convictions runs? Will you support him/her over Obama?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:54 PM on 06/27/2009

I will answer your question. I am African-American and have been a Ted Kennedy liberal every since I was old enough to know the difference between liberal and conservative. I voted for Obama, not because he is black, but because I thought he was the best candidate and I did not trust Hilary Clinton or John McCain. However, in the last month, I have been reading and hearing some very disturbing things from him related to gay rights (which I support), the bank bailout, the don't-ask-­don't-tell law, war in Iraq, things about Guantanimo (like this story). He has either waffled or reneged on the majority of his key campaign promises and, so far, is definitely not the "change" candidate. I am very disappointed in Obama so far.

If things continue the way they have been in the first four months, I won't be voting for him in the next election. I definitely won't vote for a Republican. I will most likely just stay home on election day.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:14 PM on 06/27/2009
- gbrooks I'm a Fan of gbrooks 57 fans permalink
photo

I'm in the same boat as you (well, except that I'm not African-American), depending on how things go I certainly can't see myself voting for a Republican, given the nature of those that are being paraded around), so I'll likely write-in Ron Paul for the primary and vote 3rd party at the general. At least that way my vote will have been registered.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:25 PM on 06/27/2009
photo

if Keith O tells me to I will!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:49 PM on 06/27/2009
- Joe Caps I'm a Fan of Joe Caps 35 fans permalink
photo

New Boss, Same as the Old Boss

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:32 PM on 06/27/2009
- eirrac I'm a Fan of eirrac 12 fans permalink
photo

Not true, Joe. Give it up. You aren't convincing anyone anyway.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:05 PM on 06/27/2009
- jackoat04 I'm a Fan of jackoat04 3 fans permalink

What's the problem? Let's close gitmo and be done with this mess.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:46 PM on 06/27/2009
- StillAmused I'm a Fan of StillAmused 251 fans permalink

There's something jarring about the notion of developing a permanent and growing 'collection' of human beings, all under the farcical rubrick of GWOT.

If we'd done this with everyone who tried to k ill Americans in the two World Wars, Korea and Vietnam, there wouldn't be enough room left on the continent for a broom closet.

When (if) the history of this cognitive breakdown is written, Bush/Cheney will be credited with the most toxic concept ever concocted.

Learn to live with it... nineteen fanatics, 'controlled' and funded by maybe a dozen key masterminds, pulled off a horrific, devastating CRIME. Moreover, they did it from HERE, and we afforded them some of the flight training.

'Global War On Terror' is a euphemism for "Man, did we ever get caught with our shorts around our ankles. Can't let THAT get around!"

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:39 PM on 06/27/2009
- zepfan81 I'm a Fan of zepfan81 11 fans permalink

Change we can believe in! Honestly in matters of foreign policy/defense there is little different from President to President regardless of party. Domestic issues are really the only issues in which they tend to differ with one another.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:32 PM on 06/27/2009
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (19 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect