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 Such an order could be rescinded and would not block later efforts to write legislation, but civil liberties groups generally oppose long-term detention, arguing that detainees should either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

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: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next › Last » (19 pages total)
- gbrooks I'm a Fan of gbrooks 107 fans permalink
photo

Oh hooray!

I can't wait to see what future presidents will do, now that torture, indefinite detention and pre-emptive war not authorized by Congress is legal!

AND the Federal Reserve has MORE power!

Thank GOD the gov't is here to save us from ourselves!

Where the F did I put my Paxil, double dose today to celebrate!

Can I use any more exclamation points? YES I CAN!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:21 AM on 06/27/2009
- katooom I'm a Fan of katooom 24 fans permalink
photo

Innocent till proven guilty. That is the core of our justice system.

It is the government's responsibility to convict these people. If they cannot, they MUST be let go. We should mildly compensate them for the illegal detention, take them back to where they were picked up, and let them go. I truly do not understand the problem here.

Our law demands they be tried or let go.

Come on Pres Obama, man up and do the right thing.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:00 AM on 06/27/2009
photo

The loss of liberals is why Obama has seen the slight decline in his approval ratings. He is angering the people who fought so hard to elect him. He is governing much like Bush.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:57 AM on 06/27/2009
- RoseMerry I'm a Fan of RoseMerry 18 fans permalink

And yet another American President wipes his rear with our Consitution.

IMPEACH!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:51 AM on 06/27/2009
- claudiam I'm a Fan of claudiam 25 fans permalink
photo

Come on Obama Administration. Give us transparency on this issue. To continue the Bush policies is not helpful when our country is in such crisis. claudiatucsonaz

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:46 AM on 06/27/2009
- ymuttley I'm a Fan of ymuttley 2 fans permalink

For EVERYBODY'S Information, There is NO Executive Order!!! It is a sad state of affairs when a news paper"LA Times" can print an out and out lie,The W House has said this NOT true.

LA Times put this out,and a lot of internet papers picked it up,But it was debunked
It is a shame when people believe things before they check it out for themselves,If you want to get on Obama, ok! But don't say crappy things or accuse before you know the real facts.

The problem is that a select so called journalists,bloggers etc put things out there because they know some will believe it, and spread all over internet that is precisely What they want u to!I suggest people look to see just WHO put these BS stories. out there

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:40 AM on 06/27/2009
photo

Even if there is no Order, Obama behaves as though there is every day he lets these men rot in cages.

That the LA Times published it on a Friday belies your argument. Why take such a controversial subject, that could impact your circulation in a lagging print market, ... and bury it on the slowest day of the week's publication?

It is my impression that sources in the WH leaked it to that paper to see the reaction and gauge the advisability of taking such a step. Obama is first and foremost a politician. I think you can see where this idea is leading and the reaction it generated.

In the end, the effect is the same, unless and until Obama does what Bush could not, ... charge these men and try them. If they are convicted, punish them. If they are acquitted, release them.

Obama can not have it any other way. It is his turn do what Bush would not.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:32 AM on 06/27/2009

The President is wrong. I was one of his early supporters, but this kind of thing bothers me. Plus his allowing ex-judicial wire tapping. The problem with is calling the conflict with Al Qaeda a "war". It is a police action. There is much more immediacy in a war so we want our President to have extra powers so we can fight our wars with more dispatch. But this is a minor police action that nets fewer prisoners than the war on drugs, and criminals no more violent although they might have more violent thoughts and ideas.We cannot criticise Iran over its abuses of due process and then we jail people indefinitely merely by the President's up or down signal.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:38 AM on 06/27/2009
- lobear00 I'm a Fan of lobear00 27 fans permalink

If Our government would only mind its own business, and stop trying to overthrow other governments "We" would not have wars, but some in the previous administration decided to pick up where the one called hitler left off. Global Dominance

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:55 AM on 06/27/2009
- Paisano I'm a Fan of Paisano 11 fans permalink
photo

Bushbama strikes again!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:38 AM on 06/27/2009
photo

We can have Change, Yes We Can.

But not if it ends indefinite detention, rendition, and a little enhanced interrogation.
But not if it restores habeas corpus and our Constitution.
But not if it interferes with government spying on our fellow citizens.
But not if it involves getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
But not if it is closing Guantanamo and Bagram today.
But not if it ends corporate welfare for Wall Street, big business, and big finance.
But not if it helps Main Street respond to the consequences of our irrational spree of individual and collective borrowing, and our subsequent deep recession.
But not if it raises taxes for the rich and lowers them for the poor.
But not if it brings Single Payer health care to the table.
But not if it hinders our subservience to the manufacturers of gasoline fueled automobiles.
But not if anything new in energy policy cuts into the pofit of big business.
But not if it slows Israel’s manifest destiny.
But not if it promotes gay and lesbian rights.
But not if it looks into the legalization of marijuana.
But not if Barack Obama is required to fulfill his campaign promises.
And certainly not if it mandates transparency in government, upsets any big money lobbyist or special interest group, or offends a Republican.
But if we want Change from Bush to Obama, Yes We Can.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:25 AM on 06/27/2009

Well said!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:10 AM on 06/27/2009

A blogger has named him "George W. Obama." Fits perfectly, doesn't it?

And note that of course Obama didn't have the guts or honestly to talk about this at his press conference 3 days earlier, but instead had his people leak it on a June Friday, late...

what a hypocrite.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:23 AM on 06/27/2009
- jahzilla I'm a Fan of jahzilla 8 fans permalink

If true, this will be the capper for me.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:17 AM on 06/27/2009
- DrPneumann I'm a Fan of DrPneumann 7 fans permalink

Policies that were wrong under George W. Bush are no less wrong because Barack Obama is in the White House. One of the most disappointing aspects of the early months of the Obama administration has been its unwillingness to end many of the mind-numbing abuses linked to the so-called war on terror and to establish a legal and moral framework designed to prevent those abuses from ever occurring again....

Americans should recoil as one against the idea of preventive detention, imprisoning people indefinitely, for years and perhaps for life, without charge and without giving them an opportunity to demonstrate their innocence. And yet we’ve embraced it, asserting that there are people who are far too dangerous to even think about releasing but who cannot be put on trial because we have no real evidence that they have committed any crime, or because we’ve tortured them and therefore the evidence would not be admissible, or whatever. President Obama is O.K. with this (he calls it “prolonged detention”), but he wants to make sure it is carried out — here comes the oxymoron — fairly and nonabusively.

http://www.joebamawatch.com/

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:15 AM on 06/27/2009
photo

and l.ord barry

Drafts Executive Order To Allow Indefinite Detention Of Terror Suspects

so let it be written

so let it be done

all hail our supreme leader

L.ord barry the most gracious

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:09 AM on 06/27/2009
- glockman I'm a Fan of glockman 46 fans permalink
photo

Well, not all all is lost. At least we have this new cap and ta...er cap and trade tax incre...er global warmi...er climate change bill passed.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:06 AM on 06/27/2009

not yet, it has to go through the senate and then it has to go through congress again.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:49 AM on 06/27/2009
- JamesLM207 I'm a Fan of JamesLM207 8 fans permalink

I abhor this administration. This is disgusting beyond words. It appears we've gotten W Bush 2 after all.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:06 AM on 06/27/2009
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next › Last » (19 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

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

Connect