White House Denies Indefinite Detention Order

AFP:

The White House dismissed reports that it has drafted an executive order allowing indefinite detention in the United States of some of the top terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay.

An administration official told AFP that no such draft order existed, though internal deliberations were taking place on how to deal with those inmates who could not be released or tried in civilian courts.

Read the whole story: AFP

Comments

[PATina]

09:21 AM on 06/29/2009

In other words... there's just not anything written down. Uh... White House... did you forget the President already said in his National Security speech that there are going to be people from Gitmo that can't be tried... and won't be released? Are you saying that the President may change his mind on indefinite detentions? Otherwise... it doesn't matter if you wrote it down or not. This administration is still planning on detaining people indefinitely.

[Marcospinelli]

01:00 AM on 06/29/2009

his is getting to be a pattern with Obama.

He leaks his intent to follow in the Bush-Cheney mold (or go beyond it), and when outrage is expressed by the base, he denies the leak is true.

Then in a few weeks, if the fire has been put out (the outrage subsides, doesn't grow, or the base moves on to some other broken pledge), it turns out the leak was true.

This is exactly the kind of politics that Democratic voters went to the polls to end last November.

[zakon]

11:11 AM on 06/29/2009

Marcospinelli,

How can I best influence this policy? I follow issues in the news, read some issue-specific books, and investigate issues on the Internet.

In the past, I talked to my friends & family about various political issues, occasionally posted comments, and had written one email to my local Congressman regarding Iran.

I wrote my Congressman in late October 2007 and received a response in December 2007, days after a new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) produced headlines like "Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work." I like to think my voice in the choir helped bring the NIE's dramatic opinion public.

Given my current level of political participation, which of these options may best influence this policy?

1) Write to my district's House representative

2) Write to my State Senators

3) Write to the House and Senate Intelligence committee members

4) Write the White House

5) Sign petitions or donate to issue specific activist groups (i.e., Center for Constitutional Rights)

6) Show up at rallies or protests

7) Become more educated on the issues

8) ??

[Pleneras]

03:58 PM on 06/28/2009

I never swallow this lie. Didn't even bother to read it. Sure enough... the media is proven a liar.

[cbates]

03:24 PM on 06/28/2009

There are many things reported in the news that I wait to hear from the horses mouth before posting a comment. So many have their interpretations of current opportunities and think that the President is going to go with what they see as the only path forward. Well surprise he has a different path forward on this and many other things reported prematurely in the news.

[Marcospinelli]

12:57 AM on 06/29/2009

We already know that Obama wants a system of preventive detention without charges -- because he said so explicitly in last month's "civil liberties" speech ironically and cynically delivered in front of the U.S. Constitution at the National Archives. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/23/us/politics/23detain.html?_r=1

And it's hard to imagine how he won't get what he wants: Republicans are eager to grant the President this detention authority (Sens. Tom Coburn and Lindsey Graham have both gushingly praised Obama's proposal) and, as the Bush era proved, there are always more than enough Congressional Democrats to join with the GOP caucus to enact any new system of expanded detention and surveillance powers. Absent serious public opposition (and one recent poll shows overwhelming opposition), it seems highly likely that Barack Obama will wield the power to imprison people indefinitely without charges of any kind.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/27/preventive_detention/index.html

[zakon]

12:40 PM on 06/28/2009

For years the US Government propped up and supported dictatorships and brutal regimes, because it's good for business. For instance, we even trained death squads in Central America (keep picking those bananas or else!!)

Well, it was only a matter of decades before the rot that we planted came back to infect our own government. Dick Cheney must of loved having his own death squad (JSOC unit), that reported directly and only to his office. Meaning, he got to write the names on the list. I don't know about you, but I don't want such a Dick making death lists.

Does Biden still have that death squad reporting into his office? Who is it reporting to now? And those not on the list can be kept imprisoned forever based on Obama's likely draft?

[abouttime]

01:23 PM on 06/28/2009

We, the people, need transparency in order to weed out "represntatives" who take bribes (campaign funds) from Banks and Insurance conglomerates. With state secrets already exposed (rendition, torture, et al) all that is left is the "official" record, which is not forthcoming under Obama. Secrets forgo any legal and lawful arrest and trials for those crimminals responsible for hideous crimes against the innocents that our laws are supposed to protect. If the VP makes lists, and we have good reason to believe he does, then let's expose the responsible parties and put them behind bars!
Obama cannot hide from his obligation to end these dirty secrets for "National Security " reasons becuase it makes us all insecure.
"I am mad as hell, and I am not going to take it anymore" -- Howard Beale in Network"

[zakon]

04:43 PM on 06/28/2009

Seymour Hersh, March 2009:

"Right now, today, there was a story in the New York Times that if you read it carefully mentioned something known as the Joint Special Operations Command -- JSOC it’s called.

It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently. They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office. They did not report to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff or to Mr. Gates, the secretary of defense. They reported directly to him. ...Congress has no oversight of it. It’s an executive assassination ring essentially, and it’s been going on and on and on."

OBAMA RECENTLY PROMOTED DICK'S TOP HIT MAN ....

Fred Kaplan, May 2009:

Defense Secretary Gates announced today that he has "asked for the resignation" of Gen. David McKiernan, commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, and that he plans to replace him with Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

…McChrystal …for five years…was commander of the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC)

…McChrystal's command also provided the personnel for Task Force 6-26, an elite unit of 1,000 special-ops forces that engaged in harsh interrogation of detainees in Camp Nama as far back as 2003.

HOW DOES JOE B. DECIDE WHO GOES ON THE DEATH LIST VS. INDEFINITE IMPRISONMENT LIST?

Cheney just returned the favor by giving the newly appointed general a ringing endorsement: "I think you'd be hard put to find anyone better than Stan McChrystal."

[AxelDC]

11:46 AM on 06/28/2009

Indefinite means without a defined end. Since Obama has not issued a date for this to end, indefinite is the best available adjective.

[Truthahn]

11:41 AM on 06/28/2009

Standard sleazy politics at work here. Obama leaked word of the executive order to sniff out the public's reaction, then denied the leak when the reaction turned out to be negative. Anyone who can't figure that out is hopelessly naïve.

[Joe Caps]

12:00 PM on 06/28/2009

I think you are right but he is going to end up doing it eventually. He politically cannot just release all the terrorists who can only be prosecuted by compromising classified information or foreign Intel. He knows he cannot do this without losing reelection in 2012.

Oh yeah, and then there's the fact that he does not really care about human rights and only used the issue to smear GWB so he could win the election.

[Joe Caps]

12:03 PM on 06/28/2009

He politically cannot just release all the terrorists who can only be prosecuted by compromising classified information or foreign Intel. He knows he cannot do this without losing reelection in 2012.

[zakon]

01:24 PM on 06/28/2009

Classified information=NO EVIDENCE

Foreign Intel=TORTURED EVIDENCE

[jubei]

10:57 AM on 06/28/2009

Bwahh,bwahh,bwahh!Obama is a black George Bush,he's an alluminati,he's a wall street puppet,he's Rahm Emanuel puppet,he's a slick snake oil salesmen blah,blah

[pharmmajor]

10:41 AM on 06/28/2009

Am I the only one thinking that Obama will turn out to be a black Bush?

[DestinationsUnknown]

10:47 AM on 06/28/2009

yes u r

[Rayme]

10:51 AM on 06/28/2009

No, you're not.

[RTIII]

10:35 AM on 06/28/2009

"No, there's no such order - we're merely planning to have one soon."
.

[wandering girl]

11:16 AM on 06/28/2009

failed reading comprehension in middle school, I see.

[RTIII]

01:06 PM on 06/28/2009

Failed to corroborate and cross-reference available data, I see.
.

[zakon]

09:46 AM on 06/28/2009

LESSON ON HOW TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES IN US PRESS:

"Evidence against these detainees is either classified (THEY DON'T HAVE ANY), was provided by foreign intelligence services (EGYPT, SYRIA, ETC TORTURED THEM FOR US) or was obtained through harsh interrogation techniques approved by former president George W. Bush (CIA TORTURED THEM DIRECTLY)."

"Civil liberties groups (WHICH ONES??) have encouraged the administration, that if a prolonged detention system were to be sought, to do it through executive order," (REALLY, HOW CONVENIENT) an official told the newspaper."

"Although transfers to the United States for indefinite detention would be rare, Al-Qaeda operatives (SUSPECTS OR BUDDY DOWN THE ROAD WHO WAS FINGERED BY A BAD NEIGHBOR) captured in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and possibly the Horn of Africa would be held in battlefield facilities (INDEFINITELY??), an administration official told the Post

Suspects captured elsewhere could (COULD, BUT NOT NECESSARILY) be transferred to the United States to face trial in federal courts, be handed over to local authorities or returned to their home countries. (IN OTHER WORDS, THEY COULD BE HELD INDEFINITELY)

"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 (NOT ALONE, WE NEED THE CONGRESS TO BE COMPLICIT TOO AND ENSHRINE THIS HORROR INTO LAW)," Obama said at the time.

[GardenerNorCal]

10:28 AM on 06/28/2009

"But the other half of the remaining detainees, the Post noted, "present the greatest difficulty" because they cannot be prosecuted in either a federal court or a military trial."

If this is true then they should be payed off and released. You can't just hold someone because you can't prosecute them. Where is that covered in any legal statute. It makes no sense.

[roudy]

11:35 AM on 06/28/2009

Agreed.

[Joe Caps]

11:55 AM on 06/28/2009

OH my is a lefty admitting that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the terrorists?

If they did, then we are allowed to hold them without prosecuting them until the conflict is over.

[doublethink]

08:20 AM on 06/28/2009

Cut it any way you want but Obama is turning out to be a schill of monumental proportions. The fanatical mass movement of blind, loyal sheep that got him elected now are left scratching their heads. It has never been clearer in history that the agenda of an American president is written by somebody else well in advance. As Obama steers this country towards 3rd world status, we will see a historical playbook re-opened. In order to deceive and divert attention there will be large scale attempts to scare the population into submission. Flu pandemics, false flag terrorism, wars, forced inoculation, environmental doom's day prophesies. It will soon be time to march on Washington in order to rightfully claim our universal human rights to freedom, liberty, and prosperity and take control of a government that is rogue, criminal, and illegitimate.

[zanzig]

09:01 AM on 06/28/2009

Obviously you missed the false flag terrorism and wars from 2001 to 2008. Welcome to my planet.

[bascombe]

10:11 AM on 06/28/2009

step away from the keyboard and actually DO SOMETHING and you'll start feeling a whole lot better. Obama did not make a call to sheeple, so stop being one.

[Luvial]

03:55 AM on 06/28/2009

The torture of prisoners by the US government continues. Obama=Bush

[wandering girl]

11:19 AM on 06/28/2009

prove it. detention is not torture.

*torture* is torture.

[roudy]

11:37 AM on 06/28/2009

Rush,

Great to see you could take the time out from your busy radio schedule to post here today.

[Marcospinelli]

02:55 AM on 06/28/2009

We already know that Obama wants a system of preventive detention without charges -- because he said so explicitly in last month's "civil liberties" speech ironically and cynically delivered in front of the U.S. Constitution at the National Archives. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/23/us/politics/23detain.html?_r=1

And it's hard to imagine how he won't get what he wants: Republicans are eager to grant the President this detention authority (Sens. Tom Coburn and Lindsey Graham have both gushingly praised Obama's proposal) and, as the Bush era proved, there are always more than enough Congressional Democrats to join with the GOP caucus to enact any new system of expanded detention and surveillance powers. Absent serious public opposition (and one recent poll shows overwhelming opposition), it seems highly likely that Barack Obama will wield the power to imprison people indefinitely without charges of any kind.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/27/preventive_detention/index.html

[1dogs2]

07:20 AM on 06/28/2009

And your suggestion as to what to do with the last 90 prisoners is . . . ???

[docallen001]

09:20 AM on 06/28/2009

Probably shoot them. Much like the fringe right that feels you can fix things like Iran by nuking them.

[Gretel1or2]

09:36 AM on 06/28/2009

That's the problem. No one has any better solutions. Bbut to stand on the sidelines and criticize and blame is one of the easiest things to do. Worse is the fact that many of these critics have given previous presidents a minimum of 4 years, but now they are ready to grade Obama's entire presidency after 6 months.

[bascombe]

10:14 AM on 06/28/2009

the corporatist are extending the boosh regime. when this distraction is in the headlines, start watching your money. find out the latest TARP revelations and ask yourself, "why am I distracted by this when they are stealing trillions of dollars.

[Marcospinelli]

02:34 AM on 06/28/2009

This is getting to be a pattern with Obama.

He leaks his intent to follow in the Bush-Cheney mold (or go beyond it), and when outrage is expressed by the base, he denies the leak is true.

Then in a few weeks, if the fire has been put out (the outrage subsides, doesn't grow, or the base moves on to some other broken pledge), it turns out the leak was true.

This is exactly the kind of politics that Democratic voters went to the polls to end last November.

[Ihaveadream]

11:08 AM on 06/28/2009

Democrats, independents and republicans wanted big change and voted for Obama. All of us were sick of 8 years of Bush/Cheney lies, deception, policy and their disregard for law and the Constitution. As I've posted previously, where is the change?

Even Jon Stewart has Obama fodder for his program - last week on the transparency Obama repeatedly promised.

[Pleneras]

04:00 PM on 06/28/2009

Still working over the weekend for the rethugs? The overtime check must be good enough to make you sell your own citizens.