Obama Courts Disaster With New Detention Plan
The Obama administration is rushing towards a unilateral plan to imprison people without trial, according to a huge, new joint article from the Washington Post and ProPublica. The proposal would completely cut Congress out of the process by using an executive order to essentially bring Gitmo stateside:
The Obama administration, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, is drafting 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.
That is a terrible idea. For its part, the White House dispatched aides to push back. From the article:
White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said there is no executive order and that the administration has not decided whether to issue one. But one administration official suggested that the White House was already trying to build support.
After publication, another Obama official issued an odd denial to The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder:
An administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, flatly denied the report to me. "There is no executive order. There just isn't one." (emphasis added)
First, there is no legitimate reason for a government official to claim anonymity here. It simply echoes the official line from the article, which is likely to be Robert Gibbs' line when reporters press the issue in Monday's briefing.
Second, the response is a classic dodge -- there is no executive order now, and no decision has been made. Of course, the article is not reporting that an order has already been issued. The news is that Obama officials are preparing to advance President Bush's Gitmo detention regime through a unilateral executive order soon, cutting out Congress, and thus any democratic accountability, while extending a controversial, unpopular policy.
Even though Obama's National Archives speech asserted the importance of working with other branches of government. ("We must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded," he said, "They can't be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone.")
Even though the Bush administration already tried this unilateral tack, only to have its system invalidated by the Supreme Court precisely because Congress was shut out. (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.)
And even though decades of legal precedent show, as Professor/President Obama knows, that the executive branch operates at the nadir of its constitutional power when acting without the cooperation of Congress, even in the national security arena. (A point most famously established for President Truman in the Youngstown case.)
Obama's argument for preventive detention "violates basic American values and is likely unconstitutional," warned Sen. Russ Feingold in a recent letter to the President, cautioning that detention without trial "is a hallmark of abusive systems that we have historically criticized around the world." Advancing such a controversial precedent on American soil, without the participation of Congress or the American people, would be disastrous.
---
Ari Melber writes for The Nation, where this post first appeared.
Follow Ari Melber on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AriMelber
Loading comments…
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
A reason for impeaching Bush and Cheney was to undo the assault on the US Constitution and restore the balance of power between the Executive and Legislative branches. It was necessary to impreach prior to Bush leaving office so that those executive order tools were not passed on to any future administration. Bush was not impeached and the tools have been passed and the Republic is now history.
Gibbs for the White House said today that there is no Executive Order this is on the record with Hardball. Who was speaking on the condition of anonymity that reported the Executive Order?
Perhaps he should just appoint a "terrorist incarceration Czar" given there is no outcry for the other 20 or so other Czars in his cabinet. Change you can believe in.
President Obama is only justifying Bush's conduct in the war on terror, Independant voters are seeing President Obama's actions and thinking maybe Bush was right, If the Democrats lose the majority that this will be one of the reasons why.
Enough Bush Behaviour Obama.
"The Obama administration . . . is drafting an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely . . . without trial for long periods . . . That is a terrible idea."
If true, it would be far worse than "a terrible idea". It would be a violation of critical elements of the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution and all but one of the first twelve Articles of the International Declaration of Human Rights, to which the United States was a party at its inception. As it happens, it would also be a blatant violation by President Obama of the trust placed in him by the Democratic Party and by those of any party and no party who voted to elect him President. It would thus establish the grounds and, I'd expect, the groundswell for his impeachment.
Our country has managed to survive many wars and depressions engendered by bad policies, but it cannot and must not tolerate the further defilement of its birthright and the undermining of its fundamental laws.
Congress wouldn't impeach Bush why do you think anyone else would be in danger of impeachment?
The votes in Congress to impeach and convict Bush weren't there until it was too late. Today, the makeup of Congress has changed and Obama, early in his first term, is deviating from what his base expected--something Bush never did.
The Republicans now routinely take positions180 out from their "core values" of recent memory. (Examples: They increased the national debt eightfold but now scream for fiscal restraint. They adamantly opposed "policing the world" but now scream for regime change in Iran.) It would be child's play for them to find some excuse to vote as a bloc to impeach a Black "socialist". Blue Dog Democrats in the Senate might join them. The few Senate progressives, angered by Obama's opposition to single-payer health care, slow play on don't ask/don't tell, and abandonment of legal rights for detainees, among other things, could provide the coup de grace.
WILL conservatives try to replace Obama with Biden and progressives try to unseat a turncoat in hopes of running a true innovator in 2012--all for "the good of the country"? Millions of voters solidly behind Obama last year, volunteering and writing checks, now see a bait and switch. If Obama loses them, he's more vulnerable to summary dismissal than Bush ever was--and a pretext will emerge.
Wasn't this story debunked yesterday?
Yup. But let's not let facts get in the way of the 24/7 news cycle.
It was *denied* yesterday. It's not entirely clear whether that constitutes debunking, because some of the administration's statements closely resemble a good old 'non-denial denial'.
Obama could have used NSPD-51 and HSPD-20 to radically reform and Nationalize our Essential Industries including Health Care, and we could have created an Economic Boom and propelled ourselves into a real future and the 21st and 22nd century even if we are still around to see that as a species or nation..
What do we do with individuals caught planning or committing a terrorist act to heightening fear of a populace, particular when they don't represent a nationalistic country but an extremist group advocating our inhalation? Are peace-time judicial processes of prosecution still relevant to deal with people willing to commit suicide in carrying out their act, who are caught before their act?
Then how do we apply this notion of a "jury of one's peers to meter out justice? (A concept not required by the U.S. constitution).
But if Juries need only be impartial, and not made up of one's peers, (terrorists) wouldn't the jury system be unworkable? How could a jury be impartial to the acts of a terrorist??
I voted for Change and all I got was this l0usy President.
BHO is morphing into W, Mark II as every second passes. Pres Obama is bent upon becoming a clone of W.
Are you a paid rightie poster?
Rubbish.
Obama is going to do whatever Obama wants to do, just like Bush before him. Same bill of goods, different way of presenting it: Dubya said like it or lump it, while Obama calls it "change".
[From Change We Can Believe In: Barack Obama's Plan to Renew America's Promise, p113]
"Restore America's Moral Authority.
The battle against Islamic terrorists is a battle to secure the United States of America and to win the hearts and minds of millions of Muslims who reject extremists' vision of the future. To win this contest, America must remain (sic) an example of the universal values and freedoms we hold dear. Understanding that America's standing, reputation, and authority in the world is critical to turning the tide against terrorism Barack Obama will end the use of torture without exception and eliminate the practice of extreme rendition; close the Guantanamo Bay detention center; revise the PATRIOT Act so that it gives law enforcement the tools they need without jeopardizing the rights and ideals of all Americans; prevent illegal wiretapping; and RESTORE THE RIGHT OF HABEAS CORPUS"
[My capitalisation "RESTORE THE RIGHT OF HABEAS CORPUS"].
The White House says there is no such executive order...so why is this article relevant?
The White House says there is no such executive order drafted YET, but that one is in the works.
Not true.
From my POV, a failed Obama attempt to bring detainees to the US and detain them by presidential fiat might well be the best outcome. It brings them into reach of the courts, and circumvents the cowardly and dishonorable NIMBYism that sent innocent Uighurs to Bermuda, because it seems that even complete innocence isn't enough. Once Cheney has told the American people to be scared, they STAY scared.
I agree. Once they are on American soil while they will not be afforded rue due process the ability to torture and exhort them diminishes dramatically. Further I believe that this will be the first step towards granting prisoner of war status to the terrorists, which will allow the red cross and red crescent in to see them, better medical treatment and a safer general environment.
If it's wrong for Bush to do it, it's wrong for Obama to do it. Obama is, however, not a fake. He is simply a much more 'middle of the road' politician than the 'Undercover Muslim-fist bumping-Manchurian-Socialist-Communist- Stalinist' terrorist than Faux News Corpse has brainwashed certain simple minded voters into believing.
He is actually quite a conventional person, not a radical. I agree with most of the actions he has taken to help repair the damage that 30 years of reckless republican rule has inflicted on our country but certainly not all.
This is one of those issues over which I disagree, respectfully, with the President.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
