Obama Considers Detaining Terror Suspects Indefinitely And Without Trials

[Better Believe It]

Obama Considers Detaining Terror Suspects Indefinitely
By EVAN PEREZ
Wall Street Journal
May 14, 2009

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is weighing plans to detain some terror suspects on U.S. soil -- indefinitely and without trial -- as part of a plan to retool military commission trials that were conducted for prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The proposal being floated with members of Congress is another indication of President Barack Obama's struggles to establish his counter-terrorism policies, balancing security concerns against attempts to alter Bush-administration practices he has harshly criticized.

The administration's internal deliberations on how to deal with Guantanamo detainees are continuing, as the White House wrestles with how to fulfill the president's promise to shutter the controversial prison. But some elements of the plans are emerging as the administration consults with key members of Congress, as well as with military officials, about what to do with Guantanamo detainees.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), who met this week with White House Counsel Greg Craig to discuss the administration's plans, said among the proposals being studied is seeking authority for indefinite detentions, with the imprimatur of some type of national-security court.

Sen. Graham said he wants to work with the administration to pass legislation to increase judicial oversight of military commissions, but noted the legal difficulties that would arise. "This is a difficult question. How do you hold someone in prison without a trial indefinitely?" Sen. Graham said.

Read the complete article at:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124223286506515765.html

[villager]

1. "There must one campaign promise I can keep, somewhere..."

n/t

[Proud Liberal Dem]

2. Not good at all

cross posted from http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8406039&mesg_id=8406875

I'm disappointed in this and I hope that Obama fixes this eventually but, frankly, I don't pin all of the blame for this on Obama either. With Congress (including many Democrats) trying to prevent any terror suspects from being removed from Gitmo and placed in facilities in several states (with the prospect of at least some of them eventually being freed by the courts)I doubt that it's easy for him to figure out what to do with these people even if they are tried and acquitted, which a lot of them probably will ultimately be (if tried under a real court or law) due either to their innocence or the harsh interrogation tactics and other abuses/misconduct of the Bush (mis-)administration. The "terror suspects" of Gitmo seem to have become a bunch of international outcasts/pariahs BECAUSE of Bushco and I feel really sorry for those who just got "swept up" by our forces and didn't actually do anything wrong. They've all been so tainted by the illegal tactics of the Bush (mis-)administration that they cannot be tried properly in a court of law nor can their actual guilt or innocence ever truly be known, so nobody seems willing to have them in their communities or countries for fear that they may actually be dangerous. Ultimately, however, if we are truly committed to the rule of law and correcting some of the egregious wrongs of the Bush (mis-)administration, we are going to have to put these people on trial and accept the risk that, just like in any other criminal case, a few "guilty" individuals will inevitably go free. There are already undoubtedly murderers and other people out there walking the streets right now whom, for one reason or another, managed to escape conviction of their crimes but, unfortunately, that's just part of the price of a free society. Any attempts to circumvent and/or "game" the system by using "special" rules and procedures for a select group of individuals would be little better than what we were upset at the Bush (mis-)administration for doing.

[gcomeau]

3. ..."says LINDSAY GRAHAM"... got left off the title.

Why do I get the feeling he's not exactly putting the most objective spin on what Obama and his team are actually considering to try and resolve the horrendous mess they inherited where they're in custody of suspects they can't try normally because the Bush administration destroyed and ability to do so with their treatment of them but can;t release because they know damn well who they are and what they'd do?

How about we let them actually come up with a plan before getting hysterical about it instead of reacting based on the characterisation of some deliberations provided by Lindsay fucking Graham? Freaking WSJ...

[Better Believe It]

7. So the Obama administration isn't considering indefinite imprisonment without trials?

Please provide a link to your claim.

[gcomeau]

12. What?

What I SAID was that the only damn thing we have to go on right now is Lindsay Graham's portrayal of what he says the Obama people are considering maybe doing.

And then I said we should perhaps wait and see what they actually do before freaking out about something based solely on Lindsay Graham's say so.

What, EXACTLY, do I need to support with a link there?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. "How do you hold someone in prison without a trial indefinitely?"

It's called Prisoner of War status.

Generally superior to torturing and executing people without due process.

[rug]

20. Wrong. POWs are held until the war ends. Considering it hasn't even been declared, that's indefinite

[librechik]

5. Good grief--when you enforce the law, the crooks are not going to like you.

Man up, Obama--do the right thing and make many friends--and a few (despicable) enemies.

[Clear Blue Sky]

6. So much for "change"...

[Better Believe It]

8. Remember this? Obama Upholds Detainee Policy in Afghanistan

Obama Upholds Detainee Policy in Afghanistan
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
New York Times

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has told a federal judge that military detainees in Afghanistan have no legal right to challenge their imprisonment there, embracing a key argument of former President Bush’s legal team.

In a two-sentence filing late Friday, the Justice Department said that the new administration had reviewed its position in a case brought by prisoners at the United States Air Force base at Bagram, just north of the Afghan capital. The Obama team determined that the Bush policy was correct: such prisoners cannot sue for their release.

“Having considered the matter, the government adheres to its previously articulated position,” wrote Michael F. Hertz, acting assistant attorney general.

The closely watched case is a habeas corpus lawsuit on behalf of several prisoners who have been indefinitely detained for years without trial. The detainees argue that they are not enemy combatants, and they want a judge to review the evidence against them and order the military to release them.

The Bush administration had argued that federal courts have no jurisdiction to hear such a case because the prisoners are noncitizens being held in the course of military operations outside the United States. The Obama team was required to take a stand on whether those arguments were correct because a federal district judge, John D. Bates, asked the new government whether it wanted to alter that position.

The Obama administration’s decision was generally expected among legal specialists. But it was a blow to human rights lawyers who have challenged the Bush administration’s policy of indefinitely detaining “enemy combatants” without trials.

Please read the complete article at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/washington/22bagram.html?_r=2&scp=2&sq=bagram&st=cse

[Captain Hilts]

10. Folks see what they want to see in Obama's policies. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. The title of the post is misleading

or shall I say, a lie.

The headline of the article does NOT say 'without trial'. In the text of the article it says they are exploring several avenues, including re-tooled military commissions and a 'national security court' - which means 'trials'.

Only Senator "i am a fucking nazi" Graham suggests they would be held without trial indefinitely.

[Better Believe It]

11. You should actually read the article before commenting on it

That's really annoying when people comment on an article without having read it!

The article states:

"The Obama administration is weighing plans to detain some terror suspects on U.S. soil -- indefinitely and without trial ...."

The post caption is a really misleading .... why it's an outright lie I tells ya!

Just don't read the article or you'll discover that the comment about lying is pure bull shit!

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. I did - and the first paragraph is ALSO a lie -

because in the bulk of the text there is NO indication that ANYONE (other than Graham) is considering holding detainees without some kind of judicial oversight, whether it is by military commission or by a national security court.

"...80 to 100 detainees who we cannot release and cannot trust..." There must be some kind of reason for them to say they cannot be trusted - that evidence would be put before the court to be ruled on.

That's called a 'trial'.

Did YOU read the article - or just the first paragraph?

EDIT: Please remember, this is Murdoch's WSJ - it has an agenda.

[Better Believe It]

15. So why do you support indefinite detention without trials?

I obviously don't.

Do you honestly believe the right-wing propaganda that all or even most of those detained are really terrorists?

I read the article. You didn't or you choose to ignore or misrepresent its content.

You're just playing a word game since you find it difficult to argue in defense of indefinite detention.

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. You have a problem with reading comprehension, don't you.

Maybe you'll do better after you graduate high school.

Read the article. There will be NO indefinite detention without some form (yet to be clarified) of judicial oversight. Judicial oversight = trial.

This is just Murdoch whipping up resentment against Obama. Nothing more.

[fugop]

13. OK, sooooo...

They're going to hold them without trial while they retool the trials. Isn't that what it says right in the lead:

"indefinitely and without trial -- as part of a plan to retool military commission trials"

I don't know the timeframe to retool the trials, but it sounds like they plan to hold them without trial until they fix the trials. Which isn't really just holding them forever without trial. The article sounds as if they're trying to figure out how to fix the trial system for this situation, not do away with it entirely. Is that right?

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cwcwmack]

18. lol... n/t

[incapsulated]

19. You just don't understand what a genius political move this is...

For some reason that someone will make up shortly.

[rug]

21. This thread needs a soundtrack.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fZHou18Cdk&feature=PlayList&p=DF91943F03E245F2&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1