Is Obama Edging Towards Bush-Like Indefinite Detention?
A collaborative reporting team of the Washington Post and Pro-Publica is reporting this afternoon that the Obama Administration is getting closer to issuing an Executive Order that would "would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate suspected terrorists indefinitely."
There seems to be some confusion, however, about just how far along in the process the White House is. On the Washington Post website right now, the story leads this way:
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.
On the Pro-Publica site right now, the same story by the same two reporters leads this way:
The Obama administration, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close Guantanamo, has considered an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate suspected terrorists indefinitely, according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations.
I have bolded the difference in language, and it is a big one. A White House official tells me that there is no "draft executive order" and that the task force charged with investigating this issue has not completed its work. (A report to the president is due next month.) Not sure what is going on. But the return to the executive powers of indefinite detention, depending on how it is done, could become yet another sore spot for civil libertarians who have been disappointed by the Obama administration's decisions on issues as varied as state secrets, the refusal to release images of detainee abuse, and the detention of prisoners at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan.
It's possible that an early version of the Post-Pro-Publica language was written inexactly, suggesting a direction that has not yet been set in stone. The article(s) also suggest(s) that the executive order may only be a temporary step, as the White House works with Congress to come up with a solution to the problem of detainees who have yet to be subjected to any regular judicial process. "Civil liberties groups have encouraged the administration, that if a prolonged detention system were to be sought, to do it through executive order," explains one administration official, who is quoted in the story(ies).
UPDATE: I just refreshed the Washington Post version of the story, at about 7:06 p.m., and it has been changed to read: "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."
UPDATE II: The Pro-Publica version, at 7:12, now matches the Post's "is drafting" language, though the URL still says "white-house-drafts." Follow the bouncing ball, I guess, and be happy that the printing presses have not yet rolled out the copy.
UPDATE III: On Saturday morning, the lead of the Post story has yet another formulation: "officials . . . are crafting language." It seems clear that something is in the works, though it is not as far along as previously feared. Meanwhile, Spencer Ackerman at the Washington Independent points out that the devil for civil liberties advocates may be in the details, despite the fact that several groups have already issued blanket rejections of the executive order idea. Meanwhile, a staffer in Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's office emails over a statement, asserting McConnell's demands that Congress not be sidelined in this process, which according to the Post-Pro-Publica story is the whole idea behind the executive order. The McConnell statement after the jump.
Even with an executive order, they [the Obama Administration] still need the funding to be released before they can incarcerate any detainees in the United States. None of the appropriations bills for fiscal year 2010 that are working their way through committee fund the closure as requested by the President. And I expect that the DoD approps bill will present a debate over continuing to bar detainees from being incarcerated in the U.S. As Sen. McConnell said recently, “The defense budget request for fiscal year 2010 includes a similar funding request, so the Senate will consider this matter again in the near future.” And: “An overwhelming bipartisan majority of the Congress disagreed with the administration's request for $80 million from Congress for the purpose of closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay before the administration even has a place to put the detainees who are housed there, any plan for military commissions, or any articulated plan for indefinite detention.
-
1
Michael Scherer:
.
Please get this right, and have a care for total accuracy here, as what this suggests will doubtlessly enrage many, many people. -
2
If only we knew the names of the people giving this information. I swear that story is a who's who of anonymous sources. Got damn I hate the way the game is played these days. Even if I wanted to give the benefit of the doubt they damn near make it impossible.
-
3
"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 can 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."
.
"One administration official suggested"? Beyond that, the rationale is a stretch which isn't to say untrue. -
4
Anonymous officials = yelling fire in a crowded theater.
.
Because SZ is absolutely right about the outrage.
.
Give us NAMES! -
5
Just to be clear -
.
"White House spokesman Ben LaBolt did not directly respond to questions about an executive order"
.
. . . and therefore does not count. -
6
Nice catch, Scherer! I'd wager that the WaPo politics editor changed the wording when he saw saw a chance to stick it to the liberals, make his republican overlords happy, and generate a bunch of page views all at the same time.
.
ProPublica, keeping the rightwingers at WaPo honest! -
7
OK, we can all agree this is very important, the MSM should be paying attn. to this issue and holding Obama's accountable for what looks like Cheneyism at its worst. So, the fact that MS or WaPo is talking about this is great. That said, given that MS dished up the following this week:
~
1. "The President's Feisty Press Conference"
2. "Jenny Sanford Speaks (And More)"
3. "RIP" MJ
4. And "Obama vs. Bubba"
~
... perhaps I'll stick to Greenwald's work (i.e. journalism undistracted by ass-lint) when I want to be informed about the pressing issues of the day. -
8
Shorter me: If you don't beat your spouse 7 days a week (only 6) don't expect her to be all happy when you're sober & sweet on Sunday.
-
9
holding Obama's accountable for what looks like Cheneyism at its worst
.
A bit overstated, eh jc? -
10
I don't know J in LA, perhaps if you don't agree with GG, Froom, christ, even Bob "Fanboy" Herbert. At its worst on all counts, no, but on far too many to make me feel at all comfortable with this president's commitment to civil liberties.
-
11
This is significant and it didn't make it into the lede:
.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. (Last month, ProPublica explored the key issues around preventive detention [3].)
.
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..
That casts a different light than the language in the lede, don't you think? -
12
jc, I'm just quarreling with your "Cheneyism *at its worst*" It's not even close, though I am almost fully on board with the likes of GG (and "crist" too.
-
13
The other half [half of the remaining 229 detainees], the officials said, present the greatest difficulty because these detainees cannot be prosecuted 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.
i.e., tortured.
-
14
Here is a more responsible reporting, by AFP, who actually check with sources themselves before writing the piece:
But a White House official told AFP that no such draft order yet existed, though internal deliberations were taking place on how to deal with those inmates who could not be released or tried in civilian courts.
.
The source said that a task force established by the president was not due to present its recommendations until July, and that the administration would then work with Congress to find a solution to the conundrum.
.
If the White House cannot agree with lawmakers opposed to bringing what are allegedly the most dangerous terror suspects to US soil, an executive order issued by the president may be one option to establish a new detention system.And AFP is a LOT more trustworthy than Washington Post, the neoconservative's own rag.
Source: White House drafting indefinite detention order: report - Yahoo! News
.
How about it, Scherer. You're a bigfoot WHPC now. Make some phone calls and find out what's going on! -
15
But Obama was a professor of Constitutional Law!
-
16
Thank you MS.
Glen Greenwald has been all-over Obama for persuing Bush-era policies that he promised to discontinue.
.
Also, I wonder what will happen on June 30th when our soldiers are supposed to leave Iraq- haven't hear much about that. And I'm not comfortable with the 21,000 US soldiers going to Afghanistan.
. -
17
Pint
~
Our soldiers won't be leaving Iraq on June 30th. They'll be pulling out of cities and towns and operating solely out of bases at that point. Then in 2010 we pull out. Not sure how effective we can hope to be, though, at this point simply running and gunning through the countryside and returning to base. -
18
Now the piece reads
Obama administration officials, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, are crafting language for 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.
under the headline White House Considers Executive Order on Indefinite Detention of Terror Suspects - washingtonpost.com
.
So they got the liberal blogosphere in an echo-chamber tizzy once again. Wonder if that was a trial balloon to see what would fly. The original wording is still all over the blogos -- man these guys are playing the liberals like a three-dollar banjo. Looks like they've already talked to ACLU and others about it. Of course, they can (and do) already hold refugees and people seeking asylum indefinitely without trial. So there is precedent there. Part of the language, apparently, mandates legal representation and oversight by the courts with periodic review.
.
I'd like to know more of the story behind the ProPublica/WaPo story. Think you can make a couple of calls, Michael? -
19
What's next for Gitmo?
Check out http://gitmotourism.blogspot.com -
20
"Obama Contemplates Executive Order for Detention Without Charges"
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/27/preventive_detention/index.html -
21
Glenn correctly identifies the whole thing as a trial balloon, with a cooperative WaPo doing its part.
-
22
Swampland at its best. A developing story, an astute catch, reporting in the form of a quote (from an anonymous source, alas, but whatcha gonna do), and a series of updates.
-
Nice work, Michael, thanks for the post. Please stay on this! -
23
I don't get why the whole shutting down thing gets scuttled for want of $80 million dollars. Pffft. Chump change in the defense budget. Dubya never had trouble getting $80 million dollars. He11's bells, George W.'s boys LOST 8 BILLION dollars cash on a pallet in Iraq back in oh-3. And Obama can't shut down a prison for want of $80 million? Just shut the thing down. They didn't ask for that much to BUILD the thing.
-
24
... upon further reflection, I see nothing wrong with using an anonymous source in this instance. Michael's initiating contact with his source to check the reliability of another story. It's fair enough for a source to give a quick, off-the-cuff, anonymous response to an "is there anything to this" question.
-
There's a big difference between Michael's action here, and, say, Elizabeth Bumiller or Judy Miller or Michael Gordon's transcription of government claims to initiate a story, or Jeffrey Rosen's use of anonymity to transmit gossip. -
25
Nobody inside the administration is going to *ever* go on the record with anything but the administration line. They just aren't, and you wouldn't either if you were on the inside. This kind of story is *exactly* what anon sources are for, essential for reporting behind the scenes goings on like this. The trick is for the reporter to retain enough cred overall so that his readers can trust his judgment about what the anon source has to say. That's where Time reporters and Washington Post reporters have trashed their own cred, by becoming addicted to Republican operatives as anon sources and printing up their lies and distortions wholesale without critical analysis.
- michaelscherer In meeting with Obama, Pres. Lee jokes about S Korea's military traditional outfits--"Difficult to fight in," he jokes - 2 days ago
- michaelscherer Helo over Seoul like Blade Runner. G Lightfoot sings, "Sometimes I think it's a shame when I get feelin better when I'm feelin no pain" - 3 days ago
- michaelscherer Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao meets Obama, quotes Confucious: "You can only get the new knowledge when you have the old knowledge." - 3 days ago
Most Popular »
- Obama Below 50 in Gallup, What it Means
- Modern Warfare 2: This %$#ing Game is #$%ing %^&#ed Up
- NASA’s Newest, Meatiest Spokesman: The Rock
- Black Friday: What We Know So Far
- What Would Jesus Buy?
- Oprah: Who Wins? Who Loses? And Is She Really Quitting?
- CA Sen Poll: Boxer Maintains Lead
- Reports: Oprah to End Talk Show in 2011
- Civil Disobedience, Religious Right-Style
- Blizzard: ‘Who Knows’ When Diablo III Will Ship
- Can These Parents Be Saved: The Growing Backlash Against Over-Parenting
- Flibanserin Drug: Will 'Female Viagra' Boost Sex Drive?
- 'New Moon' Movie Review: Jacob Ascends in 'Twilight' Sequel
- Three Key Lessons from Obama's China Tour
- The Story of Barack Obama's Mother
- Hey Ireland, Please Drop the World Cup Do-Over
- It's Twilight in America: The Vampire Saga
- Teary Oprah Announces End of Show — But Is the Time Really Right?
- Dangerous Game: The Next Round of the U.S.-Iran Nuclear Face-Off
- Tuition Hikes: Protests in California and Elsewhere
Quotes of the Day »
RSS