Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

White House Drafts Executive Order for Indefinite Detention
propublica ^ | Dec. 21, 2010 | Dafna Linzer

Posted on 12/23/2010 10:14:47 AM PST by matt1234

The White House is preparing an Executive Order on indefinite detention that will provide periodic reviews of evidence against dozens of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, according to several administration officials.

The draft order, a version of which was first considered nearly 18 months ago, is expected to be signed by President Obama early in the New Year. The order allows for the possibility that detainees from countries like Yemen might be released if circumstances there change.

But the order establishes indefinite detention as a long-term Obama administration policy and makes clear that the White House alone will manage a review process for those it chooses to hold without charge or trial.

Nearly two years after Obama's pledge to close the prison at Guantanamo, more inmates there are formally facing the prospect of lifelong detention and fewer are facing charges than the day Obama was elected.

That is in part because Congress has made it difficult to move detainees to the United States for trial. But it also stems from the president's embrace of indefinite detention and his assertion that the congressional authorization for military force, passed after the 2001 terrorist attacks, allows for such detention.

After taking office, the Obama administration reviewed the detainee population at Guantanamo Bay and chose 48 prisoners for indefinite detention. Officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that number will likely increase in coming months as some detainees are moved from a transfer category to a continued detention category.

If signed by President Obama, the new order will provide added review for detainees designated for long-term detention. The order, which is being drafted jointly by White House staff in the National Security council and the White House counsel, will offer detainees in this category a minimal review every six months and then a more lengthy annual review. Detainees will have access to an attorney, to some evidence against them and the ability to challenge their continued detention.

Prisoners who have been deemed "high-value detainees," including the alleged conspirators of the 2001 attacks, have been designated for prosecution in civilian or military courts.

"It's been clear for a while that the government would need to put in place some sort of periodic review, and that it would want it to improve on the annual review procedures used during the previous administration," said Matthew Waxman, a professor at Columbia Law School who worked on detainee issues during the Bush administration.

A White House official, who asked to speak on the condition of anonymity, later confirmed that the draft order has not yet been given to the president. The official had few details but said the order “would set up periodic review of the detention status of those detainees who cannot be tried,” in either military commissions or federal courts.

In 2008, Guantanamo detainees won the right to challenge the lawfulness of their detention in court. The executive order aims to create an executive branch review which would occur separately from the court review and would weigh the necessity of the detention, rather than its lawfulness, officials said.

"Perhaps the dangerousness of the detainee's country of origin could change, or the group that the detainee is affiliated with could cease to exist," one official explained.

Some detainees from Yemen may be sent home if security conditions there improve. Currently, there is a moratorium on transfers from Guantanamo to Yemen.

The official described the draft order as "an important piece of the government's approach to Guantanamo."

At a speech on Guantanamo in May 2009, Obama said that "a thorough process of periodic review," was needed to ensure that "any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified."

The White House first began work on an Executive Order in the spring of 2009 that was the subject of a joint story by ProPublica and the Washington Post [2] in June 2009. An administration official at the time said the order was under consideration but had not yet been completed. Civil rights groups which oppose indefinite detention came out strongly against the possibility of an executive order.

Weeks later, administration officials said the White House had decided to work with Congress on indefinite detention, rather than through Executive Order. But by the end of 2009, the White House had said it would not support legislation.

Then, in 2010, a government task force on Guantanamo completed a year-long review that placed 48 detainees in long-term detention. In its report, task force members said those detainees would be "subject to periodic Executive Branch review."

Bobby Chesney, a law professor at the University of Texas who worked briefly on the administration's detention task force, said an executive order would provide detainees which an additional layer of review. He also said it offered a compromise since an executive order can be withdrawn at anytime.

"The order takes on additional restraints and lasts as long as the president wants. The White House gets just what it wants, no more or less. And, unlike with legislation, the order doesn't have staying power if the next administration doesn’t want it."

Jameel Jaffer, a national security lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union, agreed that "more review is better." But he said that an executive order would only "normalize and institutionalize indefinite detention and other policies," that were set in place by the Bush administration.

Correction: This post originally stated that Jameel Jaffer was a national security lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Association. He is actually a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: detainees; gitmo; habeascorpus; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

1 posted on 12/23/2010 10:14:51 AM PST by matt1234
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: matt1234
Remind me again, please. Where in the US Constitution Article 2, Section 1 is this power granted to the President?
2 posted on 12/23/2010 10:19:04 AM PST by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

Isn’t this something that the ACLU/MSM should be sceaming about ?

Oh I forgot, Obama is not George Bush.


3 posted on 12/23/2010 10:23:21 AM PST by woodbutcher1963
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: matt1234
Just prepping the field for full implementation and enforcement of the latest FCC decision..
4 posted on 12/23/2010 10:27:47 AM PST by SuperLuminal (Where is another agitator for republicanism like Sam Adams when we need him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matt1234

Please tell me this EO does not apply to US citizens.


5 posted on 12/23/2010 10:28:27 AM PST by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard
Please tell me this EO does not apply to US citizens.

I guess we'll know when the see the signed version.

6 posted on 12/23/2010 10:44:12 AM PST by matt1234 (0bama's bunker phase: Nov. 2010 - Jan. 2013)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: matt1234

All Republican reps and senators, you will now be indefinitely detained.


7 posted on 12/23/2010 10:44:48 AM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
These are military prisoners, captured during an armed conflict. Why wouldn't the President have the authority to deal with them with as long as he doesn't contradict public law?

Now that being said, I don't have much faith in him to properly utilize his authority.

8 posted on 12/23/2010 11:08:54 AM PST by Red Dog #1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: matt1234

Just remeber who Obama’s “Enemies” are...and how he wanted to Punish them......


9 posted on 12/23/2010 11:13:52 AM PST by jakerobins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Dog #1
These are military prisoners, captured during an armed conflict. Why wouldn't the President have the authority to deal with them with as long as he doesn't contradict public law?

That pesky Constitution.

From Article 1, Section 8. The Powers of Congress:

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

The President has no such authority.

10 posted on 12/23/2010 11:16:51 AM PST by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
"Remind me again, please. Where in the US Constitution Article 2, Section 1 is this power granted to the President? "

The CiC has the authority to take and hold enemy combatants as prisoners. ESPECIALLY outside the US.

Always had such authority.

11 posted on 12/23/2010 11:36:02 AM PST by Mariner (USS Tarawa, VQ3, USS Benjamin Stoddert, NAVCAMS WestPac, 7th Fleet, Navcommsta Puget Sound)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
The CiC has the authority to take and hold enemy combatants as prisoners.

Really? That's not what the Constitution says. See post 8.

12 posted on 12/23/2010 11:39:00 AM PST by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
I'm definitely not a constitutional lawyer, but I'd be surprised if a challenge to this EO based on a separation of powers argument would go anywhere. Unless there's a contradiction to the “Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water” made by Congress, I'd expect Holder's Justice Department to argue the EO is simply a means to carry out those rules.

That said, I have little doubt that the reviews are little more than a fig leaf to cover releasing more terrorist.

13 posted on 12/23/2010 11:51:27 AM PST by Red Dog #1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Red Dog #1
and his assertion that the congressional authorization for military force, passed after the 2001 terrorist attacks, allows for such detention.

I'd like to see the Section of that authorization that allows the President to decree indefinete detention. I've got a buck that says it ain't in there.

14 posted on 12/23/2010 12:01:07 PM PST by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

BFL


15 posted on 12/23/2010 12:02:25 PM PST by Constitution Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
"I'd like to see the Section of that authorization..."

That's something we can agree on. It all comes down the letter of the law...

16 posted on 12/23/2010 12:11:02 PM PST by Red Dog #1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: matt1234

Why do I get the feeling that 0bama might have uses for this other than those now at Gitmo?

Sooner or later he will reveal his basic instinct to be that of a Dictator who laughs at the mere notion of a Government with checks and balances.


17 posted on 12/23/2010 12:13:05 PM PST by R0CK3T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matt1234

An islamist runs a war against islamism. Yeah, that makes sense.


18 posted on 12/23/2010 12:30:51 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matt1234

Now while they’re being indefinitely detained, they’ll need some entertainment. How about poolside chats with intelligence agents, only it’s a real small swimming pool, and they can’t get out of it until after the chat is over, and part of the fun will include playful dunking every now and then, as the chat warrants it.


19 posted on 12/23/2010 12:34:06 PM PST by Eleutheria5 (End the occupation. Annex today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matt1234

http://smargus.com/2010/03/indefinite-detention-of-americans-act-contact-sheet/


20 posted on 12/23/2010 1:49:01 PM PST by KDD (When the government boot is on your neck, it matters not whether it is the right boot or the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson