In late April, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced during a Senate briefing that there are between 50 and 100 detainees at Guantanamo Bay whom the government would not transfer to other countries or prosecute in civilian or military tribunals. Last week, major media outlets, confirming previous "chatter," reported that the Obama administration would retool and revive the highly disparaged military courts.
And just when it seemed that all of these changes in anti-terrorism policy were too good to be true, today's Wall Street Journal reports that the Obama administration might indefinitely detain some Guantanamo Bay inmates in the United States following the closure of the facility. Presumably, the indefinitely detained individuals would include the 50-100 people Gates described in late April.
The Senate, however, has already launched an effort to block the potential policy. Today, the Senate will consider legislation that would give Obama emergency money he has requested to fund the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison. The legislation, however, would grant the funds only if the President agrees not to transfer any suspected terrorists to locations within the United States.
If the Senate measure fails, then the Obama administration could potentially implement the indefinite detention policy. According to the Wall Street Journal article, possible plans include indefinite detentions within the United States authorized by a newly created "National Security Court."
The use of a special National Security Court to determine whether the government could detain suspects would go against Obama's campaign assertion that these individuals should have full habeas corpus rights. The idea of indefinite detention contradicts his campaign rhetoric that condemned this practice.
Dissenting Justice has frequently commented on the Obama administration's commitment to indefinite detention, despite the Left's vehement opposition to the practice. Even the mainstream media has begun reporting on how Obama's policy choices either anger the Left or defy his campaign promises. Two articles in today's Washington Post, for example, examine how Obama's recent flip-flop on the release of detainee abuse photos might impact his relationship with his liberal base.
Concluding Questions
If Congress blocks the transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United States, will Obama stop the process of closing the facility? Was this the plan all along? How does the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects in the United States, as opposed to Guantanamo Bay, represent an improvement over the Bush administration's policies?
Recent Articles on Dissenting Justice:
Earth to GOP: Branding Democrats as "Socialists" Is a Stupid and Futile Move
President Obama: Less Talk, More Action on GLBT Rights Issues!
Promises, Promises. . .
Showing posts with label military commission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label military commission. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Saturday, May 9, 2009
They're Baaack. . . .
Recently, the New York Times reported that the Obama administration would likely bring back the controversial military commissions in order to prosecute terrorism suspects. During the Bush administration, the commissions generated a lot heat among civil libertarians in the United States and abroad.
As a Senator, Obama voted against the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and he successfully campaigned on the promise that he would would restore the image of the United States in the international community. Many liberals view the Bush administration's denial of basic civil rights as one of the greatest blemishes on the image of the United States.
During his campaign, President Obama criticized the use of military commissions, rather than federal courts, to prosecute terrorism suspects. When he first took office, President Obama issued a series of executive orders, including one that imposed a 120-day stay on all proceedings in military tribunals while a task force studied and developed alternatives to the existing process.
Today, additional news sources confirm that the Obama administration will "stay the course" and utilize military tribunals, rather than federal courts, to prosecute accused terrorists. According to the Washington Post the government will reform the rules of the military commissions in order to provide greater procedural rights to defendants:
Closing Statement
In a prior blog post on this subject, I summarized the policies that Obama has pursued, but which liberals passionately criticized during the Bush administration. I have reprinted that list below, with an obvious modification.
The Obama administration has embraced many of the same positions that liberals and Obama himself criticized during the Bush administration. For example:
* Obama and members of his administration have embraced the use of rendition. Many of Obama's most ardent defenders blasted progressives who criticized Obama on rendition as jumping the gun. Today, their arguments look even more problematic than in the past.
* Obama has invoked the maligned "state secrets" defense as a complete bar to lawsuits challenging potential human rights and constitutional law violations.
* Obama has argued that detainees at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan do not qualify for habeas corpus rights, even though many of the detainees at the facility were not captured in the war or in Afghanistan.
* Even though it no longer uses the phrase "enemy combatants," the Obama administration has taken the position that the government can indefinitely detain individuals, whether or not they engaged in torture and whether or not they fought the United States on the "battlefield." This logic combined with the denial of habeas to detainees in Afghanistan could make Bagram the functional equivalent of Guantanamo Bay.
* Now, it is clear that the Obama administration will use a "kinder, gentler" military commissions process to prosecute terrorism suspects -- despite liberal condemnation of the proceedings during the Bush administration and the curtailment of due process that this decision will naturally involve.
It remains unclear, however, whether these contradictions will erode any of Obama's political support. Despite his blatant departure from some of the most important progressive issues that defined his campaign, most liberals remain quite pleased with Obama's performance.
Other recent postings:
Hatchet Job: Jeffrey Rosen's Utterly Bankrupt Analysis of Judge Sonia Sotomayor
Rosen Defends His Misreading of a Judicial Footnote: Says Judge Winter's Writing "Not a Model of Clarity"
Scalia v. Sotomayor: The Use of Gender-Coded Language to Evaluate a Judge's "Temperament"
Earth to Orrin Hatch: Even Conservative Judges Make Policy!
As a Senator, Obama voted against the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and he successfully campaigned on the promise that he would would restore the image of the United States in the international community. Many liberals view the Bush administration's denial of basic civil rights as one of the greatest blemishes on the image of the United States.
During his campaign, President Obama criticized the use of military commissions, rather than federal courts, to prosecute terrorism suspects. When he first took office, President Obama issued a series of executive orders, including one that imposed a 120-day stay on all proceedings in military tribunals while a task force studied and developed alternatives to the existing process.
Today, additional news sources confirm that the Obama administration will "stay the course" and utilize military tribunals, rather than federal courts, to prosecute accused terrorists. According to the Washington Post the government will reform the rules of the military commissions in order to provide greater procedural rights to defendants:
The [new] rules would block the use of evidence obtained from coercive interrogations, tighten the admissibility of hearsay testimony and allow detainees greater freedom to choose their attorneys.Nonetheless, until the government provides specific details, it is unclear whether these proposed changes will substantially alter the military commissions process as it existed in the Bush administration. Many critics argue that the government prefers military courts because the procedural rules strongly favor prosecutors. If this is true, then the Obama administration is likely using the controversial courts for the exact same reason as President Bush. The admission of hearsay evidence is extremely problematic because it allows the government to introduce damning statements into evidence, which the defendant cannot cross-exam (because the person who made the statement is not testifying). Accordingly, some civil liberties groups have vowed to sue.
Closing Statement
In a prior blog post on this subject, I summarized the policies that Obama has pursued, but which liberals passionately criticized during the Bush administration. I have reprinted that list below, with an obvious modification.
The Obama administration has embraced many of the same positions that liberals and Obama himself criticized during the Bush administration. For example:
* Obama and members of his administration have embraced the use of rendition. Many of Obama's most ardent defenders blasted progressives who criticized Obama on rendition as jumping the gun. Today, their arguments look even more problematic than in the past.
* Obama has invoked the maligned "state secrets" defense as a complete bar to lawsuits challenging potential human rights and constitutional law violations.
* Obama has argued that detainees at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan do not qualify for habeas corpus rights, even though many of the detainees at the facility were not captured in the war or in Afghanistan.
* Even though it no longer uses the phrase "enemy combatants," the Obama administration has taken the position that the government can indefinitely detain individuals, whether or not they engaged in torture and whether or not they fought the United States on the "battlefield." This logic combined with the denial of habeas to detainees in Afghanistan could make Bagram the functional equivalent of Guantanamo Bay.
* Now, it is clear that the Obama administration will use a "kinder, gentler" military commissions process to prosecute terrorism suspects -- despite liberal condemnation of the proceedings during the Bush administration and the curtailment of due process that this decision will naturally involve.
It remains unclear, however, whether these contradictions will erode any of Obama's political support. Despite his blatant departure from some of the most important progressive issues that defined his campaign, most liberals remain quite pleased with Obama's performance.
Other recent postings:
Hatchet Job: Jeffrey Rosen's Utterly Bankrupt Analysis of Judge Sonia Sotomayor
Rosen Defends His Misreading of a Judicial Footnote: Says Judge Winter's Writing "Not a Model of Clarity"
Scalia v. Sotomayor: The Use of Gender-Coded Language to Evaluate a Judge's "Temperament"
Earth to Orrin Hatch: Even Conservative Judges Make Policy!
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Kinder, Gentler Military Tribunals? You Betcha. . . .
MAJOR UPDATE: THEY'RE BAAACK. . . .
Is President Obama planning to use highly criticized military courts to prosecute detainees at Guantanamo Bay? According to a New York Times article, he is.
Civil libertarians within Obama's liberal base passionately opposed the Bush administration's use of military tribunals to prosecute terrorism suspects. Also, the Supreme Court has ruled that Bush's commissions failed to offer sufficient procedural protections for defendants.
Obama campaigned against the use of military tribunals and boasted of his vote against the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which attempted to divest certain Guantanamo Bay detainees of habeas corpus rights. The Supreme Court overruled those portions of the legislation in 2008 and specifically held that the alternative process for determining whether the government had adequate grounds to detain suspects was constitutionally defective.
Kinder, Gentler Military Tribunals?
Perhaps the Obama administration believes that it can clean up the military courts. But if he ultimately decides to opt for military tribunals, this would probably reflect a bare desire to win difficult terrorism cases and to avoid political fallout from holding the trials in federal courts.
A lot of the evidence against the terrorism suspects includes hearsay and statements extracted through torture or other coercive techniques. Federal rules of evidence would not permit the use of such materials, which would make prosecution difficult [Translation: would require the government to prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt"].
Furthermore, the prosecution of terrorism suspects in federal courts would generate another round of criticism from conservatives and moderates who oppose the idea. Although federal courts have prosecuted numerous terrorism suspects in the past (with high conviction rates), the issue remains a political lightning rod.
Obama's Biggest Contradictions Occur in His Anti-Terrorism Policies
In terms of disappointing his base, Obama's biggest contradictions have occurred in his anti-terrorism policies. Bush's practices in this area generated massive political heat from liberals both domestically and abroad. Obama's election victories (especially in the Democratic primaries) occurred in large part because the Left believed that he would dramatically alter the state of affairs in this area.
Although Obama has taken formal steps that retreat from Bush's policies, the substantive differences are too small to measure. During his first week in office, Obama issued executive orders that call for the closure of Guantanamo Bay within a year, the cessation of torture and the termination of CIA "black sites," or secret prison facilities where individuals face prolonged detention under poor conditions that likely involve torture.
But Obama has embraced many of the same positions that liberals and Obama himself criticized. For example:
* Obama and members of his administration have embraced the use of rendition. Many of Obama's most ardent defenders blasted progressives who criticized Obama on rendition as jumping the gun. Today, their arguments look even more problematic than in the past.
* Obama has invoked the maligned "state secrets" defense as a complete bar to lawsuits challenging potential human rights and constitutional law violations.
* Obama has argued that detainees at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan do not qualify for habeas corpus rights, even though many of the detainees at the facility were not captured in the war or in Afghanistan.
* Even though it no longer uses the phrase "enemy combatants," the Obama administration has taken the position that the government can indefinitely detain individuals, whether or not they engaged in torture and whether or not they fought the United States on the "battlefield." This logic combined with the denial of habeas to detainees in Afghanistan could make Bagram the functional equivalent of Guantanamo Bay.
If the New York Times article is accurate, then the use of military tribunals issue will join the list of policies that Obama has endorsed, despite the loud liberal criticism that Bush received when he did the same things. It remains unclear, however, whether these contradictions will erode any of Obama's political support. Despite his blatant departure from some of the most important progressive issues that defined his campaign, liberals remain quite pleased with Obama's performance.
SEE RELATED COVERAGE:
They're Baaack. . . .
Glenn Greenwald has also covered many of these issues. He is one of the few progressives who has consistently adhered to progressive politics during the Obama-era.
Is President Obama planning to use highly criticized military courts to prosecute detainees at Guantanamo Bay? According to a New York Times article, he is.
Civil libertarians within Obama's liberal base passionately opposed the Bush administration's use of military tribunals to prosecute terrorism suspects. Also, the Supreme Court has ruled that Bush's commissions failed to offer sufficient procedural protections for defendants.
Obama campaigned against the use of military tribunals and boasted of his vote against the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which attempted to divest certain Guantanamo Bay detainees of habeas corpus rights. The Supreme Court overruled those portions of the legislation in 2008 and specifically held that the alternative process for determining whether the government had adequate grounds to detain suspects was constitutionally defective.
Kinder, Gentler Military Tribunals?
Perhaps the Obama administration believes that it can clean up the military courts. But if he ultimately decides to opt for military tribunals, this would probably reflect a bare desire to win difficult terrorism cases and to avoid political fallout from holding the trials in federal courts.
A lot of the evidence against the terrorism suspects includes hearsay and statements extracted through torture or other coercive techniques. Federal rules of evidence would not permit the use of such materials, which would make prosecution difficult [Translation: would require the government to prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt"].
Furthermore, the prosecution of terrorism suspects in federal courts would generate another round of criticism from conservatives and moderates who oppose the idea. Although federal courts have prosecuted numerous terrorism suspects in the past (with high conviction rates), the issue remains a political lightning rod.
Obama's Biggest Contradictions Occur in His Anti-Terrorism Policies
In terms of disappointing his base, Obama's biggest contradictions have occurred in his anti-terrorism policies. Bush's practices in this area generated massive political heat from liberals both domestically and abroad. Obama's election victories (especially in the Democratic primaries) occurred in large part because the Left believed that he would dramatically alter the state of affairs in this area.
Although Obama has taken formal steps that retreat from Bush's policies, the substantive differences are too small to measure. During his first week in office, Obama issued executive orders that call for the closure of Guantanamo Bay within a year, the cessation of torture and the termination of CIA "black sites," or secret prison facilities where individuals face prolonged detention under poor conditions that likely involve torture.
But Obama has embraced many of the same positions that liberals and Obama himself criticized. For example:
* Obama and members of his administration have embraced the use of rendition. Many of Obama's most ardent defenders blasted progressives who criticized Obama on rendition as jumping the gun. Today, their arguments look even more problematic than in the past.
* Obama has invoked the maligned "state secrets" defense as a complete bar to lawsuits challenging potential human rights and constitutional law violations.
* Obama has argued that detainees at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan do not qualify for habeas corpus rights, even though many of the detainees at the facility were not captured in the war or in Afghanistan.
* Even though it no longer uses the phrase "enemy combatants," the Obama administration has taken the position that the government can indefinitely detain individuals, whether or not they engaged in torture and whether or not they fought the United States on the "battlefield." This logic combined with the denial of habeas to detainees in Afghanistan could make Bagram the functional equivalent of Guantanamo Bay.
If the New York Times article is accurate, then the use of military tribunals issue will join the list of policies that Obama has endorsed, despite the loud liberal criticism that Bush received when he did the same things. It remains unclear, however, whether these contradictions will erode any of Obama's political support. Despite his blatant departure from some of the most important progressive issues that defined his campaign, liberals remain quite pleased with Obama's performance.
SEE RELATED COVERAGE:
They're Baaack. . . .
Glenn Greenwald has also covered many of these issues. He is one of the few progressives who has consistently adhered to progressive politics during the Obama-era.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Five GITMO Detainees Submit Document to Military Commission Admitting to Planning 9/11 Attacks
Well this should generate debate around the Internet. According to a New York Times article:
The five detainees at Guantánamo Bay charged with planning the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks have filed a document with the military commission at the United States naval base there expressing pride at their accomplishment and accepting full responsibility for the killing of nearly 3,000 people.
The document, which may be released publicly on Tuesday, uses the Arabic term for a consultative assembly in describing the five men as the “9/11 Shura Council,” and it says their actions were an offering to God, according to excerpts of the document that were read to a reporter by a government official who was not authorized to discuss it publicly.
The document is titled “The Islamic Response to the Government’s Nine Accusations,” the military judge at the Guantánamo Bay detention camp said in a
separate filing, obtained by The New York Times, that describes the detainees’ document.
The document was filed on behalf of the five men, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who has described himself as the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)