Obama Weighs Indefinite Detention (why is Lindsay Graham involved?)

[masuki bance]

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....

On Wednesday, the president reversed a recent administration decision to release photos showing purported abuse of prisoners at U.S. military facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Obama cited concern that releasing the pictures could endanger U.S. troops. Mr. Obama ordered government lawyers to pull back an earlier court filing promising to release hundreds of photos by month's end as part a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.
...

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. Lindsay 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.

The White House had no comment Wednesday about its detainee deliberations.

The idea of a new national security court has been discussed widely in legal circles, including by Bush administration Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Neal Katyal, a former Georgetown law professor and now Obama Justice Department official.

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

Why is Graham getting so much power to influence policy?



edit four speline

[liberalmuse]

1. Fuck that simpering twit.

I'll bet ten dollahs he's a lying piece of shit like the rest of the Grand Ol' Phascists.

[masuki bance]

2. ...

...But the commissions were never completely dismantled, and, in fact, continued despite the administration’s suspension of the trials. In the case of Ali Hamza Ahmed Sulayman al Bahlul, for example, an alleged al-Qaeda media director who was convicted and sentenced to life in prison by a military commission in November after he boycotted the trial and refused to present a defense, the government is now seeking to “finalize and approve his conviction and sentence,” said David Frakt, his military defense lawyer. The commission’s “convening authority” can either approve the conviction and sentence, or can amend it or grant clemency. “It’s interesting that they continued to press forward despite the suspension,” said Frakt.

Then last week, The Miami Herald reported the appointment of a new chief prosecutor, John Murphy, also suggesting the Obama administration plans to continue the commissions. Murphy was among the team of military prosecutors in the case of Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s driver. That case is not widely considered a success, however. Prosecutors had argued for a 30-year sentence, but Hamdan was convicted last summer only of supporting terror, rather than committing any terrorist acts, and sentenced to time served plus less than six months. He returned to his native Yemen last year.

...

But there are other suggestions that they will go on. On Thursday, a military judge ordered that a hearing in the military commission case of Ahmed Darbi, accused of being a member of Al Qaeda in large part because his brother-in-law was one of the 9/11 hijackers, will go forward as originally scheduled on May 27. Darbi’s lawyers had asked for the hearing to be delayed until July to give the Obama administration time to decide how to proceed with his case, which they claim is unfounded. Darbi says he was tortured at the Bagram air base in Afghanistan, and witnessed the beating to death of a Bagram detainee whose murder by interrogators was later confirmed in a Defense Department report.
...

“The president has the authority to pull the plug on this,” said Ramzi Kassem, Darbi’s lawyer and a teaching fellow at Yale Law School. “Our position has always been that even with a very fair military judge and with highly intelligent and impartial military jurors, the military commission system is rigged and cannot be fair to the accused.”

...

“No one should be tried in these courts,” says Kassem. “They were set up for one reason alone: to whitewash torture.”

Michael Scharf, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University and expert on international war crimes tribunals, agrees that revival of the military commissions “would be such a mistake.”

...

Frakt, the military defense lawyer who’s representing two detainees before military commissions, said that even if the Obama administration improves the commissions by changing some of the rules, it won’t solve the problem. “They can certainly improve the commissions by changing the regulations but I don’t think they can get them to the point where they will achieve international acceptance,” said Frakt.

“Obama talked about making a change, a break from the past. So if he suddenly says we can proceed under the Military Commissions Act and just tinker at the margins, that will be perceived as really selling out his principles for political expediency,” said Frakt. “The idea that ‘oh, well, you know, we looked at trying these people in federal court but it was too hard, so we’re going to use military commissions,’ that’s absolutely appalling.”...

http://washingtonindependent.com/42646/obama-appears-poised-to-renew-military-commissions

[geek tragedy]

3. The Geneva Conventions allow combatants/POW's to be

held indefinitely until the cessation of hostilities.

[masuki bance]

4. OK, so why was Obama against the commisions in the campaign?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

5. Not good

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.