WaPo: Guantanamo to Remain Open, Indefinite Detention to Replace Trials

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 05:14:49 PM EST
Tags: Obama., 9-11 trials (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Disheartening news, to say the least. The Washington Post reports:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the four other 9/11 detainees are unlikely to get a trial in federal court or by military commission before the end of President Obama's first term. Instead, they will remain in indefinite detention at Guantanamo.
Guantanamo will not close in the forseeable future.

The explanation:

The administration has concluded that it cannot put Mohammed on trial in federal court because of the opposition of lawmakers in Congress and in New York. There is also little internal support for resurrecting a military prosecution at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The latter option would alienate liberal supporters.

Like indefinite detention won't alienate us? [More...]

The other reason:

....[K]ey administration officials fear that no federal case could proceed, given stiff congressional opposition. It is expected to grow more intense when the new Republican majority assumes power in the House of Representatives.

What does this say about Obama? That he's ineffective and lacks confidence in his ability to deal with Congress? That he doesn't have the backbone to fight for the policies he believes in and promised when we voted for him? Both?

Doing nothing and trying to sweep the 9/11 defendants under the rug as if they don't exist is not the answer. It's cowardly. President Obama should make the decision he believes in -- try these defendants in federal court. If Congress blocks it, then at least he did his best and stood up for what he believes. Voters will know it's Congress who is to blame. If he just gives up, he loses not only liberal support, but everyone's respect.

< Saturday Open Thread: Discontinued, Old and New | Obama's Still Big, It's The Presidency That Got Small >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

TalkLeft's DMCA Infringement Notice Policy

WaPo: Guantanamo to Remain Open, Indefinite Detention to Replace Trials | 46 comments (46 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

There is (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by lentinel on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 06:09:02 PM EST

an ongoing assumption that Obama has good instincts, but just "doesn't have the backbone to fight for the policies he believes in.."

Isn't it time, after these several years to admit or at least seriously entertain the notion that he does not in fact believe in the policies with which progressive democrats identify?

Over and over again, Obama does the wrong thing.
He does not seem distraught.
He does not seem deeply troubled.
In fact, like Bush his predecessor, he seems rather jolly.

Witnessing this, why can't we just accept the fact that he is doing what he wants to do - and it just is not what we would like him to be doing?

This seems like a more rational approach than continuing to wish Obama to behave in a progressive manner, and then continuing to react with disappointment when he does not. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is, I believe, the definition of idiocy.

From his fruits shall we know him.

It is time to realize that a chicken cannot lay a duck egg.

Over and over again (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by MO Blue on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 06:31:14 PM EST

Obama has kicked the can down the road until now he has the perfect excuse to justify his actions.

...[K]ey administration officials fear that no federal case could proceed, given stiff congressional opposition. It is expected to grow more intense when the new Republican majority assumes power in the House of Representatives.

I have been of the opinion that Obama is doing exactly he is doing what he wants to do - and it just is not what we would like him to be doing for a long time.


Not idiocy. (none / 0) (#3)
by kmblue on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 06:10:46 PM EST

Insanity. (see previous thread)


: Yes... (none / 0) (#6)
by lentinel on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 06:35:26 PM EST

Insanity.
Thank you.

I think the president has made (5.00 / 4) (#5)
by Anne on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 06:32:48 PM EST

the decision he believes in; taken in total with the other decisions he's made in this area, I don't know why anyone would be even the slightest bit surprised by how this is all turning out.

It isn't a matter of backbone, it's a matter of being an authoritarian at his core; he's more comfortable wielding power over others than he is in safeguarding the power reserved in the people.

How this is any different from the Bush/Cheney reign is beyond me...

This (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by lentinel on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 06:53:48 PM EST

is subjective, but I did have a sense of Bush/Cheney wielding power. Especially Cheney.

With Obama, I feel the presence of an empty vessel.
I don't sense that he is making any decisions at all.
I honestly don't feel that he cares about anything.
I just sense that from time to time he is trotted out to deliver the message to us and use his fading oratorical skills to sell us something.

I certainly agree that he shows no interest in safeguarding the power of the people.

But I don't think he has the backbone to be an authoritarian.
He just seems like a blank slate.


William Greider's (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by ruffian on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 07:35:56 PM EST

piece in The Nation says it very well. Now is the time for a leader, not a facilitator.


: Exactly. It's so ironic that (none / 0) (#14)
by observed on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 07:49:18 PM EST

Obama actually does act like a community organizer...ironic on so many levels too.

To me it is a theater of sorts (none / 0) (#8)
by MO Blue on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 07:15:50 PM EST

You have two characters. Both wanting to go in the same direction and achieve the same outcomes. Due to the different environment each found themselves in, the first (no mandate - ultimate loss of congress) needed to appear that he and his party bullied their way through to their goal. The second (large mandate - large majorities in congress), needed to appear that he and his party were weak, ineffective and were bullied into reaching the same goal.


I'm starting to come around (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 08:08:09 PM EST

to that way of thinking too. For quite a while I have thought that maybe Obama is spineless and weak (well, he is doing what is right for the country) but I'm now maybe thinking that this is all what he really wants. He wants to continue the Republican agenda.


: It's especially clear on (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by observed on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 08:10:45 PM EST

economic policy: either he's clueless,or he's a Reagan clone (the two are not mutually exclusive,---obviously)

Calm down! This is (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by observed on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 07:26:29 PM EST

indefinite detention, not PERMANENT detention like the Republicans want.

Yep (5.00 / 3) (#10)
by MO Blue on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 07:30:35 PM EST

detention will end the minute there is no terrorism in the world or when the person dies. It is only a matter which comes first.


: Yoo know it. (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by observed on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 07:35:12 PM EST

Please correct me if my recollection is (5.00 / 3) (#17)
by oculus on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 08:09:55 PM EST

incorrect. But, didn't Obama, after being sworn in as President, state his administration was closing Guantanamo? And state certain persons would, in fact, be tried in federal district court on criminal charges? The ultimate waffle. Disgusting.

: IIRC the closing of Guantanamo (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by MO Blue on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 08:40:28 PM EST

was time specific. Obama promised to close Guantanamo within a year of taking office.

: Bush #1 also said .. (none / 0) (#40)
by nyrias on Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 10:03:26 PM EST

"read my lips, no more taxes".
Obama is not the only one, and not the last one, to break campaign promises.

Good News (5.00 / 4) (#19)
by bselznick on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 08:18:55 PM EST

This is good news for Obama in 2012. Obama will be able to pull a Nixon.

In 1968 Nixon ran on ending the war... In 1972 Nixon again ran promising to end the war.

So now Obama will be able to run twice promising to close Guantanamo. Actually he has a number of campaign themes he can recycle for 2012.

Throw in a Watergate break in and (none / 0) (#20)
by oculus on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 08:26:32 PM EST

it's a wrap.


Yeah, (none / 0) (#22)
by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 08:47:13 PM EST

and that will work only if the GOP runs a McGovern which is not out of the realm of possibilities though.


Doesn't Rand Paul want to drastically (none / 0) (#24)
by oculus on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 08:54:13 PM EST

reduce spending on defense?


Maybe (none / 0) (#25)
by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 08:56:03 PM EST

at one time but I think he's reversed that.


: Wrong guy. "Ron Paul." (none / 0) (#28)
by oculus on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 09:03:03 PM EST

I think that we on the left (5.00 / 2) (#36)
by lentinel on Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 06:14:06 AM EST

should begin urgent work to find a progressive candidate to challenge Obama in primaries for the nomination in 2012.

If we do not, we will be faced with the same choice we had last time - between someone who does not share our values but says he does, and someone who does not share our values who is upfront about it.

: and you think ... (none / 0) (#41)
by nyrias on Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 10:05:10 PM EST

moving further to the left will win elections?
I suppose that is not totally a wacky idea since Karl Rove did help Bush to win election by moving to the right.
May be someone can pull a anti-Karl Rove and win although i am not going to bet money on it.

"It's cowardly" (4.00 / 1) (#2)
by kmblue on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 06:09:42 PM EST

Gee, ya think?

As much as I care about the economic issues (none / 0) (#13)
by ruffian on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 07:39:53 PM EST

this really was more important to me. Money comes and goes, but what we stand for as a nation endures. This is just cowardly leadership for a cowardly nation. I could not be more disgusted and disappointed.

: Well said ruff... (none / 0) (#44)
by kdog on Mon Nov 15, 2010 at 09:05:40 AM EST

At the end of day you expect our leaders to stand with billionaires...is what it is.
Sh*tting all over basic human rights is a whole 'nother nastier ballgame.

I would have thought (none / 0) (#15)
by Edger on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 07:59:25 PM EST

there was no more room under the oval office rug by now.

I was wrong, obviously.

6th Amendment Right to speedy trial? (none / 0) (#23)
by Ben Masel on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 08:53:57 PM EST

That's right. Let's see if the Tea Party Patriots (none / 0) (#26)
by ruffian on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 08:57:29 PM EST

are all over this. I would welcome their support.


That's the thing (none / 0) (#30)
by PatHat on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 09:05:51 PM EST

Perhaps things have gotten so bad that a strange coalition could be forged against the status quo.


: You mean like... (none / 0) (#31)
by Rojas on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 09:20:50 PM EST

December 6, 1995
Honorable Newt Gingrich
Speaker
House of Representatives
2428 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Honorable Richard A. Gephardt
Minority Leader
House of Representatives
1226 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-2503
Subject: Expansion of Federal Law Enforcement Authority
Pending Counter-Terrorism Legislation
Dear Speaker Gingrich and Minority Leader Gephardt:
We represent a diverse group of organizations. We are united,
however, in our profound objections to a number of provisions of the
Comprehensive Antiterrorism Act of 1995 (H.R. 1710) that would work a
substantial expansion of federal law enforcement powers. We are also
deeply concerned about similar provisions in other pending
counter-terrorism bills and proposals, including the Omnibus
Counter-Terrorism Act of 1995 (H.R. 896) and the Antiterrorism Amendments
Act of 1995 (H.R. 1635), introduced at the request of the Clinton
Administration, and any bill with comparable provisions, including the
Senate's "Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act of 1995" (S. 735). Our
comments also apply to any comparable provisions under discussion for the
proposed substitute for H.R. 1710.
Laura W. Murphy, Director
Washington National Office
American Civil Liberties Union
Tanya Metaksa, Executive Director
National Rifle Association
Institute for Legislative Action
Malcolm Wallop,
Chairman
Frontiers of Freedom
Edward H. Crane,
President and CEO*
Cato Institute*
*For identification purposes only.
Gerald H. Goldstein, Immediate Past
President & Legislative Committee Chair
National Association of Criminal Defense
Lawyers
John M. Snyder,
Public Affairs Director
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and
Bear Arms
William B. Moffitt,
Treasurer
National Association of Criminal Defense
Lawyers
Larry Pratt,
Director of Government Affairs
Gun Owners of America
Nancy Ross,
Partner
Ross and Green
Mark Gissiner, President
International Association for Civilian
Oversight of Law Enforcement
James X. Dempsey,
Deputy Director
Center for National Security Studies
Conrad Martin,
Executive Director
Fund for Constitutional Government
Leslie J. Seymour,
National Chairperson
National Black Police Association
Abdurahman Alamoudi,
Executive Director
American Muslim Council
David C. Condliffe,
Executive Director
The Drug Policy Foundation
Mark Rotenberg,
Director
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Eric E. Sterling,
President
The Criminal Justice Policy Foundation
Hamzi K. Moghrabi,
Chairman
American Arab Anti-Discrimination
Committee
Joseph P. Tartaro,
President
Second Amendment Foundation
James Zogby,
President
Arab American Institute
Evan Hendricks,
Chairman
US Privacy Council
Simon Davies,
Director General
Privacy International
James J. Fotis,
Executive Director
Law Enforcement Alliance of America, Inc.
Sean McManus,
President
Irish National Caucus
Frank Wilkinson,
Executive Director Emeritus
National Committee Against Repressive Legislation
Davies O'Kennedy,
National President
Irish American Unity Conference
Ned Stowe,
Legislative Secretary
Friends Committee on National Legislation

Ben you know that the Constitution (none / 0) (#27)
by MO Blue on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 09:00:10 PM EST

has become just a "damn piece of paper." Seems the oath of office should be changed to reflect the prevailing mood that amendments are to be eliminated at will rather than upheld.


: Or subject to personal interpretation. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by oculus on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 09:03:53 PM EST

See First Amendment.

Yeah, so as a result of the Speedy Trial violation (none / 0) (#32)
by Peter G on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 10:55:46 PM EST

the criminal indictment has to be dismissed. And KSM remains in "detention" as an "enemy combatant." Only until the "war" ends, that is, of course.


The detention isn't criminal; (none / 0) (#33)
by andgarden on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 11:46:05 PM EST

it's a kind of civil commitment. The argument is that these people are too dangerous to release.


Then they should be afforded a (none / 0) (#34)
by oculus on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 11:52:26 PM EST

civil trial. See Mentally Disordered Sex Offender procedure in California.


They can have one through habeas (none / 0) (#35)
by andgarden on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 11:57:13 PM EST

Civil MDSO commitments--jury trial. (none / 0) (#38)
by oculus on Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 02:37:17 PM EST

: Is that a Constitutional requirement? (none / 0) (#39)
by andgarden on Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 02:39:17 PM EST

I would doubt it, given the deferential standard O'Connor articulated in Hamdi.
The process due will be determined by the Mathews v. Eldridge test.

Does the Sixth Amendment actually... (none / 0) (#42)
by jbindc on Mon Nov 15, 2010 at 08:16:31 AM EST

Apply to persons who a) are not American citizens or lawful residents, b) have never set foot on American soil and c)are accused of crimes that did not take place on American soil? In other words, those who were picked up on a battlefield and labeled as "enemy combatants"? (And isn't that one of the unspoken reasons why there is great hesitation in having trials on US soil - because then these people actually would be granted constitutional rights?)

It is my understanding that there is no direct precedence on this and what collateral precedence there may be is murky at best. Is there a Sixth Amendment expert here?


I was going to ask the same thing (none / 0) (#43)
by republicratitarian on Mon Nov 15, 2010 at 08:41:04 AM EST

You wouldn't be alone (none / 0) (#45)
by jbindc on Mon Nov 15, 2010 at 12:27:29 PM EST

Which is why this is not the easy, bumper sticker answer everyone wants it to be. Constitutional scholars (real ones) have testified before Congress in hearings for the last several years off and on and there really isn't an answer as this is pretty much unchartered territory.


: The US flag flies over Guantanamo. (none / 0) (#46)
by jeffinalabama on Mon Nov 15, 2010 at 02:33:04 PM EST

With no SOFA with Cuba, I would think US protections exist. Obviously others disagree.

They might spill the beans (none / 0) (#37)
by Yes2Truth on Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 10:08:17 AM EST

Patsies must be kept silenced. A fair trial is too
risky. Public must be protected from the truth.