Share

White House Is Drafting Executive Order to Allow Indefinite Detention; Move Would Bypass Congress

by: Dafna Linzer and Peter Finn  |  ProPublica and The Washington Post

photo
At Guantanamo Bay's Camp 5 detention center, a guard stands near the shadow of a detainee. The Obama administration plans to bypass Congress with an executive order allowing indefinite detention, according to government officials. (Photo: Getty Images)

    The Obama administration, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close Guantanamo, is drafting 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.

    Such an order would embrace claims by former President George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war. Obama advisers are concerned that bypassing Congress could place the president on weaker footing before the courts and anger key supporters, the officials said.

    After months of internal debate over how to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, White House officials are growing increasingly worried that reaching quick agreement with Congress on a new detention system may prove impossible. Several officials said there is concern in the White House that the administration may not be able to close the facility by the president's January 2010 deadline.

    White House spokesman Ben LaBolt did not directly respond to questions about an executive order but said the administration would address the cases of Guantanamo detainees in a manner "consistent with the national security interests of the United States and the interests of justice."

    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 Such an order can be rescinded and would not block later efforts to write legislation, but civil liberties groups generally oppose long-term detention, arguing that detainees should either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.

    The Justice Department has declined comment on the prospects for a long-term detention system while internal reviews of Guantanamo detainees are underway. The reviews are expected to be completed by July 21.

    In a May speech, President Obama broached the need for a system of long-term detention and suggested that it would include congressional and judicial oversight. "We must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. They can't be based simply on what I or the Executive Branch decide alone," the president said.

    Some of Obama's top legal advisers, along with a handful of influential Republican and Democratic lawmakers, have pushed for the creation of a "national security court" to supervise the incarceration of detainees deemed too dangerous to release but who cannot be charged or tried.

    But the three senior government officials said the White House has turned away from that option, at least for now, because legislation establishing a special court would be both difficult to pass and likely to fracture Obama's own party. These officials, as well as others interviewed for this story, spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about internal deliberations.

    On the day Obama took office, 242 men were imprisoned at Guantanamo. In his May speech, the president outlined five strategies the administration would use to deal with them: criminal trials, revamped military tribunals, transfers to other countries, releases and continued detention.

    Since the inauguration, 11 detainees have been released or transferred, one prisoner committed suicide and one was moved to New York to face terrorism charges in federal court.

    Administration officials said the cases of about half of the remaining 229 detainees have been reviewed for prosecution or release. Two officials involved in a Justice Department review of possible prosecutions said the administration is strongly considering criminal charges in federal court for Khaled Sheik Mohammed and three other detainees accused of involvement in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

    The other half, the officials said, present the greatest difficulty because these detainees cannot be prosecuted either 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.

    Attorney General Eric Holder agreed with an assessment offered during congressional testimony this month that fewer than 25 percent of the detainees would be charged in criminal courts and that 50 others have been approved for transfer or release. One official said the administration is still hoping that as many as 70 Yemeni citizens will be moved, in stages, into a rehabilitation program in Saudi Arabia.

    Three months into the Justice Department's reviews, several officials involved said they have found themselves agreeing with conclusions reached years earlier by the Bush administration: As many as 90 detainees can not be charged or released.

    The White House has spent months meeting with key congressional leaders in the hopes of reaching agreement on long-term detention, even as public support for such a plan has wavered as lawmakers have sought to prevent detainees from being transferred to their home states.

    Lawyers for the administration are now in negotiations with Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., over separate legislation that would revamp military commissions. A senior Republican staff member said that senators have yet to see "a comprehensive, detailed policy" on long-term detention from the administration.

    "They can do it without congressional backing, but I think there would be very strong concerns," the staff member said, adding that "Congress could cut off funding" for any detention system established in the United States.

    Concerns are growing among Obama's advisers that Congress may try to assert too much control over the process. Earlier this week, Obama signed an appropriations bill that forces the administration to report to Congress before moving any detainee out of Guantanamo and prevents the White House from using available funds to move detainees onto U.S. soil.

    "Legislation could kill Obama's plans," said one government official involved. The official said an executive order could be the best option for the president at this juncture.

    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.)

    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.

    But some senior Democrats see long-term detention as tantamount to reestablishing the Guantanamo system on U.S. soil. "I think this could be a very big mistake, because of how such a system could be perceived throughout the world," Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., told Holder.

    One administration official said future transfers to the United States for long-term detention would be rare. Al-Qaida operatives captured on the battlefield, which the official defined as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and possibly the Horn of Africa, would be held in battlefield facilities. Suspects captured elsewhere in the world could be transferred to the United States for federal prosecution, turned over to local authorities, or returned to their home country.

    "Going forward, unless it's an extraordinary case, you will not see new transfers to the U.S. for indefinite detention," the official said.

    Instituting long-term detention through an executive order would leave Obama vulnerable to charges that he is willing to forsake the legislative branch of government, as his predecessor often did. Bush's detention policies suffered successive defeats in the courts in part because they lacked congressional approval and tried to exclude judicial oversight.

    "There is no statute prohibiting the president from doing this through executive order and so far courts have not ruled in ways that would bar him from doing so," said Matthew Waxman, who worked on detainee issues at the Defense Department during Bush's first term. But Waxman, who waged an internal battle inside the Bush administration for more congressional cooperation, said the "courts are more likely to defer to the president and legislative branch when they speak with one voice on these issues."

    Walid bin Attash, who is accused of involvement in the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000 and who was held at a secret CIA prison, could be among those subject to long-term detention, according to one senior official.

    Little information on bin Attash's case has been made public, but officials who have reviewed his file said the Justice Department has concluded that none of the three witnesses against him can be brought to testify in court. One witness, who was jailed in Yemen, escaped several years ago. A second witness remains incarcerated, but the government of Yemen will not allow him to testify.

    Administration officials believe that testimony from the only witness in U.S. custody, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, may be inadmissible because he was subjected to harsh interrogation while in CIA custody.

    "These issues haven't morphed simply because the administration changed," said Juan Zarate, who served as Bush's deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism and is now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

    "The challenge for the new administration is how to solve these legal question of preventive detention in a way that is consistent with the Constitution, legitimate in the eyes of the world and doesn't create security loopholes that causes Congress to worry," Zarate said.

    --------

    Washington Post staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum. Β It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

No more jail without

No more jail without judicial review, adjudication - period. The whole world is watching and waiting for human rights to prevail, or the US empire is marching down the drain ie Egyptians, Greeks, Roman empire.

Firstly, terrorism is the

Firstly, terrorism is the act of causing terror, crime is stepping over law ... unless we want to prosecute Quentin Tarantino, we should avoid turning "terrorism" into a legal term; it is a word in itself designed to terrorize and incite emotion rather than actually describe crime or clarify legal recourse. This said, if we detain supposed "terrorists" in Guantanamo bay and elsewhere simply because we do not have legally permissible evidence to present in court, what have we come to? Countless murderers and other criminals have escaped (sometimes temporarily) due to lack of evidence so that even greater numbers of innocents could be spared arbitrary punishment. When 200 innocents must suffer so that a handful can be brought to justice, the legal "collateral damage" is too high a price to pay. If our government cannot show what these men have done, or cannot prove their evidence is valid, they should be released. Our legal system is about just means more than just ends, protecting the innocent before punishing the guilty. That is the United States of America I am proud of; President Obama, prove to me that country exists. So far, most of the evidence seems classified.

Well ain't that just dandy -

Well ain't that just dandy - old Obama bushing along just fine, thank you. The French have known it for a long time: plus Γ§a change - the more things change, the more they're the same! Pete Edler, Stockholm

Oh god, please no. I've

Oh god, please no. I've supported everything they've done up until this point... pragmatic, diplomatic and sometimes revolutionary. THIS I cannot support

Either they have the legal

Either they have the legal evidence (not elicited through torture) or they don't. If they can not or will not bring these incarcerated people to trial, they should release them and pay reparations. Official apologies would be in order as well. But...I won't hold my breath thinking that apologizing for gross injustice, cruelty, and barbarism will ever become the norm.

The real reason that we are

The real reason that we are labeling these prisoners as "too dangerous to release but who cannot be charged or tried" is that they pose the very real danger of testifying about their treatment while under US control. Indeed they might well offer this testimony in offshore courts with "universal jurisdiction." Obviously, any such testimony would place many former and now current high officials at risk of being convicted of war crimes. This is not about our fear of what these people might do, we can easily keep them from throwing bombs or whatever, it is about protecting our former and current high officials who fear that these horribly treated individuals will do what they have every right to do . . . in places that still have human rights.

But, of course, our high officials are not subject to laws, or any influence from moral strictures. They prove this by routinely engaging us in mass murder, torture, Crimes Against Humanity, Crimes Against the Peace, War Crimes . . . and they do this with impunity. They routinely commit these crimes in our name, thus forcing us all to share their guilt and protect them to protect ourselves.

In this Mr. Obama has betrayed us all. He protects the guilty and thus makes us all guilty in the eyes of the world. He is far more evil than George Bush, because unlike Bush he knows exactly what he is doing, and apparently doesn't care."

The answer to all of this remains obvious, and is, in fact, required by law, should anyone chose to pay attention to the law: PROSECUTE THE GUILTY AND BE DONE WITH IT!

This article is propaganda

This article is propaganda of the worst kind. It indirectly attempts to make it appear that an "Executive Order" supposedly 'authorizing' "indefinite detention", and indefinite detention itself, "would be constitutional"; and the awful thing about it is, that articles such as this one succeed in fooling Americans, most of whom are ignorant of the Constitution. Indefinite detention, and Executive Orders "authorizing" such a thing, are COMPLETELY unconstitutional because it is a blatant violation of the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution requiring "due process of law", and because the President, the Executive Branch, cannot be unanswerable to the Judicial and Legislative Branches of the U.S. government. People, non-American-citizens or not, cannot be held indefinitely without being tried in a court of law, and MUST be released if they cannot be given a fair trial. Believing otherwise is patently unconstitutional, AND ABSURD. But the United States has been going more and more insane for the past almost eight years, so such insanity and madness really aren't surprising. God help us all.

The current Emperor "IS"

The current Emperor "IS" wearing clothes... I can't believe that the people of the US would empower a figurehead/model of democracy while allowing the mandate called "The Bill of Rights" and the "Constitution" to wither and die on the vine, all in the name of National Security!... disturbing beyond contemplation with another civil war just begging to be unleashed... this time it will be a bloody class war! The Federal Government in Washington is in serious peril with the number one problem being that there is way to much lobbyist money polluting the influence of a few with power over the many... nothing is being addressed over the steady decline of constitutional guarantees over the past 50 years... LBJ was the last President to empower the constitution and since his time its been all downhill!... We can all thank the current population of 2nd & 3rd generation blue-bloods aka our plutocratic trust-fund babies... and their bought and paid for shills called the Republicans... greed isn't good... its killing us all including Gaia

Billy Doc, my friend: I

Billy Doc, my friend: I really respect you and what you said. To this administration, we all must say, PLEASE STOP..... STOP.We are getting really angry.

I guess the reason that

I guess the reason that there was little protest of Iran lately is that we intend, short of executions, the same thing. Imprisonment with no charges is unconstitutional, against all moral principles since 1214. Who is this Obama? I walked hilly towns for him, I don't believe I ever will again, I may vote for him, but if he keeps up all this rubbish, Bush-Cheney tactics. If he keeps breaking every promise he made before the election on almost every important thing, well, forget even the vote next time. They are beginning to disgust me. How can they permanently imprison without charges? Then these people aren't guilty. They didn't even do this with mob gangsters during prohibtion. Even Nixon never did this. Obama is turning out to be a coward and a fraud and it saddens me, because the opposition are worthless worms. Sanford even stole money to keep affairs in Argentina, only revealing anything after his emails were intercepted. He turned down stimuuls money yet steals money for dates. Family Values? Defense of Marriage? We need a real opposition party, we have two bought and sold ones now, one completely debased, the other nearly so.

Two sides of the same

Two sides of the same coin. Watch for more.

Abide by the Constitution

Abide by the Constitution and the Geneva Convention, and stand up for what is right, Mr. Obama! You have to lead this nation in the right direction, regardless of what the misguided Congress says. No more bending the laws to fit neoconservative ideology.

"A society who would give up

"A society who would give up a little liberty to attain a little security deserves neither, and will loose both." -Ben Franklin

A people who will sacrifice

A people who will sacrifice an essential liberty for security shall get nor deserve either. Bring them to court. In our time kings will be thrown in jail and punished after many days, witht he profits of the world going to those who need them so we can have that big party of Isaiah 25; and you can find the rest in Isaiah 23:17-18 &24:21-24, for those who want to see these latter days played out as I see them.

...Money leads to

...Money leads to power....much power leads to fascism....Fascism leads to the overthrow of rule by law, ( or subjective and sophistic use of the law) and Therefore....Rule of the Few by the Few for the Few. Washington is tremendously full of lobby money...more than ever....they are worried... the fear mongers are there ; fear brings in a lot of $$ for the arms people, no fear means less call for protection... More so called "suspects" running around more call for protective and expensive accoutrements The Republican Party has been kidnapped by the lobbyists... and the people who voted for them inthe past were the victims of a First Trojan Horse ( Fascistic-lobbyists hidden in the bowels of the animal)... Now we may well be the victims of the same lobbyists hidden inside the the gut of the new animal in town ...The Democrats..( O'B.and his team of "change")..a Second Trojan Horse... The whole picture can be perceived as a Trojan Horse within a Trojan Horse.. Somewhat like the famous Russian Dolls Willpresent democratic means ever be possible...to rid us of these Jokers?...O'B was my hero for a while, but he has been falling far short of expectations..this latest kow- tow-ing is further proof of the weakness of the so called team for change... How about some new parties ...these guys in Wishi- Washy are dangerously inbread and are showing signs of genetic waste... ..Time for a new look.. Green Party,Socialist Party, or some Regional Party,and all of them not obliged to bow to the party line.. i.e.real representation of the people by the elected members...and let us go to proportional representation while we are at it... (...am sending the article to friends...all over...)

Obushma is keeping us right

Obushma is keeping us right on track to fascism. It doesn't matter who's in office. It only matters who's in power, and it isn't We the People anymore. Obushma is only doing the job they allowed him to have and will continue the transformation of America into Amerika. They had to have a more charismatic "leader" than Bush to pull off their BS. Welcome to Amerika! Where the Constitution is just a "GD piece of paper".

Republic or Empire? If we

Republic or Empire? If we want a Republic dedicated to liberty and justice and ruled over by officers accountable to the people, we need to insist that those officers abide by the limits placed upon their power in the Constitution. If we want an Empire dedicated to the acquisition of wealth and power by a privileged few, we need to abolish the Constitution, abandon our rights, and put our trust in "Big Brother". Shame on Barak Obama for campaigning as if he were really interested in correcting the abuses of the Bush Administration, then, once in office, continuing and expanding these very same abuses.

Obama is George Bush with a

Obama is George Bush with a tan...

I am reminded by something

I am reminded by something Louis Brandeis said: "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." It is time for Obama to close both Guantanamo AND the detention facilities at Bagram Air Base. WE need to demand and get the closings.

Not all the torturers are

Not all the torturers are working in the Empire's "black" sites or Gitmo. Here in this absurd article we see torturers of logic show off their skills in obfuscation and doublespeak. The subject of their ill treatment is the battered Constitution. First, they soften up the victim with months of "reason deprivation," and follow with repeatedly increasing applications of "illogic shock." Finally, even his old friends and associates have a hard time recognizing him and he becomes irrelevant as the conquering Fascism rises to take his place. So long, old buddy. It was nice knowing you!

Could somebody boil this

Could somebody boil this article down so I can understand it?

We are the majority now -

We are the majority now - look at these posts in aggregate. We just have to take it back now - call your reps and call the white house - say: "I'm mad as Hell, you have soiled my Constitution and my Bill of Rights, you cowards, you corrupt lousy excuses for statesman. We the People still have a little power, and if you shape up pretty damned quick, we're going throw you out on the trash-heap of history along with all of the other despots who either conspired to rob us of our liberties or sat on their thumbs while others carried out the deed. We've had enough of you." Don't let up. And support oathkeepers.blogspot.com - they are the law enforcement and military folks who have reaffirmed their oath to defend the constitution form all enemies, foreign and domestic - and to not follow any order that violates the Bill of Rights.

I read this article

I read this article expecting to find some reason why my mind could not get wrapped around any justification for indefinite detention. After reading it I was even more confused, Let's see: we may need indefinite detention so we can meet Obama's goal to close Guantanamo by January . Did someone accidently pick up a cheney memo??? WE worked our buns off to elect someone who we thought would put our Constitution, laws, morality and ethics first and protect our liberites. Were we so terrribly fooled??? First it is stay the (cheneybush) course on war and now this freakin outrage. I am beside myself with disbelief and anger! Write the White House - now!

**Now you See it?...

**Now you See it?... Simply Go Back over All of this neoCONfusion written Here! WHO Planned, Plotted, & EXECUTED ALL of This Before Oboma was ELECTED? #2: WHO is "The Master" @ Pitting All of You Against Ea. Other, as you have Demonstrated Here? #3: Has Any of You Touched on the Successful Tactics of "Catch 22" So Skillfully Crafted & Released upon You, directly Resulting in your Not Understanding the Crap Pulled Over Your Eyes? #4: Do you Not understand the Dilemma bushCo. has put Obama & America Into? Apparently Not!

Anon at 19:10 . . . I think

Anon at 19:10 . . . I think you may be the one that is confused. Bush and Cheney did indeed put the United States into a dilemma, but it is a dilemma only if our government is trying to avoid the consequences of Bush and Cheney's crimes. If they were trying to solve the dilemma, then the answer is simple: face these consequences directly wherever they lead and prosecute Bush and Cheney and anyone else who deserves it. This is what is required by law and by every moral code. And it is a wise requirement because if we were to prosecute the guilty it would prove to the world that we are not a rogue, lawless and evil nation. It would acknowledge that we have evil citizens now and then, as does everyone, but most of us remain decent human beings!

As things now stand, however, the perception of the United States as rogue, lawless and evil would be very difficult to argue against. We have allowed these evil men, who represented all of us, to escape the consequences of their many crimes. This is just like protecting any common murderer from the police, it makes all those providing protection accomplices and forces them to take on their share of a crime they did not commit, but did buy into.

So when President Obama, who now represents us all, protects Bush and Cheney from the law, as he has clearly done and continues to do, he condemns us all to the taint and stench of those Bush and Cheney crimes. Almost 300 million citizens of the United States are guilty because Mr. Obama refuses to do his sworn duty. Including, by the way, those of us who fought Bush and Cheney and all their evil minions throughout their tenure. I now expect to spend the rest of my life apologizing for being an American, and you can rest assured that I am not pleased by this outcome.

This article first appeared

This article first appeared on Friday, today is Tuesday and the commentary seems to be petering out. The White House has denied, or at least seemed to deny, that it's drafting an executive order on indefinite detention. President Obama is in the somewhat comfortable position of having been left with an enormous pile of excrement in the White House, so naturally it will take time to clear it out. Meanwhile the excrement is hardening, as excrement will. A year from now what's left of it, probably most, will have been accepted as furniture - visitors to the Oval Office will sit in scooped out concavities of you-know-what pretending they're couches and armchairs. And the world once again will have to note how imaginative, how adaptable Americans are. Pete Edler, Stockholm