home

Obama to Study Detainee Files After Taking Office

The Washington Post has more on President-Elect Barack Obama's Guantanamo plans. Shorter version: We'll study the matter and get back to you. [Warning, this is a very long post.]

The Obama administration will launch a review of the classified files of the approximately 250 detainees at Guantanamo Bay immediately after taking office, as part of an intensive effort to close the U.S. prison in Cuba, according to people who advised the campaign on detainee issues.

....Although as a candidate Obama publicly expressed his desire to close the detention facility, his transition team stressed this week that the president-elect has not assembled his national security and legal team and that no decisions have been made "about where and how to try the detainees," Denis McDonough, an Obama foreign policy adviser, said in a statement issued Monday.

[More...]

Obama's campaign advisory group on this issue has been disbanded. While there's a transition team in place, it sounds like decisions won't be made until his new "national security and legal" teams are appointed, get up to speed, confer with each other, write advisory opinions to Obama and Obama then makes a decision.

But the advisers, as well as outside national security and legal experts, said the new administration will face a thicket of legal, diplomatic, political and logistical challenges to closing the prison and prosecuting the most serious offenders in the United States -- an effort that could take many months or longer. Among the thorniest issues will be how to build effective cases without using evidence obtained by torture, an issue that attorneys for the detainees will almost certainly seek to exploit.

I don't think it's that complicated. Our federal criminal courts have obtained convictions in more than 100 terrorism cases since 2001. From today's WaPo article:

"The federal criminal courts are capable of handling serious terrorist cases and capable of handling people and evidence seized overseas, without sacrificing the government's need to protect sensitive material, while protecting defendants' rights," said Deborah Colson, a senior associate at Human Rights First.

And Waxman said that "criminal prosecution in federal court is a more potent counterterrorism tool today than it was in 2001," adding that "criminal statutes have been expanded to cover more types of terrorism crimes."

As for where to detain them, our country is filled with high-security civilian and military prisons and we've had pre-trial detention in this country since 1984 when the Bail Reform Act was passed. Pre-trial detention is routine, practically axiomatic in terror cases.

But, pre-trial detention is not the same thing as "preventive detention." Preventive detention is another phrase for holding people before charges have been filed. Which is what they've been doing at Gitmo for six years.

But some experts say the United States still needs some form of preventive detention, albeit one that includes robust defendant rights and ongoing judicial review. "We need a preventative detention regime, very limited, that allows for those few tough cases -- a dozen, two dozen, not a lot -- of future captures," said Charles D. Stimson, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs.

Charles Stimson? The Charles "Cully" Stimson called "contemptible" in editorials by both the Washington Post and New York Times? The Charles "Cully" Stimson who had to resign over his contemptible comments? Now he's worthy of being quoted as an expert in a Washington Post news article?

At least Obama has debunked the reports he was planning a new national security court. For one thing (from today's WaPo article)

J. Wells Dixon, a staff lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights...[said] "What a national security court is designed for is to hide the use of torture and allow the consideration of evidence that is not reliable," he said.

More source vagueness in today's WaPo article:

Some Obama advisers believe the damage to U.S. interests and image because of the Bush administration's policies is too great to countenance any form of preventive detention. They acknowledge that they do not know how the issue of torture would play out in federal court, even if prosecutors ignore evidence produced by coerced confessions.

"There is always a risk of acquittal, and there is a risk some people who are released will return to the battlefield," said one Obama adviser. "There is no risk-free option."

I hope this adviser remains a current adviser and isn't among the disbanded group.

Yes, torture evidence cannot be used in any federal criminal proceeding. It's called the exclusionary rule. You can look it like "When the constable blunders, the criminal goes free" or you can look it like a necessary response to, and deterrent effect on, law enforcement activity that becomes unbridled and runs amuck.

So, Guantanamo may not be closed on Day One. (See Newsweek, Four Reasons Obama Won't Close the Controversial Prison Soon.) That would be consistent with Obama's modus operandi: He appoints advisers, listens to both sides, weighs what they have to say, considers the pros and cons, and then makes a decision. It's a good policy in general because it avoids "Act in haste, repent at leisure." Only, Guantanamo has been studied to death and reports are out there. This one's a no-brainer. Close Guantanamo, move the detainees facing criminal charges to U.S. prisons, like the ones that housed Zacarias Moussaoui and Jose Padilla and John Walker Lindh, to name a few, and send the rest home or to a country willing to take them.

On Monday, the Pentagon announced it had transferred two Gitmo detainees to Algeria. It provided these numbers:

Since 2002, more than 520 detainees have departed Guantanamo for other countries including Albania, Algeria, Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, Bahrain, Belgium, Denmark, Egypt, France, Great Britain, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkey, Uganda, United Kingdom and Yemen.

There are approximately 250 detainees currently at Guantanamo. ....The Department of Defense has determined – through its comprehensive review processes - that approximately 60 detainees at Guantanamo are eligible for transfer or release. Departure of these detainees is subject to ongoing discussions between the United States and other nations.

President Bush has not been able to find other nations willing to take these detainees. It may be different with Obama, as today's WashPo article says:

The new administration expects that European countries and Persian Gulf states that previously resisted accepting Guantanamo Bay prisoners will be more open to resettling some who are cleared for release or who cannot be sent home because of the risk of torture. Such cooperation is likely to follow a U.S. decision to settle some small group of detainees in the United States, possibly the Chinese Uighurs whom the government has said are not enemy combatants.

One decision Obama could announce on Day One is that he will dismiss the Government's appeal challenging the U.S. District Courts ruling that the Uighurs be released into the United States.

As a former lecturer in constitutional law, Obama knows that the Due Process clause applies to citizens, aliens and undocumented residents , whether here lawfully or unlawfully - so long as they are physically present within the country. The Supreme Court made that clear in Zadvydas v. Davis.

"Once removal of a deportable alien is no longer reasonably foreseeable, continued detention is no longer authorized."

The Uighurs are at Guantanamo. They have been determined not to be enemy combatants. They were sold by bounty hunters to the U.S. They want to stay in the United States. No other country will take them.

The Uighurs should be granted asylum. It's bad enough that we detain those suspected of terrorism for six years without charges. Obama could earn a lot of good will, while his yet- to- be- appointed team is weighing his options on closing Guantanamo, by stating his intention to dismiss the Uighur appeal on Day One and order the immediate release of the Uighurs into the U.S.

Personally, I think Obama will do the right thing with those at Gitmo facing criminal charges. He'll move them to U.S. criminal courts or courts that operate using the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (Another acceptable option is to send them to an International tribunal.)

I'm not so sure what he will decide about detainees the Pentagon claims are dangerous but haven't been charged with crimes because it lacks evidence or because the evidence it does have came through torture. If the only evidence is that obtained through torture, the decision should be easy: Obama should make it clear that evidence obtained through torture is unreliable and therefore not evidence at all. Those detainees should be sent home.

< Mark Foley Speaks, Says Little | Labor Not "Waiting To See What Barack Does" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    right (none / 0) (#1)
    by Nasarius on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 12:25:52 PM EST
    I think your last paragraph is the controversial bit. Charge those who you can charge, and release the obviously innocent, sure. But what do you do about those in-between, cases where you don't have enough evidence?

    Some of them probably are Real Evil-Doers. Some of them aren't. It's a PR disaster waiting to happen. The GOP can screech about releasing terrists into the wild. Which is inevitable in a civilized legal system.

    As you say, deportation is probably the best you can do in those situations. But Obama will probably drag his feet a bit so he can get other legislation passed first before dealing with the inevitable outcry.

    I think there's no question... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 12:56:08 PM EST
    ... that most of the detainees can either be properly tried or released (and the ones deemed to be completely innocent could be given asylum if need be), but that Obama's going to be left with hard choices about whoever's left. It's pretty likely, for example, that the suspects who were tortured, and against whom the greatest amount of evidence came from torture, are also the Really Bad People, and whatever choice Obama makes about those will carry substantial moral, foreign relations, and/or domestic political risks.

    Parent
    TL - you're right, but I think the problems (none / 0) (#3)
    by scribe on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:01:19 PM EST
    are far knottier than even this long comment to your long post can express.  

    In short, Obama can change the policies immediately, but those changes will have the same effect as all policy changes: they can be changed on a whim and at a moment's notice.  

    The second core problem is, until Obama is President, he cannot ask (let alone order) anyone in government to do anything (even reveal information) with any certainty that he is (a) getting correct information and (b) getting all the information.  I would expect this problem to be exacerbated in the detainee/torture context, where criminal liability for the government officials who'd have to tell Obama about the wrongdoing in their departments is a real threat.  And, FWIW, that threat is one I (if I were Obama) would not lift.  

    There are, then, problems of policy and problems of personnel.

    I.  As I see it, the problems of policy start to break out along these lines:
    A.  Interrogations.  Here, the practice and policy can change immediately.  The interrogators can have the fear of God put in them and continue the requirement that they produce good information without torture or demeaning conduct, and this would only be a return to pre-existing law (which was presumptively broken during the Bush/Cheney reign).  
    1.  Conduct during interrogations by US personnel.
    Not a problem in enforcing the new-old rules.

    2.  Conduct during interrogations by non-US personnel, on behalf of the US.
    More of a problem in enforcing the new-old rules.  Doing so may implicate diplomatic and political considerations, but the interrogators should be held to the same standard as US personnel.

    B.  Persons in captivity.

    1.  Conditions.  These, too, can change because the old law, which Bush/Cheney broke, still is good law.
    2.  Trials.  You are quite correct on the issues of trials under normal federal criminal law and in normal federal criminal courts.  
    3.  Dismissing/freeing persons in captivity who are not criminals or unlawful combatants.  You're also quite correct on this issue, save for one thing - if they would go back to a country which could reasonably be expected to torture or mistreat them, they should be treated as refugees and given asylum here.  We brought them into the US' custody, and they have to be our problem now.  IF they screw up later - that's a reason for a new charge, then.  Unless and until they do, speculation they might is not a proper ground to hold them captive.  

    C.  Court issues.  The anti-Constitutional precedents need to be eliminated as viable law.  For example:
    1.  The Padilla precedent of indeterminate military detention without trial of US citizens still stands as the law of the 4th circuit.  Remember, the Admin punked the Supreme Court (and the 4th Circuit, most particularly Luttig, who probably was believing the press calling him a fave for the S.Ct. when he went along with the Admin in Padilla's case) by getting the precedent they wanted to keep Padilla in incommunicado military detention, then charging him criminally in Florida so as to moot the military detention issue then on its way to the S.Ct.
    2.  The Al-Marri precedent on indefinite incommunicado military detention of people lawfully in the US still stands, too.  It's on the S.Ct. conference schedule for 11/25.
    3.  The appeal from the District Court on the Uighurs, for example, probably should go forward.  Not because I like the appeal (I hate it), but because as a decision of the District Court (as opposed to the Court of Appeals) that District Court opinion is not entitled to much deference at all by any other Court.  In other words, it is not governing precedent.  
    So, what Obama's team does is send a total screw-up to argue the appeal and tell him, "if you win, you get fired"  or worse.  Better, send one of the real hotshots who've made their bones on these cases and tell him the same.

    Or, to paraphrase Sinatra in the Manchurian Candidate:  "we're going to rip out all the wires, smash all those beautifully conditioned links."

    II.  People involved in building this torture-crime complex and what to do about them.
    These break out into four basic categories.
    1.  People who created the policies and legal/political underpinnings or cheerleaded them.
    These are people like, e.g., Cheney, Bush, Addington, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Miers, Haynes (DoD), Yoo, Bybee, Delahunty, Dinh, Graham, McCain, Lieberman, and the list goes on.

    As to these people, their entire involvement needs to be exposed to the world and history.  They need to cooperate, or (until the al-Marri and Padilla precedents are gone) else.  And they need to go to prison, sad to say.  The central core of my position is that this is not "criminalizing policy differences" (itself a Repug shorthand defending conduct that's OK because IOKIYAR

    2.  People who carried out the policies and legal/political underpinnings at a managerial level.
    These are the professionals who used their special skills - as, e.g., lawyers, shrinks, cops, military officers - to effect a policy of torture and misconduct.  
    They - particularly the lawyers and the shrinks - need to have their involvement thoroughly investigated and exposed to the light of day.  IF this means destroying their professional careers - so be it.  They were the grownups in this, should have known better and acted against that better knowledge.  If they committed prosecutable crimes, they should be prosecuted.  But, they also can be used as witnesses against their higher-ups.

    3.  People who carried out the policies and practices at a low level.
    These are the grunts and guards who got orders and carried them out.  Their conduct needs to be evaluated in the context of assuming, for the sake of discussion, that their orders were "legal" in the sense of a 19 y/o kid.  IF their conduct was otherwise criminal - think Lyndie Englund, for one - then they need to be prosecuted.  IF, OTOH, they were standing a watchpost in a camp, that's functionally different and needs to be treated differently.

    4.  People who fought these policies and practices.
    The Lt. Commander Charles Swifts and Major Michael Moris of this world are the ones on my short list for the first appointments to the federal bench and similar appointments througout government.  By their conduct they cloaked themselves in honor and glory and deserve the rewards.

    And, I haven't even begun to think about the CIA/NSA/FBI/DHS axis of evils and what to do about it.

    oops - point II. A. 1. should (none / 0) (#4)
    by scribe on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:03:59 PM EST
    read
    As to these people, their entire involvement needs to be exposed to the world and history.  They need to cooperate, or (until the al-Marri and Padilla precedents are gone) else.  And they need to go to prison, sad to say.  The central core of my position is that this is not "criminalizing policy differences" (itself a Repug shorthand defending conduct that's OK because IOKIYAR) but rather addressing real crime, through real criminal procedures.  

    Not to address it severely, is to ratify it.  And if Obama ratifies it, where does his message of change wind up?  And what will the joyous world think about that?

    Parent

    who did that painting? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Salo on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 03:48:07 PM EST
    It looks good.  One bright spot from gitmo.

    Almost as good as a Leon Golub.

    nice.

    Sorry to be behind the curve, but what about (none / 0) (#6)
    by magnetics on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 08:55:27 PM EST
    Padilla?  My view is is that he was severely mistreated, and probably tortured --based on the secrecy in which he was held, and his zombie like behavior (as reported contemporaneously) when he at last reappeared in the public eye.  The Bush administration had made him a centerpiece, and had to find some way to convict him of some thing.  No chance he would be allowed to slip through the claws.

    Does anyone besides me think this was worse than a travesty of justice?