In Which I Square A Circle

The TigerHawk and Dan Froomkin both wonder about this passage from Barack Obama's national security speech:

Let me repeat: I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture -- like other prisoners of war -- must be prevented from attacking us again. Having said that, 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. That's why my administration has begun to reshape the standards that apply to ensure that they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible, and lawful standards for those who fall into this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.

Over to the Tiger:

Not to be overly Manichean, but President Obama either has complete control of the disposition of all of the Group Five detainees, or he does not. If he does, his guarantee is worth something; if he does not, then there exists the possibility that the power to release such detainees will be out of his hands. Or am I missing something?

And Dan Froomkin:

He spoke of sending many detainees to face trial in federal courts -- but then promised that no one would be released who endangers our national security. The whole point of a fair judicial system is that the executive can't guarantee the results.

Well, I can tell you how the Obama side would rationalize that.  The notion that a detainee is dangerous is based on some set of facts and evidence.  The reviewing authority, when presented with that evidence, will reach the same conclusion any sensible person would.  Therefore, if the detainee is dangerous, he will continue to be detained; if not, he will be set loose, as is appropriate, and as has been done many times already.

Now, the problem with that is obvious - it may be that we are holding people for whom the evidence is murky.  In which case, Obama is willing to substitute the rules and judgment of the reviewing authority for his own judgment, while guaranteeing their result.  Bold talk from a guy protected by the Secret Service.

And what about the possibility that evidence of a detainee's dangerous nature is inadmissible or unavailable (E.g., perhaps a key witness has subsequently died)?  I have no explanation.  However, we have his guarantee that the classic Dirty Harry scenario where a killer is cut loose on a technicality can't occur.  Depending on the latitude of the rules governing the reviewing authority that promise might even mean something.

Put differently, Obama is not guaranteeing in advance a particular outcome for dangerous detainees.  He is guaranteeing that his fact- and rule-based process will never cut someone loose in defiance of common sense and good judgment.  Working in his favor - most of the relevant evidence will be classified, so who will be able to question publicly and cogently the results of the process?

LEST YOU DOUBT:  Eric Holder and I are on the same page.

Comments

[clarice]

I never thought I see the day when you quoted from Froomkin, the Wa Post's intellectual equivalent of Cong Wexler.

[richard mcenroe]

I just saw Monsters vs. Aliens last week.

Has anyone ever seen Stephen Colbert and Barack Obama in the same place at the same time?

[narciso]

Well he's quoted Klein (Joe and Ezra),
Yglesias, Chait, what other great geniuses
of the Sinisphere; as a socratic dialogue. Earlier they had one of those Gitmo attorney, who had some kind of a nervous breakdown, on Fox dismissing any
consideration of closing Gitmo.

[Gregory Koster]

Dear Mr. Maguire: Well, yes, you are on the same page as Genl Holder, but he is lingering over all the question marks, while you show your good sense by sticking to full stops, with an exclamation point or two thrown in.

Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster

[Danube of Thought]

"They can't be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone."

Where the hell did he get that fallacious idea?

[matt]

one of the fundamental reasons the detainees are in Cuba is for exactly this reason. Bush and his Justice Dept. determined this was the best way to deal with them. Once their feet hit U.S. soil, the ACLU and Soros will do all they can to defend these scumbuckets.

[Karl]

Sorry to self-promote, but you're quoting from the part of the speech about preventive detention. Greenwald's head is exploding today.

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

Right, DOT. Whatever became of the Commander in Chief part of being President.

One thing you have to give FDR. He made the bad decisions like interning our west coast Japanese fellow citizens. But he took responsibility for them both politically and historically. His successor did likewise.

But the buck never stops with BHO.

[Pofarmer]

Maybe Obama thinks he's Judge Dread?

[bad]

TM, the promise to never release a detainee who is a danger to national security is just as stupid as his promise that no one who lied or acted irresponsibly in regard to their mortgage would ever receive bailout money.

[maryrose]

Obama; definitely not ready for prime time. And yes Obama gets snippy when someone disagrees with him. His is an "how dare you attitude"

[Original MikeS]

Another circle.
My theory is that Obama is not stupid (he’s got really big ears, but he’s not stupid). Therefore, all this drama about closing Gitmo and breaking the hearts of Kindergarteners is just a distraction to keep people from thinking about the upcoming tax increases. After all who really believes Obama expected Congress would give him $80 million for a plan he hasn’t come up with yet?

The fact that Obama has not announced tax increases, but only massive spending increases, seems to satisfy Democrats and journalists. Republican’s, on the other hand, who see massive increases in Federal spending and hear the President saying “these deficits are unsustainable”, suspect that tax increases will be in the offing shortly.

[Shauna]

"I just saw Monsters vs. Aliens last week.

Has anyone ever seen Stephen Colbert and Barack Obama in the same place at the same time?"
Posted by: richard mcenroe

Hey I keep saying the alien looks just like Obama! But nobody who sees that movie talks politics.... accept you. And me.|

[reliapundit]

if Obama was really a commie or a Muslim who really wanted to destroy the USA/Big Stana, would he have done anything differently?

[km]

Shouldn't your tagline read, "We are all Dick Cheney now"?

[MayBee]

"They can't be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone."

Where the hell did he get that fallacious idea?

DoT- from the part of his brain that tells him never to be solely responsible for something if it might turn out badly.

[PD]

That should be "from the part of his brain that tells him never to be anywhere near any part of even the smallest responsibility for ..."

Can someone explain something to me? Just what is gained by having these guys in prison in the US as opposed to in prison in GITMO? What's the great advantage?

[Rick Ballard]

"What's the great advantage?"

Ogabe gets a little time to recover from the whiplash that Soros has given him by jerking so hard on the puppet strings.

[PD]

Rick, heh.

But is there an answer to my question, taken seriously? I just don't see what benefit a change in location affords.

[Pofarmer]

Rick, heh.

But is there an answer to my question, taken seriously? I just don't see what benefit a change in location affords.

Because Gitmo is a BAD place, it's a NOTORIOUS place where EVIL, TERRIBLE things happened.

Are you a denier?

And, the ACLU lawyers don't like the plane ride.

Next.

[RichatUF]

PD-

None that I can see, but then I'm a bitter clinger type. People have pointed out the prison jihadist recruitment threat, but I think a bigger threat would be Americans kidnapped abroad and the deal to release them will be prisoner exchanges.

Or the failure of maximum security confinement or even aggressive surveilance to eliminate the threat posed by the senior cadres of Islamic terrorists in US custody or subject to US law enforcement warrants.

Yousef was able to communicate with his terrorist allies in Yemen while at Rikers. The Evil Santa Rahman was able to have his lawyer send messages abroad which helped in planning the Luxor attack. Nosair was able to help in the first WTC bombing and the Day of Terror conspiracy from his jail cell in Sing Sing. US and Kenyan authorities knew of the East Africa cell, a member was deported from Kenya back to the US, watched, grilled for days before a grand jury, and about a year later the East Africa cell was still able to pull off the East Africa Embassies bombings.

[Melinda Romanoff]

PD-

give them "six-point" hats and let them loose in Northern Wisconsin around the week before Thanksgiving.

Oh, and track shoes.

Or escort them to the door over the Canaries at 37,000.

I call that a solution.

But I might not be as hospitable as others.

[Rick Ballard]

PD,

It can only be answered in terms of political appeasement of the seditionist wing of the (D)irty Fascists. The seditionists are right next to the reparationists in importance to Ogabe's plans for reelection. They had to be fed just like the deadbeats have to be fed.

DoT cited an investor confidence poll that should kick the slats out from under this Goldman-Sachs ginned up phony rally next week. It's going to be the economy which grinds the Fascists down, barring the ayatollahs rolling the dice again.

I hope Dick Cheney has a calm and restful holiday weekend. He certainly knows how to scald the Little Boy playing President.

[PD]

"None that I can see, but then I'm a bitter clinger type. People have pointed out the prison jihadist recruitment threat, but I think a bigger threat would be Americans kidnapped abroad and the deal to release them will be prisoner exchanges."

I actually kinda wonder if the GITMO boys would survive long. Our prisons can be dangerous places. Maybe Obama thinks our own inmates would take care of them and solve his problem and provide him with someone to blame, all in one shot.

[jimmyk]

Just what is gained by having these guys in prison in the US as opposed to in prison in GITMO? What's the great advantage?

PD, is there any Obama policy about which you could not ask that question? "Just what is gained by [fill in the blank]?" where you can fill in "trillion dollar deficit spending," "increasing CAFE standards," "transferring huge sums of wealth from Chrysler secured lenders to the UAW," "restrictions on credit card lenders' ability to act against deadbeats," the list is endless. Just wait till we see his health care plan.

[ajacksonian]

I'm pretty much convinced that we are about to see an end to incoming prisoners. Little does Mr. Constitutional Scholar Obama realize what he is saying in all this mud. If there is no guarantee that he can provide for the safety of society from those who have reclaimed their savage liberties and make war on all societies without sovereign backing, then the clear answer is a few grams of lead at high velocity deposited into 'terrorists' on the battlefield. Yeah the INTEL will dry up, but the fight gets a lot nastier very quickly. And I wouldn't be surprised to see some detainees who might be transferred being lost overboard or resisting transportation or making a mad dash for freedom at 30,000'. These things happen, donchyaknow?

Yes, this problem will be cleared up if the water-guts in Chief can't figure out his duties from a hole in the ground. I'm really sorry that those terrorists fight outside the Laws of War and the Laws of Peace and the Law of Nations... their choice, not ours. The duty to protect society from them goes back as far as the first City States and remains unchanged. This wheel doesn't need to be re-invented into a rectilinear oblong solid. But then the 'smartest guy evah' in the WH can't seem to read or understand history... or the Constitution.

[Trochilus]

There is one part of the above that really bothers me . . . my emphasis added.

"Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture -- like other prisoners of war -- must be prevented from attacking us again."

Did this guy just unilaterally declare all of the al-Qaeda detainees "prisoners of war" which, of course, would give them all far more that freedom from the enhanced interrogation procedures? Under the Geneva conventions, it would limit interrogations to "name, rank, and serial number" which in the case of the latter two is preposterous.

These people are terrorists, not prisoners of war, not soldiers in a national army.

Their "rank" is meaningless in that context, and they don't have serial numbers! They wear no uniforms and carry no badges.

Is he being careless, or risking putting us in the position of being limited to asking all future captured terrorists, "What's your name, buster?"

[Syl]

Okay, what bothers me is that Obama intends to create a 'legal framework' for indefinite detention for those Gitmo guys who cannot be tried but he knows are dangerous.

If we keep them in Gitmo it's pretty much taken care of under the military. (Obama could add periodic review, etc.) The SC has already said it was okay.

So Obama intends this new 'legal framework' to cover these detainees when they're brought on to American soil. And herein lies a huge conflict. Once they're here they have ALL the rights afforded us in our civilian legal system and any change in that system, ie, a framework for indefinite detention, can affect us ALL.

This is the true evil that Pandora has unleashed and I'm sure Bush understood that and is the main reason he did not close Gitmo though he really really wanted to.

The ACLU and the left are so worried about the detainees rights, that they are overlooking what could happen to our own if they are brought onto our soil

[drjohn]

"Having said that, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded."

That is precisely what he has been seeking.