Friday, June 26, 2009

Indefinite Detention for Terrorists

Now comes a report in The Washington Post that the White House is drafting an Executive Order that would allow indefinite detention of Terrorism suspects.
The Obama administration, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, is drafting an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely, according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations.
We will quietly pass over who was the last President to assert such a claim.

I have believed all along that we should make there folks in Gitmo and other places "honorary Prisoners of War," which would allow us to hold them for the duration of the "War on Terrorism," or whatever we are calling it this week.  Such a war will last longer than the "War on Drugs."

Here is an interesting highlight to the problem with the prisoners and the issue of Gitmo. According to one of those "unnamed"♠ White House sources,
"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  Such an order could be rescinded and would not block later efforts to write legislation, but civil liberties groups generally oppose long-term detention, arguing that detainees should be prosecuted or released.
Much as I don't like the use of Executive Orders for issues that the US Congress should be acting on, this is probably a good idea.

If I had a category for "governing is harder than running," this would get so tagged.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  I think that "unnamed" sources are a menace.  We don't know if this is the President trying to send a trial balloon or someone on the inside trying to sabotage an idea being considered by the President or his National Security Staff.  Unnamed sources are pernicious.

2 comments:

  1. If we have no laws to apply that would demand extended incarceration, then we are ipso facto guilty of the basest form of tyranny whenever we issue "executive orders" or any other semantic dodge that denies the simple declarational truth on which our entire nation is based: all men are "endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights". Anything less makes a mockery of us, and erases any possible moral standing from which to criticize others. (As we seem to want in the case of Iran right now).

    So, who are we?

    I agree completely--uf this is war, which it would certainly seem to be based on the declarations of al qaeda detainees, then as prisoners of war they should remain. And we have very clear guidelines governing their fair treatment as such.

    But lets also not forget certain others there, like Janko, who wound up there by our mistake, and who do not belong as prisoners at all. A fair judicial review is never a bad thing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well said, Kad.

    Regards  —  Cliff

    ReplyDelete

Please be forthright, but please consider that this is not a barracks.