Obama Issues Waivers on Military Custody for Terror Suspects

[ProSense]

Obama Issues Waivers on Military Custody for Terror Suspects

By CHARLIE SAVAGE

WASHINGTON — Last year, the Obama administration strongly objected to a Congressional mandate that foreigners suspected of being Al Qaeda operatives be held in military custody rather than go through the civilian criminal justice system.

On Tuesday, President Obama sought to have the last word, issuing waivers that would exempt sweeping categories of future prisoners from the requirement, which became law in December.

The rule, imposed by Congress, applies only to a narrow category of terrorism suspects: those who are not American citizens, who are deemed to be part of Al Qaeda or its allies and who are suspected of participating in a terrorist plot against the United States or its allies.

<...>

The White House prepared the waivers as part of required guidelines instructing the executive branch on how to put the new rule into effect. The waivers would apply, according to the guidelines, to any case in which officials believed that placing a detainee in military custody could impede counterterrorism cooperation with the detainee’s home government or interfere with efforts to secure the person’s cooperation or confession.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/us/politics/obama-issues-waivers-on-military-trials-for-foreign-qaeda-suspects.html

Human Rights First Welcomes Directive Limiting Military Custody of Terrorism Suspects

Washington, D.C. – Human Rights First welcomes President Obama’s Policy Directive implementing certain detention provisions of the 2012 defense bill signed into law on New Year’s Eve. The directive issued on Tuesday night attempts to limit the far-reaching aspects of the bill’s provisions mandating military custody for terrorism suspects.

“The extensive waivers in this directive–and the rationale the administration sets out for them–underscore the very real risks of over-militarizing counterterrorism efforts. There are many situations in which it would undermine national security to force terrorism suspects into military custody,” said Human Rights First’s Raha Wala. “That is why so many of our nation’s foremost national security experts opposed these provisions in the defense bill and urged the President to veto it.”

Though the directive is a step in the right direction, the administration can do more to ensure that the defense authorization bill is implemented consistent with sound national security policy and the rule of law. One provision of the bill calls on the Obama administration to provide lawyers and a hearing presided over by a military judge to detainees held at the Bagram internment facility in Afghanistan, but leaves the administration room to decide which detainees receive this added layer of due process.

“In order to ensure a lawful and successful transfer of authority to the Afghans, the Obama administration should ensure that all detainees held at Bagram get the additional due process protections contemplated by the defense authorization bill,” said Wala.

- more -

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2012/02/29/human-rights-first-welcomes-directive-limiting-military-custody-of-terrorism-suspects/

FACT SHEET: PROCEDURES IMPLEMENTING SECTION 1022 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ndaa_fact_sheet.pdf

[Vincardog]

1. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional you can not paper over that with executive orders

[ProSense]

2. Um

"Unconstitutional is unconstitutional you can not paper over that with executive orders"

...what the hell are you talking about? The issue is terror suspects in custody.

[Vincardog]

3. "The issue is terror suspects in custody" the issue is the NDAA

the fact that is removed the courts from the equation.
The camels nose under the tent is to pretend that it applies only
foreign "terror" suspects by placing them in military custody to be dealt with by Military tribunals.
The fact is that an amendment to state clearly that is did not apply to US citizens was rejected.
The statement that is "Does not change existing laws" is unclear as
the President already claims the power to kill US citizens without court review.


FASCISM is creeping into our country and has gotten so brave that it is not even removing its' jack boots

[ProSense]

4. No

"The issue is terror suspects in custody" the issue is the NDAA

the fact that is removed the courts from the equation.
The camels nose under the tent is to pretend that it applies only
foreign "terror" suspects by placing them in military custody to be dealt with by Military tribunals.
The fact is that an amendment to state clearly that is did not apply to US citizens was rejected.
The statement that is "Does not change existing laws" is unclear as
the President already claims the power to kill US citizens without court review.


FASCISM is creeping into our country and has gotten so brave that it is not even removing its' jack boots

...the issue is terror suspects, and the above is nonsense.

[Vincardog]

5. That is why so many of our nation’s foremost national security experts opposed

The directive issued on Tuesday night attempts to limit the far-reaching aspects of the bill’s provisions mandating military custody for terrorism suspects.
“The extensive waivers in this directive–and the rationale the administration sets out for them–underscore the very real risks of over-militarizing counterterrorism efforts. There are many situations in which it would undermine national security to force terrorism suspects into military custody,” said Human Rights First’s Raha Wala. “That is why so many of our nation’s foremost national security experts opposed these provisions in the defense bill and urged the President to veto it.”

[TheWraith]

9. Um, the final bill clearly states it does not apply to US citizens.

You seem to be twisting the facts to advocate your claims.

[gratuitous]

8. Got it in one

Either the Constitution applies, or it doesn't. If there are arbitrary "exceptions" for people "suspected" of wrongdoing, then the Constitution doesn't apply. I remember when the President used to swear to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, like it was something important. Now it's just a quaint old document, to be indulged like a crotchety uncle at the family reunion.

Without the Constitution, there is no United States.

[spanone]

6. k&r...

[zipplewrath]

7. When it was DADT

Executive orders weren't good enough and could be too easily changed by a successor. So we couldn't protect the existing soldiers from expulsion because an executive order to halt those, while the DoD did their study wasn't good enough. So 2 years went by while they were expelled.

But when we have severe constitutional concerns about indefinite detention, and trials outside of our judicial system, well, we're all suppose to feel better that an executive order has been issued, for a law that will be on the books in perpetuity. So when Obama isn't president anymore......