White House: ACQUITTED Detainees May Not be Released

[debbierlus]

The Obama administration signaled Tuesday it may keep terrorism detainees even if they’ve been acquitted.

Chief Department of Defense lawyer Jeh Johnson told a Senate committee “that releasing a detainee who has been tried and found not guilty was a policy decision officials would make based on their estimate of whether the prisoner posed a future threat,” according to a report by Jess Bravin in the Wall Street Journal.

Bravin notes that the Bush administration maintained the same stance, “but its legality was never tested.”

Spencer Ackerman at The Washington Independent characterized Johnson’s response as moving the Obama administration “into new territory from a civil liberties perspective.”

More at link:

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/07/white-house-acquitted-detainees-may-not-be-released/

So, the United States can now keep people in prison even if they are found innocent at trial based on the perception of a future threat?

I have had it with Obama. He is a fraud.

[derby378]

1. Change we can...oh, fuck it

I'm so not happy right now.

[Bryan Sacks]

2. the sickening situation this creates should be obvious

Besides the sheer outrageousness of this, the acquitted, the acquitted's family and the countrymen and fellows of the acquitted with burn with a LEGITIMATE hatred of the United States system of "justice".

[Cant trust em]

8. +1

These policies give up our moral high ground. We would be going ape shit if a country did this to our citizens. In fact, we are going ape shit. We have citizens being held in North Korea.

[masuki bance]

3. They got their trial, what else do you want?

sheesh.

The Fierce Urgency Of Change. tm

[Cant trust em]

4. This should give us all pause.

I wonder if the people who will defend this agreed with Bush in the beginning and were unwilling to say so, or if now that Obama is making the case it should be OK.

I hope it's the former.

[masuki bance]

5. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8507822

...Today, in the NYT, (Charlie) Savage has another article examining the same topic, headlined: "To Critics, New Policy on Terror Looks Old." In it, he explores this question: "Has {Obama}, on issues related to fighting terrorism, turned out to be little different from his predecessor?" A key point from Savage's article -- which I've tried to emphasize several times -- is that whereas these policies were supported by roughly half the population (Republicans) in the Bush era but vehemently opposed by the other half (at least ostensibly), Obama's embrace of them is now causing a large part of the other half of the population (Democrats) to support them as well, thus entrenching them as bipartisan consensus:

In any case, Jack Balkin, a Yale Law School professor, said Mr. Obama’s ratification of the basic outlines of the surveillance and detention policies he inherited would reverberate for generations. By bestowing bipartisan acceptance on them, Mr. Balkin said, Mr. Obama is consolidating them as entrenched features of government.

"What we are watching," Mr. Balkin said, "is a liberal, centrist, Democratic version of the construction of these same governing practices."

That was the point former Bush DOJ lawyer Jack Goldsmith made when arguing last month that Obama is actually strengthening (rather than "changing") the Bush/Cheney approach to Terrorism even more effectively than Bush did by entrenching those policies in law and causing unprincipled Democrats to switch from pretending to oppose them to supporting them, thus transforming them into bipartisan dogma.

Savage is my guest on Salon Radio today to talk about Obama's record on terrorism and civil liberties, and the way -- as Savage describes it -- Obama has embraced and replicated many of the core "War on Terror" polices of the Bush presidency, particularly in the form they took in Bush's second term (even as Obama largely purports to reject the Bush theories of unilateral presidential power). We also discuss how so many people who previously criticized these polices rather vocally when pursued by Bush are either silent or actively supportive now that Obama is defending them. There simply aren't any better reporters on these issues than Savage, and I highly recommend listening to his very nuanced and well-informed views on these topics.

The discussion is roughly 20 minutes in length and can be heard by clicking PLAY on the recorder below. A transcript will be posted shortly.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/radio/2009/07/02/savage/index.html

[Cant trust em]

7. I don't think that there are real values behind a lot of opinions on this board

I think that everyone on this board generally agrees with most democratic principles. But I also think that much of what influences opinion around here is an argument being presented by other people who generally share those views. Call it peer pressure if you want. I think that in many cases, a lot of people wind up being convinced that they should believe something without giving it the proper consideration that it deserves.

These terror policies serve as a good example. People are here and have a heavy civil liberties slant given to them and since they don’t like Bush on most other fronts, they probably shouldn’t here either. But I think that really deep down, many people agree with keeping a tight fist on security but really don’t want to admit that they agree with George Bush.

on edit: I'm not sure to what degree I am one of these people.

[masuki bance]

20. I agree, where are all the people who would be outraged if this came out

of the b*sh regime?

They are long gone, we even have defenders of the policy weighing in now.

It's Sick.

[Moochy]

39. Tombstoned

[DJ13]

6. Is there something in DC's water that turns people into right wingers?

[valerief]

9. Wasn't this a Tom Cruise movie? nt

[mkultra]

10. So a DOD lawyer is the whitehouse?

Your title is disingenuous if not a complete lie.

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. The devil is in the details.

A guy is picked up in a raid on an AQ headquarters, along with five others. Those five all agree that #6 is one of them. #6 agrees as well, declaring his undying devotion to jihad. #6 was at the site. #6 has no charges filed against him because, unlike the others, he committed no specific act of terrorism.

What do you do with him?

All this says is 'acquitted'. That means so little - acquittal does not mean he is not a terrorist, it only means he was not convicted of a particular charge against him.

Would you be happy if he was charged with 'making terroristic threats'? If he is held based on his potential threat, there must be a threat. However, is 'terroristic threats' a legitimate charge for the military commissions?

This is NOT about imprisoning innocent people. We gain nothing by imprisoning innocents, and it is absurd to think that we would do so. If we really wanted to do so, why have we released the hundreds that we have? What we have to figure out is how to handle people we KNOW to be dangerous but who have no chargeable offenses against them.

[masuki bance]

13. What's to figure out? They will be held- indefinitely. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. You didn't answer my question.

What would YOU do with him?

By his own statement, and the statements of his confederates, he is an avowed enemy, dedicated to the proposition that his life will be complete if he kills Americans for his cause.

That's just words. Do you cut him loose, so he can fulfill his promise? Do you trump up some bullshit charge so you can 'legally' imprison him?

What do you do?

[masuki bance]

23. Not guilty? They must be released.

We don't have thought crime sentences, yet.

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. So you're good with him blowing up 300 people on a plane

six months after he is released.

After all, it's not as if he didn't tell us he would do it.

[masuki bance]

26. No, I'm not good with that.

There is no constitutional way to hold people based on your fears.

[RaleighNCDUer]

29. So you admit there is a threat? Thank you.

What I've been getting at is that SOME of these people are not 'innocent', despite them not being found guilty of anything. There are very valid concerns, particularly political concerns, on how to deal with someone you KNOW will commit an act of terrorism, but you have no legal grounds for holding. Should any politician release a subsequent airplane bomber, no matter what the legal basis for the release, his career is finished.

Personally, I think these who are believed to be dedicated jihadists who will commit crimes should be charged under RICO statutes for criminal conspiracy. I don't see why that wouldn't hold up.

I also think we could make the 'war on terror' legitimate - those who are captured should be held as POWs. Ordinary POWs could be held 'indefinitely' - meaning until the end of the conflict whenever that may be, or until they are released in a negotiated prisoner exchange or as part of a truce - while those who can be convicted of terrorism charges can be separated from the run of the mill POWs.

My point is, 'indefinite' detainment does NOT mean locking them up and throwing away the key - it merely stipulates a non-defined term of detention. And those who are truly innocent will be released, as they have been released - it is the jihadist conspirators we are having trouble fitting into our justice system, and they ARE dangerous. And if we release THEM, we have to be prepared for the consequences, because there will be consequences.

Personally, I am.

[Cant trust em]

30. I want to thank you for putting some honest insight into this question

You're going to get a lot of shit for putting these ideas onto DU, but I think it's important to know that there aren't easy answers to these questions. I'm glad that there are some people here who are interested in thinking about them as opposed to just throwing a label onto a problem.

[masuki bance]

33. Where were you when gwb needed you?

These are his arguments.

[Cant trust em]

31. If we picked up a few guys at a Klan rally

who said that they were planning on blowing up an African-American church, would you let them go?

They haven't technically blown up the church yet, so it's not a crime.

[masuki bance]

34. It's a crime to make a threat like that. nt

[dionysus]

36. let em go of course. because apparently terrorists don't exist.

[Forkboy]

40. weak strawman, dude.

If someone is AQUITTED they are innocent. Pointing this out doesn't equate to someone saying terrorists don't exist, and that is such simplistic thinking as to boggle the mind.

[dionysus]

42. it's not a strawman. they're talking about guys who they couldn't nail for a specific crime, but

have vowed to kill americans. should we just let those guys go and wait until they try something? that can get people killed.

[Forkboy]

43. Yes, we should.

We don't imprison people because they MIGHT commit a crime. We imprison them for committing actual crimes. If Bush had done this we'd be up in arms, you as well, and you know it. Unless your ideals have done a complete reversal since November 4th you should be able to clearly see why this is wrong.

[debbierlus]

14. Your argument goes against our entire justice system & it is a disgrace to be posted on this board

So, the government can pick up people, imprison them indefinitely, and if and when they do get a trial and our found innocent, they can keep them in prison anyway?

And, you are arguing FOR that position?

That is such a dangerous way of thinking, such a slippery slope...

Did you even read what you wrote?

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. You didn't answer my question.

What would YOU do with him?

By his own statement, and the statements of his confederates, he is an avowed enemy, dedicated to the proposition that his life will be complete if he kills Americans for his cause.

That's just words. Do you cut him loose, so he can fulfill his promise? Do you trump up some bullshit charge so you can 'legally' imprison him?

What do you do?

[PVnRT]

21. Release him

Your hypothetical prisoner has been found not guilty of committing a crime; ergo he should be released. Keeping someone in jail because of the possibility they may commit a crime later is ludicrous.

Now, answer your own question.

[RaleighNCDUer]

24. But he is a member of a terrorist organization. You're OK with freeing

terrorists?

Remember, this is not some schmuck who was turned in for the bounty. This is a self-avowed terrorist who intends to murder people at the earliest opportunity. It's not an 'if' but a 'when'. There is absolute certainty that he is a continuing threat, but he has not yet had a chance to act on that threat.

You still OK with letting him go?

[PVnRT]

35. Are you honestly saying

we should lock up anyone associated with a "terrorist organization"? This is the road you want to go down? Christ, this place resembles Bizarro World sometimes.

How is there "absolute certainty" that he is a threat? Are you absolutely certain he isn't just posturing? Has this person done anything before? What evidence do you have that he is "intending to murder people" as soon as he gets home?

Besides, if he is Mr. Big Bad Evil Terorrist For Sure, how hard is it to get people to follow him? Let the small fish go and lead you to the big ones. It happens in this country every single day.

[mkultra]

44. if he is a member then yes

"associated" is different. If someone is an admitted member of a small organization who's stated purpose is to commit a violent act, then he along with everyone in that group is guilty of conspiracy.

[Moochy]

38. Thats some real good fear mongering

Figures given your past positions.

[Cant trust em]

27. You're asking too many questions.

How dare you confront the all knowing power!

You should be exiled from our sacred community.

:sarcasm:

[Raineyb]

48. Let him go

You can't lock people up because you're afraid he may do something. We're supposed to be locking people up for things they've actually been convicted of doing. I don't give a damn what he says he'll do you cannot lock him up until he's broken the law. And contrary to what many people seem to believe hating this country is not illegal. We let murderers, rapists, arsonists out all the time because we can't prove they did what we think they did. We don't lock them up indefinitely and just because the person whose crime we can't prove isn't a citizen of our country doesn't mean we can disregard our own principles because we're scared shitless.

[styersc]

32. Oh for Christsake. How far up his ass can your nose reach?

Pathetic.

[zulchzulu]

12. The Wall Street Journal article has some little tidbits left out of the Raw Story article...

I know... Raw Story wants to make Obama out to be Hitler... but, if you read the source of the article, Raw Story's big print get taketh away by some small print, as they say in the biz...

Mr. Johnson (Jeh Johnson, the Defense Department's chief lawyer) said such prisoners held without trial would receive "some form of periodic review" that could lead to their release.

(snip)

Obama administration officials differed with the Navy's senior uniformed lawyer over whether coerced statements should be used to convict Guantanamo defendants.

David Kris, head of the Justice Department's National Security Division, warned that federal courts might reverse convictions in military commissions if they were based on coerced statements.

(snip)

While Mr. Obama wants to continue in modified form the commissions conceived under former President George W. Bush, officials said the administration favors an expiration date for the experiment unless reauthorized by Congress.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124699680303307309.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

That said, we need to all remind Obama that a fair trial from a fair source of evidence is needed with the Gitmo prisoners. I'm pretty damn sure Obama knows that. Making sure the Justice Department stays in line with what it's supposed to do is always a "chore"...

[BlooInBloo]

19. Thanks for the detail.

[scheming daemons]

41. that doesn't fit the OP's agenda, and so it will be ignored

[SpartanDem]

17. There seem to be conflicting stories about what was said

Detainees require more legal rights in court: US officials
By Dan De Luce – 21 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) — US administration officials said Tuesday that terror suspects tried before military commissions can claim some constitutional rights, including protection against evidence obtained through coercion.

The commissions, Assistant Attorney General David Kris said, should only allow evidence from detainees' voluntary statements or else risk having convictions thrown out on appeal in higher courts.

"It is the administration's view that there is a serious risk that courts would hold that admission of involuntary statements of the accused in military commission proceedings is unconstitutional," Kris told the Senate Armed Services Committee in written testimony.

Adding the safeguards upholding "due process" principles in the US Constitution would help commission convictions stand up on appeal, Kris told the panel.

His comments, echoed by the Defense Department's general counsel, Jeh Johnson, reflected a debate within the administration and in Congress over how to prosecute detainees under revised rules for the controversial military tribunals.

[masuki bance]

18. How is that conflicting? nt

[winyanstaz]

22. If it was wrong for Bush to do this..it is twice as wrong for Obama..

Isnt America supposed to be a nation of laws? sheesh! This is criminal and just wrong!

[Autumn]

28. Shouldn't they be returned to their own

country? If they were to come here again our agencies know who they are and can prevent them from coming in.

[slackmaster]

45. Yes, it would be incredibly difficult for a person to sneak into this country undetected

:rofl:

[Autumn]

49. They can be tracked n/t

[Moochy]

37. WTF

I did not vote for a continuation of indefinite detention. This is more bullshit.

[Vidar]

46. What's next, Obama, concentration camps?

[K Gardner]

47. You've *always* had it with Obama. Same song, different day.