Obama Gitmo Draft Executive Order Working Thread

As I indicated in comments, I have a copy of the supposed final draft of Obama’s Executive order on Guantanamo. Perhaps I will append the main post later, but i want to get it up now. Especially since William Ockham reports that the ACLU has beat me to the punch. That is what I get for actually driving home and opening a bottle of wine for my wife I guess. Go figure.

Here it is. See you in comments to dissect it. Hey, you know, this change stuff is a lot of fun eh?

image_print
  1. Valtin says:

    I sometimes wish I were an attorney, but only sometimes. As I read the draft, I find some good, some bad, some obscure to me.

    The good? It makes an effort to bring a “prompt” closing to Guantanamo, though whether that effort is prompt enough is another question. CCR doesn’t think it is. It claims that everyone — and that includes so-called unlawful enemy combatants — are subject to Geneva (although it states only Common Article 3, not the Civilian Convention to which all who aren’t official POWs are entitled).

    The bad? Oversight rests too much with the Secretary of Defense and the intelligence agencies, especially as regards disposition of cases. The Attorney General, as the one in charge of such reviews, will play the key role, and maybe the others will be subordinated to only supplying documentation, but I’m not too sanguine.

    Also, the Secretary of Defense is put in charge of determining that conditions at Gitmo meet humane standards (Geneva). This is the same Secretary of Defense who believes Appendix M of the Army Field Manual meets Geneva standards. Uh-oh.

    The obscure? The question of trials for the defendants. The military commissions are effectively suspended, but not dismantled.

    Also, what does it mean when it says:

    (3) Determination of Prosecution. In accordance with United States law, the cases of individuals detained at Guantánamo not approved for release or transfer shall be evaluated to determine whether the Federal Government should seek to prosecute the detained individuals for any offenses they may have committed, including whether it is feasible to prosecute such individuals before a court established pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution, and the Review participants shall in turn take the necessary and appropriate steps based on such determinations.

    (4) Determination of Other Disposition. With respect to any individuals currently detained at Guantánamo whose disposition is not achieved under subsections (c)(2) or (c)(3) of this section, the Review shall select lawful means, consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice, for the disposition of such individuals. The appropriate authorities shall promptly implement such dispositions.

    All in all, an improvement for sure over what came before, but it’s far from being a full renunciation of previous policy, at least as practiced de facto.

    Maybe others see more of the glass half full than I do.

    • MadDog says:

      Yeah, I saw Section (c)(4) as “we don’t know what to do with these types of folks yet, so check back later”.

      And I suspect that a fair percentage of the current detainees are going to fall into this black hole.

      • bobschacht says:

        It is almost a given that there are a few bad apples in Gitmo (how many, we don’t know), and also that because of their treatment, virtually all of the evidence against these bad apples is tainted.

        Say you’re on the vice squad in Metropolis, and there’s a serial killer on the loose. He’s already killed at least 12 people, probably more, in some grisly and horrible way. And his victims are all Nice People. One of your vice squads cracks the case, but in such a way that the evidence for every single one of those murders is compromised.

        Whaddya do? If you let him go, you know its just a matter of time before he kills again. And yet you’ve got no legal grounds to hold him, do you?

        Maybe the answer is to release the villain– but without telling him, you put a tail on him. By now, with the tainted evidence, you know his M.O., so your tail gathers the evidence — cleanly, legally this time. Costs a fortune, but hey. You set him up, and then (hopefully) spring the trap before he actually kills someone.

        But with our “guilty but tainted” prisoners, we don’t really have the assets to tail them like this, do we?

        Wouldn’t we do better to go the “nice cop” route, help them in every way we can, shower them with kindnesses, and attempt to buy their cooperation? You know, the kind of stuff that actually works with these people? This would be the right time to try some of that. Do a complete change of contact personnel on them, send nice new “Obama cops and lawyers” to work with them, apologizing for the terrible things that Dirty Dick and Gruesome George did to them. Maybe even turn some of them into assets?

        I haven’t seen much about this kind of “solution” to the “bad prisoner” problem. Maybe I don’t read the right blogs. What would work?

        Bob in HI

        • EdwardTeller says:

          Say you’re on the vice squad in Metropolis, and there’s a serial killer on the loose. He’s already killed at least 12 people, probably more, in some grisly and horrible way. And his victims are all Nice People. One of your vice squads cracks the case, but in such a way that the evidence for every single one of those murders is compromised.

          Whaddya do?

          You make him live with a guy who has killed at least 1.4 million people, possibly more, many in ghastly grisly ways. Many of his victims were really, really nice people. The evidence is sitting there, waiting to be assessed by a whole bunch of new hires after the police department went through thorough sweeping up of the old hands who could have given a shit, because a lot of his victims weren’t White.

          You make him liv with George Bush.

    • Hugh says:

      the Federal Government should seek to prosecute the detained individuals for any offenses they may have committed, including whether it is feasible to prosecute such individuals before a court established pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution

      I think you identified the key paragraph. This leaves wiggle room for something other than trial in the federal courts.

      Along these lines in Section 3:

      they shall be returned to their home country, released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to another United States detention facility

      This would seem to leave open detention in another US facility not on US soil. I would think, for example, Bagram or Diego Garcia would qualify under this description.

      • Valtin says:

        You have confirmed my suspicions. Remember when Laurence Tribe floated an idea for a “hybrid” judicial system, i.e., “a new legal system to handle the classified information inherent in some of the most sensitive cases.” This sounded to me suspiciously like Mukasey’s call for “terrorist courts”, made in the WSJ back in August 2007. (I wrote an article on this a few months back.)

        I smell a rat. I hope I’m wrong.

        Your point about where they would send detainees is important, too. Note in Section 8 of the draft this lovely tidbit:

        (a) Nothing in this order shall prejudice the authority of the Secretary of Defense to determine the disposition of any detainees not covered by this order.

        That is, not at Guantanamo. So if you are at Baghram, Diego Garcia, or on some prison ship, you’re hell out of luck. Also, it seems, if you were at the Charleston Naval Brig, for that matter.

  2. pdaly says:

    I don’t understand the document’s declaration that closing down Gitmo now (without first a prompt and thorough review of each detainee’s case) is not in the best interest of the United States, especially since by 1 year from today, when Gitmo SHALL be closed, any left over prisoners shall be moved somewhere else until we can figure out what to do with them.

  3. eCAHNomics says:

    I don’t understand why closing Gitmo should be the way Obama is judged on the detainees. There’s plenty of other places where he could make then disappear. Gitmo’s a symbol, but only a symbol.

    • pdaly says:

      agreed, but for the moment Gitmo is Bush’s creation. If I were Obama, I’d want to move the humans out of the gulag and into a proper legal venue. Symbolism counts.

      • eCAHNomics says:

        Sure, symbolism counts, but not for much unless it is indicative of addressing the underlying problem. I also don’t understand why it will take a year to close Gitmo. None of the “reasons” so far advanced make any sense to me.

  4. Petrocelli says:

    The new admin will get all the B.C. Bud it can handle … suddenly, giving up Nicotine doesn’t seem like such
    a big deal.

  5. MadDog says:

    OT – CNN shows that President Obama re-took the oath of office, again from Justice Roberts.

    So there you fookin’ wingnuts! Spit!

  6. pdaly says:

    I have a question about the last paragraph of the document. Paragraph C in Sec 8 General Provisions:

    (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or
    procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its
    departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

    Does this mean if any torture videos, for example, are uncovered during the prompt and thorough review of a prisoner, said prisoner is not shuttled off to freedom with a copy packed in his bags to be used in a future world court?

  7. randiego says:

    Well none of this is startin’ until next week at the earliest.

    Sec 4(b) Review Participants. The Review shall be conducted with the full cooperation and participation of the following officials:
    (1) the Attorney General, who shall coordinate the Review;

  8. Hugh says:

    Just catching the NewsHour, Jack Keane and Wesley Clark are on discussing Obama’s 16 month withdrawal and both are trying to walk it back as much as possible. Keane wants only 2 brigades out by the end of the year. Clark talks about how even after the removal of the 16 combat brigades troops will likely remain in Iraq. One of the more disingenuous aspects of this is that some combat brigades could simply be renamed.

    All in all, two warmonkeys who don’t want to leave Iraq.

    • Valtin says:

      The Atty General is to “coordinate” the review of detainees, assisted by

      (

      2) the Secretary of Defense;
      (3) the Secretary of State;
      (4) the Secretary of Homeland Security;
      (5) the Director of National Intelligence;
      (6) the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and
      (7) other officers or full-time or permanent part-time employees of the United States, including employees with intelligence, counterterrorism, military, and legal expertise, as determined by the Attorney General, with the concurrence of the head of the department or agency concerned.

      So, yes, the review cannot commence, I suppose, until Holder (or someone else) is confirmed. But that only delays things a few weeks or so. What is your opinion re the composition of this review committee. I think it is dubious, and only a good atty general could possible make the outcome something halfway trustworthy.

      • WilliamOckham says:

        Actually I think the composition the committee is good. Bringing in all the relevant bureacratic players is essential to having a defensible solution. All these departments need to have skin in the game to prevent sandbagging or surprise problems down the road.

        After eight years of the Bush Cheney regime, I understand everybody’s cynicism, but I think there’s reason to be more hopeful. This looks to me like Obama pushed the bureacracy as far as it’s capable of going right now. Much will depend on us and our representatives (even though one of my Senators is John ‘I just love me some torture’ Cornyn). We need to keep the pressure on. Part of Obama’s strategy for the FOIA memorandum is warn the bureacracy that we’ll be keeping our eyes on them. Untangling this mess will take time, but it’ll happen faster if and only if we push it.

        • Valtin says:

          Thanks. You make a good point. I wish there were someone from, say, CCR to observe this mess, and not have to wait for FOIA to monitor six or twelve months down the line.

        • acquarius74 says:

          W/O, I’m also a Texan. How do we make Cornyn understand that he represents US and no longer Bush/Cheney. I don’t believe that the majority of Texans approve of his obstructing the AG confirmation as he is doing.

          When I write to him all I get back (weeks later) is a form letter which insults my intelligence. I told him so, too.

    • Hugh says:

      From wiki:

      Until Holder is confirmed, Mark Filip is acting as Attorney General.

      Filip was the Deputy Attorney General (No. 2) under Mukasey.

  9. Hugh says:

    Just one last expression of disappointment that no Executive Orders have been put up at the White House site. I mean if they are being disseminated in other ways, they could still be put up there and just listed as drafts. What is so hard about that?

  10. Valtin says:

    Re “national security courts” which is what seems to be possible under a reading of the draft, according to G. Greenwald’s column today such “national security courts” are being “aggressively advocated by newly-appointed Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal”.

      • Valtin says:

        Article III courts? I don’t know. I told you, there are times I wish I were an attorney. Who determines if a court is an Article III court? When I look at that section of the Constitution, it’s not clear to me.

  11. Palli says:

    No matter what the entire location needs to be treated as a crime scene. I am very worried about retaliation fro guards on POWS. There need to be observers there now!

    DMay there be light in all the black holes and the shame become a movement that will reform our national legal system.

  12. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    Untangling this mess will take time, but it’ll happen faster if and only if we push it.

    Yep.

  13. acquarius74 says:

    That phrase ‘other type of federal facility’ could mean in some cases mental institutions for those detainees whose minds have been destroyed by the torture and mind control methods they have endured at GITMO. What do we do with them?

    Then, there are probably some (many?) who committed no chargeable offense prior to being swept up in mass arrests, but who now are dedicated Johadists as a result of their treatment and what they have observed at GITMO. What do we do with them?

    I don’t trust Robert Gates. He was Director of CIA under Reagan when some of the dirtiest deeds were secretly done by CIA.