24 Jan

About that Presidential Executive Order on Interrogations…

                                       

2009-01-21b

U.S. President Barack Obama signs an executive order on Executive Branch ethics as news photographers document it at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in the White House complex in Washington, January 21, 2009. REUTERS/Larry Downing (UNITED STATES)

Presidential Executive Order:

1. Torture is prohibited as defined in section 2340 of title 18, United States Code.

2. Murder, torture, cruel or inhuman treatment, mutilation or maiming, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, rape, sexual assault or abuse, taking of hostages, or performing of biological experiments is prohibited.

3. Other acts of violence serious enough to be considered comparable to murder, torture, mutilation, and cruel or inhuman treatment, as defined in section 2441(d) of title 18, United States Code are prohibited.

4. Any other acts of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment are prohibited.

5. We are prohibited from engaging in willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual in a manner so serious that any reasonable person, considering the circumstances, would deem the acts to be beyond the bounds of human decency, such as sexual or sexually indecent acts undertaken for the purpose of humiliation, forcing the individual to perform sexual acts or to pose sexually, threatening the individual with sexual mutilation, or using the individual as a human shield.

6. Acts intended to denigrate the religion, religious practices, or religious objects of the individual will not be tolerated.

Does that sound like a strong departure from the Bush Administration’s Interpretation of the Geneva Conventions Common Article 3 as Applied to a Program of Detention and Interrogation Operated by the Central Intelligence Agency?

It’s not. It IS the Bush Administration’s 2007 Executive Order 13440.


2009-01-21a

“However long we are keepers of the public trust, we should never forget that we are here as public servants,” Mr. Obama said.
Photo: Doug Mills/The New York Times

Earlier today, CJ posted his examination of the Executive Orders regarding the Guantanamo Detention Facilities. His conclusion is that it bears little difference than the way the Bush Administration has been handling the situation; and that there’s enough legal loopholes in the wording, as to allow President Obama an “out”, from following through with closing the facility, should the Administration fail to solve the dilemma of what to do with the remaining detainees.
(Check this out, btw: former detainees appear in al Qaeda video. That news compliments the other peachy story regarding a former detainee becoming a deputy leader in al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch).

Looking over the new executive order Ensuring Lawful Interrogations, which revokes President Bush’s Executive Order 13440, CJ comes to the conclusion that President Obama’s executive order says much the same thing as the one it revokes:

What’s that? You agree with all six of those points? Then why did President Obama just revoke them? Those were all outlined in Executive Order 13440 signed by President George W. Bush on July 20, 2007. That’s right. Those aren’t Obama’s words although he does restate in less plain terms than President Bush did. That’s right. Much like the Gitmo issue, this EO simply restates what was already US policy. So why revoke it and recreate the wheel?

Well, that wasn’t all that President Bush’s EO 13440 said. President Bush reiterated what the Geneva Conventions already tell us about unlawful enemy combatants – that they aren’t entitled to protections under the law. Specifically, according to Bush, “members of al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces are unlawful enemy combatants who are not entitled to the protections that the Third Geneva Convention provides to prisoners of war.” Translation: terrorists will be treated as such so long as they continue to fight in violation of the established Conventions agreed to by most nations.

President Bush also gave the CIA latitude to conduct interrogations against said unlawful combatants in any manner the Director of the CIA may deem necessary to “detect, mitigate, or prevent terrorist attacks, such as attacks within the United States or against its Armed Forces or other personnel, citizens, or facilities, or against allies or other countries cooperating in the war on terror with the United States, or their armed forces or other personnel, citizens, or facilities.” These tactics MUST provide “the basic necessities of life, including adequate food and water, shelter from the elements, necessary clothing, protection from extremes of heat and cold, and essential medical care.” Additionally, they are not exempt from the six areas listed above.

You read me correctly. The CIA was not above the law and neither was the military. Neither agency or department was given tacit or implied permission to commit those six acts. And when it was discovered that some rogue elements or personnel DID commit these offenses, they were promptly dealt with and a rash of new training was conducted to ensure future compliance.

The media is going through great pains to let the enemy know that they can now breathe a sigh of relief from US pressure. The CIA is now restricted to a particular set of interrogation approaches that the Army currently uses. I’ll get to that later. There are more important areas that need to be addressed first.

As of the 22nd of January, the CIA must close any detention facilities that it currently operates and cannot operate any such detention facility in the future. Where are they supposed to put all of America’s enemies that are covertly trying to kill another 3,000 innocent citizens? Gitmo is out of the question. I guess Pennsylvania’s 12th Congressional District is going to get pretty populated soon.

The EO on interrogations requires a comprehensive “study and evaluation” on interrogation techniques and their usefulness. It will also “study and evaluate” how our enemies are being transferred to other nations. This has been done. It’s constantly done. The Field Manual in question just underwent an extensive review and update thanks to our not-so-illustrious Senator from Arizona, Mr. John McCain. The result was a much more restrictive and hands-tied approach to gathering information.

Which brings me to the Field Manual. And I refuse to discuss that. Sorry, but I’m not going to give our enemy any more ammunition and information than our Executive Branch has already given them.

It’s all for show, folks! Smoke and mirrors to appease the true believers of radical change and an ushering in of the New Era of Transparency.

And meanwhile, the real threat to our civil liberties and to our way of life- the Islamic terrorists- get a glimpse at our playbook.

One thing Obama’s EO does, though, is close down the CIA program that gained us valuable intell, and order all interrogations (including CIA) be limited to what is allowable in the Army Field Manual.

This really sets the stage for a “fun” ride…..

2009-01-21

News photographers take pictures of the pen to be used by President Barack Obama before he signs an executive order on Executive Branch ethics at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in the White House complex in Washington, January 21, 2009.
REUTERS/Larry Downing


*UPDATE*

My comment #5, blockquoting Sheryl Gay Stolberg writing for the NYTimes:

January 25, 2009
White House Memo
Great Limits Come With Great Power, Ex-Candidate Finds
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON — President Obama showed up for his first full day at work on Wednesday determined, as he later told the nation, to make “a clean break from business as usual.” But it did not take long for the new president to discover that there were limits to his power to turn his campaign rhetoric into reality.

Mr. Obama spent his first few days in office rolling out an orchestrated series of executive orders intended to signal that he would take the nation in a very different direction from his predecessor, George W. Bush. Yet he wrestled with fresh challenges at every turn, found some principles hard to consistently apply and showed himself willing to be pragmatic — at the risk of irking some supporters who had their hearts set on idealism.

When Mr. Obama wandered into the White House briefing room Thursday afternoon hoping to make small talk with reporters, he was instantly confronted by an unwelcome question: Why was he waiving his tough restrictions on lobbying for a Pentagon nominee? The president brushed it off, saying he would not return “if I’m going to get grilled every time I come.”

Lol….lol…..roflmao!!!!!!!

His plan to build bipartisan consensus around an economic package ran smack into discontented House Republicans. When he ordered the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to be shut down, Mr. Obama put off the tough decision of what to do with the terrorism suspects there, a delay that his senior adviser, David Axelrod, attributed to the complexity of the issue — the same argument Mr. Bush used to keep the prison open.

“That is an enormously complicated situation,” Mr. Axelrod said Friday afternoon in an interview in his West Wing office, adding: “Obviously, you can’t solve problems overnight. But what you can do is signal a sense of motion, a sense of ferment and activity and direction. And I think that he is doing that.

Throughout the campaign, Mr. Obama was something of a political Rorschach test; he was not required to make tough executive decisions, and so people could see in him what they wanted. His first few days as president, though, have given the first hints of how he will run his administration.

“I think you will see a presidency that’s less about hard-core ideology, and more about setting bold strategic objectives and setting out how we are going to get there,” said John D. Podesta, who ran Mr. Obama’s transition.

Already, that has given rise to some contradictions.

On his first full day in office, Mr. Obama declared that his administration would place a high priority on openness and transparency. Yet the first official White House briefing was given by two senior aides who, in the time-honored way of Washington, demanded anonymity.

At the same time, the Obama team made no apologies for the president’s willingness to make an exception to his tough anti-lobbying rules for William J. Lynn III, a military industry lobbyist who is the president’s pick for deputy secretary of defense. That exception drew sharp questions late Friday from Senator John McCain, Mr. Obama’s opponent in the general election and someone the president has sought to make an ally.

Senator Richard J. Durbin, an Illinois Democrat and a close friend of Mr. Obama’s, said the move suggested the president was willing to take a few lumps if he thought he was right.

“He obviously needed and wanted this man,” Mr. Durbin said, “because he knew the critics would say, ‘What are you doing here? You established a rule and you changed it.’ ”

And while as a candidate Mr. Obama had tough criticism for the Bush administration’s use of harsh interrogation tactics, President Obama left himself some wiggle room in overturning that policy, by deferring a decision on whether some techniques should remain secret to keep Al Qaeda from training to resist them.

I think it emphasizes a realist, a pragmatist, someone who is not on a strictly political or ideological exercise,” said Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, who is close to the president. “It underscores what I think is part of his leadership style, which is that there has to be some flexibility — a firm principle but a flexible application.”

Yet one man’s flexibility is another man’s wishy-washiness, and Mr. Obama’s willingness to adapt carries the risk that he will either alienate his liberal base or fail to convert Republicans whose support he hopes to win. During his transition, Mr. Obama managed to charm conservatives; he wooed them at one dinner honoring Mr. McCain, and at another at the home of the columnist George F. Will.

But just days into the Obama presidency, some conservatives sound wary.

“I thought he did very well during the transition on things like the dinner with George Will, and all the words sounded good,” said Newt Gingrich, the Republican former speaker of the House. “But I think they are right at the cusp of either sliding down into a world where their words have no meaning or having to follow up their words with real behavior.

Mr. Obama came into office with a clear set of objectives for his first week, advisers said. He wanted to convey a sense that he was moving quickly to make good on campaign pledges, while at the same time establishing realistic expectations for what he could achieve. “He wanted to show that an activist president could get the ball rolling right away,” Mr. Podesta said.

Many Democrats, and even some Republicans, say he succeeded. “He is creating an image that he is making something happen,” said Scott Reed, a Republican strategist.

But in the coming weeks, Mr. Obama will have to do more than create an image; he will in fact have to make something happen — most immediately, an economic stimulus package with bipartisan support, as promised. His ability to bring Democrats and Republicans together will be the first major test of his presidency.

That test began Friday, in the White House Roosevelt Room, where Mr. Obama tried to bring House Republicans on board, despite their fundamental differences on tax policy for low-wage workers.

“I said to him straight up, ‘I think your electoral success was largely based on the hope that you could deliver change to the way Washington works,’ ” said Representative Eric Cantor, the Republican whip. He said he had told Mr. Obama pointedly that he would lose Republican support unless House Democrats were willing to make some changes in the bill.

The president listened intently, Mr. Cantor said, giving little hint of how he planned to square that circle.

This entry was posted in American Intelligence, Barack Obama, Baracks Broken Promises, CIA interrogation program, Foreign Policy, Guantanamo, John McCain, Liberal Idiots, Politics, War On Terror. Bookmark the permalink. Saturday, January 24th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
| 836 views

27 Responses to About that Presidential Executive Order on Interrogations…

  1. Wordsmith says: 1

    In case anyone decides to criticize the photos in my post as anachronistic (by one day, missing the point of the inclusion), here’s the photo to go along with the actual signing of the Executive Orders regarding Guantanamo and the issue of interrogations:


    2009-01-21f

    U.S. President Barack Obama signs an executive order closing the military prison at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo, Cuba, in the Oval Office on second official day at White House in Washington, January 22, 2009. REUTERS/Larry Downing (UNITED STATES)

    I just liked the other photos better. Sure, all such signings are photo-ops; but considering President Obama hasn’t really done much in the way of implementing radical change other than through the illusion of it through “just words”, I find this kind of photo-op staging particularly amusing.

    ReplyReply
  2. luva the scissors says: 2

    i wonder if they will photograph when he takes a crap and wipes his ass with the constitution? as far as i am concerned that is all he will be doing during his term.

    ReplyReply
  3. Wisdom says: 3

    Maybe there will be a deal on beach front property at Guantanamo…Cuba could be a free-er market than the US by the time theOne’s term is over. Might be more jobs there, too.

    ReplyReply
  4. “In case anyone decides to criticize the photos in my post as anachronistic “

    Who would do that?

    I’ve sprayed enough moonbat repellant in here today to keep us relatively safe from pointless and distracting comments from the peanut gallery.

    ReplyReply
  5. Wordsmith says: 5

    January 25, 2009
    White House Memo
    Great Limits Come With Great Power, Ex-Candidate Finds
    By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

    WASHINGTON — President Obama showed up for his first full day at work on Wednesday determined, as he later told the nation, to make “a clean break from business as usual.” But it did not take long for the new president to discover that there were limits to his power to turn his campaign rhetoric into reality.

    Mr. Obama spent his first few days in office rolling out an orchestrated series of executive orders intended to signal that he would take the nation in a very different direction from his predecessor, George W. Bush. Yet he wrestled with fresh challenges at every turn, found some principles hard to consistently apply and showed himself willing to be pragmatic — at the risk of irking some supporters who had their hearts set on idealism.

    When Mr. Obama wandered into the White House briefing room Thursday afternoon hoping to make small talk with reporters, he was instantly confronted by an unwelcome question: Why was he waiving his tough restrictions on lobbying for a Pentagon nominee? The president brushed it off, saying he would not return “if I’m going to get grilled every time I come.”

    Lol….lol…..roflmao!!!!!!!

    His plan to build bipartisan consensus around an economic package ran smack into discontented House Republicans. When he ordered the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to be shut down, Mr. Obama put off the tough decision of what to do with the terrorism suspects there, a delay that his senior adviser, David Axelrod, attributed to the complexity of the issue — the same argument Mr. Bush used to keep the prison open.

    “That is an enormously complicated situation,” Mr. Axelrod said Friday afternoon in an interview in his West Wing office, adding: “Obviously, you can’t solve problems overnight. But what you can do is signal a sense of motion, a sense of ferment and activity and direction. And I think that he is doing that.

    Throughout the campaign, Mr. Obama was something of a political Rorschach test; he was not required to make tough executive decisions, and so people could see in him what they wanted. His first few days as president, though, have given the first hints of how he will run his administration.

    “I think you will see a presidency that’s less about hard-core ideology, and more about setting bold strategic objectives and setting out how we are going to get there,” said John D. Podesta, who ran Mr. Obama’s transition.

    Already, that has given rise to some contradictions.

    On his first full day in office, Mr. Obama declared that his administration would place a high priority on openness and transparency. Yet the first official White House briefing was given by two senior aides who, in the time-honored way of Washington, demanded anonymity.

    At the same time, the Obama team made no apologies for the president’s willingness to make an exception to his tough anti-lobbying rules for William J. Lynn III, a military industry lobbyist who is the president’s pick for deputy secretary of defense. That exception drew sharp questions late Friday from Senator John McCain, Mr. Obama’s opponent in the general election and someone the president has sought to make an ally.

    Senator Richard J. Durbin, an Illinois Democrat and a close friend of Mr. Obama’s, said the move suggested the president was willing to take a few lumps if he thought he was right.

    “He obviously needed and wanted this man,” Mr. Durbin said, “because he knew the critics would say, ‘What are you doing here? You established a rule and you changed it.’ ”

    And while as a candidate Mr. Obama had tough criticism for the Bush administration’s use of harsh interrogation tactics, President Obama left himself some wiggle room in overturning that policy, by deferring a decision on whether some techniques should remain secret to keep Al Qaeda from training to resist them.

    I think it emphasizes a realist, a pragmatist, someone who is not on a strictly political or ideological exercise,” said Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, who is close to the president. “It underscores what I think is part of his leadership style, which is that there has to be some flexibility — a firm principle but a flexible application.”

    Yet one man’s flexibility is another man’s wishy-washiness, and Mr. Obama’s willingness to adapt carries the risk that he will either alienate his liberal base or fail to convert Republicans whose support he hopes to win. During his transition, Mr. Obama managed to charm conservatives; he wooed them at one dinner honoring Mr. McCain, and at another at the home of the columnist George F. Will.

    But just days into the Obama presidency, some conservatives sound wary.

    “I thought he did very well during the transition on things like the dinner with George Will, and all the words sounded good,” said Newt Gingrich, the Republican former speaker of the House. “But I think they are right at the cusp of either sliding down into a world where their words have no meaning or having to follow up their words with real behavior.

    Mr. Obama came into office with a clear set of objectives for his first week, advisers said. He wanted to convey a sense that he was moving quickly to make good on campaign pledges, while at the same time establishing realistic expectations for what he could achieve. “He wanted to show that an activist president could get the ball rolling right away,” Mr. Podesta said.

    Many Democrats, and even some Republicans, say he succeeded. “He is creating an image that he is making something happen,” said Scott Reed, a Republican strategist.

    But in the coming weeks, Mr. Obama will have to do more than create an image; he will in fact have to make something happen — most immediately, an economic stimulus package with bipartisan support, as promised. His ability to bring Democrats and Republicans together will be the first major test of his presidency.

    That test began Friday, in the White House Roosevelt Room, where Mr. Obama tried to bring House Republicans on board, despite their fundamental differences on tax policy for low-wage workers.

    “I said to him straight up, ‘I think your electoral success was largely based on the hope that you could deliver change to the way Washington works,’ ” said Representative Eric Cantor, the Republican whip. He said he had told Mr. Obama pointedly that he would lose Republican support unless House Democrats were willing to make some changes in the bill.

    The president listened intently, Mr. Cantor said, giving little hint of how he planned to square that circle.

    ReplyReply
  6. Wisdom says: 6

    The president brushed it off, saying he would not return “if I’m going to get grilled every time I come.”

    I love it. He won’t visit reporters if they ask him questions. When theOne and the Obots start assassinating the character of individual reporters for asking tough questions like they did Joe The Plumber, maybe they will stop worshiping him and the rest of the reporters will start doing their jobs.

    Then again…

    ReplyReply
  7. Scrapiron says: 7

    No more prisoners, no uniform on the battlefield, gun in hand, shoot them on the spot.

    Maybe when the terrorists target a specific private school in D.C. the Chairman will change his tune.

    ReplyReply
  8. OLDPUPPYMAX says: 8

    Our straight-arrow, non-biased “journalists” are probably just beginning to figure out how much work they’re going to have to do to make this ignorant thug look presidential. If they think it was work getting him elected….HA! I wonder if it’s possible to simply NOT REPORT the next 9/11? Somehow I think we’ll find out.

    ReplyReply
  9. eaglewingz08 says: 9

    My question is, if the religious practices of our enemies are to keep women enslaved, blow up infidels, i.e. anyone who doesn’t practice the identical set of religious and political beliefs practiced by these self avowed enemies, then how can you adhere to Obama’s Executive Order and Pres Bush’s Executive Order about not demeaning or denigrating the religious beliefs and practices of our enemies and still conduct the WoT? If the very existence of a JudeoChristian country that’s the most powerful in the world, is a demeaning and denigration of the religious beliefs and practices of our self avowed enemies, then doesn’t the logic of these Executive Orders mandate that we abide by shari’a law?

    ReplyReply
  10. suek says: 10

    >>…doesn’t the logic of these Executive Orders mandate that we abide by shari’a law?>>

    Heck..they’re almost there in Europe already, so why not? We _do_ want the world to love us, right?

    http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/01/announcing-international-free-press.html

    ReplyReply
  11. drjohn says: 11

    Great job, guys.

    Once again, you do the job that the media just won’t do. The liberal media is in such a rapture it is incapacitated.

    ReplyReply
  12. Wordsmith says: 12

    From Politico:

    Why the Gitmo policies may not change
    By: Josh Gerstein
    January 23, 2009 06:29 PM EST

    There may be less than meets the eye to the executive orders President Obama issued yesterday to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay and prohibit the torture of prisoners in American custody. Those pronouncements may sound dramatic and unequivocal, but experts predict that American policy towards detainees could remain for months or even years pretty close to what it was as President Bush left office.

    “I think the administration’s commitment to close Guantanamo is heartening; the fact they want to give themselves a year to do it, not so much,”, said Ramzi Kassem, a Yale Law School lecturer who represents prisoners like inmate Ahmed Zuhair, who was captured in Pakistan in 2001. “That would bring men like my client to eight years imprisonment for no apparent reason.”

    Here are a few of the delays, caveats and loopholes that could limit the impact of Obama’s orders:

    1. Everyone has to follow the Army Field Manual—for now…

    Obama’s executive order on interrogations says all agencies of the government have to follow the Army Field Manual when interrogating detainees, meaning the CIA can no longer used so-called enhanced interrogation techniques, which have included waterboarding, the use of dogs in questioning, and stripping prisoners.

    However, the order also created an interagency commission which will have six months to examine whether to create “additional or different guidance” for non-military agencies such as the CIA. One group that represents detainees, the Center for Constitutional Rights, deemed that an “escape hatch” to potentially allow enhanced interrogations in the future.

    White House counsel Greg Craig told reporters such fears are misplaced. “This is not an invitation to bring back different techniques than those that are approved inside the Army Field Manual, but an invitation to this task force to make recommendations as to whether or not there should be a separate protocol that’s more appropriate to the intelligence community,” he said.

    The distinction Craig made between “protocols” and “techniques,” though, seems less than clear.

    “For now, they’re punting, saying they’ll comply with what’s in the Army manual…but at some point in the future this commission may revert to the executive” to recommend harsher techniques, said Kassem, adding that he was concerned about how transparent the commission’s recommendations would be.

    “I’m happy to postpone that discussion [on “enhanced interrogation”]… on the condition that [it] happens transparently,” he said.

    A Columbia law professor who worked on detention issues at the State Department under President Bush, Matthew Waxman, said Obama is wise to leave open the possibility of different guidance for the CIA’s experienced interrogators. “I’ve worked on drafts of the Army Field Manual,” Waxman said. “It’s designed to be in the hands of tens of thousands of people who may not have a lot of training or supervision.”

    2. Obama ordered a 30-day review of Guantanamo conditions—by the man currently responsible for Guantanamo.

    A section of Obama’s order on Guantanamo entitled “Humane Standards of Confinement” orders Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to spend the next thirty days reviewing the current conditions at the Caribbean prison to make sure they’re legal and follow the Geneva Convention. It seems doubtful that Gates, who has been atop the chain of command for Guantanamo for more than two years, will suddenly find conditions that were just fine on Monday of this week are now flagrant violations of the Geneva Convention.

    “He’s not exactly impartial,” Kassem said.

    Waxman pointed out that adhering to the Geneva Condition is “already the law,” and deemed that section of the order “bizarre.”

    3. Obama vowed no torture on his watch, but force-feeding and solitary confinement apparently continue at Guantanamo for now.

    It’s possible that the 30-day referral to Gates is simply an effort to buy the Obama team time to deal with two Guantanamo practices that some consider torture, or at least inhumane: force feeding and isolation of prisoners. According to detainee lawyers, about two dozen inmates who refuse to eat as a form of protest are currently being force fed, and about 140 are in some form of solitary confinement.

    The Bush administration has argued that the feeding is humane and that the solitary, at least as practiced now, is not the kind of total isolation that amounts to torture. “There’s an important distinction to be made between isolation and separation” from other prisoners,” Waxman said.

    As far as we know, the force feeding and solitary practices continued onto Obama’s watch. Craig dodged a question about the new president’s views on those issues. “I’m not going to get into the details,” Craig said.

    4. The vast majority of detainees in American custody may see no benefit from Obama’s orders

    While Obama ordered a case-by-case review of the 245 prisoners held at Guantanamo, the 600 prisoners held in indefinite American custody in Afghanistan and roughly 20,000 in Iraq won’t get such attention. The general policy review might aid them, eventually, but unless someone was about to torture them it’s unclear how they are better off.

    “I think there’s a fairly good chance that on the whole from the perspective of my clients at Guantanamo and Bagram [the site of an American air base and prison in Afghanistan], their lives will be the same until those facilities are shut down, unfortunately,” Kassem said.

    Asked why the reviews are limited to prisoners at Guantanamo, and not those at Bagram or Abu Ghraib, Craig said, “The president asked us to look at Guantanamo. That’s the answer.”

    5. The orders downplay the possibility that some prisoners might be set free in America.

    Obama ordered that when Guantanamo closes, any remaining inmates “be returned to their home country, released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to another United States detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.” But Obama’s wordsmiths seem to have deliberately trimmed out any explicit mention of the explosive possibility of freeing prisoners on American soil.

    While Obama’s aides seem to prefer trying prisoners in civil courts or freeing them abroad, there are no obvious charges to be filed against some of the detainees. Once Guantanamo closes, letting them loose in the U.S. may be the only option if other countries won’t take them.

    Craig said he was “hopeful” that other governments will take many of the detainees, but some nations may not step up until the U.S. does. “One question a lot of countries keep asking is, ‘How many are you going to take?” Waxman said. “There may be some countries that want to earn some credit [with the] new administration…but I don’t expect this problem to go away.”

    6. Military commissions are shut down…. for now

    One of the attention grabbing provisions of Obama’s orders calls for military tribunals at Guantanamo to be “halted.” But the Obama administration is not ruling out returning to some sort of military forum to deal with some of the prisoners.

    “This order does not eliminate or extinguish the military commissions, it just stays all proceedings in connection with the ongoing proceedings in Guantanamo,” Craig said, making clear that “improved military commissions” were still on the table.

    That suggestion exasperates detainee lawyers like Kassem. “That would be a huge mistake, “ he said. “That system [is] set up to launder statements obtained through torture… What’s the point of getting rid of our offshore, improvised, sham, military tribunals in Cuba, only to recreate it here in the United States?”

    ReplyReply
  13. Missy says: 13

    @Wordsmith:

    Update, detainee attorneys and rights groups aren’t pleased.

    2. Obama ordered a 30-day review of Guantanamo conditions—

    Review Finds Detainees’ Treatment Legal
    Pentagon Report on Guantanamo Urges More Interaction for Some, Official Says

    By Peter Finn and Del Quentin Wilber
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Saturday, February 21, 2009; A03

    A Pentagon review of conditions at the Guantanamo Bay military prison has concluded that the treatment of detainees meets the requirements of the Geneva Conventions but that prisoners in the highest-security camps should be allowed more religious and social interaction, according to a government official who has read the 85-page document.

    The report, which President Obama ordered, was prepared by Adm. Patrick M. Walsh, the vice chief of naval operations, and has been delivered to the White House.

    >snip>

    ____________________________________________

    3. Obama vowed no torture on his watch, but force-feeding and solitary confinement apparently continue at Guantanamo for now.

    Walsh concluded that force-feeding, which involves strapping detainees to special chairs and inserting a tube through one nostril and into their stomachs, is in compliance with the Geneva Conventions’ mandate that the lives of prisoners be preserved, according to the government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the report publicly.

    >snip<

    Walsh’s report was a broad endorsement of the Pentagon’s management of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, and it urged prison authorities to continue efforts across the system to maximize the ability of the detainees to socialize and practice their religion, according to the government official. “Continue to avoid actions that are disrespectful to the detainees,” Walsh wrote.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/20/AR2009022002191_pf.html

    ReplyReply
  14. Missy says: 14

    Oh dear, my post is in the filter. P&T.

    ReplyReply
  15. MataHarley says: 15

    Sometimes you scare me, Ms. Missy… like perhaps you live quietly in my head? LOL I read that article last night before hitting the sack, and was going to add it to my Obama admin-Afghanistan detainee post.

    What I especially loved was at the bottom of the version I read from The NYTs by William Glaberson.

    Critics of the Guantánamo Bay detention center, which is on the grounds of the American naval base at the eastern end of Cuba, have been preparing for Admiral Walsh’s report. They said they were concerned that the new administration would use it to avoid major alterations to the Guantánamo detention camp during its final year.

    Gitanjali Gutierrez, a lawyer for Guantánamo detainees at the Center for Constitutional Rights, said that she and other lawyers found that conditions have remained bleak since the start of the new administration.

    Ms. Gutierrez said that a report by the rights center, to be released next week, asserts that two major Guantánamo prison buildings, known as Camp 5 and Camp 6, should be closed immediately. She said prisoners there continue to be held in isolation for as long as 24 hours a day, that psychological difficulties are treated as disciplinary infractions, and that many cells are windowless.

    Ms. Gutierrez said detention camp officials have recently increased detainees’ opportunities for recreation and social interaction. She said detainees’ lawyers have been concerned that some of those moves were in anticipation of visits now being made by senior members of the new administration. The attorney general is to visit Monday.

    “This is really running the risk that the review is just a big whitewash,” Ms. Gutierrez added, “and we expect more of the new administration.”

    Guess Obama’s not going to get a pass from the far left just because he’s… well… Obama. It was automatic that any Pentagon report under Bush was fraught with lies. Evidently it will be the same for an Obama Pentagon.

    ReplyReply
  16. Pingback: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Broadcasting Our Playbook to the Enemy

  17. Pingback: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Obama Launches His Second Charm Offensive in the Middle East

  18. Pingback: Obama cribs Bush’s Work….Over and Over | Midnight Blue Says

  19. Pingback: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » President Obama’s UN Speech: “I’m not George Bush”

  20. Pingback: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Credit Bush for Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize

  21. Pingback: Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » Yes, We Can Audaciously Hope For Change

  22. Pingback: Media Uses Story of Child Abuse as a Teachable Moment of Bush-Era “Torture” Practices

  23. Pingback: Zubaydah Thanked His Interrogators for Waterboarding Him

  24. Pingback: Torture doesn’t work…ok, so where’s the disagreement? | Flopping Aces

  25. Pingback: Will the new CIA-Director-to-be revive an EIT program? | Flopping Aces

  26. Pingback: The Waterboarding Issue is Moot | Flopping Aces

  27. Pingback: “Zero Dark Thirty”: Dramatized Fiction on CIA “Torture” | Flopping Aces

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>