Obama’s Mixed Messages

If Dionne is the best they can do in a liberal group, I’m sure they realize the limits of their mastery.

What he needs to realize are the limits of his own mastery..
.
In what was otherwise a very good article this last comment from E.J. Dionne is a total decent in to wankery. Even if this is what Dionne truly believes, where is the set up for such a statement? Where are the examples or analagies of the limits President Obama or other left leaning Presidents have faced? What is it, in fact, other than the same old Defeatocrat kind of rhetoric associated with liberals in the past? Basically 99% of the article is about President Obama threading the needle to move the country to the left and then he ends with “But he can’t possibly do this and get away with it”. Now normally I thing E.J. does a reasonably good job putting forth a liberal perspective, but this time he screwed up his whole article with one sentence. I just hope Marty Peretz tacked that on at the end, otherwise Dionne needs to explain WTF he really meant.

KT:
.
Where may we, the voting public obtain
.
A) proof that such meetings took place as Dionne describes them, e.g. an official presidential schedule in which such activities are noted
.
B) a list of opinion journalists that have attended such meetings
.
, since there is nothing in the way of evidence to be found in the linked column?
.
I notice that E.J. Dionne’s piece is a little short on these sorts of provable facts –from which his audience might derive their own opinions of Obama’s actions– and a little long on his own opinions about what he asserts Obama is doing.
.
Once again, an establishment opinion journalist like Dionne deigns to let his audience in on just enough insider information to support whatever his opinion is, but not enough reporting to allow readers to form their own conclusions.
.
It takes an incredible, unbelievable amount of un-self awareness for Dionne to write a piece in which his audience is essentially treated as if they’re on a “need-to-know” basis regarding complete record of the basis of Dionne’s opinions, and in which is also contained the sentence “establishments have a habit of becoming too confident in their ability to manipulate people and events, and too certain of their own moral righteousness“.
.
…But thanks very much for linking to this incredibly revealing –by which I mean revealing of the Beltway press corps’ obscene sense of entitlement, not particularly revealing of the specifics of Obama’s press management strategy– column, KT.
.
(BTW KT: I’m serious…where can we find a list of who attended what Obama press management meetings that corroborates Dionne’s fact-lite account?)

As usual sgw and sz set forth the points of critique far better than I could. I’m just irritated by Dionne as a spokesman for the left on NPR (against Brooks however, so guess that’s an equal match) and on tv. I agree with Stuart that he is very un-selfaware and at the same time rather full of himself.

too certain of their own moral righteousness
.
Classic concern trollism. Of course there’s no danger whartsoever of Obama becoming too sure of his moral righteousness. He’s already sold his ‘Contitutional Scholar’ soul down the river and he knows it. Once he embraced “indefinite detentions”, he lost any standing whatsoever to pretend to be breaking from BushCo’s logic.
.

SZ: These sessions would not have shown up on the President’s public schedule. Nor does this White House–or any that I have ever dealt with–put out a schedule of what reporters are invited to what briefings.
.
I can only assume that these journalists got together afterward and compared notes. However, I know E.J. and his work well enough to believe that what he relates is true.
.
As I am not an opinion journalist (insert commenter snark here), I don’t generally get invited to this kind of thing. But the way it works is, you get a phone call from the White House asking if you would like to come by for a briefing in a few hours. How they decide to invite, I haven’t a clue.
.
The closest experience I have had recently was getting invited to one for a group of health journalists that took place with “senior administration officials.” Unfortunately, I am not at liberty to disclose which senior administration officials attended this meeting IN PETER ORSZAG’S OFFICE. So I am going to have to keep in confidence the name of any official that I may have talked with IN PETER ORSZAG’S OFFICE. Alas, we did not rate a drop-by by POTUS.

Okay, now you’ve got me off on a tangent here: believe it or not, it’s impossible to even get an accurate account of who is in the white house at any given moment, as we learned during the campaign finance scandals of 1996.
.
they have a system called WAVEs (forgot precisely what the acronym stands for), where you can find out who was cleared for entry at any given time. but their records (at least, as of 1996, the last time i checked) were highly inaccurate as to who is actually there. And like I said, I assume that invitations to these briefings were done informally, by phone or email. When the journalists arrived at the White House briefing room, they were then escorted by someone to where it happened. So there wouldn’t be a record, unless someone had put together a list on an email or something.

This analysis assumes the same old-fashioned approaches that got us where we are. Delivering different messages, each addressing the respective interests of the respective audiences, just makes sense. Obama, along with most of the country, is sick to death of the either-or, zero-sum politics of the last generation. If Dionne and his professionally inflexible colleagues of every stripe are unable adapt to a new approach they’ll soon soon suffer the fate of other unsuccessful species.

For too long the relevant question in the Village has been “What is [X] saying?” What we want and need to know now is “What ideas and policies will get the job done?” We’ve run out of interest in the junior-high approach to governance, and to the junior-high newspaper coverage that has gone with it. Here’s hoping the exceptions, like KT’s substantive reporting on actual issues in the health care realm, become the new norm.

Thank you so much for responding to commentary, KT, and for adding that incredibly helpful clarifying information.

Howdy KT. Sorta OT, but since it’s a holiday, maybe you would like to comment on this piece by publius:
.
So let’s say I’m Helene Cooper of the NYT. And let’s say I have a great idea for an article — the premise is that Obama knocks down pretend strawmen in his speeches just like Bush used to do (e.g., "Some have said…").
.
It would be a good idea for an article — if it were true. But it’s not, as about 15 minutes of Google and Lexis would show. But Cooper went ahead and wrote it anyway.
.
…

.
Follow the link to read publius’ analysis.

I think it’s extremely important, hopeful, and healthy for Obama to solicit input from leading opinion leaders and pundits. It’s a mark of Obama’s stated objective to stay out of his bubble and listen to outside voices. And I think that it makes sense to get a reading from different sides of the issue about where they might go with a proposed policy. How else are you going to get a sense of what might be the thorniest issues from both sides without actually consulting them, throwing out the ideas for discussion? I disagree with Dionne who thinks he is being “manipulated” and I disagree with Karen who thinks he is sending “mixed messages.” I call it soliciting input from all sides of the issue. What’s wrong with that?

J,LA: Don’t think they call in columnists to solicit input. Sounds like it was spinning.

also, J,LA, not sure that a bunch of DC columnists/editorialists exactly count as “outside voices.”

wv,
that was an excellent take-down of Helene Cooper’s silly piece from yesterday. I’ve been reading her shallow, lazy stuff lately and she is quite a piece of work. I don’t know how she gets a job writing about politics on the NY effin’ Times, when they have Peter Baker on the bench.

KT
well who better to talk to about where DC is going to go with the expected hyperventilation and pearl clutching than to the sources themselves?

J,LA: Description of the session by Dionne, who was there, was that it was to “sell them on the substance.” No mention of “solicit input.”

Also, no mention of pearl clutching. Phrase was “sell them.”

Also, KT,
can you please provide me and your other loyal, fervent fans with your definition of “spinning”?

Did you say that was Dionne’s words? Or is that the Administration’s words?

Are you trying to tell me that there will be no pearl-clutching? That’ll be a first.

Also, J,LA, I will repeat Dionne’s description:
.
The idea, as far as I can determine, was to sell the liberal group on those aspects of Obama’s plan that are a break from George W. Bush’s policies, and to sell the centrist group on the toughness of the president’s approach and the fact that it squares with Bush’s more moderate moves later in his second term.
.
Again, he was there for at least one of them. Sure sounds like mixed message to me.

J,LA: This was the perception of a person who was invited to the session. In the room. Unlike either you or me.

J,LA: Spinning (as I’m sure you and our other readers are aware) is attempting to shape a narrative. That is why those silly sessions after presidential debates are called “spin rooms.”

And speaking of silly, this kind of engagement is not a good use of a holiday. Happy Memorial Day everyone!

An opinion, yes. Dionne cynically uses the word “sell” which is his perception. Perception is very personal, and he is giving his own take. Fine. And you go along with his cynical take, fine.
.
See, Karen, I think we are talking about ONE policy, which they know will not be in accordance with the goals of either side. So, trying to get input from –as I said — **opinion leaders** (which is why they invited people who write OPINION COLUMNS in the national press [man! are you cynical!]) and pundits only makes sense. It makes sense to know where the fault lines are going to be, and if they are too substantial maybe you rethink some of it. That’s a far cry from the bushies, I think who as far as I know *never* solicited input from the opposition.
.

While Republicans have demonstrated that they are not “masters of their domain”, I think Obama deserves a little bit more time to clean up their mess.
.
Oh. Yuck.

What Karen Tumulty said>/a<.

…i.e. “not sure that a bunch of DC columnists/editorialists exactly count as “outside voices.””
.
How much more right can a Time political reporter be in a single statement?

.
Politicians giving different messages for different audiences? I’m just shocked, I tell ya…

This sounds more communicative than manipulative. If Obama’s action is the same I don’t see a problem using different angles to explain it. Obviously the 2 groups and the people who read them would have different questions and concerns. If compared to the previous admin I see this more as a way for Obama to speak to their concerns rather than just realeasing a brief description of his actions with a snub to anyone who dare ask more.

hellslittlestangel ,
I’m hoping that you aren’t a Seinfeld fan.

If Obama’s action is the same I don’t see a problem using different angles to explain it.
.
This would make sense if what was being discussed existed along a continuum of “how nice/mean to we want to be?” Obama could tailor his message to his audience. But what Obama is selling doesn’t exist in a smooth continuum. There is a sharp line at the question “is What I’m doing legal?” Obama is putting effort at making our treatment of detainees ‘legaler’ but has thrown his hat in with those who insist that people can and should be imprisoned forever for nothing more than their political allegiance.
.
The fact that none of the people in either room see the question in those terms leads me to the conclusion that while Dionne may be fantasizing about the marginalization of the far right, the permanent marginalization of the ACLU, EFF and its allies is assured and unchanging.

Not more than a week ago I heard Dionne admit that this town remains wired for Republican rule and he said this to explain why the GOP still carried so much sway with the national press corps. So perhaps Dionne is being a bit disingenuous and KT protests a bit too much in their critique of Obama. What he has called selling and she spin seems more like trying to emphasize their intentions and interpretations. They, after all are being forced to compete with a right wing narrative that the voters have thoroughly rejected, has proven to be a failure and was built on lies and deceit and yet the press insist on making their default position. Perhaps if journalists, in the immortal words of Rachel Maddow, would learn to privilege correct information over incorrect information on their own there would be no need to revisit and reemphasize the administration’s message with different segments of the press corp. But alas until the press learns to ignore Republican lies, exaggerations, omissions and distortions, they have no choice but to sell baby sell.

Where would the President get the idea that he could just tell modern journalists something and expect them to repeat it like a bunch of stenographers?
Crazy.

PD, is he saying they should be imprisoned forever? Or just until a procedure for their trials can be specified and acted upon?

I’m rather shocked that Karen seems to believe this is something nefarious, or even a new fangled idea: “selling” something which has many aspects to a group of people by highlighting a particular aspect which has special appeal to a particular group inside that bigger group. This is as old as man was able to communicate. I’m pretty sure even the primates do it.

I come away with the impression that the WH is trying to keep various constituencies happy/engaged – or better yet – “feel” that they are being engaged. Given that the chaps at Powerline and the Malkintes are getting no invites this looks like at attempt to keep the centre right, centre left and the left feel that they are being “consulted”.

When I read that Glenn Greenwald and some DFH e.g. Atrios, Digby, Jane Hamsher, Marcy Wheeler are invited for an “exchange” I will know that the Message Manager is listening to people who can detect bs without needing to smell it. But if its Isikoff, Dionne etc then I reach for a pinch of salt.

Paul Dirks: “Obama is putting effort at making our treatment of detainees ‘legaler’ but has thrown his hat in with those who insist that people can and should be imprisoned forever for nothing more than their political allegiance.”

This is rather disingeneous. What’s at stake is not their political allegiance. What’s at stake is the question whether they are willing and able to commit future acts of terrorism. I fully agree that this is an extremely tricky and dangerous path and can very easily be abused. But it’s also not an entirely alien concept in law.

polderjongen: “But it’s also not an entirely alien concept in law”: can you elaborate? And which law?

What’s at stake is the question whether they are willing and able to commit future acts of terrorism.
.
What’s at stake is the enlightenment-era notion that the state need not simply assert that individuals are dangerous to society, but must prove according to lawful standards that this is the case prior to depriving them of human rights.

Let’s parse the specific paragraph shall we?
.
But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who have received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans.
.
I won’t pretend that Obama isn’t in a bit of a pickle over this but “expressed allegiance to Osama Bin Laden” is a pretty wide-open category. If you’re old enough to recognize the phrase ”
“Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party” then you know that the path Obama has chosen is exceedingly slippery.
.
No one wants to free people who are dangerous, but creating a new category of ThoughtCrime hardly seems like the ideal solution.

More:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/feingold-to-obama-preventive-detention-is-unconstitutional.php

I’m with Paul Dirks, stuart, etc. on this.
.
I have sincerely tried to be persuaded by Obama and his defenders, but I can’t. I still think it’s politically unfeasible to release obviously guilty detainees who can’t be prosecuted in civilian courts because the evidence against them was obtained illegally. But he has gone far beyond the need to accommodate that unfortunate political reality Bush left him with.
.
The bottom line is that it’s not possible for civilized societies to imprison everyone who poses a potential threat to their national security. I understand that’s an unpopular sentiment among certain people, but unpopularity is a small price to pay for civilization.

I recall all kinds of threats being made by White Supremacists and the government of the day did not think about preventive detention. Is this kind of argument gaining traction because it will only affect our Islamic opponents spread around the world?

Well, first of all he says:
~~~
There are 240 people there who have now spent years in legal limbo.
.
First, when feasible, we will try those who have violated American criminal laws in federal courts – courts provided for by the United States Constitution.
.
The second category of cases involves detainees who violate the laws of war and are best tried through Military Commissions. Military commissions have a history in the United States dating back to George Washington and the Revolutionary War.
.
The third category of detainees includes those who we have been ordered released by the courts.
.
The fourth category of cases involves detainees who we have determined can be transferred safely to another country.
.
Finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people.
~~
Then he goes on, before your somewhat cherry-picked phrase, PD:
We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States.

E.J. Dionne: “Unbeknownst to the writers until afterward, they had been divided into two groups, one more centrist with a sprinkling of moderate conservatives, the other more liberal. (I was in the liberal group.)”

-

Translation for the pro-America community (i.e., normal Americans): “Unbeknownst to the writers until afterward, they had been divided into two groups, one leftist with a sprinkling of the sane, the other more militantly leftist. (Dionne was in the more militantly leftist group.)”

Yes James, he’s going to do his best but as I said at the top of the thread, we’re dealing with a binary question here. Is what he’s propsing legal or illegal? – Constitutional or Unconstitutional? And having created a precident by which people can be detained, bypassing the standard mechanisms to determine their guilt or innocence, what will the next President do with his new-found powers. The Russ Feingold letter makes the point clearly.

And if you think that “civilized” nations do not detain people without trial or due process, you may not know that under public health laws and immigration laws, the US already does it. For example, non-compliant TB patients and typhoid carriers can be involuntarily detained without trial, as can people who are deemed a “danger to oneself or others.” There are any number of people who came to the US as refugees seeking asylum who are involuntarily detained without due process as well.
.
I’m not arguing for the idea, just noting that it is already being done without public uproar.
.
And what are you going to do with the people who have been so damaged by their extreme, prolonged torture that they are rendered unable to care for themselves? Like Jose Padilla. What would you do with him? He can’t function any longer.

James LA: Your last bold type sentence: what does may mean in this context? Is this another way of saying: we will end up with people we cannot prosecute because of insufficient evidence/proof but we need to detain them, anyway, and we are putting together a rationale for this and trying to find a lawful way to do so. Doesn’t sound kosher.

Well, I think he said he would be looking to resolve the issue in a constitutional way with the help of Congress and the courts, PD.

bitter, I am not defending this notion. Don’t misunderstand me. I am noting that it is already being done.

Most of the people who defend Obama on this seem to be basing their arguments on his essential goodwill and reasonableness. I share a similar confidence in Obama. I do not think he will be indefinitely detaining innocent people. But the problem is that the justice of a policy should not rest on the President’s personal character. It’s fundamentally undemocratic. It’s also dangerous, because a. we could all be misjudging Obama’s character or the office could corrupt him and b. it’s likely that eventually a President with a lesser moral character will be elected.

James LA: just read PD and your reply. I don’t know. We do keep sick people in restraints, etc. But that at least had a medical basis.

A pickle indeed. I don’t recognize all the uses of the communist party phrase/comparison, but it seems that explosives training and commanding troops in battle goes a bit deeper than a political view or position. However I side with sz, pd and aclu regarding the constitution and human rights, and I’m trying to believe Obama does too. Maybe this has not been fully explored:
.
Mr. Obama would write an entirely new chapter in American law to permit “prolonged detention” — just as at Guantánamo, but with oversight by the courts and Congress
.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/us/politics/22obama.html?pagewanted=2

And if you think that “civilized” nations do not detain people without trial or due process, you may not know that under public health laws and immigration laws, the US already does it. For example, non-compliant TB patients and typhoid carriers can be involuntarily detained without trial, as can people who are deemed a “danger to oneself or others.”
.
James, LA, but they are tested for TB and typhoid. There is objective evidence that these people actually do pose a threat to others. The government can’t just say, “You look like you have TB so we’re going to detain you for a few years without even confirming our diagnosis with medical tests.”

You are correct, rose, and it is extremely rare that involuntary detention is used for public health reasons. But when it is, as I understand it, constitutional guarantees are not applicable. It has always been a source of amazement for me.

bitterpill8, look up inchoate offences like conspiracy, solicitation, facilitation, misprision of felony (and misprision generally), organized crime, RICO, and attempt.

Paul Dirks, let me put it this way: if the sole act of pledging allegiance to OBL is sufficient to get you locked up indefenitely, then I’m with you on the barricades. But that’s not how I interpreted that paragraph. And the crux for me is in the phrase “or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans”.

And yes, I’m old enough to remember that although I’m European.

You are correct, rose, and it is extremely rare that involuntary detention is used for public health reasons. But when it is, as I understand it, constitutional guarantees are not applicable. It has always been a source of amazement for me.
-
One major difference James: a public health detention can be challenged in court. The fact of a public health detention does not preclude their rights to due process and their rights to stand in front of a judge (with whatever safeguards are deemed necessary) and state their case. The success or failure in these cases really isn’t the point: the fact that they can CHALLENGE their detention is. That’s the point of this whole mishegas that is sticking in my crop so bad. They have every right to stand before a judge and have that judge determine whether the state has a right to keep them detained. Period. If we fail on that then our republic is dead.

The dilemma for Obama is: As CiC, if there are people currently imprisoned, who are known to pose a security threat, but who cannot be tried in normal courts because of Bush-era #### ups, do you (a) release them and wash your hands of it, or (b) keep them imprisoned and try to come up with some kind of legal framework, albeit a jerry-rigged one?
.
I lean toward Rose and PD’s position, but honestly I don’t know what should be done. Looping in Congress and the courts would be a good first step.
.
Now, if it’s a question of picking up people who are not already in custody and holding those people in “preventive detention,” that would be unequivocally bad IMO and a repeat of the Bush era.

constitutional guarantees are not applicable
.
They are still applicable.
.
The relevant guarantee is:
.
No person shall be [...] deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
.
I’m confident that involuntary commitments and other public health measures have been found by the courts to constitute ‘due process.’
.
Again the problem with Obama’s plan is that everyone who falls through all the filters to get to the fifth tier are by definition the ones who cannot be successfully tried for crimes because they have’t commited any.

yutsano,
right. The success or failure in these cases really isn’t the point: the fact that they can CHALLENGE their detention is.
.
It isn’t clear that these hypothetical remaining detained persons could not challenge their detention in court either, is it?

Again the problem with Obama’s plan is that everyone who falls through all the filters to get to the fifth tier are by definition the ones who cannot be successfully tried for crimes because they have’t commited any.
-
Actually, that’s not what Obama is arguing. What he is arguing is those in the fifth tier are guilty of SOMETHING, they just can’t prove what it is and it may or may not be related to their detention. In a normal court this would be dismissed without prejudice until the state could come up with some other reason to charge them.

PD,
You are right that involuntarily detained persons under public health laws do have rights of habeas corpus. It isn’t clear that the detained persons in question here wouldn’t have rights of habeas corpus, either.
.
Again the problem with Obama’s plan is that everyone who falls through all the filters to get to the fifth tier are by definition the ones who cannot be successfully tried for crimes because they have’t commited any.
.
Well, neither has someone with TB either, for example, or who is deemed a danger to self or others. I think you are presuming that there would be no legal process such as habeas corpus, and that hasn’t been established, to my knowledge.

“Unbeknownst to the writers until afterward, they had been divided into two groups, one more centrist with a sprinkling of moderate conservatives, the other more liberal”
~
Ah, I see, the other group is “more liberal.” Cool, all’s good–I can rest assured they got it covered. That’s like saying I’m more handsome than Arlen Specter. Would that that actually means I’m “handsome.” I think PNNTO mentioned the stenography brigade, and I agree. If this were Bush wooing the courtiers we’d be united in our contempt.
~
In fact, Obama is selling his thus-far dodgy Gitmo policies to a compliant center-right press corps. And that media is, as always, far more concerned with the sales pitch, degrees of “mastery” et al than it is with the substance of the issue. Thus, in Maddow’s words, our [consumers] “privileging” sources of news that, ahem, do their f’ing job.

PS–How long until Joe Klein posts about N. Korea’s missile launches, hysterically flailing his arms?

polderjogen: thanks. I am aware of some ways RICO has been used which will not pass a smell test; but the villains had little public sympathy. It is the same with the jihadis. They will have no sympathy here. But we are either a nation operating under the rule of law within the Constitution we have or we are open to making special exemptions. Other nations have suspended their constitutions, and given your European background I have Hitler’s example in the back of my mind.

I don’t envy our President’s dilemma, and I accept that he is not deliberately seeking to subvert our Constitution. I am only concerned that he may be looking at the kinds of compromises which will, in the end, compromise him.

I think you are presuming that there would be no legal process such as habeas corpus, and that hasn’t been established, to my knowledge.
-
Once habeas enters the debate, that will end the process because those in the fifth tier have nothing on which they cannot be charged. A judge would be obligated to order their immediate release, and the right would be up in arms whipping up the less-than-knowledgable in a frenzy faster than you can say Jack Robinson. The very definition of the fifth tier has to preclude the rights of habeas or otherwise there is no need to even bother to define it. It’s too much of a power grab and stinks to high heaven. Personally I wish Obama would just grow some huevos and send them all home.

Well, will everyone please go read this:
.
ACLU and Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Stanford Law School Challenge Indefinite Detention in Southern California Facilities | Stanford Law School

On behalf of four immigrant detainees who are being held indefinitely in Southern California, the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, and the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Stanford Law School announced today it has asked a federal judge to put an immediate end to their illegal detention.
.
“These people have been kept away from their families, their communities, and their lives for years—as many as four years or more —without even a hearing to determine if their prolonged detention is justified,” said Ahilan Arulanantham, an ACLU of Southern California staff attorney. “Many of them are refugees, and others are immigrants with U.S. citizen spouses, children, and full lives in Southern California. Yet they are being indefinitely detained while they fight their immigration cases. This is not what America stands for.”

and this:
Detention of Asylum-seekers in the United States

. The U.S. Congress passed the 1980 Refugee Act to better align U.S. refugee law with international standards. Since its passage, however, the detention of asylum-seekers has become an administratively and politically popular option in the asylum determination process even though asylum-seekers are not convicted criminals, but are persons who fled persecution in their home country. While in detention, many asylum-seekers endure inhumane or degrading treatment, such as inadequate access to medical care and overcrowding. As a result, the INS violates the asylum-seekers rights to be free from detention and cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment.

.
I mean, where’s the outrage?
Again, I’m not *advocating* the scheme, I’m just saying that indefinite detention *is already being done* in the US and elsewhere.

Italy might be giving Obama a way out:
-
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/05/25/italy.guantanamo/index.html
-
We’ll see how this shapes up since Switzerland promised to take some as well and I haven’t heard what happened with that since.

yutsano: Thanks for the link. I would certainly like to see some foriegn countries take the problem off of our hands. This is a political nightmare for Obama. There’s nothing he can do that isn’t going to infuriate one group or another. Indefintie detention without charges or a trial goes against everything we stand for. Obama inherited what is basically a problem without a solution. I have no idea what the correct answer is. I’d just like it to be somebody else’s problem. Handing them off to someone else doesn’t reslove anything. It just makes it less of a talking point for us. It will still be a mess.

There is really only one group that should be released and can be safely in the US: the Uighur Muslims (I believe there are twelve) that had no reason to be there to begin with except some shady dealings with China I suspect. The rest should be taken on a plane to Aviano and Berlusconi can have at them.

BTW this is completely and totally OT, but KT is there any way of purchasing a picture from TIME? I think that portrait that they use for the Michelle Obama interview is a simply sublime photo of her and would make a great piece of artwork.

The very definition of the fifth tier has to preclude the rights of habeas or otherwise there is no need to even bother to define it. It’s too much of a power grab and stinks to high heaven.
_
moreover, the very existence of that fifth tier makes it far more likely that indefinite preventive detention will occur.
_
The problem with Obama’s “policy” is that it “guilt” is determined before “process”…. those whose guilt can be established through “civilian” courts will get that level of due process; but if the government thinks you’re “guilty”, but doesn’t think it can get a conviction in civilian courts, “due process” becomes a completely “flexible” concept. You get just as much “due process” as is compatible with a guaranteed conviction, and if a conviction can’t be guaranteed, you’re just indefinitely detained.
_
one other point — while Obama tries to minimize the impact that his indefinite detention policies will have by talking about it in terms of the 240 prisoners at Guantanamo, its a much, much larger problem, involving hundreds (if not thousands or tens of thousands) of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq (and who knows where else). Indeed, Guantanamo is just the tip of the iceberg — once the courts decided that Gitmo detainees had constitutional rights, Bushco stopped sending people there (the last 10 came from Afghanistan in September 2004, the Hamden case was decided in November 2004), but all that means is that they are being sent elsewhere to be indefinitely detained.
_
Ultimately, as others have noted, the Oborg seem to forget the single most important issue — the question isn’t whether Obama will abuse the powers he is claiming, its the potential for abuse when those powers are turned over to someone other than The Lightbringer.