Obama asserts power to detain suspects without trial

[Antid Oto]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

Obama asserts power to detain suspects without trial
By Tom Eley
25 September 2009

The Obama administration announced this week that it intends to
continue the Bush administration policy of holding terrorism suspects
indefinitely without charge or trial.

On Wednesday, the Justice Department said that President Obama may
continue to hold “terror suspects” indefinitely and without judicial
review based on the congressional Authorization to Use Military Force
that came in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on
New York and Washington—the same rationale used by Obama’s
predecessor, George W. Bush.

The move aims to institutionalize the previous administration’s
assault on habeas corpus—the bedrock principle of democratic rights
and the civil liberties laid down in the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

The announcement is a shift from a position Obama outlined in a May 22
speech at the National Archives. There he said he would go to Congress
to obtain legislation to carry on the policy of indefinite detention,
which he claimed was the only way of dispersing a section of the
Guantánamo prison population too “dangerous” to try in civil courts.

In reality, the administration does not want to try these prisoners in
normal civilian courts because such trials would expose the use of
torture against the defendants, the evidence based on torture would be
inadmissible, and civil trials might reveal embarrassing facts about
the activities of US intelligence agencies.

“I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate
legal framework for Guantánamo detainees,” Obama said three months
ago. “[G]oing forward, my administration will work with Congress to
develop an appropriate legal regime.”

Obama’s new “legal regime,” sources said, would likely have included a
special “National Security Court,” in which hearsay evidence and
testimony extracted through torture would be admissible.

In Wednesday’s statement, the Justice Department declared the
administration “is not currently seeking additional authorization,”
but would “rely on authority already provided by Congress” under the
Authorization to Use Military Force. That resolution was, in fact,
proposed and passed as a measure only to provide congressional backing
for the invasion of Afghanistan.

Obama has decided to rely on this subterfuge and go around Congress in
order to avoid hearings and the public controversy that would be
aroused by such legislation. By simply asserting executive power, the
administration is carrying out a fundamental attack on democratic
rights without any public debate.

According to one account, the administration’s decision to carry on
indefinite detention would apply only to current Guantánamo detainees.
However, there is nothing in the underlying legal rationale—that the
Authorization of Force allows the president to arrest without charge
or trial those he declares to be members or supporters of Al Qaeda or
the Taliban—preventing Obama from applying indefinite detention to new
detainees.

It is noteworthy that this rationalization was explicitly repudiated
by the Supreme Court in its 2006 ruling against the Bush
administration’s military commissions in the case Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, declared that
there was nothing in the Authorization to Use Military Force that
“even hinted” at allowing the president to expand his war powers to
override due process.

Some civil liberties spokesmen welcomed the announcement from the
Obama administration on the grounds that legislation would be even
more destructive of democratic rights than the bare assertion of
executive power. In response, ACLU Lawyer Jonathan Hafetz, who
represented Guantánamo prisoner Mohammed Jawad in his habeas case,
said, “In fact, Obama is continuing to make the same core assertion
Bush did: the right to seize individuals anywhere in the world and
deny them a fair trial based on the notion of a global ‘war on terror.’”

Obama’s decision marks an intensification of the assault on habeas
corpus, the “great writ,” which underlays all civil liberties and
dates back to the Middle Ages. Habeas corpus stipulates that the state
must produce an arrested individual in an independent court and show
just cause for imprisonment. Failing this, the arrested individual has
“the right to have his body,” and must be released.

Also on Wednesday, the Justice Department outlined what it presented
as a democratic reinterpretation of the executive “state secrets”
privilege, which allows the federal government to deny certain
evidence from court proceedings based on the assertion that it may
endanger national security.

Rather than using the privilege to block particular pieces of
evidence, both the Bush and Obama administrations have invoked “state
secrets” as a means of shutting down entire court cases launched by
the victims of torture, extraordinary rendition, and warrantless
wiretapping.

The new parameters do not restrict the use of the privilege to thwart
court cases that challenge government abuse. Like the Bush
administration, Obama has taken the position that US methods in the
“war on terror” are beyond legal review.

“They don’t anywhere say, ‘we will not seek dismissal on state secrets
grounds at the outset [of a case]’” said Ben Wizner, an ACLU attorney.
“They say we’re going to make an effort to apply it as narrowly as
possible. But that doesn’t change what they’ve been doing all along.”

Obama’s reassertion of indefinite detention and an expansive state
secrets doctrine underscores the administration’s deeply reactionary
character. These actions join a long list of antidemocratic policies
carried over from the Bush administration.

The Obama administration has declared it has the right to carry on
illegal domestic spying operations and the practice of rendition. It
has rejected the habeas corpus rights of prisoners held at the
notorious Bagram prison in Afghanistan. And Obama has declared his
determination, in the name of “moving on,” to defend the Bush
administration and CIA agents who oversaw a global regime of torture
and murder.

These are not mistaken policies, as some liberal critics assert. The
antidemocratic abuses of the “war on terror” emerge inexorably from
the American ruling class’s turn toward aggressive war as the means of
offsetting the erosion in its economic position.

The Obama administration’s main target is not terrorism. Instead, the
framework of a police state—being prepared under conditions of mass
unemployment and deepening social misery—is to be used against
political and social opposition within the US.

Copyright © 1998-2009 World Socialist Web Site - All rights reserved

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/sep2009/obam-s25.shtml

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********