Today's speech from President Obama was kind of like his presidency so far: at least 75% impressive, heartening, and inspiring to watch...and about 25% really disturbing. He has been rightly applauded for decisively rejecting the ludicrous fear-mongering around the transferring of Gitmo detainees to American prisons. He also made some great statements about transparency (information should be released unless there's a compelling reason not to), about presidential power (decisions on detainees shouldn't rest with one person), and about why Gitmo makes us less safe.

But he also, for I believe the first time, explicitly made the case for a system of indefinite detention for certain detainees - a truly radical proposal, made even more insidious by its couching in soaring rhetoric about the Constitution. And he pledged that no one who could be dangerous to the U.S. will be released - something he can't personally guarantee unless he retains the power to be the sole arbiter of certain detainees' fates. So here are some questions I hope someone will ask the President and/or his representatives as soon as possible:

---
-About military commissions, you say:

They allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence-gathering; they allow for the safety and security of participants; and for the presentation of evidence gathered from the battlefield that cannot always be effectively presented in federal courts.

Could you describe exactly what sources and methods could not be adequately protected in a federal court in, for instance, an in camera hearing with a judge? How would participants not be safe and secure in a federal court? And could you describe exactly the kind of evidence that cannot be effectively presented in federal court and why not? And how does all this jibe with your assertion that the nation's courts are quite capable of trying terrorists and have done so in the past?

-Could you please describe in detail what legal framework you envision that could make indefinite detention of people of your choosing Constitutionally and legally permissible?

-You pledged in your speech that any system of indefinite detention would be subject to judicial and congressional review. What exactly would be the system of judicial review?

-Do you intend to continue to assert the state secrets privilege during this review process, and if so, how can we be assured that the judge(s) will have adequate evidence to evaluate the case?

-You say there will be Congressional oversight. What form will this take? Under the Bush administration, Congressional "oversight" meant informing 4 senior members of Congress of a decision, who were then not allowed to discuss the information with anyone, not even their staffs. Will you devise a system of Congressional oversight that allows members of Congress to make informed judgments about your proposals and have some recourse by which to protest those proposals?

-You've pledged that no one who is a danger to America will be released. If judicial or Congressional review finds you don't have the grounds to hold a detainee you believe to be dangerous, will you disregard those findings?

-You spoke of our deepest values in your speech. Isn't habeas corpus, with us since the Magna Carta, the fundamental basis of a free society? And in order to keep your pledge not to release anyone you deem dangerous, won't you have to dispense with habeas corpus?

-Your point about the need for the government to keep certain information and evidence secret is well-taken. But in the case, for instance, of the photos of detainee abuse the release of which you are now opposing, aren't you essentially asking the American people just to trust your assertions that these are photos of isolated incidents for which people have already been held accountable? Why should we, when we've been repeatedly lied to about such issues in the past?

-If your answer is that you are fashioning a way for Congress and the courts to review your decisions on these matters, can you give details on what that oversight mechanism will be?

-You said in your speech that your administration is nearing completion of a thorough review of use of the state secrets privilege, which you say you want to be limited. If so, why have you sought actively to have several lawsuits dismissed under that privilege, instead of asking for a continuance while you finish your review - a continuance the plaintiffs were happy to give you?

-If one of your concerns about looking into the actions of the previous administration is that inevitable partisan rancor will obstruct your legislative goals, why do you want the inquiries of Congressional committees - all run by Democrats - to continue, instead of supporting an independent commission that would take the investigations out of the hands of partisan political players?
---

One final thought on these matters. I think it's a little crazy that, in a speech in which he so eloquently laid out why Guantanamo is bad for our national security precisely because it undermines our values, President Obama called out those of us who advocate for full disclosure and transparency as absolutists who would put transparency over national security. We advocate for getting all the information out because we believe that knowing what our government is doing - or in the cases where we can't know everything, ensuring that there is oversight of the actions of the executive - is precisely what keeps us safe.

When Obama makes his argument that, for instance, the detainee abuse photos shouldn't be released because they'll inflame sentiment abroad, one of the reasons this doesn't scan is that people abroad already know what we do. Thousands of people from all over the Middle East (mostly Iraq and Afghanistan) have gone through our detention system, from Abu Ghraib to Bagram to Guantanamo to the CIA black sites. The only people who don't know what's going on in our detention system are Americans. And we can't advocate for our government to stop doing things that hurt our national security (by, for instance, cycling thousands of people through our detention sites) if we don't know about them.