« Testing for a MovableType Blogger Function | PseudoCyAnts's Blog | American Spectator's Hillyer: paranoia amidst tawdry self-promotion »

Military Commissions: 'a huge amount of justice'


Press Briefing by White House Press Secretary Dana Perino, October 21, 2008

Q Dana, has the President reached a decision on whether or not he'll close Guantanamo Bay? There's a report today that he's decided he will not.

Ms. Perino: I read that report, and I honestly think, if you went back and you read my briefing from July 3rd, you could have written the same story. I don't see anything that's new in that story.

What the President has said is that he wants to be able to get into a position where we could close Guantanamo eventually. But it's very complex, it's complicated, it is difficult. There are four basic issues that we're dealing with right now. One of them is moving forward on military commissions. That process is slow, but it is moving forward. Another one is returning home or to a third country many of the detainees. We had as many as 600 detainees at one point; we are now down to about 270. So we're continuing to work on that problem. Third, we're in habeas litigation when it comes to the Boumediene decision and then the recent decision from Judge Urbina on the Uigher case. Just last night, the appeals court agreed with us and stayed that decision. So we have that litigation going on. And General Mukasey, backed by the President, supports legislation that Congress needs to pass. And one of the bills that we could support has been introduced by Senators Graham, Lieberman, and McCain.

So there are four issues. And I'm sure that this President and the next President will come in and realize how complicated this issue is, and that we are working very diligently to try to do everything right. And it's not as easy as just snapping your fingers and closing Guantanamo Bay -- unless you don't care. Because 7 percent of the people who have been returned from Gitmo have returned to the battlefield. Many of them have been picked up again. One of them couldn't be picked up again because he was a suicide bomber who killed nearly 40 people in Mosul.

So we are working on it. But it's very difficult. It's slow work. But it's slow work because we are being very diligent in making sure that we do everything that we can to make sure that potential terrorists aren't in a position to be able to hurt innocent people again.

Q So this isn't a decision you expect the President will take or something that will happen before he leaves office?

Ms. Perino: There's nothing -- the President has made a decision to work to try to close Guantanamo Bay. That has not changed.

[. . .]

Q What has the President done to try and close Gitmo?

Ms. Perino: I just talked about how 600 members -- we used to have 600 detainees; we now have 272. We're moving forward to try to ask Congress to put forward the legislation. We are dealing with the habeas litigation, and we're moving forward on military commissions.

Q All those seem to be efforts -- the habeas litigation and the commissions are efforts to justify Gitmo, to defend Gitmo. But what's he doing to try and close it? There's no evidence of an attempt to find an alternative to Gitmo --

Ms. Perino: I disagree, Wendell, when you have --

Q -- considering holding these people, for example, in Afghanistan, where many were picked up.

Ms. Perino: I think you need to go back to the fact that there were, at one point, upwards of 600 detainees at Gitmo. We now are down to about 272. And that's because we've been able to return a lot of them back to their home countries, or to a third country, where we get the assurances that we seek.

That's the main thing that we were trying to do. And we've cut it down by two-thirds, and we've got a ways to go. We have also some very dangerous people there. Remember, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is in Guantanamo Bay. So it's not as easy as just snapping your fingers and figuring out where else to put them.

There are also immigration laws. One of the big concerns that we have with the Judge Urbina decision from two weeks ago is that it created a whole third -- a whole other category of immigration without consulting Congress. So for example, in our country we have legal aliens who are here with documentation. They might have a work visa or a green card or they might be applying for citizenship.

Then you have aliens who are not here legally, also called undocumented. What Judge Urbina did was create a whole third category that would say you can legally be here in the United States without any background checks, and without any documentation, and just be released into the United States. And that's why I believe that the courts have agreed with us that that decision should be stayed.

These are issues that are complex. We are working towards them. But you can't -- if you care about innocent people, and the President does, you can't just snap your fingers and let these detainees back out into the world without some sort of assurance that they're not going to be able to hurt innocent people again.

Q The problem you're having with the detainees are those that you don't have evidence enough to convict. Those are the ones that have been released, and some of those have come back, which argues against them being picked up in the first place.

Ms. Perino: I don't think you can say that about all 272 detainees. When it comes to the Uighers, we have been working very hard to find a place for them to be. We want them to be safe, and we want them to be free. But in order to do that, we have to find a place where they can be safe. And that has been a challenge.

Q Why were they picked up then?

Ms. Perino: They were picked up at an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan. So that doesn't mean that they're an enemy against the United States.

Q And yet there's not enough evidence to bring them to trial.

Ms. Perino: But that's 17 Uighers; we're talking about 17 out of 272 people that we're currently talking about. If this was easy, Wendell, we would have solved it a long time ago. But we have picked up very dangerous people who have been -- who have received weapons training or other -- or they've been picked up in other places around the world. The military commission's process provides a huge amount of justice -- justice that these people never would have received in their own country. But it's a slow process; we admit that. But we're doing it diligently and we're trying to do it right.


We're Americans; supposed to be better than the rest. Justice cannot be rated, using as a standard of referent, the acts of an authoritarian state.


8 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Thanks for posting this.

The MCA was defective from the very get-go and I used to argue this ferociously over at Balkinization.

The Act set up a shadow legal system that afforded fewer protections to the accused than did the already quite adequate system in place.

Since the administration of justice was defective, there have been wholesale defections by career JAG officers assigned to make it work.

There is a good book out by a fellow Portlander, "Kafka Comes to America" narrating his experiences as a federal defense counsel at Gitmo. Recommended reading.

user-pic

You're welcome. Note how little attention this got on a site that is predominantly Democratic though. Note also that Kenneth Starr was opposed to The Military Commissions Act.

The Rights of Humans matter to real Americans, and this is not a partisan issue. The Democrats are the lamer of two evils, but there time as sitting ducks in the shooting gallery is fast approaching...

user-pic

I am hoping that the two worst pieces of legislation in the last 6 years, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention, and the Military Commissions Act will both be neutered a bit if we can get the votes.

FISA II will have to get trimmed also.

Obama and the Democrats have their work cut out for them, if they get to take their seats. There is a tremendous amount of repair work to be done....

user-pic

There's a decent start on the Military Commissions Act:

H.R. 7056: Interrogation and Detention Reform Act of 2008

It was introduced by Congressman David E. Price (D-NC 4th) on September 24, 2008, and presently has 10 cosponsors:

  1. Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR 3rd)
  2. Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro (D-CT 3rd)
  3. Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey (D-NY 22nd)
  4. Rep. Rush D. Holt (D-NJ 12th)
  5. Rep. John B. Larson (D-CT 1st)
  6. Rep. James P. McGovern (D-MA 3rd)
  7. Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC 13th)
  8. Rep. John W. Olver (D-MA 1st)
  9. Rep. Janice D. Schakowsky (D-IL 9th)
  10. Rep. Melvin L. Watt (D-NC 12th)

  11. It's sitting as referred in four House committees:
    • House Armed Services
    • House Judiciary
    • House Foreign Affairs
    • House Intelligence (Permanent Select)

user-pic

People do care, right now, though, it's all election all the time. Perhaps rightly so.

I think this is an important topic, and perhaps you should revisit it later.

user-pic

Joel Suarez is also like PseudoCyAnts posting a lot of serious things. Also getting lost in the torrent of posts....

But I guess the election is the focus for the next week or so.

user-pic

I'm not a Democrat, nor am I a Republican. In fact, I believe that the 2-party system is itself to blame for a great deal of the problems presently facing The Nation.

I'm willing to put up with the economic lunacy coming from the Democratic Party, only as long as they take care of Natural Liberty too. Jeffersonianism is the closest thing I relate to these days, but am still a registered member of the LP (it would be non-partisan, except when visiting the voter registrar's recently, I discovered that the change of address card was substantially less work than the change of party, which would have meant a new complete form, instead of showing my driver's license- my vehement opposition to Bob Barr's candidacy has gotten me tagged as a part of the LP's "anarchist" wing, which is greatly amusing).

P.S. Ron Paul is a poseur-libertarian putz. Here, have some fiat money. rotflmao...

user-pic

I too commend the blog, PCA. This is a hugely important issue. It relates to restoring Constitutional protections, the Rule of Law in general, and abiding by international laws and codes.

In my view you are focusing on the very issues which are at the heart of our national problems and our national shame these last 8 years. This is exactly what we need to focus on with laser intensity!

Leave a comment

PseudoCyAnts

user-pic

Following: 47
Followers: 23

Posts
Comments & Recommends


  • Party Boston Tea
  • Politics Jeffersonian

Favorites

  • Favorite Quotes "An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." Thomas Paine, "Dissertations on First Principles of Government", 1795

Bio

Walkabout in the Dreamtime America

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address