Obama: I can so hold you indefinitely without trial if I want [Reader Post]

drj in OP: Now why would he even need to say that were it not possible?

Of course it’s possible, drj. Nor is this anything new, much as you and some of the media attempt to redress it as an anti-Obama political talking point. Just isn’t going to fly because of realities.

Johnny Walker Lindh, American citizen, was captured with the Taliban after being flushed out of caves by the Northern Alliance, held without charges, and interrogated, for about two months in Afghanistan before they finally made charges and flew him back for trial. He was sentenced to 20 years. He was with the jihadists pre-Sept 11th, stayed post that attack, and captured in Afghanistan about a month after Sept 11th.

Jose Padilla is another US citizen that was first detained in spring of 2002 for a few months on a “material witness” warrant, then held as an enemy combatant. He then filed for habeas corpus in the Rumsfeld v Padilla lawsuit, and the 4th Circuit said absolutely he could be held.

That went all the way to SCOTUS, with the burning question, “Does Congress’s “Authorization for use of Military Force” authorize the President to detain a United States citizen based on a determination that he is an enemy combatant, or is that power precluded by the Non-Detention Act?”

Finally, in 2006, SCOTUS issued an opinion… but not on the merits of the case (aka the main question above). Instead they dodged the bullet and the majority opined (5-4) that the lawsuit was improperly filed. Hence, no real definitive SCOTUS opinion on the main question, is infinite detention of a US citizen as an enemy combatant, legal. However the 4th Circuit opinion that says yes still stands as the highest ruling on that.

Padilla stayed in custody and wasn’t indicted until early 2007, about five years after original detainment and after sundry court challenges first for habeas corpus, then to get moved from military custody to the federal courts. At that point, his Miami trial was “speedy”, and he was convicted and sentenced to over 17 years in prison.

Now you can argue whether you believe it’s correct for the military to detain those suspected of waging war, associating with those waging war, or aiding those waging war – i.e. enemy combatants – against the US without formal charges.

But you can’t even begin to portray this as an “Obama” thing and expect to maintain any credibility in light of history.

In fact, if this is the direction you want to go, you should be praising Obama, getting ready to cast your next ballot for him in Nov. The more broad definition of an enemy combatant – created and enacted by a Republican Congress and POTUS – under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 explicitly defines members of the Taliban, al Qaeda and associated forces as unlawful enemy combatants. But one of Obama’s first acts as the WH temporary denizen was to have his Justice Dept withdraw the enemy combatant definition for Gitmo detainees (and any future detainees), reverting only to international references for a guideline. This was, of course, supposed to prep the way to the impossible… closing Gitmo while quietly hanging on to his own, quieter Gitmo in Bagram. Of course, that airbase is short lived, and it will be interesting to see what happens to all those bad guys. Wordsmith made a recent cyber trip back to Bagram with a post just a couple of months ago, in fact.

When Obama strips that more liberal definition for Gitmo detainees, he has also stripped it for Americans who are cavorting with the terrorists as well… making it *far* more difficult to detain anyone at all, regardless of nationality. So instead of getting in a huff over what Bush has been doing for years (and I agree with his doing it, and of Obama’s continuation of many of those policies), why aren’t you happy that Obama has actually eliminated that “enemy combatant” category and making it much tougher to keep the bad guys locked up… even if they are psuedo Americans… that are conspiring and aiding our enemies?

I’ve tried to point out quite a few times that ya’ll are getting your knickers in a twist about the misrepresentation of the enacted Defense Appropriations Act. which does nothing different than before but extend the original AUMF language from just al Qaeda/Taliban to the global jihad network and ever morphing affiliates. US citizens who fit that terrorist “enemy combatant” … er, bad guy according to international standards… category will not be treated differently.

But the criteria to detain anyone who is a US citizen will be under a much larger microscope than the foreign enemy combatants, just as Lindh and Padilla were in their time.

Of course I did get a grin about you worrying about whether Obama detains them anyway, drj. I was sorta under the impression you believed Obama didn’t care much about that pesky step of detainment, and just sent out an execution squad instead…. Anwar al-Awlaki style. LOL

@DrJohn… LOL! Yessir, I know your Obama venom runs deep. Not that I have any love for this CiC or POTUS either, mind you. But I think I process some events differently than you.

Obama did not issue a “denial”. He merely made a signing statement… again, not just an “Obama thing” and, in fact, signing statements date back to Monroe… making observations on one part of the legislation they are signing. Considering that you don’t want to see indefinite detention for American jihadist bad guys, I’m confused why you aren’t singing his praises.

Certainly, if there is convincing enough evidence while Obama still temporarily resides in the people’s house, he would authorize a detention of an American citizen. I believe that had there been a feasible way to capture al-Awlaki, he would have done just that.

The difference between Bush and Obama is the criteria Obama will demand as evidence is likely to be more strict than the Bush admin would have demanded. Considering your viewpoint, this should make Obama far more appealing than Bush on this issue to you.

@Nan G, not exactly sure of any cogent tangent in that comment, girl. Obama may have many opinions and degrees of “enemies”… political and otherwise. I don’t think I would argue that his viewpoint of allies in the Middle East, Asia, as well as his meddling policies (including being on the wrong side in Honduras) is any way close to mine.. or yours.

But I certainly do not believe that Obama would be able to “detain” political enemies since that would require the willing participation of far too many agencies, military and law enforcement manpower. Even when the al-Awlaki mission was being considered, the CIA wasn’t about to go ahead with it until it had an AG opinion in their hands with a credible verification of Constitutional authorization.

Checks and balances, albeit slowly eroding, still remain in place because we still have more good patriots than we have power hungry mongrels.

@Richard Wheeler, yup… but they keep following me around. LOL