Disappointing his civil-libertarian supporters, Holder said to use “one path while blocking the use of the other” — that is, trying every terrorist suspect in a civilian court — would mean the Obama administration “would undoubtedly fail at our fundamental duty at bringing every terrorist to justice. That is simply not an outcome we can accept.” But in an implicit rebuke of his conservative critics — who he said use ”language designed to scare people, rather than educated” — the attorney general told a hushed audience, “We are a nation at war.”

Holder didn’t back away from the “many successes” of civilian courts. Specifically citing his decision to prosecute would-be Northwest Airlines flight 253 bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, saying his prosecution yielded intelligence that was “not just valuable but actionable.” And as he did before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, Holder defended the hundreds of successful prosecutions the courts have yielded, and cited the  international legitimacy they enjoy as a counterterrorism asset.

“On the other hand, military commissions are also useful in the proper circumstances,” Holder said, calling them “not only appropriate but also necessary to convict terrorists.” You could hear a pin drop. “Evidentiary rules reflect the realities of the battlefield” in the commissions, a contention civil libertarians generally reject, and Holder pledged, “I expect to refer additional cases” to the commissions. He said there was “no contradiction” in using both venues for prosecution of terrorists, saying that only al-Qaeda and its allies are applicable for trial before the commissions — and neither are American citizens like Anwar al-Awlaki, the Yemen-based alleged al-Qaeda provocateur.

“It is unfortunate and unhelpful that some of these facts have been obscured,” Holder said, calling for a “legitimate and robust conversation.” Holder said he would  ”not stand by as the hard work of the FBI… as well as our career prosecutors are maligned,” a reference to Keep America Safe’s attack on Justice Department attorneys who represented Guantanamo detainees. Using language that echoed a formulation used yesterday by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) — who opposes Holder on trying Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and the other 9/11 conspirators in federal courts — the attorney general ended by calling for legal approaches to terrorism that he called ”pragmatic, effective, [and] aggressive.” (Graham preferred “flexible, pragmatic and aggressive.”)

Like his testimony yesterday, Holder gave no indication whether Khalid Shaikh Mohammed would ultimately be tried before a civilian court or a military commission. Ginny Sloan, the Constitution Project’s director, got a round of applause in introducing the attorney general by saying, “Everyone in this room applauds your commitment to the rule of law and in trying these cases in federal courts.” Nor did Holder address the 48 suspected terrorists he said yesterday would neither face terrorism charges before any legal body nor be released — despite his rationale of using commissions and federal courts to “bring every terrorist to justice.”

Accordingly, Holder’s address will be a weather vane for the internal struggle over the trial, which is shaping up to be the defining feature of his tenure atop the Justice Department. It’ll be hard to avoid the subject of the KSM trial in front of an audience of hardcore civil libertarians. If he does, he runs the risk of dispiriting the crowd. (Which would be too bad for the Constitution Project, since the dinner is a fundraiser.) Whatever Holder says — or doesn’t say — will be closely parsed, scrutinized and examined for clues to the future of KSM and the legal implications of the Obama administration’s ultimate decision as to his fate. I’m not above saying I’ll be an active participant in the analysis (or over-analysis).

If the United States can’t obtain convictions because it tortured detainees at Guantanamo, Coughenour said at a discussion hosted by the Constitution Project and the Open Society Institute, “So be it.” In those cases, the U.S. must simply accept that losing out on a prosecution is “part of the price you pay for being committed the way we are to due process and a constitutional process for convicting people.” As to the contention that those detainees are too dangerous for release, “the world is not at a loss for dangerous people,” said the judge, who presided at the trial of would-be Millenium bomber Ahmed Rassam in 2005.

In a separate statement, Anthony Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said that it would be “an error of historic proportions” to institute indefinite detention without charge outside of Guantanamo. “While the administration should transfer prisoners to the U.S. for federal court trials, it should not create a ‘Gitmo North’ by bringing them to facilities in the U.S. or anywhere else to be illegally held without due process,” Romero said in the statement. “This practice was wrong in Cuba and would remain so here, reducing the closure of Guantánamo to a symbolic gesture.”

“Even if the Obama administration continues to work to close Guantánamo, by pursuing a policy of indefinite detention without charge, the damaging policies that embody the prison will continue, as will the negative effects to American values, the rule of law, and our nation’s reputation abroad,” said Virginia Sloan, president of the Constitution Project. “The constitutional way to fulfill the president’s commitment to closing Guantánamo is to prosecute suspected terrorists in federal court, and to oppose the use of military commissions and indefinite detention without charge. There is widespread bipartisan support for closing Guantánamo in a way that returns our nation to its constitutional principles, as embodied in Beyond Guantánamo: A Bipartisan Declaration.”

After talking to some knowledgeable individuals, I think I need to revise and extend this post. I may have incorrectly suggested that the SCOTUS ruling Boumediene established a right for detainees to receive a trial, which I didn’t mean to suggest, because it doesn’t: it establishes that detainees can contest their detention by the government, a narrower class. If they lose their habeas hearings, as some have, then they’re out of luck, trial-wise. As of right now, the Supreme Court has not directly and decisively ruled on the question of whether the government has the power to detain people in the war against al-Qaeda indefinitely and without charge. (Not that I’m a lawyer … ) The point I was trying to make in the earlier post was that the vector of court rulings since 2004 has been to erode the government’s power to use the so-called “war on terror” as an all-purpose rationale for all manner of detentions.

“While we oppose military commissions and preventive detention, and thus also oppose using prison facilities in connection with these purposes, we strongly reject charges that our country’s prisons cannot securely hold terrorism suspects or other dangerous individuals. … We urge the elected officials of Illinois to reject the irresponsible fear-mongering and partisan politics that have bogged down the inevitable, and necessary, closing of Guantanamo.”

The letter, organized by the bipartisan Constitution Project, is part of a broader effort of prominent judges, prosecutors and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle to urge the Obama administration to try terror suspects in federal courts and not to adopt a system for future preventive detention.

“Some have opposed the closing of Guantanamo because they believe there is no viable alternative approach to handling terrorist suspects,” said Thomas Pickering, former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs and former U.S. Ambassador and Representative to the United Nations, in a statement released yesterday. “This declaration presents a careful plan for finally bringing terrorists to justice in full keeping with our Constitution, as well as for protecting our nation’s values, security, and commitment to our international obligations.”

The bipartisan declaration, coordinated by Human Rights First and the bipartisan Constitution Project, opposes indefinite detention without charge and supports the trial of all terrorism suspects in federal courts.

“Both the Bush and Obama administrations have previously relied upon the state secrets privilege to block litigation challenging policies ranging from warrantless wiretapping to extraordinary rendition, and our organizations welcome the new policy as an important first step in bringing much needed reform to the use of this doctrine,” the letter said.

However, the new policy does not address all the problems, the organizations wrote. “To ensure proper oversight and an independent check on executive discretion, judges must be able to review the evidence, order the creation of non-privileged substitutes where appropriate, and assess whether there is sufficient non-privileged evidence to enable a case to proceed,” the letter said. “Legislation is necessary to implement these key reforms.”

The seven organizations who signed onto the letter are the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington Legislative Office, the Brennan Center for Justice, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Constitution Project, Human Rights First, the National Security Archive, and OMB Watch.

The legislation they’re supporting has been introduced in the Senate as the State Secrets Protection Act: S. 417, sponsored by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), and in the House as H.R. 984, sponsored by Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.).

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) (WDCpix)

Eight years after it was passed, the USA Patriot Act remains among the most controversial pieces of counterterrorism legislation in the so-called “war on terror.” On December 31 of this year, some of its more controversial provisions will expire, forcing Congress to revisit it and decide whether to reauthorize the expiring provisions, amend them, or re-work the entire law.

The sections set to expire give the government the authority to access business records, operate roving wiretaps and conduct surveillance on “lone wolf” suspects with no known link to foreign governments or terrorist groups. A justice Department official last week told Congress that the Obama administration supports their renewal. Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote to Senator Patrick Leahy (D- Vt.) that the administration would consider stronger civil rights protections “provided that they do not undermine the effectiveness of these important (provisions).”

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

But at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday, it was clear that Democrats don’t uniformly support the White House on that. Some Democrats on the committee were still bitter that some Republicans back in 2001 had pushed aside a bipartisan version of the bill produced by the Judiciary Committee in favor of a version substantially revised and altered by the Rules Committee, led by then-chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.).

“Then-Chairman Dreier under Lord knows whose instructions, substituted that bill for another bill, that we at judiciary had never seen. So we come here today now to consider what we do with those parts that are expiring” and that, according to committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), created problems that the bill he’d approved would have prevented.

“We held in this committee five days of markup and achieved unanimity on the Patriot Act,” Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) echoed later in the hearing. “Then the bill just disappeared. And we had a new several hundred page bill revealed from the Rules Committee” that had to be voted on the next day, before most members of Congress even had a chance to read it, said Nadler.

The fight over the bill appears to be as partisan today as ever. At the House hearing, Democrats and their witnesses warned that provisions of the law that allow “roving wiretaps” of different communications devices used by unnamed suspects, or electronic surveillance of suspects with no affiliation to known terrorist organizations, violate constitutional safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures. And a “gag order” provision of the bill, they complained, violate the First Amendment by preventing the recipient of an FBI-issued National Security Letter, which can request customer information from businesses, from disclosing to their customers that the information was requested.

While Democrats in the House yesterday cast these provisions as unnecessary and abusive, Republicans deemed them critical to national security.

“We must not be lulled into a false sense of security,” warned Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas). “The threat remains high,” he added, and proceeded to list about a half a dozen terrorist plots that were either carried out or planned but foiled by the FBI since September 11, 2001, including the 2004 Madrid train bombings, the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, and the thwarting of what he called a “plot to kill U.S. soldiers at the Fort Dix Army base” in 2007.

But several witnesses, such as Suzanne Spaulding, a national security lawyer and former staff director of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, testified that parts of the law such as the “lone wolf” provision, which allows the FBI to monitor suspects with no connection to foreign terrorist organizations, “undermines the policy and constitutional justification for the entire [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] statute. “This extraordinary departure from the Fourth Amendment’s warrant standards is justified only in investigation of foreign powers or their agents,” she said. The “lone wolf” provision would allow the government to spy an someone suspected of participating in terrorism but where the evidence is not strong enough to meet the stricter standards for obtaining a regular warrant from an ordinary federal court.

Michael German, a former FBI agent and now policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, noted that the FBI inspector general himself in 2007 concluded that the Patriot Act had been abused. Section 505 of the Act increased the number of officials who could authorize national security letters, seeking private information about certain businesses’ customers, reduced the standard necessary to obtain information with them, to the point where information could be collected about people who are not even suspected of having done anything wrong, testified German.

Even with such broad latitude, German testified, the Inspector general reports “confirmed widespread FBI mismanagement, misuse and abuse of these Patriot Act authorities.” The inspector general reported that the FBI’s record-keeping was so poor it didn’t know how many national security lettesr it had issued, and it often sought private information that it was not entitled to.

“Most troubling, FBI supervisors used hundreds of illegal “exigent letters” to obtain telephone records without national security letters by falsely claiming emergencies,” German added in written testimony submitted to the subcommittee on Tuesday.

And Thomas Evans, a former Republican Congressman from Delaware testified on behalf of the bipartisan Constitution Project that the section of the Act allowing the FBI to issue National Security Letters without a court order and accompanied by gag orders creates “great potential for abuse.” Last week the Constitution Project sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, signed by 26 policy experts across the political spectrum, seeking major reforms to the Patriot Act.

On Tuesday, Todd Hinnen, Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the National Security Division of the Justice Department testified that many of the problems identified by the Inspector General and others have been solved. “Since that time, FBI has put in a new data subsystem governing those [national security letters],” he said, adding that the National Security Division of the Justice Department has increased its oversight and Congress and the Inspector General retain their oversight authority.

Hinnen testified further that the expiring Patriot Act provisions were absolutely necessary tools for law enforcement to pursue terror suspects. “We feel that these are very important investigative authorities and that it would be very unfortunate to allow them to lapse. The administration firmly supports renewal before December 31 so there’s no gap in the investigative abilities of the government.”

Conyers was not impressed. “You sound like a lot of people from DOJ that have come over here before, and yet you’ve only been there a few months,” he said, after Hinnen said he started in the job on January 21. “Do you think that’s a good thing or a bad thing?” Conyers asked. As Hinnen hesitated, Conyers added: “You don’t have to respond to that.”

On Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold its own hearing on the Patriot Act. That promises to be equally contentious. Already, several senators have introduced bills to reauthorize and amend expiring provisions of the Patriot Act, although there’s already evidence of disagreement among Senators on the same side of the aisle.

Last week, Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.), with co-sponsorship from Dick Durbin (D-IL), Jon Tester (D-MT), Tom Udall (D-NM), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Daniel Akaka (D-HI) and Ron Wyden (D-OR), introduced a bill to narrow the Patriot Act, called The Judicious Use of Surveillance Tools In Counterterrorism Efforts Act, or the JUSTICE Act. The Act would amend not just the expiring provisions but would add protections for privacy civil liberties in each section fo the Patriot Act and other surveillance laws. It would also repeal the retroactive immunity granted to telecommunications companies included in the FISA Amendments Act passed last year.

The Obama administration has supported and defended in court this immunity for telecom companies.

A bill introduced on Tuesday by Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.) and Ted Kaufmann (D-Md.), does not repeal the immunity provision, and makes more modest amendments to the Patriot Act. It extends all three of the provisions set to expire this year, but expands reporting requirements to allow Congress to monitor how the administration is using the law.

Davis, as I’ve explained before, has been on death row in Georgia since 1989, when he was found guilty of killing an off-duty police officer based on the testimony of nine eyewitnesses. There was no physical evidence directly linking him to the crime, however,  and seven of the nine witnesses have since recanted their earlier statements. Another man has also boasted of committing the crime and new witnesses have said that other man was the real perpetrator. Some of the original witnesses claim they were pressured by police to identify Davis.

Despite multiple hearings at various state and federal courts on the issue, every court until yesterday had decided that the new evidence should not be considered.

Those judges all apparently agreed with Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent yesterday, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, in which he called the new hearing “a fool’s errand” and said: “This court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.”

While Ashby Jones of zyhe Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog today calls that a “fascinating question,” it’s a question that only a lawyer can love.

In fact, even Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, no flaming liberal, wrote in 1993 that “we may assume … that in a capital case a truly persuasive demonstration of ‘actual innocence’ made after trial would render the execution of a defendant unconstitutional and warrant federal habeas relief,” as Adam Liptak points out today in The New York Times.

Fortunately, a majority of justices on Monday decided that the possibility of “actual innocence” as demonstrated by the facts of Davis’s case was sufficient to require the federal judge to at least hear the evidence. 

“The Court’s decision means that we may finally know whether Georgia sought to execute an innocent man and allowed the real perpetrator to escape,” said Virginia Sloan, president of the Constitution Project, which submitted a brief on Davis’s behalf.

Morning prayer for detainees in Camp 4 of the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility (Zuma Press)

Ever since President Obama said in his speech at the National Archives that he believes there’s a category of people at Guantanamo who can’t be tried in criminal court or by military commission but are too dangerous to release, legal and national security experts have been vigorously debating just what kind of “preventive detention” scheme the president can or should embrace.

As TWI’s Spencer Ackerman wrote on Wednesday, many civil liberties groups adamantly oppose the idea of “preventive” or “indefinite” detention at all. Since Obama made his pronouncement in May, representatives from Human Rights Watch, the ACLU, Human Rights First, New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice, the Constitution Project and many others have argued strenuously against the idea.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

So when the Washington Post and ProPublica reported on Friday that the Obama administration is considering issuing an executive order setting out a long-term preventive detention authority, and that some civil liberties groups had actually encouraged such an order, many of those groups were stunned.

“Our position is that there is no category of individual who can’t be prosecuted,” said Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project. “To say the president can order indefinite detention by executive order, that’s just what Bush did for the last eight years.”

Even conservative scholars have been arguing against the idea since the Post reported that the administration was considering an executive order. As former Bush administration lawyer and Harvard Law Professor Jack Goldsmith wrote with Brookings Institution scholar Benjamin Wittes in an op-ed in the Washington Post on Monday: “Obama, to put it bluntly, seems poised for a nearly wholesale adoption of the Bush administration’s unilateral approach to detention.”

Wittes and Goldsmith instead argue that any preventive, indefinite detention scheme should be debated, authorized and spelled out clearly by Congress. Otherwise, they say, it will face opposition and modification by the courts, which will ultimately undermine the president’s detention power, as happened during the Bush administration. “Over time, the judiciary grew impatient with ad hoc detention procedures that lacked clear and specific legislative authorization, and judges began imposing novel and increasingly demanding rules on the commander in chief’s traditionally broad powers to detain enemy soldiers during war,” they write. “Ironically, one of the biggest casualties of this misadventure was the executive authority the Bush administration held so dear. At least in detention policy, Bush left a weaker presidency than he inherited, one encumbered by unprecedented restrictions imposed by judges.” An act of Congress, then, would be a way of enhancing, rather than limiting, the executive power of indefinite detention.

And that’s where the debate now lies — between those that believe existing systems of detention under the laws of war and criminal prosecution are sufficient to handle current terrorist threats, and those who claim that the so-called “age of terrorism” demands a broader authority that Congress must create.

Although staunch civil libertarians oppose preventive detention altogether, many left-leaning lawyers would prefer an executive order issued by President Obama clarifying his authority to detain prisoners under the laws of war to an entirely new, broader system of preventive detention created by Congress, as Goldsmith and Wittes propose.

Perhaps most prominently, an influential group of military and criminal defense lawyers and academics on June 8 sent President Obama a letter urging him not to create a new system of long-term preventive detention, but to rely on the systems we already have — with modifications, if necessary.

“Our country can achieve its legitimate goals through existing laws which authorize the detention of those who should be detained in the fight against international terrorism,” says the letter, which has not been released publicly but was obtained by TWI. The letter is signed by eleven prominent lawyers, including Retired Rear Admirals Donald Guter and John Hutson of the Navy’s Judge Advocate General’s Corps; Abner Mikva, a former federal appellate court judge, University of Chicago law professor, White House counsel under President Bill Clinton and a mentor to President Obama; and Thomas Wilner, a corporate defense lawyer who’s represented Guantanamo detainees in some of the landmark cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Longstanding law-of-war principles authorize the detention for the duration of armed hostilities of those who engage in armed conflict against the United States or its allies,” says the letter, adding: “Some modifications to the existing system may be warranted, but no new system is necessary.”

Although the letter doesn’t explicitly call for an executive order, that’s one obvious way such “modifications” could be made. Ken Gude at the Center for American Progress made a similar argument recently, supporting preventive detention of fighters captured in a combat zone during a military conflict, on the Center’s web site and in The Guardian. And in a memo written with Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, the authors write that the “ambiguities” left by the Bush administration over who is detainable under the laws of war “compound the lack of fundamental fairness in treating suspected criminals as combatants and holding them without trial.” Given how the detention authority has been used over the past eight years, “the new administration should now reassert the traditional understanding of the limits of the law of war and reject the former administration’s effort to read the word “organization” in the AUMF [Authorization for the Use of Military Force] as effecting an unprecedented extension of the traditional understanding of the military’s extraordinary powers of detention during war.”

In an e-mail on Wednesday, Gude said that although he didn’t specifically propose an executive order to the administration, he supports the idea and opposes new legislation. Martin has said the same thing.

Even Georgetown law professor David Cole, ordinarily a staunch civil libertarian, has argued that the administration has such detention authority, calling it “an appropriate and necessary means of dealing with enemy fighters during wartime.”

Of course, there’s plenty of disagreement about who is an “enemy fighter” and how to define the “war on terror.”

The Supreme Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld affirmed that the executive can detain enemy fighters during wartime, but that case pertained directly only to the detention of Taliban fighters while the United States was at war with the Afghan government. Since then, the Bush administration and now the Obama administration has argued for much broader authority than that. In habeas corpus cases for Guantanamo detainees, the Obama Justice Department has argued it has “the authority to detain persons that the President determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001?; “persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks; “and “persons who were part of, or substantially supported, Taliban or [al-Qaeda] forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act, or has directly supported hostilities, in aid of such enemy armed forces.” Different judges have interpreted that authority slightly differently, and some haven’t accepted that the president’s authority reaches those providing “substantial support” to terrorist groups, but they all agree that the President has the authority to detain indefinitely those fighting a war with the United States.

An executive order, some argue, would further clarify the Obama administration’s position — and, potentially, limit its authority going forward.

Their primary aim, however, seems to be to prevent legislation that codifies a new, broader system of preventive detention based on “dangerousness”, as Goldsmith, Wittes, and Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal (before he was in the Obama administration) have promoted.

Wittes, in particular, a Brookings Institution scholar, last week proposed, with his colleague Colleen Peppard, model legislation that would create an entirely new system of preventive detention that’s not limited to the president’s authority under the laws of war. In his op-ed co-authored with Wittes on Monday, Goldsmith, who briefly headed the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel under George W. Bush, appeared to endorse such a plan. (Goldsmith declined to be interviewed for this article.) Last Friday, NPR’s Ari Shapiro reported that the proposal is “already being discussed in the Obama administration.”

The idea is to create a system that allows the government to detain an individual who officials believe is dangerous and acting as an agent of an organization that is fighting the United States, yet against whom it does not have enough evidence, or the right kind of evidence, that would support a criminal prosecution. Instead of having to prove guilt “by a reasonable doubt,” which is the standard in criminal law, the government would need only prove “dangerousness” by a “preponderance of the evidence,” which is the standard of proof in civil cases. Evidence provided by intelligence officers based on hearsay, for example, would be admissible, even though it would not be allowed in a criminal proceeding. Coerced evidence, however, would not be admissible.

“It’s a lot of probablilistic human intelligence stuff that people use every day, including to target and even kill people, that U.S. courts choose not to admit,” Wittes said on Wednesday. “There are all sorts of people who you wouldn’t have a problem going to court and saying, ‘we can show this guy is dangerous. But if you force us to make a criminal case, we can’t do it. Either we don’t have enough evidence, or the proof we have, a lot of it won’t be admissible.’ ”

Civil liberties and criminal defense lawyers argue strenuously that such evidence is unreliable and therefore shouldn’t be used to deny a suspect their liberty, potentially forever. In Wittes’ proposal, the government could detain a suspect for up to 14 days without providing him a right to a lawyer or to challenge his detention. After that, the government would have to justify continued detention to a judge every six months. Wittes compares this sort of detention authority to the government’s authority to detain criminal defendants before trial, some illegal aliens, and mentally ill people who a court has deemed a danger to himself or others.

“The concept of ‘dangerousness’ is inherently somewhat speculative,” Wittes admitted. “By its nature it’s based on future activity. Imagined future activity,” he added. But “we do manage the concept of dangerousness” in these other situations. “It’s not ideal. You’d like a moral certainty as to whether or not someone is going to do something scary. As a practical matter you can’t do that.”

Gude and Martin, in their memo sent to the Obama administration’s Detainee Policy Task Force, “strongly oppose” such a plan. “While we strongly support the effort to prevent such individuals from engaging in future terrorist activities, experience demonstrates that sufficient intelligence and law enforcement tools exist to meet real national security requirements and disable such persons. Legislating a new legal framework for detaining such individuals would be unprecedented and unjustifiable as an application of the law of war. To the contrary, it would blur the important line between criminal and military spheres and undo decades of effort by the United States to encourage other countries to cabin properly the realm of military vis a vis civilian authority.”

David Golove, a Constitutional law professor at New York University, similarly calls the Wittes plan “extraordinarily problematic and dangerous.”

“One of the core features of liberal democracy is precisely that preventive detention is not allowed,” he said. “The struggle for constitutional liberty is in many ways a struggle against preventive detention.” The Wittes proposal “treats that whole problem incredibly cavalierly.” The wartime detention model, by contrast, has “deep historical roots,” he said. And detention of the the mentally ill or the accused in pretrial detention are “carved out exceptions based on very specific rationales. Every time we add a new one we’re breaking down the whole idea that preventive detention is problematic in a liberal country.”

To Wittes and some others, however, the terrorist attacks of September 11 demand just such a new exception. A preventive detention system “is the result of the unique nature of America’s conflict with transnational terrorist organizations and the limits of existing laws, both international and domestic, in responding to current threats,” he writes with Peppard in their paper, Designing Detention: A Model Law for Terrorist Incapacitation.

Whether such a system would be constitutional is another matter, and one that Wittes does not directly address in his proposal. “All of these issues are up for grabs in the courts, and both sides of the administrative detention debate can point to recent signals by the Supreme Court in Guantanamo cases to support their claims,” said Matthew Waxman, a law professor at Columbia University whose work Wittes cites for support in his paper.

It’s not clear where the Obama administration will come down in this debate, and administration officials have insisted that no decision has yet been made. On Monday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs assured reporters that the president is not considering issuing an order that “relies on legal theories that we have the inherent authority to detain people.” But he did not rule out reliance on a preventive detention system based on some other authority — which could be the laws of war, or an act of Congress.