“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.

A guard tower at the Guantanamo detention center. (defenselink.mil)

It was a blind quote hitting the civil-libertarian solar plexus. Bad enough that, as ProPublica’s Dafna Linzer and The Washington Post’s Peter Finn reported late on Friday afternoon, the Obama administration was readying an executive order for a system for preventive detention in terrorism cases. President Obama himself had indicated in a May speech at the National Archives that he wanted to seek legislation toward the same idea. But an administration official told the reporters that those same opponents of preventive detention had given the president cover to pursue it: “Civil liberties groups have encouraged the administration, that if a prolonged detention system were to be sought, to do it through executive order.”

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

As it happens, White House officials sought to walk the story back, with officials saying that the administration wasn’t drafting an executive order and was unlikely to issue one, as press secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday. But representatives of civil liberties groups were still stunned to see the quote. At a meeting with the administration’s task force on detentions policy earlier this month, most of the major civil liberties groups explicitly urged the administration to instead either charge Guantanamo Bay detainees and future terrorism captives with crimes in federal court or release them. Now, with the prospect of a new administration creating a regimen for holding detainees for an unbounded period without facing charges — a major target for civil libertarian fights with the Bush administration — on the horizon, several groups that hailed Obama’s election are vowing to fight the proposal.

“Any continued policies of prolonged detention without trial of Guantanamo detainees simply fails to turn the page on the counterproductive policy of the Bush administration,” said Human Rights First’s Devon Chaffee, who attended the meeting with the task force. “We oppose any prolonged detention without trial beyond what is already authorized under the laws of war. If an individual committed acts of terrorism, they should be tried in our regular federal courts.”

On June 9, a task force empanelled by Obama’s January 22 executive order to recommend changes to U.S. detention policy for “violent extremists” invited civil liberties groups to the Justice Department for a meeting led by Army Col. Mark Martins, a former legal adviser to Gen. David Petraeus in Iraq. Representatives of Human Rights Watch, the ACLU, Human Rights First, New York University’s Brennan Center, the Constitution Project, Amnesty International, the Center for National Security Studies, the Open Society Institute and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers spent about two hours making a case against preventive detention, as well as offering their perspectives on military commissions, the repatriation of Guantananamo detainees, and the detention facility at Afghanistan’s Bagram Air Field.

According to attendees, the meeting was respectful and solicitous. Task force members opted to listen to civil libertarian concerns far more than they chose to present their own views, offering the occasional hypothetical example to test the contention that federal civilian courts would be adequate to handle terrorism cases. “They were very thoughtful, engaging, reflective and genuinely interested in our input,” said one participant who declined to be identified. “I didn’t get the sense that they were just rubber-stamping, so they could say they met with human-rights groups.”

The meeting was designed to be a forum for a subsection of the task force to hear from the civil liberties organizations that have been distressed by emerging administration perspectives on detention since March, when the Justice Department filed a brief in federal court claiming authority to detain terrorism captives outside of the criminal justice system. “A very strong message given at that meeting was that the vast majority of the civil-liberties community oppose any form of prolonged preventive detention without trial,” said Chaffee. “Significant emphasis was placed on the ability of federal civilian courts to handle complex terrorism cases.”

Numerous attendees said that they opposed any vehicle, either legislation or an executive order, to produce an indefinite-detention system. Some made the additional point that seeking legislation for a preventive detention strategy would allow a Congress that shows relatively little concern for civil liberties to expand the parameters of any administration approach to detention in unpredictable ways. “Given the political situation in Congress, things could get even worse, and the preventive detention bill could be even broader and more problematic than what the president suggested in the National Archives speech,” said a different participant in the meeting who also declined to be identified. The administration official quoted by Linzer and Finn “somehow misinterpreted” the message, this participant added, since support for a executive order on preventive detention was “not at all what was conveyed by anyone.”

Whether or not an executive order on preventive detention is forthcoming, Obama indicated in his May speech at the National Archives that he embraces the logic of some form of detention for terrorism detainees outside the federal civilian courts, speaking of “detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people.” The same speech pledged to “work with Congress” to come up with a legal regime for detention, though the president did not explicitly indicate if such a system would include future alleged-terrorist captives in addition to Guantanamo detainees.

Accordingly, Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said that he was disinterested in the “continuing debate over whether preventive detention is a good idea or a bad one,” since “the only serious question is what the legal framework for detention will be, not whether it will happen.”

To that end, Wittes released a proposal on Friday for legislation on non-criminal terrorism detention that seeks to give the administration latitude to detain suspected terrorists beyond the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq but also impose judicial and congressional oversight on a process that the Bush administration left virtually unbounded, and which the Supreme Court subsequently restrained. His proposal, co-authored with Colleen A. Peppard, creates a 14-day period of detention without charge that could be expanded on a repeatable six-month basis by the federal District Court for the District of Columbia and defines the class of potential detainees in terms of actions they take “working on behalf of the enemy” as defined by acts of Congress.

Wittes added that he had discussed his ideas for preventive detention with the administration task force but declined to elaborate.

Administration officials who would not speak for attribution cautioned that much remained undecided by the administration beyond what Obama had stated publicly, as debate remains ongoing, both within the task force and within the administration more broadly. One knowledgeable source pointed to career government attorneys across the Justice, Defense, and Homeland Security Departments and the National Security Council who had been working on detainee and interrogation issues for years — officials who had been as critical of Bush administration legal excesses as they are Obama-era enthusiasm for fundamental change — as key figures in determining the nuts and bolts of the internal debate. “All those people, consistently, have been warning that the way we pick these people up can’t be separated from the way we deal with them,” the source said. “Schematically, they’re in the conservative-Democrat camp. You wouldn’t find them fundamentally different than Ike Skelton or Carl Levin,” referring to the chairmen of the House and Senate armed services committees.

Even so, human rights groups are now preparing to oppose any forthcoming legislative proposal or executive order on preventive detention. “We don’t want the administration to seek to legalize a system of preventive detention by executive order or by statute,” said Sharon Bradford Franklin, a senior counsel at the Constitution Project who attended the June 9 meeting.

The Center For Constitutional Rights, one of the few major civil-liberties groups that did not attend the June 9 meeting, “would mobilize to oppose any effort to create a preventive detention scheme,” said spokeswoman Jen Nessel. “Whether it’s in the form of an executive order or legislation, indefinite detention without charge, trial or due process goes against our most fundamental principles of justice and the rule of law.”

Michael Price, the national security coordinator for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and another meeting attendee, said the administration had yet to present a robust case that there was indeed a cohort of detainees who could not be responsibly tried in federal courts, contending that classified information would be adequately protected under statutes like the Classified Information Procedures Act. (Critics contend the act lends too much deference to a defendant.) “An executive order, I think, is dangerous,” Price said. “Congress getting legislation to pass preventive detention is also dangerous, but not any more dangerous than preventive detention itself. But we will oppose either way.”

Price continued, “I don’t think opposition with the administration is necessarily the right way to categorize this, but I think we’d be strongly opposed to the idea of the proposal.”

Cully Stimson, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee policy in the Bush administration, said he was pleased by both the agitation of the civil-liberties community and the early signals by the Obama administration about preventive detention. “The Obama guys and gals have the facts now — they’ve seen the files, read the cooperation agreements, been read into the programs,” Stimson said. “Even the human-rights advocates who were throwing spitballs at me and other Bush people when I was in [government] who are now on the task force, they clearly are in a better place factually than when they were sitting on the sidelines. Who cares what the ACLU thinks?”

Liza Goitein of the Brennan Center, another June 9 meeting participant, also rejected any preventive detention scheme. But she was heartened that the question appeared not to be settled. “It’s clear that the administration is still struggling on this issue,” Goitein said. “I can see that in the difference between what Obama said in the National Archives speech seeking legislation and then the report of the executive order. It’s safe to say the administration has not come up with a final plan. As long as that’s the case, there’s some hope that there won’t be a preventive detention regime.”

Writing over at Daily Kos, David Waldman, who attended the administration’s May 20 heart-to-heart with civil liberties groups, is similarly perplexed, and doesn’t recall anyone at that meeting making such a suggestion:

My memory of that meeting, of course, is by no means the definitive record. But given the specific focus of my own participation in that meeting, it seems rather unlikely that I would have missed anyone’s suggestion that such a policy be implemented by unilateral action of the President. In fact, my comments at the meeting began with the specific warning that any new policies put in place by this administration would undoubtedly survive it, only to be abused by some succeeding administration, no matter what President Obama’s intentions in implementing them. So while I see the point in arguing that an executive order can be more easily rescinded, it also seems obvious that it can be reissued just as easily. Or more likely, that a new and more draconian one can be issued in its place, with President Obama’s serving as precedent. I doubt that would have escaped notice or comment.

An administration official emailed Marc Ambinder to walk the executive order story back. Waldman doesn’t find the denial compelling.

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

Attorney General Eric Holder and Katie Couric (CBS News)

In an interview that aired Wednesday night on the CBS Evening News, Attorney General Eric Holder suggested to Katie Couric that the Obama administration is unlikely to depart dramatically from the Bush administration’s position on the use of the state secrets privilege, noting just one case out of about 20 currently under review in which the Justice Department is seriously considering changing its stance. He did not say which case that was.

Most likely, the reversal won’t come in the case of Jewel v. NSA, because Holder’s Justice Department Friday again broadly asserted the “state secrets” privilege as a grounds for dismissing the case, brought by AT&T customers alleging the government used dragnet surveillance to monitor the domestic telephone communications of millions of ordinary Americans.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

The Department of Justice – first under President George W. Bush and now under President Obama – has repeatedly invoked this executive privilege, which allows the president to prevent public disclosure of evidence in court by claiming that its release would endanger national security. And increasingly, the Department of Justice has used the privilege not only to prevent public disclosure of documents, but to dismiss entire cases brought by victims of illegal policies, claiming that the subject matter of the case itself is a state secret, and that even the judge shouldn’t review the documents in private. A recent report by the Constitution Project, a bipartisan think tank, found that the Bush administration used the privilege to seek “blanket dismissal of every case challenging the constitutionality of specific, ongoing government programs” in 92 percent more cases per year than in the previous decade.

Last night, Holder told Couric that after he took over the attorney general’s office, he asked lawyers in the Justice Department to see “if there’s a way where we can be more surgical, whether there is a way in which we can share more information.” The state secrets privilege, he said, is appropriately invoked “at certain times”, but “I want to make sure that we only do it where it’s absolutely necessary. I would only apply the doctrine where national security was at stake, where the lives of the American people were at stake,” he said.

Yet it’s difficult to see that standard at work in the recent cases where the Justice Department has invoked the state secrets privilege.

For example, in a federal court in San Francisco on Friday, the Obama Justice Department moved to dismiss the Jewel case based in part on the state secrets privilege. The AT&T customers who filed suit, represented by the Electronic Freedom Foundation, claim the National Security Agency illegally intercepted their calls and obtained their phone records as part of a broad-reaching, ongoing national security surveillance program and in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution, the separation of powers doctrine and federal statutes.

In its legal brief filed with the court, the government’s lawyers claim the case must be dismissed because allowing it to go forward at all would disclose information about the NSA surveillance program, which is itself a state secret. Disclosure of the information the customers want to see, claims the government, “which concerns how the United States seeks to detect and prevent terrorist attacks, would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security,” Justice Department lawyers said in their filing.

This is the second attempt by ordinary AT&T customers to learn more about the government’s secret domestic wiretapping program and to hold the government or a company that assisted it accountable. An earlier case, also brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation against AT&T itself, was quashed when, after the Bush administration had made the state secrets arguments in court, Congress passed a law granting immunity to AT&T and other telecommunications companies from lawsuits from customers who claimed the companies helped the government spy on them.

The broad use of the state secrets privilege to dismiss entire court cases challenging unlawful government actions has outraged civil liberties and open government groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Center for Constitutional Rights. Such advocates had counted on Obama’s promises in the first days of his presidency to run a more transparent government than his predecessor. But the Obama Justice Department already, in several cases seeking information about Bush administration counter-terrorism activities, has invoked the state secrets privilege to prevent the disclosure of critical evidence.

For example, in Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Obama, which TWI has been following, the Obama administration asserted that the Bush administration’s domestic warrantless wiretapping program, or Terrorist Surveillance Program, is a state secret that cannot be revealed without endangering national security. Never mind that President George W. Bush had himself acknowledged the program’s existence, and President Obama has said it is no longer operative.

And in Mohammed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, which TWI first wrote about in January, the Obama administration asserted the state secrets privilege to seek dismissal of a case brought by five victims of the Bush administration’s “extraordinary rendition” program — which transferred prisoners to foreign countries for interrogation under torture. In that case, the victims, including Binyam Mohamed, the British resident I’ve written about, sued the subsidiary of Boeing that allegedly assisted the CIA in its torture program. The Bush administration immediately swooped in and convinced the federal court to dismiss the case because the now-defunct extraordinary rendition program is supposedly a “state secret.” In February, the Obama administration, to the surprise of even some of the judges sitting on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that day, continued to maintain that argument.

During last night’s interview, Couric asked Holder whether he thought the state secrets doctrine had been abused by the Bush administration.

“Well, I don’t know,” said Holder. “On the basis of the two, three cases we’ve had to review so far, I think that the invocation of the doctrine was correct. We – reversed – are in the process of looking at one case. But I think we’re very likely to reverse it.”

Presumably, the three cases he’s referring to are the Jewel, Al-Haramain and Jeppesen Dataplan. But Holder went on to say that there have been more than 20 such assertions in cases that are still open. He added that a report on the Justice Department’s use of the privilege is being prepared, and his “hope is to be able to share the results of that report with the American people.”

Marc Ambinder, who obtained an early transcript of the interview, wrote Wednesday in The Atlantic that a senior Justice Department official “declined to elaborate” on in which case Holder was planning to reverse the department’s position.

Congress, meanwhile, may not leave the matter in Holder’s hands. In February, Rep. Jerold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and several co-sponsors introduced the State Secrets Protection Act of 2009, which would require a federal judge to look at the disputed evidence rather than dismiss the case outright based solely on the government’s assertion that its disclosure would endanger national security. A parallel bill was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and has six co-sponsors.

(flickr)

Buoyed by high expectations for the first year of Barack Obama’s administration, an informal coalition of progressive national-security and civil-liberties experts are urging the president-elect to redefine the war on terrorism.

Eight years of the Bush administration’s approach to counterterrorism have yielded two open-ended and bloody wars; a massively expanded security apparatus, and spending on defense far outpacing outlays on domestic programs, even during a crisis-plagued economy.

Yet while liberals have spent much of this time opposing the Bush administration’s agenda, many of their proposals for Obama go beyond merely rolling back President George W. Bush’s policies — withdrawing from Iraq, shuttering the Guantanamo Bay detention complex, abolishing torture — to offer new areas of emphasis, like stabilizing Afghanistan, an Arab-Israeli peace and a re-envisioned balance between security and liberty.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Through white papers delivered to the Obama transition team, new reports and interviews with reporters, this loose affiliation of progressives is saying it has a real opportunity to recast the U.S. effort against terrorism in fundamental ways.

Consistent with the broader progressive agenda of achieving global security through multilateral cooperation, economic development and respect for human rights, the past few days have seen a series of proposals urging rejection of the Bush administration’s militarism. To the degree these various progressive groups have a concerted goal, it’s to influence the transition with specific liberal ideas for new directions in the war on terrorism.

“Not just his rhetoric,” said Joanne Mariner, terrorism and counterterrorism director at Human Rights Watch, “but in the promises he’s kept — his vote against the Military Commissions Act of 2006, [which] was quite important — Obama has made clear he has a very different approach in mind to counterterrorism than the [Bush] administration has taken.”

Mariner’s organization, one of the leading global human-rights groups, released a report Friday listing 11 recommendations for Obama. Chief among them: sign an executive order restricting the CIA’s interrogation practices to the same Geneva Conventions-compliant standards of the U.S. military; repudiate Justice Dept. memoranda that reserved for the president the authority to approve torture and indefinitely detain suspects in the war on terrorism; close Guantanamo and begin trials of its inmates in civilian courts, and create a commission to investigate human-rights abuses.

The Obama presidency provides “an opportunity for this to be implemented,” Mariner said. “There’s a broad recognition of a change of course needed by this new administration — particularly as it’s the one that has, in many ways, signaled it wants to make dramatic changes. There’s almost a perfect storm of possibility for change.”

In the two weeks since his election, Obama has sent a number of signals that he intends to move quickly on reversing much of the Bush counterterrorism agenda. “I have said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that,” the president-elect told CBS News’ Steve Kroft Sunday on “60 Minutes.” “I’ve said repeatedly that America doesn’t torture, and I’m going to make sure that we don’t torture. Those are part and parcel of an effort to regain America’s moral stature in the world.”

Some of the expected front-runners for Obama’s cabinet have sounded similar themes. Eric Holder, the former Justice Dept. official believed to have the inside track for attorney general, gave a speech at the liberal American Constitution Society in the spring that unequivocally rejected torture and Guantanamo and waxed almost metaphysical about the importance of a re-imagined counterterrorism approach.

“Let me be clear,” Holder told the lawyers’ association. “I firmly believe that there is evil in the world, and that we still face grave dangers to our security. But our ability to lead the world in combating these dangers depends not only on the strength of our military leadership but our moral leadership as well. … To recapture it, we can no longer allow ourselves to be ruled by fear. We must evaluate our policies and our practices in the harsh light of day and steel ourselves to face the world’s dangers in accord with the rule of law.”

As welcome to liberals as such statements are, an impromptu coalition of civil-liberties and national-security organizations joined forces, beginning in July, to deliver a then-prospective Obama administration with a coordinated agenda.

More than 25 organizations, including the Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank, the Gun Owners of America lobby group and the well-heeled Washington law firms of Arnold & Porter and Crowell & Moring, united under the aegis of the Constitution Project, a progressive legal foundation, to present a one-stop-shopping resource for both the presidential and congressional transitions. Titled “Liberty and Security: Recommendations for the Next Administration and Congress,” the 62-item report was released Tuesday.

Its agenda is not dissimilar with Human Rights Watch’s. High on its list are ending torture, indefinite detention and rendition; restricting the FBI’s ability to obtain communications without a court order; rolling back this year’s changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that civil libertarians believe contravene 4th Amendment’s privacy guarantees; curtailing the president’s ability to issue so-called signing statements that unilaterally exempt him from obeying laws, and strengthening Congress’ exclusivity over declaring war.

Becky Monroe, policy counsel for the Constitution Project, explained that her organization began in late spring asking veterans of previous administrations what was most helpful to their work of staffing a new government. The general answer: consolidation.

“We were acting more as a convener,” she said, since “so many different groups were coming forward with different documents” outlining their vision of a recalibrated liberty-security balance.

The resulting coalition intends to present “members of the transition team [and] staffers on the Hill” with the report, Monroe said. “Further down, we want to set up experts with meetings” with transition staffs, she said. While Monroe didn’t say so, such meetings could go a long way toward landing liberal security and civil-liberties experts jobs in the all-important middle tiers of the federal government.

Beyond the formal reports, the constellation of progressives in and outside of Washington have no shortage of ideas for Obama to take up.

“A successful counterterrorism agenda for the new administration needs to place a high priority on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian and Arab-Israeli conflicts,” said Jeremy Ben-Ami, a senior White House policy aide in the Clinton administration who is now executive director of the progressive American Jewish organization, J Street. “If the new president is looking for a single bold strategy that can not only weaken extremist non-state actors, undermine the pull of state sponsors of terrorism such as Iran and bolster the governments of allied moderate states, he need look no further than active efforts to promote a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace. President-elect Obama’s victory provides the best opportunity in a generation to repair the U.S. image and restore its leadership in the world, enabling it to rally the world to defeat the forces of extremism and terror.”

Richard Smith, an Army veteran of Afghanistan who is now a member of the progressive veterans’ organization VoteVets, urged a less conventional approach to the Afghanistan war that Obama has pledged to reprioritize.

“I’d like to see a specific effort in the agricultural sector,” Smith said in an email. “Often, the guys who fire a [rocket-propelled grenade] at a [U.S. military base] or convoy aren’t Taliban loyalists, but farmers who have felt pocketbook pain as a result of poppy eradication. The Taliban offer them a little something, and they get to feed their families for a few days. Basically, destroying poppy to defund the Taliban also helps them recruit. However, the areas were poppy is currently cultivated (particularly Helmand province) was once famous for pomegranate orchards. If we can provide agricultural assistance and help develop an export market for Afghan pomegranates, I think it would be a great benefit to the [counterinsurgency] effort.”

Taylor Marsh, a progressive political analyst and former radio host, also urged a renewed counterterrorism focus in South Asia. “Counterterrorism in the Obama administration has to begin with the Af-Pak region immediately,” she said, referring the to Pashtun areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. “First, we need limited additional deployment of forces into Afghanistan. Afghan cities must be made more stable, through working with NATO countries, or we’re going to have more problems not fewer with regard to terrorism. Because focusing on Pakistan alone, the jihadists will simply cross the border where we’re not building security. The Af-Pak region deals with two countries of varying complexities and unique challenges for Obama — but neither country can be dealt with in a vacuum.”

Michael Froomkin, a law professor at the University of Miami and a blogger at Discourse.net, argued for a greater U.S. cultural re-engagement with the world, including a removal of visa restrictions on foreign graduate students. The U.S. needs “way more exchange programs,” Froomkin emailed. “We win both ways — they come here and learn we’re OK (or even wonderful); we go there and learn the language and culture and learn how not to step in it….”

Still others urged a broader theoretical reconception of the war on terrorism. “Counterterrorism should be a law-enforcement accountability, not military,” emailed Jesse Wendel, a veteran of the Army’s 101st Airborne Division, and his co-blogger, the pseudonymous Minstrel Boy, who said he is a U.S. Navy Seal veteran of Vietnam. Both blog at the popular Group News Blog, which Wendel publishes.

“Treating terrorists as military targets gives terrorists enormously too much credibility,” they contended in a co-signed email. “Terrorists are not nation-states; they are criminals and should be treated like the murderers they are, without giving them a political platform or publicity. The military is not trained to hunt civilians worldwide. The military is trained to kill targets in a kill-zone.”

Similarly, Matt Stoller, the progressive netroots activist and blogger with OpenLeft, said he hoped the Obama administration heralded an end to “security theater” — using a term coined by cybersecurity expert Bruce Schneier that means ostentatious but ineffective displays of increased security.

Schneier himself, reached in London, was skeptical that security theater would be eliminated. “Imagine you’re an elected official,” said Schneier, the chief security technology officer for BT, the British telecommunications corporation. “You can either exaggerate the threat or downplay the threat. If you exaggerate [to say], ‘We must do all these things,’ and you’re wrong, no one notices. You can even claim you’re right.

“But if you downplay a threat,” Schneier continued, “and you’re wrong, you’re out of a job. So it’s the natural propensity for anyone to overplay the threat. It makes you look strong.”

Still, Schneier expected Obama to represent a significant improvement over Bush in the counterterrorism realm. “He’ll do a lot of good things to make us truly safer,” he said. “Will he eliminate the [Dept. of Homeland Security's] color-coded threat system? Probably. Will he rollback airport security to pre-9/11 levels? Probably not. Will he make our foreign policy more sensible? More likely. Fund intelligence fully? Most likely.”

On Tuesday, senior Obama foreign policy adviser Denis McDonough said that while Obama agreed the Guantanamo prison should be closed, there was “absolutely no truth to reports that a decision has been made about how and where to try the detainees, and there is no process in place to make that decision until [Obama’s] national security and legal teams are assembled.”

Still, the apparent leak that Obama was even considering a special court system was a step into a legal policy minefield.

Advocates on all sides have staked out strong positions on the matter: the ACLU and a bipartisan coalition created by the Constitution Project, along with some lawyers who have represented detainees at Guantanamo Bay, make a strong case that specially-created national-security courts are unnecessary and likely unconstitutional. And Human Rights First has issued a study demonstrating that the federal court system works just fine for prosecuting terrorists.

Meanwhile, the neo-conservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a group started after 9/11 that includes former FBI Director Louis J. Freeh and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, supports creating special courts.

So does Harvard Law Professor Jack Goldsmith, who served briefly as director of the Justice Dept.’s Office of Legal Counsel before resigning and writing his book, “The Terror Presidency,” which includes a scathing critique of the Bush administration’s legal analysis and policies on the treatment of detainees.

But it’s not just conservatives that support a special court system to try suspected terrorists. Moderate liberals like Georgetown University law professor Neal Katyal, who represented Osama bin Laden’s driver, Salim Hamdan, before the U.S. Supreme Court, and later at his military commission trial, has written in favor of creating special courts to try suspected terrorists, and even their “preventive detention.”

Harvard Law Professor and Obama adviser Laurence Tribe has written (with Katyal) that the use of military tribunals to try suspected terrorists could be constitutional and even wise, so long as they’re authorized by Congress and comport with constitutional commands.

How a President Obama is going to weigh all these different viewpoints remains to be seen. As I pointed out yesterday, the challenge Obama faces is made far more difficult because of the harsh interrogation methods used against suspected terrorists, or “enemy combatants,” as the Bush administration calls them. The problem is that evidence obtained by coercion isn’t admissible in regular U.S. courts; but letting potential terrorists go, possibly to strike again, isn’t a politically acceptable option for a new president.

Then again, a special court created to accommodate the torture problem and even permit preventive detention of suspected warriors would set a troubling precedent that we’d be stuck with for many years to come.