Levin’s remarks were made this morning at a conference at the Washington College of Law at American University addressing the ethical responsibilities of OLC lawyers and how they should be held accountable for authorizing abusive conduct that now appears to have been illegal. “Any government employee is appropriately subject to investigation of their conduct while they’re serving in government,” said Levin, who is now a partner at the law firm White & Case.

Later in the discussion, Levin also said that a truth commission that would investigate and reveal how the lawyers in his office reached their conclusions “would be useful.” Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has proposed such a commission, but so far apparently does not have majority support for the idea in Congress. Levin spoke on a panel of experts that included Georgetown Law Professor David Luban, Alliance for Justice president Nan Aron, and Newsweek columnist Stuart Taylor.

“Maybe the [Office of Professional Responsibility] report will give some of the factual basis that will allow people to make judgments about that,” said Levin, referring to the ethics report of the OLC lawyers’ work conducted by a division of the Justice Department which has yet to be released. The report was drafted over several years and completed by the end of the Bush administration. “But I would agree if you could have a serious look at this it would be very valuable.”

Upon completion, the OPR report was sent to its subjects — including former OLC lawyers John Yoo, Jay Bybee and Stephen Bradbury, for their review and comment — and is still under Justice Department and possibly CIA review. It reportedly analyzes the lawyers’ communications with senior government officials and is highly critical of their conduct.

Still, according to the recently released July 2007 memo from the Office of Legal Counsel, the technique was determined not to cause “serious physical pain or suffering” and not to violate the War Crimes Act. The War Crimes Act prohibits torture and “cruel and inhuman treatment.”

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

A comparison of the inspector general report with legal memos released from the Office of Legal Counsel within the Justice Department, however, reveals that lawyers were so uncertain about how and whether sleep deprivation could be used legally that their advice to the CIA ranged from restricting its use to 48 continuous hours, to allowing it for 180 hours or more. And although the 2007 legal memo specifically mentions that the CIA said it might use the technique for 180 hours, the lawyers restricted their analysis, in footnote 7, to only the legality of its use for up to 96 hours. Meanwhile, the inspector general report discusses the contemplated use of sleep deprivation on Abu Zubaydah for up to 11 days at a time — or 264 hours straight.

None of the former interrogators, physicians, lawyers or government officials could explain to TWI exactly why the CIA and Justice Department lawyers changed the rules so sharply and frequently. A call to Jack Goldsmith, the Harvard Law Professor and director of the Office of Legal Counsel from 2003 to 2004 was not returned.

“How they go from 48 to 100 plus hours is anybody’s guess,” said Jack Cloonan, a former FBI special agent who worked in the Osama Bin Laden unit from 1996 to 2002. “I think that they were making the rules up as they went along,” he said, adding that “they outsourced a lot of this,” referring to the role, recently revealed by The New York Times, of Jim Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, two businessmen-psychologists who developed the interrogation procedures for the CIA but had no interrogation experience themselves.

But the experts on sleep deprivation all appear to agree – and the literature on the subject is remarkably consistent – that sleep deprivation is physically and mentally harmful, and largely ineffective at producing useful information. Still, it’s tempting for government officials desperate to get detainees to talk.

“It will elicit information, that’s true,” said Cloonan. “People will talk. But in point of fact the substance is what separates what works and what doesn’t. Did they provide actionable intelligence, and could you verify what was being told?” asks Cloonan. “There’s a big diff between compliance — giving information to stop what they’re being subjected to — and real cooperation, where they’re giving useful information.”

Scientists, physicians and interrogators all say that because sleep deprivation causes extreme confusion and even psychosis, it’s impossible to know if what the detainee is telling interrogators is true or not.

“Sleep deprivation has been extensively studied,” said Dr. Steven Miles, professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School and faculty member of its Center for Bioethics, as well as the author of the book, “Oath Betrayed: America’s Torture Doctors.” “It will cause people to speak. It does not produce reliable intelligence. It impairs the ability to concentrate in a way that allows the interrogatee to assemble coherent narratives. So it’s counterproductive in terms of information solicitation.”

A December 2006 report from the Intelligence Science Board of the National Defense Intelligence College says that sleep deprivation is associated with, among other things, “increased suggestibility,” adding: “On this last point it is worth noting that suggestibility increases specifically under conditions simulating an interrogation. At least one study has found that “the effect on suggestibility of one or two night’s sleep loss is comparable to the difference in suggestibility between true and false confessors.”

That’s such a basic fact for interrogators that in the book, “Introduction to Forensic Psychology,” by Curt and Anne Bartol, the glossary lists “Coerced-compliant false confessions” as “Admissions of guilt most likely to occur after prolonged and intense interrogation experiences, especially in situations where sleep deprivation is a feature. The suspect, in desperation to avoid further discomfort, admits to the crime even knowing that he or she is innocent.”

As Tom Parker, a former British Intelligence agent, now Amnesty International’s Policy Director for Terrorism, Counterterrorism and Human Rights explained: “Sleep deprivation was never designed as an interview tool. It was used by the KGB and its precursors as a way to break people down to give false confessions. These techniques are not about getting people to tell the truth, they’re about breaking people down to kill their spirit.”

The justification for the technique originated with the idea of learned helplessness, based on studies conducted decades ago on dogs.

“They took dogs, tied them in a cage and shocked them,” explained Miles. “They showed that the dogs would act to resist or escape, unless the dogs learned there was nothing they could do to resist. Then they would just lie there and take it.”

The theory, explained Miles, is that “when used with other techniques it will induce dependence on the interrogator, which will cause the person to comply.” But all the research done on this from around the world reveals that “this technique simply does not gather intelligence.”

Sleep deprivation is always part of a package: as described in CIA inspector general report, prisoners were shackled, semi-starved, put in diapers and forced to stand that way. Their hands were cuffed along the wall close to their chins, according to Department of Justice memos. If they nodded off and stopped standing, the chains would pull at their wrists, waking them up.

Andrea Northwood, director of client services at the Center for Victims of Torture in Minneapolis, recently told The Associated Press that her organization considers 96 hours of sleep deprivation to be torture.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who was tortured in Vietnam, has also said that prolonged sleep deprivation is torture, and recently denied the claim in the CIA inspector general report that he was among several members of Congress who approved its use.

Menachem Begin, the Israeli prime minister from 1977-83, tortured by the KGB as a young man, famously described sleep deprivation in his book, White Nights:

“In the head of the interrogated prisoner, a haze begins to form. His spirit is wearied to death, his legs are unsteady, and he has one sole desire: to sleep… Anyone who has experienced this desire knows that not even hunger and thirst are comparable with it,” he wrote. “I came across prisoners who signed what they were ordered to sign, only to get what the interrogator promised them” — time to sleep.

Although the technique was prohibited by President Obama, some worry it could be revived in the future because it at least gets people to talk, and it’s generally perceived as less offensive than waterboarding, head-slamming or forced nudity. “Sleep deprivation may be seen as a tempting technique to restore,” wrote reporter Greg Miller in the Los Angeles Times recently.

In justifying the use of sleep deprivation in a 2005 memo, Justice Department lawyers argued that it was okay for CIA interrogators to keep terror suspects awake for seven and a half days straight — because “even very extended sleep deprivation does not cause physical pain.” They relied for that claim on the work of university researchers who found that people who were deprived of sleep for just one night had an increased sensitivity to certain types of pain. Justice Department memos dated May 10, 2005 cited this study to support the conclusion that severe sleep deprivation of up to 180 consecutive hours might cause some increased pain but not “severe physical pain” — even when used together with slaps, stress positions, water dousing and “walling” — slamming a detainee’s head repeatedly against a flexible wall.

“Because sleep deprivation appears to cause at most only relatively moderate decreases in pain tolerance, the use of these techniques in combination with extended sleep deprivation would not be expected to cause severe physical pain,” wrote Steven Bradbury, a principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel, who signed the memos. (Bradbury has since left the department and works at a private law firm in Washington. He did not return calls for comment.)

But those same academic researchers have since called the Justice Department’s use of their work “nonsense.” “To claim that 180 hours [of sleep deprivation] is safe in these respects, is nonsense.” Dr. James Horne, with the Loughborough University Sleep Research Centre, told the blog Obsidian Wings. “Prolonged stress with sleep deprivation will lead to a physiological exhaustion of the body’s defense mechanisms, physical collapse, and with the potential for various ensuing illnesses.”

In their studies, the doctors explained, the subjects were well-fed and could play video games and watch television. Detainees under interrogation, on the other hand, were often semi-starved and chained into place, not even allowed to go to the bathroom.

“In a manner, it’s like giving a drug to a patient: if you administer it in small doses for therapeutic reasons, it helps them. If you give it in huge volumes, it becomes toxic — and can even kill them,” another of the researchers cited, Dr. S. Hakki Onen, sleep specialist and geriatrician, told Time Magazine.

Although the Justice Department lawyers wrote that “extended sleep deprivation cannot be expected to cause ’severe mental pain or suffering,’” the doctors vigorously disagree.

After several days, “the mental pain would be all too evident, and arguably worse than physical pain,” Dr. Horne said to Obsidian Wings.

Notably, a combination of techniques similar to those used by the CIA has been ruled unlawful by the European Court of Human Rights. In the case Ireland v. U.K., the court held that a combination of sleep deprivation, hooding, wall-standing, continuous white noise, sleep deprivation and “the bread and water diet” violated international humanitarian law.

What’s odd, say former interrogators, is that the military knew this and for the most part, resisted using these techniques. The CIA, however, relying on inexperienced contractors who developed its interrogation strategies based on the military’s Survival Evasion Resistance Escape (SERE) training, seems to have completely ignored common knowledge.

“The point is you realize when you’re going through that [SERE] training, they tell you this isn’t about trying to get useful intelligence out of you, it’s about getting propoganda,” said Matthew Alexander, a 14-year veteran of the air force and leader of an elite interrogations team in Iraq and author of “How to Break a Terrorist.” (Matthew Alexander, seen here on The Daily Show, uses a pseudonym.) Sleep deprivation may be used for no longer than 48 hours in SERE training, according to the inspector general report. “They’re just trying to break down your will.”

“I think people misinterpreted that,” Alexander added. “Mitchell and Jessen, the psychologists, they took that learned helplessness theory, but they’d never done an interrogation. They were so off base.”

Moreover, in Footnote 34, the IG reports that “According to the General Counsel, the period was reduced to 48 hours in December 2003.”

But the Dec. 30, 2004 memo, also released on Monday, this one from the CIA to the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel concerning the treatment of high-value detainees at CIA “black sites” says on page 13 that “sleep deprivation may continue to the 70 to 120 hour range, or possibly beyond for the hardest resisters, but in no case exceed the 180-hour time limit.”

So it appears that at some point after the IG report was completed, the CIA increased the permissible number of hours of sleep deprivation from 48, in December 2003, to 180, in 2004.  That’s 132 hours more of sleep deprivation than the CIA’s general counsel had allowed.

And we know that it stayed at that much higher level for years afterwards, because the May 10, 2005 memo from the Office of Legal Counsel that we’ve previously reported on also approved 180 hours of sleep deprivation. (Remember, this can be accompanied by food deprivation, nakedness, diapering, extreme hot and cold and shackling into stress positions.)

So why the change? How was only 48 hours of sleep deprivation legal in December 2003, but more than three times as long was legal just a year later? Who was changing the rules, and why?

We know that at some point, Jack Goldsmith, hired to head the head of the Office of Legal Counsel in October 2003, withdrew some of the earlier memos authorizing extreme interrogation practices because he worried the memos were “legally flawed.” But then, Goldsmith resigned in June 2004.

Did his resignation open the way for the Justice Department to boost the permissible duration of the sleep deprivation technique back up to 180 hours?

I’ve put in a call to Goldsmith about this, and will report back if I hear anything.

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

Yoo starts things off with his typical flourish of disingenuousness:

Suppose an al Qaeda cell in New York, Chicago or Los Angeles was planning a second attack using small arms, conventional explosives or even biological, chemical or nuclear weapons. Our intelligence and law enforcement agencies faced a near impossible task locating them. Now suppose the National Security Agency (NSA), which collects signals intelligence, threw up a virtual net to intercept all electronic communications leaving and entering Osama bin Laden’s Afghanistan headquarters. What better way of detecting follow-up attacks? And what president — of either political party — wouldn’t immediately order the NSA to start, so as to find and stop the attackers?

Evidently, none of the inspectors general of the five leading national security agencies would approve.

Those inspectors general, in Yoo’s imagination, aren’t overworked bureaucrats in wrinkle-free shirts, cotton Dockers and overgrown haircuts, buried under endless reams of paper. They’re useful idiots for Osama bin Laden. In truth, the reason why the inspectors general don’t entertain that scenario is because it’s absurd. If the intelligence community knew what the “electronic communications” signatures heading into and out of Osama bin Laden’s Afghanistan headquarters were, they could very easily obtain warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, because they’d possess individualized suspicion. This is an unproblematic case, fitting easily under the aegis of the law on Sept. 12, 2001.  It has absolutely nothing to do with what the inspectors general call the “President’s Surveillance Program.” That’s also why the battery of Justice Department leaders like Acting Attorney General Jim Comey, Associate Attorney General Jack Goldsmith, FBI Director Robert Mueller and Associate Deputy Attorney General Patrick Philbin fought to rein in the surveillance activities — because they were overbroad and outside of FISA, which Congress explicitly made the “exclusive means” for conducting legal foreign surveillance. Yoo continues:

It is absurd to think that a law like FISA should restrict live military operations against potential attacks on the United States.

Actually, it’s absurd to think that a law like FISA does. Yoo cites the 9/11 Commission, saying it found that “FISA’s wall between domestic law enforcement and foreign intelligence” proved to be such a hindrance, but that’s a misrepresentation. FISA has no such wall. The “wall” was an invention of the Justice Department under Janet Reno to separate foreign-collected surveillance from criminal investigations, nothing even close to “live military operations,” and in practice that bureaucratic restriction went too far and inhibited necessary FBI-CIA collaboration. The Bush administration’s response wasn’t to get Congress to change FISA; it was to entirely circumvent it.

Clearly, the five inspectors general were responding to the media-stoked politics of recrimination, not consulting the long history of American presidents who have lived up to their duty in times of crisis. More than a year before the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt authorized the FBI to intercept any communications, domestic or international, of persons “suspected of subversive activities . . . including suspected spies.”

You know what law, passed in 1978, didn’t exist when FDR was president? Yoo goes even further, and takes selective quotations from Jefferson and Hamilton to suggest that his long-discredited theory that presidents have king-like powers during times of war, and yet he never comes out and says it, because even in The Wall Street Journal people can recognize absurdity.

What’s amazing about Yoo’s caustic attack on the inspectors general report is that the report itself embarrasses Yoo but does little else. There’s no suggestion of prosecution, no recommendation of additional investigation, no harsh language. It says simply that Yoo says what he says in this op-ed and that his superiors at OLC were cut out of that loop. That’s all. Yoo’s not even in danger, if reports about Attorney General Eric Holder’s potential new investigation are to be believed, of moving into the crosshairs of the Justice Department. Today’s attack on the inspectors general is Yoo’s response to having his own words quoted back at him. Which, perhaps, is insult enough. It’s like seeing the next 30 years of your life unfold before your horrified eyes.

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

“This report leaves no doubt that the warrantless wiretapping program was blatantly illegal and an unconstitutional assertion of executive power. I once again call on the Obama administration and its Justice Department to withdraw the flawed legal memoranda that justified the program and that remain in effect today.”

Forgive me if I’ve missed something, but I thought that those memoranda — principally John Yoo’s Nov. 2, 2001 Office of Legal Counsel memorandum underpinning the programs — were either significantly abridged or withdrawn outright. This is from page 182 of the memoir of Jack Goldsmith, the former Office of Legal Counsel head who worked hard to roll back the most extreme legal contentions of his Bush administration colleagues:

I am not permitted to say much about how Jim Comey, Patrick Philbin and I, with the crucial support of former Attorney General John Ashcroft and others, struggled to put the Terrorist Surveillance Program on a proper legal footing. I first encountered the program in 2003-2004, long after it had been integrated into the post-9/11 counterterrorism architecture. Putting it legally aright at that point, without destroying some of the government’s most important counterterrorism tools, was by far the hardest challenge I faced in government.

Now, of course, significant aspects of the program have been codified in last year’s FISA Amendments Act — of which Feingold remains a staunch opponent. But does the legal architecture of the original PSP still remain in place?

I suppose if it does, one vehicle for calling attention to it — and perhaps doing something about it — is the debate over reauthorizing sections of the Patriot Act that will take place later this year.

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

So what does today’s Inspectors General report say about Gonzales?

[T]he DOJ [Inspector General] concluded that Gonzales, as a participant in the March 2004 dispute between the White House and DOJ and, more importantly, as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, had a duty to balance his obligation not to disclose classified information with the need not to be misleading in his testimony about the events that nearly led to resignations of several senior officials at DOJ and the FBI. The DOJ [Inspector General] concluded that Gonzales did not intend to mislead Congress, but it found that his testimony was confusing, inaccurate, and had the effect of misleading those who were not knowledgeable about the program.

Gonzales, by the way, was just hired by Texas Tech’s political science department.

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

Let me give it a shot. Yoo was a close ideological and bureaucratic ally of Vice President Dick Cheney, Cheney’s lawyer David Addington and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales. This passel of surveillance programs was extremely close held, and since it went outside a law that’s supposed to be the “exclusive means” for conducting foreign surveillance, having a reliable ally give a legal blessing to the program was crucial. That importance came in stark relief when non-allies at the Justice Department like Jack Goldsmith, Jim Comey, John Ashcroft and Robert Mueller refused to reauthorize the programs in 2004, resulting in the famous midnight visit to Ashcroft’s hospital bedside.

Of course, I’m just speculating. Yoo wouldn’t talk to the inspectors general.

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

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.

As Spencer wrote today, someone in the administration told ProPublica’s Dafna Linzner and The Washington Post’s Peter Finn that yes, civil liberties groups support the idea of an order that “would embrace claims by former President George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war.” That statement amazed the civil liberties groups that Spencer then spoke to. I’ve gotten similar reactions from civil liberties lawyers I’ve been speaking to since Friday as well.

But it turns out that there are some progressives, and some who’d even traditionally be called civil libertarians — though not representatives of the traditional civil liberties groups Spencer and I have spoken to — who have been floating the idea, but in a more limited way than the Post story suggested.

Specifically, a group of prominent military and criminal defense lawyers and academics on June 8 sent President Obama a letter urging him not to create a new system of preventive detention, but instead, to rely on the one we already have — with modifications, if necessary. Although they don’t specifically recommend an executive order, that’s the logical way for the administration to modify and clarify its authority.

“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 I received just this afternoon. It’s signed by 11 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 prominent 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,” these experts write, adding: “Some modifications to the existing system may be warranted, but no new system is necessary.”

The letter specifically tries to steer President Obama away from proposing or supporting any new legislation that would create a new preventive detention authority.

Ken Gude at the influential Center for American Progress has also suggested that the president should clarify his authority of detention under the laws of war. In a recent memo he co-authored with Kate Martin of the Center for National Security Studies, he and Martin 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 this afternoon that he sent from Paris, Gude says he never specifically proposed an executive order, but supports the idea and adamantly opposes new legislation.

Gude laid out his support publicly for a limited system of preventive detention, authorized by the laws of war which allow detention of combatants during a military conflict, on CAP’s site and in The Guardian.

Even David Cole, the normally staunch civil libertarian law professor at Georgetown, has argued that the administration has that authority, calling it “an appropriate and necessary means of dealing with enemy fighters during wartime.” (Cole was pilloried for taking that position by Kenneth Anderson in Opinio Juris, who asks, “if it’s sensible and legal now, why wasn’t it sensible and legal during the Bush years? Is this the same David Cole who appeared on panels with me over the last few years and who didn’t seem in those years to have any daylight between him and the Center for Constitutional Rights, Human Rights Watch, or Human Rights First on the principle of try-or-release?”)

Let’s set aside for now the very legitimate question of whether these progressive civil libertarians would have taken the same position during the Bush years, or if they just inherently trust President Obama to handle battlefield detention against a non-traditional enemy better than Bush did. The positions these people are taking is informed, at least, by what the Supreme Court ruled in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, although that case pertained only to the detention of Taliban fighters, while we were at war with Afghanistan. And it’s in line with what the federal courts have been ruling, with some variations, in a string of habeas corpus cases.

The proposal for an executive order to clarify the Obama administration’s position on the extent of its wartime authorities of preventive detention is very different, however, from the controverisal position that some more conservative lawyers and think-tank scholars like Jack Goldsmith, Benjamin Wittes and Neal Katyal (traditionally a moderate Democrat and now deputy solicitor general in the Obama administration) have been promoting. The Wittes proposal released on Friday with Brookings colleague Colleen Peppard, for example, would create an entirely new system of preventive detention that’s not limited to the president’s authority under the laws of war.

On Monday, Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor and former head of the Office of Legal Counsel at DOJ under President Bush, joined Wittes, a Brookings scholar, in a Washington Post op-ed to argue that a preventive detention scheme should be debated in Congress and spelled out clearly through legislation, not by the president by executive order. To them, an executive order would be “a nearly wholesale adoption of the Bush administration’s unilateral approach to detention.”

That, it seems, is where the current debate lies. Committed civil liberties advocates such as the ACLU, Center for Constitutional Rights, Human Rights Watch and others may still be arguing against a preventive detention scheme entirely, but given that the Obama administration has consistently argued its right to detain “combatants” (however they’re defined) during what it continues to call a “war” — not only in the Gitmo habeas cases but in regards to the detention of some 600 men imprisoned at the U.S. Air base in Bagram, Afghanistan — it’s impossible to imagine that the administration is going give up that authority in the future.

Although as Spencer pointed out, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs did say on Monday that the president is not considering issuing an order that “relies on legal theories that we have the inherent authority to detain people,” he certainly didn’t rule out basing a preventive detention system on some other authority — whether granted by the laws of war, or by an act of Congress.

I’ll be writing more soon about what that Congressional act might look like.

The debate over so-called “preventive detention” has obscured the real issues facing the administration. The laws of war have always allowed the military to detain fighters seized on the battlefield, indefinitely without charge until the end of hostilities. The Supreme Court’s Hamdi decision in 2004 approved such traditional law of war detention for fighters seized in Afghanistan. Some such fighters are now detained in Guantanamo (where they are entitled to habeas) and some are detained in Afghanistan. US forces are still engaged in combat in Afghanistan and now in the border region of Pakistan and will be for some indefinite period. I have no doubt that the Obama administration will continue to claim the authority to “preventively” detain fighters seized on the battlefields of Afghanistan or the mountains of Pakistan. No additional authority from Congress is necessary for them to do so and we and other civil libertarians for many years have recognized that such traditional law of war detentions without charge are perfectly proper.

The issue that has yet to be resolved by the Obama administration is whether they will continue the Bush administration’s claim of authority to pick up suspected terrorists far from any zone of active hostilities and hold them without criminal charge but with some form of ersatz due process. The [Jack] Goldsmith/[Benjamin] Wittes etc. faction has long been urging a new statute to allow detentions of suspected terrorists without any criminal trials based on secret evidence from intelligence agencies. I take the Washington Post article that the administration may not endorse legislation as a potentially positive sign that this pernicious idea may be rejected.

If that happens, we will have much to rejoice about. At the same time, the Obama administration will still have to deal with the so-called “legacy” cases; individuals who should never have been picked up under the laws of war, who are now in Guantanamo (and a handful in Bagram) and who in order to continue to be detained, should immediately be charged with criminal offenses.

Recall that Martin told me on Friday that she was a civil-libertarian defender of using an executive order as a way of forestalling an over-broad legislative proposal for preventive detentions.