Some detainees are so dangerous, he said, that “they may not be able to be tried for that reason, [and] remain dangerous, and for that reason we need to focus on [them]. If we are to maintain that … we need to establish at least some kind of reporting mechanism to the federal courts.” It’s hard to see how this is much different than indefinite detention without charge, and it calls Panetta’s commitment to the rule of law into question.

What sort of process would be established to adjudicate detainee guilt or innocence in such a case? This sounds a lot less process-intensive than national security courts. It’ll be interesting to see what the Obama administration’s more progressive legal/security officials — Dawn Johnsen and Marty Lederman at the Justice Department, Greg Craig and Mary DeRosa in the White House; and Jeh Charles Johnson at the Defense Department — make of this.

Oh, and one really strong signal that the detentions/interrogations regime designed by the Bush administration is coming to an end: Marty Lederman, a relentless critic of the Bush administration’s legal contentions about the war on terrorism (and a blogger at Balkinization), will become deputy assistant attorney general at the Office of Legal Counsel. That’s John Yoo’s old job.

The hearing is just being gaveled in as I type, but in Johnson’s answers to prepared questions, the general counsel-designate indicated he’ll be tearing up the legal opinions of his predecessor, Jim Haynes, which the Senate Armed Services Committee tied to the torture that has occurred under the Rumsfeld-controlled Pentagon.

If confirmed, are there specific categories of General Counsel legal opinions that you expect to reconsider and possibly revise? If so, what categories?

If confirmed, one of my objectives is to asses whether the DoD General Counsel’s legal opinions currently in effect need to be reconsidered or revised.

What role do you expect to play, if confirmed, in the development and consideration (or reconsideration) of legal opinions by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) of the Department of Justce that directly affect the Department of Defense?

If confirmed, I expect to work with the Office of legal Counsel in the development, consideration and reconsideration of OLC legal opinions, while recognizing that the ultimate responsibility for the development of those opinions resides with the Department of Justice.

What actions would you take in response to an opinion issued by OLC with which you disagreed as a matter of proper interpretation of the law?

If OLC issued an opinion with which I materially disagreed, I would not hesitate to inform OLC of the extend and nature of the disagreement, mindful, again, that the Attorney General is the chief legal officer of the United States and that his or her legal opinions are controlling throughout the Executive Branch.

Update: OOOOOOPS. Sorry about that, HRC’s hearing is on Tuesday, not Thursday. I regret the error. Thanks to Adam Blickstein of Democracy Arsenal for setting me right.