Critics Call Obama's Tribunals "Bush Lite"

President Says Detainees' Legal Rights Will Be Protected, But Restarting Terror Trials May Jeopardize Closing Of Gitmo

(CBS/AP)  In an apparent reversal, President Barack Obama is reviving the Bush administration's much-criticized military tribunals for Guantanamo Bay detainees, shocking those who expected the president to end them completely.

CBS News correspondent Kimberly Dozier reports that the president says these will not be your Bush-era tribunals, promising a new system that guarantees more legal rights for detainees.

Mr. Obama said the changes were designed to give defendants stronger legal protections, such as a ban on evidence "obtained through torture, or by using cruel or degrading interrogation methods," like waterboarding; limiting use of hearsay evidence; granting the accused more say in who represents them; and protecting detainees who refuse to testify from legal sanctions.

But his action was almost instantly denounced by critics who called the new tribunals "Bush Lite," reports Dozier.

During his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama was highly critical of the commissions used by the Bush administration.

"By any measure, our system of trying detainees has been an enormous failure," he said last June 18.

And one of his first actions as president was setting in motion the closing of Guantanamo Bay prison within 12 months.

Re-opening these military tribunals may also delay the closing of Guantanamo, says Dozier. The earliest the trials of 13 defendents (9 of whom are charged with helping orchestrate the September 11 terror attacks) can resume is September. That would give prosecutors about four months to finish before the end of the year, because these military tribunals cannot be held back in the United States.

The rest of the 241 Guantanamo detainees will either be released, transferred to other countries, tried in civilian U.S. federal courts or, potentially, held indefinitely as prisoners of war with full Geneva Conventions rights.

"This is the best way to protect our country, while upholding our deeply-held values," Mr. Obama said in a three-paragraph White House statement.

The administration said he was not embracing the Bush-era system because it would be so significantly changed.

Human rights groups disagreed.

"In one swift move, Obama both backtracks on a major campaign promise to change the way the United States fights terrorism and undermines the nation's core respect for the rule of law," said Amnesty International executive director Larry Cox.

"As a constitutional lawyer, Obama must know that he can put lipstick on this pig - but it will always be a pig," said Zachary Katznelson, legal director of Reprieve, a London-based legal action charity that represents 33 Guantanamo detainees.

Critics called it a return to a second class system of justice for cases without enough evidence for a federal trial.

David Remes, a attorney for 18 detainees, said, "It's a prosecutor's dream, it's a defendent's nightmare."

The White House disagrees: "The notion that this is the same vehicle is simply, it's simply not true," said Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

Mr. Obama's announcement was greeted more warmly on Capitol Hill, where he will need broad support to quickly push through tribunal changes. The White House hopes to do so before mid-September, when a new 120-day freeze the president put on the cases Friday runs out.

The Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, D-Mich., called the changes "essential in order to address the serious deficiencies in existing procedures." Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell said the announcement was an "encouraging development."

"It's a difficult legal situation, and I think this is really the only rational choice to make," said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., who opposes bringing detainees to the military's maximum security prison located in his state.

The tribunal system was established after the military began taking detainees from the battlefields of Afghanistan in late 2001. But the process immediately and repeatedly was challenged by human rights and legal organizations for denying defendants rights they would be granted in most other courts.

As a senator, Mr. Obama voted for one version of the tribunal law that gave detainees additional rights, but then voted against the more limited 2006 legislation that ultimately became law.

Friday's changes restore some of those rights.

Veterans of the Bush White House say Mr. Obama faced the same hard choice their boss did: Finding a way to keep dangerous men in jail.

"Call it a war on terror, call it what you like, but if there is an ongoing fight, then the openness, the due process that is normally attached to a criminal legal process is difficult," said CBS News national security analyst Juan Zarate.

The latest delay, however, means Mr. Obama could face an uncomfortable choice as the clock runs out on his self-imposed January 2010 deadline to close Guantanamo.

His administration will have only four months to finish the nine trials before then, or risk moving the cases to the United States if they are still under way. If that happens, the detainees would be given even greater legal rights than they have at Guantanamo - and more than Mr. Obama wants to give.

Asking Congress to change the 2006 commissions law could create longer delays. Lawmakers, leery that the detainees could be brought to the U.S., already have held up funding for closing the prison until the White House outlines details of how it would happen.

President Obama could roll back the January 2010 deadline, which he imposed on his second day in office. That could throw in doubt his campaign promise to shut down the prison and, at the least, highlight his struggle to reverse Bush-era national security policies that damaged America's image worldwide and stoked recruitment among insurgents.

Clive Stafford Smith, who represents several current and former detainees, was surprised that the Obama administration plans to restart the trials at Guantanamo instead of elsewhere. "There is zero chance that the military commissions could be over by January, so that cannot possibly be the plan," he said.

Navy Lt. Richard Federico, who represents two Guantanamo detainees charged before the military commissions, including alleged 9/11 plotter Ramzi bin al Shibh, also doubted cases could be completed by January. Litigation over the legality of the new rules "will certainly incur additional delay," Federico told The Associated Press.

The White House says this is not a departure from campaign promises. They said they always had a problem with the way tribunals were carried out, not the idea of military commissions overall.

Don Baer, who served as Director of Strategic Planning and Communications in the Clinton White House, said Mr. Obama is "not technically" breaking a campaign promise.

"He's modifying where he was back last August," Baer said on CBS' The Early Show Saturday Edition. "It's an indication that governing is a more complicated and complex situation … than campaigning is.

"I suspect it's a change of direction that will help the president because it underscores he's governing in a way that is going to keep the country safer."

Baer suggested that presidents get more information about security threats than do presidential candidates, and so Mr. Obama was simply acting on what he knew. "Given what he knew at the time, he was being responsible. Given what he knows today, he's being even more responsible."

Todd Harris, who was John McCain's communications director during his 2000 White House run, said Mr. Obama was simply being realistic and applauded his decision.

"But let's be honest here: this is a reversal," he said on The Early Show. "He campaigned as someone who was going to close the book on Bush-era terrorism techniques, but seems to be writing a new chapter. It's not just the military commissions; it's continued support for the Bush administration's warrantless wiretap programs, keeping Guantanamo Bay open, refusing to release the photos of depicted abuse.

"Time after time, as Don said, the administration is finding that it's a lot harder to actually implement these campaign promises than it was to make them back in the campaign."

[dhouston121]

Yeah right. We're getting this line a lot from you Limbaughricans these days.
Posted by curb_global_warming_now

Ah, and we are4 seeing how lame you democrats really can be? I guess you're scared of Limbaugh because you keep calling the Republicans the wrong name. You have to be the most dumbest party there is

[frounds]

What we see here is the truth about the office of the President. The position is essentially powerless. Power is splintered between the military, Congress, and the financial system.

[Kuei1248]

This is not "Bush Lite". It is Bush Dark.

[jmca2009]

Is Nancy Pelosi's poor memory a diversion? maybe, but from what? Republicans have no fear of the facts, they don't believe waterboarding is torture, nor is it illegal. It will be a tough case to make that any official broke the law... morally wrong, maybe... illegal, no.
It is however a great opportunity to demonstrate how shallow and political opportunists Nancy and the other democrats are.
She signed off on it and so did other Democrats, you know many that also voted for the war.

There is the fantasy utopia that many of the Democrat base live in, and then there is reality.
Now that Obama is in charge he will not pull out of Iraq, not close Qitmo, or fulfill any campaign promises if it means comprmising America's security because he wants to succeed as President.

More power to him, he is learning what Bush already figured out.

[cmc1227]

Vua-Quan-Nhan,

You are vacuous.

[ajjaxtheleast]

Then,,, continueing to kill people in other countries is "Bush medium"?.

Dems are getting to be Republicans "lite",,,,,

How easy it must be for some dems to totally vanquish from their
minds that, for instance, we just tore apart 25 children and 30 women,,,
in Afghanistan,,,,,not including the men,,AND WITH the promise of more
to come,,,However our military EXPLAINED that we ONLY, ONLY,,,
killed SOME of them.

If Obama is to be Bush lite, medium or heavy he should receive
the appropriate responses.

It's too bad to, because Obama will likely accomplish more
than the last three presidents combined,,,,,
but it's the body-bag count for some.,,,sorry.

Our case against the repubs is getting weaker and weaker,,,,

No, not a repub here.,,,hundreds of posts to prove it

[ajjaxtheleast]

Obama has no left left, right? right!

,,,,,,,,,,,,,Signed,Lefty

[rednomo]

From The Rachel Maddow Show May 14, 2009. Rachel lays out the time line for how torture was used in the run up to the invasion of Iraq and to justify the invasion after the U.S. had already gone in.

MADDOW: But we begin with a major development in what we know about former Vice President Dick Cheney and his role in authorizing torture. Over the past three months, there has been a steady stream of new information released about the Bush administration?s torture program. Today, the dots started to connect?all the way up to the office of the former vice president of the United States.

Within three months after the attacks on 9/11, the Bush administration began making the case for invading Iraq, because Iraq, they said, was connected to al Qaeda. Vice President Cheney went on ?Meet the Press? and said that Mohammed Atta, the lead 9/11 hijacker, met with Iraqi officials before the attack.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD CHENEY, FMR. U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: Well, what we now have that?s developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that?which has been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: It?s been pretty well confirmed, said the vice president. In fact, that report turned out to be false.

But we now know that something else was going on in secret?inside government?while Dick Cheney was making those public pronouncements, like that one that you just saw from December 2001. According to the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Carl Levin, as far as back as December 2001, the Pentagon was seeking information from the agency that runs the SERE program. The SERE program trains U.S. troops to resist the kinds of torture that were used by communist forces to get false confessions from American troops for use in propaganda.

[rednomo]

So the wingnuts are having their fun this week with the Nancy Pelosi Pinata, including Blubber Boy:

Limbaugh: We are going to learn very soon if women can finally break the glass ceiling. You know what the test is? Let me tell you what the test is. Will Nancy Pelosi resign as Speaker of the House? That's the test. Come on now, we've had two men resign -- maybe even three! -- we've had Fort Worthless Jim Wright resign as Speaker, we've had Mister Newt resign as Speaker, we had Bob Livingston resign as Speaker-elect, before he became Speaker. So if women really want equal treatment, if they really want to crash through that glass ceiling, there is no better benchmark than Nancy Pelosi taking herself and her place right alongside two men who resigned -- Fort Worthless Jim Wright, and Mister Newt.

Gee, no latent animus toward women there, eh? Whatever. Let them have their fun -- it's what they do, and somebody's gotta be the pinata. They'll eventually move on when it all becomes lifeless enough, usually when the realization there's not much there there dawns on their dim horizons. It's even sometimes useful for "bipartisan" Democrats of the Pelosi mold to have to endure this treatment, since it reminds them just who their friends really are.

Because ultimately, as we've said, this sideshow is irrelevant. Indeed, what right-wingers seem to have virtually guaranteed is that we'll have the Truth Commission that this whole diversion was about avoiding in the first place. Rather than establish that Pelosi had no standing to call for one, all this foofara has done is demonstrate the real need for having a thorough and dispassionate examination of the matter that sets the record straight and plays no partisan favorites.

Which is what the right-wingers are really worried the most about. Urging Nancy Pelosi to resign is just a way to keep their minds, and everyone else's off the reality that it was indeed the Bush administration that instituted a torture regime in America for the first time in its history -- to their everlasting shame.

[hungry1968-15]

Hey Retired Vet answer some questions. A "yes" to any might justify your vote!

1) Did you beleive that Obama had at least a decade leading a successful business venture?

2) Did you believe that Obama had at least a decade of hands on experience in Foreign Policy or International Economics

3) Did you believe that Obama had served in an Exceutive capacity in government for a decade or more?

4) Did you believe that Obama had originated and 10 or more pieces of LANDMARK importance while serving in a legislative capacity? By this I mean Bills that changed our lives and served as a beacon for our country? (No stuffing failed abortion kids into bags doesn;t count! lol)


If you can answer yes to 2 or moreof these, you'll still be wrong. But at least will know it's merely because you are a moron.
Posted by allylic at 10:25 PM : May 16, 2009








I don't know where you get the idea that these requirements are necessary for someone to be the president, but by your own yardstick, we haven't had a "qualified" president since FDR.

But Obama is certainly doing a much better job of running this country than any president since Kennedy or Ike were in office.

[Dgunner]

II certainly does calm the spirit knowing we have so many people who can do a better kob than obama. I was wondering where to send the donations . The simple fact that so many know so much without the credits of academic nature . Rplacing Obama will be so easy.NOT.I read the post and they have coninced me theblind leading the can't see are blazing new trails like never before.

[hungry1968-15]

I think the should just kill all those people in Guantanamo bay. just put a gun to their head and firer.and if people don't like it put a gun to their head too. to bad so sad
Posted by mingwong-2009 at 2:29 AM : May 17, 2009






Including the innocent?

Who are you - Pol Pot?

[woodjd42]

The point is that after we got hit Bush and Chenny did everything they could to stop another attack and they succed in stopping multi attack.

Nice try though on the monday morning qb
Posted by jedi0849

Are you an idiot or what?
If you believe that bush/chaney did anything other than lie to you you're just plain stupid. These two could care less about this country or it's safety. These two did more to ruin this country than anyone in history. This country may never be able to recover from the damage they have done. Yet there are people like you that swollow each piece of sh!$ they feed you.

[mrzerato]

Actually, it was Bill Clinton who dragged Congress kicking and screaming into NAFTA.
Posted by weedapoopl

I see the Clinton e-stalker is busy again.

[armyoftwelve]

Don't you mean B-U-S-C-H Lite??

[RetiredVeteran]

Many of us voted for "change we can believe in," not a third Bush term. The only change I've seen is Obama changing his mind and abandoning the positions on the key issues that garnered my vote. As the last Bush to occupy the White House said, "fool me once, shame on you ... or maybe me, fool me again and ... " I fell for the whole "Yes We Can" and "Hope" and "Change" crap only to find I voted and campaigned for a President with the backbone of a jellyfish. I won't be fooled again. Leadership means having the courage of your convictions and doing what's right even when it's not politically expedient. President Obama let down the people who placed their trust in him. So much for loyalty. To Rush and Newt and Cheney and Sean ... well played. In the end it didn't take Kryptonite to cause Superman to crumble, just a little hot air.

[jedi0849]

We shouldn't have gotten hit in the first place if Bush had gotten off of his asss and paid attention to the intelligence briefings and Clinton's transition teams.
Posted by slownewsday05_ at 6:56 PM : May 16, 2009
+ report abuse + permalink

Oh please, like anyone could of predicted that. Clinton had the chance to take Osama out and he did nothing.

I love how the dems try to blame Bush for getting hit, Maybe we should blame FDR for Pearl harbor or blame Lincoln for the south spliting.

Im sure FDR got lots of breifings saying Japan was at war.

The point is that after we got hit Bush and Chenny did everything they could to stop another attack and they succed in stopping multi attack.

Nice try though on the monday morning qb

[weedapoopl]

All the reason to go into Iraq were BS.
Posted by hungry1968-15 at 3:09 PM : May 16, 2009

Finally we agree. That's what I have been saying all along.

And here are the reasons we were given:

"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

?The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. "

Speech from the Oval Office by President William Clinton, explaining his attack on Iraq
reported by The Associated Press
Wednesday, December 16, 1998

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/clintontext121698.htm

Bill Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998.




Here?s Hillary repeating Bill?s impeachment eve speech, almost word for word:

?Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people?

?It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons??

Hillary Clinton?s Senate floor speech, explaining her vote FOR war against Iraq
October 10, 2002

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html



And here's Hillary linking her vote to 9/11:

?And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am. ?

Hillary Clinton?s Senate floor speech explaining her vote FOR war against Iraq
October 10, 2002

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html



Yes, the Clintons both fed us a steady line of BS to persuade us into a war based on total lies backed with no physical evidence whatsoever.

Now we know it was all lies. There were no WMD, and there is no evidence that Saddam was developing nuclear weapons.

It was all lies from the Clintons.

Congress adopted the Clinton WMD lies, and they voted overwhelmingly for war in Iraq.

But now the Democrats play historical revisionism by pretneding none of that ever happened. They want to blame it only on Bush, as if he dragged Congress kicking and screaming into the war.

Actually, it was Bill Clinton who dragged Congress kicking and screaming into NAFTA.

[jedi0849]

Obama's teleprompter realizes now that its harder to govern then to just critisize the previous administration.

The teleprompters inexperience is comming out into the light right now. I hope our country survives without being hit again before we can get this loser out of the white house

[SJC1701]

These people have to be put on trial and this will do it - what is the problem?

As Emerson said "Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."