The increased risk of terrorism necessitates a capacity to detain and interrogate suspected violent extremists, but that framework must align with our laws to be effective and sustainable. When we are able, we will prosecute terrorists in Federal courts or in reformed military commissions that are fair, legitimate, and effective. For detainees who cannot be prosecuted--but pose a danger to the American people--we must have clear, defensible, and lawful standards. We must have fair procedures and a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified. And keeping with our Constitutional system, it will be subject to checks and balances. The goal is an approach that can be sustained by future Administrations, with support from both political parties and all three branches of government.What we really need, it seems, is a CONSTITUTIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY, because the Constitution is obviously in a helluva lot more danger than the United States is.
"Clear, defensible, and lawful standards" for holding prisoners who "cannot be prosecuted"? Sounds like the fucking Soviet Constitution.
Via Scott Horton, who observes:
This is about cases in which the United States has no meaningful evidence that would link the person held to a terrorist group. It looks like an endorsement of indefinitely detaining persons against whom the United States has no evidence of criminal conduct but whom it “suspects” may constitute a threat, usually based on the say-so of the intelligence service of some tyrannical but allied foreign power. That is the very definition of tyrannical conduct, yet here it is perversely touted as an example for emulation by others.I wonder if I would rather have Bush in power than Obama at this point, because then maybe the Democrats would get around to standing up to this crap.