Periodic Detention Reviews—Now With More Reviewers!

Jacob Sullum | March 9, 2011

On Monday, implicitly conceding that the prison at Guantanamo Bay won't be closing anytime in the forseeable future, President Obama issued an executive order that allows military tribunals there to hear new cases and authorizes the continued indefinite detention of the remaining 172 prisoners. Under the new order, a six-member Periodic Review Board will determine whether a prisoner's continued detention "is necessary to protect against a significant threat to the security of the United States." Each detainee will get his initial review within a year and additional reviews every third year thereafter. The process, which includes a a "Government-provided personal representative" charged with rebutting the government's case, seems quite similar to the reviews conducted during the Bush administration, most crucially in that it tasks the executive branch with approving its own decisions. The New York Times cites a law professor who is "pleased" that "the review panels would include representatives from the Departments of State, Justice and Homeland Security as well as Defense and the director of national intelligence."

The new executive order adds to the pile of evidence that Obama, despite his hope-arousing campaign talk about respecting civil liberties and the rule of law, is continuing his predecessor's anti-terrorism policies in almost all important respects. The best that can be said of his latest decision is that it applies only to current Guantanamo detainees (as opposed to terrorism suspects arrested in the future) and does not involve new legislation that would further institutionalize preventive detention for certain kinds of criminal suspects by reclassifying them as prisoners of a never-ending war.

The ACLU reacts to Obama's executive order. More on Obama's anti-terrorism policies vs. Bush's here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

Really?|3.9.11 @ 2:43PM|#

If obstructionist Republicans had not had such a commanding control of Congress from 2008-2010, then The Anointed One would have been able to close Gitmo as he promised.

prolefeed|3.9.11 @ 2:45PM|#

I'm gonna give that a D+ for trolling.

C'mon, you can be more convincing than that.

Props for the ACLU on this one, BTW.

Hugh Akston|3.9.11 @ 3:22PM|#

I think he was being sarcastic, Prolefeed.

Paul|3.9.11 @ 3:25PM|#

Sarcasm has no place in libertarian politics.

Anonymous Coward|3.9.11 @ 3:48PM|#

I thought sarcasm was one of the only two acceptable forms of libertarian discourse.

Hugh Akston|3.9.11 @ 3:54PM|#

Oh really? And what's the other one? You know what, fuck it! Your lack of specificity demonstrates that you're no true libertarian. Turn in your decoder ring and begone!

|3.9.11 @ 6:10PM|#

Where do i send the bill for my sarcasm meter that just exploded, Paul?

|3.9.11 @ 2:46PM|#

one prob w closing is some home countries dont want them back.

rather |3.9.11 @ 3:08PM|#

And more...The repatriation of convicted criminals is marred in complicated INS rules, and diplomatic roadblocks on the part of the detainee’s native country-who the hell wants them back?

A Beautiful Day in Guantanamo…

|3.9.11 @ 3:16PM|#

We should tell those countries that they either take back their prisoners or we invade them.

Obama|3.9.11 @ 3:21PM|#

But a promise is a promise.

|3.9.11 @ 3:24PM|#

""one prob w closing is some home countries dont want them back.""

I don't see that as a problem, you drop them off where you picked them up.

|3.9.11 @ 3:38PM|#

The solution to that is to give them green cards and set them free here.

rather|3.9.11 @ 3:49PM|#

They already have. I can't find the case but IIRC the murderer's deportation was halted by a SCOTUS judgment

|3.9.11 @ 11:24PM|#

Whoa Nelly....

Rich|3.9.11 @ 2:50PM|#

The best that can be said of his latest decision is that it applies only to current Guantanamo detainees ... and does not involve new legislation that would further institutionalize preventive detention ....

Oh, come on! It also (probably) does not invoke the Commerce Clause or force YouTube to remove "My Favorite Martian" postings.

|3.9.11 @ 2:51PM|#

Well, is it a war? Or is it a crime, and thus subject to criminal trials? It's a little of both probably. Jihadists are incorrigible prisoners of war. Since they have no country they are fighting for, except the next caliphate perhaps, where do you put them?

72 Virgins|3.9.11 @ 2:56PM|#

Since they have no country they are fighting for, except the next caliphate perhaps, where do you put them?

We'll take them.

|3.9.11 @ 3:01PM|#

Nimby. If you know what I mean.

72 Virgins|3.9.11 @ 3:04PM|#

Yes. ;-)

rather |3.9.11 @ 3:19PM|#

I don't get it; what would terrorists want with 72 libertarians?

a-hole|3.9.11 @ 3:42PM|#

How about we trade pickle cunt rectal rather for 72 Gitmo prisoners? I'd prefer 72 of them running around loose than her running off at the keyboard.

rather|3.9.11 @ 3:52PM|#

a-hole, I bet you would but baby they ain't going to blow you either

STEVE SMITH|3.9.11 @ 4:05PM|#

EVEN STEVE SMITH KNOW HOW USE PUNCTUATIONS!

rather |3.9.11 @ 4:12PM|#

You also better KNOW how to use a condom-good luck with these boy scouts

STEVE SMITH|3.9.11 @ 4:16PM|#

STEVE SMITH SMELL YOU HAVE GUSHING PERIODS! WHY YOU NEVER USE THEM TO POST?

Father Rather|3.9.11 @ 4:17PM|#

That's right. Leave the altar boys to me!

a-hole|3.9.11 @ 4:56PM|#

dear girl, I specifically didn't say "running off at the mouth" because I couldn't stand the image of you and your mouth! And I suspect that out of 72 newly freed men, statistically (about two percent of men identify as gay) at least one of them would.

ChrisO|3.9.11 @ 6:07PM|#

Trick question. There aren't actually 72 of us to be found.

|3.9.11 @ 3:18PM|#

Uh, how many people at Gitmo have been proven to be Jihadists?

|3.9.11 @ 3:20PM|#

You ruined my emu joke again, speedy typezalez!

|3.9.11 @ 3:28PM|#

Make it an emo joke and maybe then we can talk.

|3.9.11 @ 3:41PM|#

Best thing about having an emo lawn?
The grass cuts itself.

Hugh Akston|3.9.11 @ 4:45PM|#

That joke is itself emo.
Because no one likes it.

Paul|3.9.11 @ 4:16PM|#

If my lawn were emo... fucksticks sugarfree beat me to it.

Paul|3.9.11 @ 3:23PM|#

Why would they be at Gitmo if they weren't Jihadists? For the sunny beaches?

|3.9.11 @ 3:29PM|#

If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear, right? Other than years of trial-less detention, of course.

|3.9.11 @ 3:40PM|#

Well, is that not the point of the trials? What I was saying was, IF they are tried, and IF they are proven to be jihadists, what do you do with them? Is Jihad a crime? What do you get for that?

BakedPenguin|3.9.11 @ 3:34PM|#

Good thing the government doesn't make mistakes!

MNG|3.9.11 @ 3:42PM|#

Now if only we had some irrevocable punishment the government could administer...

|3.9.11 @ 3:46PM|#

Doing that every day.

|3.9.11 @ 3:19PM|#

If they're jihadists then they should be punished.

But you're assuming all Gitmo detainees are jihadists...making an ass out of a backwards emu.

MNG|3.9.11 @ 3:32PM|#

"On January 22, 2009, three executive orders were issued by President Obama, although only one of these orders explicitly deals with policy directed at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, most noticeably, the camp's closure within one year. All three could possibly impact the detention center, as well as how any detainee future or present will be held by the United States. While mandating the closure of the detention facility, the naval base as a whole was not subject to the order and will remain operational indefinitely. This plan was thwarted for the time being on May 20, 2009, when the United States Senate voted to keep the prison at Guantanamo Bay open for the foreseeable future and forbid the transfer of any detainees to facilities in the United States."

1. Obama could have pushed harder for this, but the Senate looks like the culprit here.
2. The Senate vote was 90-6 with most Dems voting to keep Gitmo going.

|3.9.11 @ 3:42PM|#

The New York Times cites a law professor who is "pleased" that "the review panels would include representatives from the Departments of State, Justice and Homeland Security as well as Defense and the director of national intelligence."

What? Nobody from the Star Chamber?

Anonymous Coward|3.9.11 @ 3:50PM|#

New boss=Old boss?

|3.9.11 @ 4:25PM|#

Nah. Boss = boss.

Barack Milhouse Obama|3.10.11 @ 12:05AM|#

I looking for someone's ass to kick.

GSL|3.9.11 @ 3:54PM|#

I've never understood why so many discussions of this issue confuse the Guantanamo prison with the indefinite-detention policy. It's the policy that's a black mark on America, and for all the "closing Guantanamo" talk it's been pretty clear to me that Obama's never had any serious intention of giving it up. I don't care about the fucking base itself; it's the indefinite detention without trial going on there that I can't stand.

|3.9.11 @ 4:18PM|#

But I guess the point is, what the fuck are these guys? See, if they are prisoners of war, indefinite detention is fine. Until the "war" is over. Is there a war? No need to get angry about the policy, unless you're certain of what they are.

I think they are a quandary, and nobody knows what to do with them.

GSL|3.9.11 @ 4:31PM|#

Unless you think both administrations were/are deliberately equivocating as a way of avoiding relinquishing the policy.

|3.9.11 @ 11:30PM|#

If they're POWs we've ripped the Geneva Conventions to shreds with our treatment of them.

The official line is that they're unlawful enemy combatants due to lack of uniforms, which is a joke as "Terror" doesn't have a recognized uniform for them to wear.

|3.9.11 @ 11:28PM|#

I don't think there were ever plans on closing the naval base itself...he promised to close the prison there.

GSL|3.9.11 @ 3:55PM|#

I think the Seasteading Institute might finally have its early adopters!

|3.9.11 @ 4:23PM|#

Nice to see Obama condescending to give the due process that SCOTUS has already signed off on. Shame about the two year delay, though. Chalk it up to political expediency and naive fecklessness, I suppose. Oh, well - eggs, omelettes, etc.

How should this work? Jihadis detained by our guys should get a prompt hearing on whether or not they have are actively engaged in the terrorism or insurgency.

If not, drop 'em off where we picked 'em up. Exactly where we picked 'em up.

If so, then I suspect they are war criminals - killing people without the sanction of the international law of war (uniforms, chain of command, etc.). I'm sure there's something on the books that makes directly or indirectly doing shit like planting IEDs, shooting up markets, killing our troops outside the law of war, a crime.

Give 'em either a death penalty, commuted on condition of cooperation with our inquiries, or a life sentence, which can always be commuted at our discretion.

|3.9.11 @ 11:32PM|#

Problem is, most of Gitmo detainees were not initially detained by our guys...they were handed over to us by a third party.

Nike Dunk Shoes|12.10.11 @ 1:46AM|#

thanks

Reason.com