Big news on The Chris Matthews show today from NBC Justice correspondent Pete Williams:
Williams - "The Obama administration's review of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay has yet to find a single detainee who needs needs to be held indefinitely, and their feeling now is they may only have two categories: those to be released, and those to be put on trial. This third category of people that have to be held forever? That may simply not exist."
Matthews - "In otherwords, we can either prove a criminal case against somebody, or we let them go?"
Williams - "Yes."
(emphasis his)
This is very reassuring news; it appears that the Obama administration has no intentions of applying indefinite detention in practice.
Hearing this on top of the recent news about Holder considering a prosecutor to investigate torture makes this one great weekend for America and The Constitution.
Now - let's keep it coming.
UPDATE x1: On the topic of global human rights, I recently composed and recorded a song for Neda and all others who have fallen during the recent Iran crackdown.
More updates below...
UPDATE x2: One comment asked for more source information, so I thought I should post that up here. This quote is from the Chris Matthews Show, which airs in most markets on Sunday at 11:00 am on NBC. The segment quoted is part of the weekly "Tell Me Something I Don't Know" segment, which airs at least a good twenty minutes into the program. I personally transcribed the quotes directly from the television program, with the help of a DVR recording device that allows me to rewind and be certain I've transcribed every statement correctly word for word.
UPDATE x3: There has been an extensive debate in the comments, with the argument being made by some that rejecting indefinite detention in practice is not enough, and the question is being raised as to why Obama is not rejecting the entire theory of indefinite detentions. In the comments, I address some of these questions - here is a summary of the highlights:
I believe Obama's motivation in being open to the theory of indefinite detention is to be able to say that he considered it thoroughly before rejecting it; beyond some generic goal of looking thoughtful and measured on national security in the midst of war, it specifically mitigates any future President from saying that Obama was hasty or haphazard in rejecting these methods, which could be the catalyst for attempting to employ them again in the future.
More importantly, Obama setting a precedent by rejecting the theory of indefinite detention would not bind future Presidents the same way that a court ruling would (furthermore, a court ruling such as the one just alluded to would only be possible if the DOJ argues for indefinite detention in court and loses, being struck down with new and specific judicial precedents, and such a DOJ argument could not go into court on a good faith basis with the President explictly contradicting the theory - although he does NOT have to obey it in practice). After all, Bush didn't need any Presidential precedents to do what he did, did he? I agree strongly with the view that over time, some president will always try to circumvent the law, but I think the past actions of previous Presidents have been proven irrelevant in a given CIC's analysis by Bush's actions; the only thing that can save us in the long run are specific judicial rulings and precedents which outlaw each of the Constitutional end runs of Bush, and thus the only thing that a sitting President can himself do to be effective on these issues involves the practical, not the theoretical, as the theoretical conclusions of Obama would be ignored by future GOP Presidents in a second (if not actively opposed for the very reason that those opinions represent the theoretical conclusions of the opposing party).
The fact is that Obama being open to things in theory that he would not be in practice is old news; it's been his approach since his Harvard Law days. His trick in reaching out to the right has always involved asking for an impossible condition that is not impossible in the eyes of his adversary (at least right away, but since the adversary is forced to provide an impossible condition, they are eventually forced to admit the reality to themselves); Obama would often say during the campaign that if idea x from the right could be scientifically or definitively proven to have positive results, then he would accept it as a good idea, and the same people would freak out every time that Obama is selling out to the right - but the fact is, if we really believe the facts are on our side as progressives (and they are), conservatives will not be able to satisfy the impossible conditions.
This has been Obama's way throughout his career: be open to things in theory that he would not be in practice, and reject methods on a practical basis whenever possible and not on ideological grounds. It's almost as if he's saying, my basis for disagreement on method x is not ideological, it is merely practical; that way, others with a different ideology will not be as inclined to reject it, and when someone with a different ideology eventually does come to power, the argument might at least have have a chance of holding up - or at least there won't be as much of a red flag waving at the bull to overturn it.
Some may argue that this is too elaborate a theory - just wishful thinking for blind optimists - but the fact is that it's more credible than the alternative pessimistic theories, which require a far greater leap of faith and ignorance of contradiction. For instance, if Obama is really secret plotting to expand executive power, then why would he in so many other areas be willing to let the judiciary and Congress take a lead role where they had largely ceased to under Bush? He is criticized for it here every day, for letting the courts or Congress decide issue after issue when a President could do it much more quickly with the stroke of a pen, so my question is why would Obama embark upon what appears to be in many aspects a campaign to restore power to the legislative and judicial branches if his real ambition is more executive power? How does one reconcile this? The fact is the only answer to that question would be an elaborate ruse and conspiracy far more complicated and far fetched than the scenario I have proposed.
UPDATE x4: Well, score one for the optimists. I put in the Afghan massacre as an example for the poll option below justifying the cynical viewpoint, so I have no choice but to cite this: in the time since I posted this diary, it was announced that Obama has ordered an investigation.
UPDATE x5: Here is the video of Pete Williams on Chris Matthews (h/t to Kovie):
UPDATE x6: I just realized that the link to the song I posted was incorrect, it is now fixed for those who would like to check it out (it's a quiet instrumental acoustic piece, inoffensive to just about all tastes and sensibilities). I was inspired to write it after watching the terrible video of Neda's senseless death, and I dedicated it to her and all the others who have recently died for freedom in Iran. I would love to put this song together with a video of its own, showing different images from the Green Revolution and the protests, both the tragic and the hopeful; however, I have never made an online video clip before and wouldn't know where to start. If anyone who has the visual talent and the know how would like to help out, I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to collaborate.