I keep confusing these two: Motion to Invoke Cloture on Motion to Proceed v. Motion to Invoke Cloture.

You quoted:

Reid Wednesday morning:

I am disappointed that we are again wasting time on a heavily bipartisan bill, the Travel Promotion Act, which has wide support by both the Democrats and Republicans. But the Republicans forced us to have a vote on cloture to allow us to get on the bill. All the Republicans voted for it. They are filibustering things they even agree with just to stall for time. This is 30 hours we could use to do a lot of good. I don't know what would be the rationale for wasting this time. Maybe they don't want President Obama to complete more legislation through us. It is beyond my ability to comprehend why we would waste this time.

It seems that the Republicans are holding all legislation hostage until the detainee photo bill becomes law. I don't see any other explanation for this.

The detainee photo bill is signed into law, the ACLU will fight it...

Strictly speaking, however, classification alone is not sufficient to exempt any such record from the FOIA. It must also be “properly classified,” and that is a determination that is to be made by a court of law.

Steven Aftergood - Secrecy News
http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009/06/congressional_action.html

Preventive Detention Proposal #1

NPR: Proposal Offers Specifics On Preventive Detention

Ever since President Obama proposed holding terrorism detainees without trial, the debate over preventive detention has been growing. Now, NPR has the first look at a detailed legislative proposal to hold detainees indefinitely. The document comes from two experts outside of government, and it is already being discussed in the Obama administration....

Benjamin Wittes of the Brookings Institution and his co-author, Colleen Peppard, plan to release a proposed law as early as Friday. It works through many of the difficult questions the Obama administration has skirted until now. Wittes acknowledges it will be controversial....

Wittes' proposal has complicated restrictions on whom the detention system would apply to. U.S. citizens would not be part of the system. The president could detain only "an agent of a foreign power" against whom Congress has authorized the use of military force. The detainee would also have to be "a danger both to any person and to the interests of the United States."

In the first phase of detention, the president could pick up anyone who fits those criteria and hold the person for 14 days. If the president wanted to hold the person longer, a judge would have to approve.

The detainee would have an attorney and hearsay evidence could be used against him, though not evidence obtained through coercion.

If a judge is persuaded that the detainee is a threat, the president could hold the detainee for six months. At the end of six months, the president could go back to the court and repeat the process.

Effectively, Wittes concedes, someone could be locked up forever as long as a court approves of the detention twice a year.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105940019

The paper is available here:

Designing Detention: A Model Law for Terrorist Incapacitation
Legal Architecture for the War on Terror, Terrorism, Justice and Law, Guantánamo, Executive Branch

Introduction: http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2009/0626_detention_wittes.aspx

Full Paper: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2009/0626_detention_wittes/0626_detention_wittes.pdf

Right. The assumption being, now that we have it, it's permanent. We just need to write up the rules for this thing we never should have constructed in the first place.

Yes, classic. If we must have a "preventive detention" system and we know we will, I think this is the only proposal I could condone. The significant difference is that detention wouldn't be indefinite. Of course, we don't have legislators who can be trusted.

Preventative Detention of Terrorist Suspects in Australia and the United States: A Comparative Constitutional Analysis

From the Conclusion: The scope of the preventative detention in the age of terrorism has been the subject of great debate among legal scholars. Nevertheless, most scholars agree that critical to the constitutionality and success of any such detention scheme is the incorporation of adequate procedural safeguards. Such safeguards must include, at the very least, strict time limits [meaning not indefinite], clear and objective standards upon which detention is to be imposed, a neutral decision-maker, notice to the detainee of the factual basis for the detention, an immediate hearing and opportunity to rebut the detention evidence, and prompt judicial review. This is best accomplished through a legislative process [not through an executive order] in the manner that the Australian preventative detention scheme was created. At the same time, a just system for preventative detention must recognize the severe and fundamental infringement on individual rights that incarceration for any length of time entails, as the United States Constitution expressly acknowledges.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=975792&rec=1&srcabs=1055501

Spencer Ackerman asked the same question:

What? What civil liberties organization actually encouraged the administration to set up a system of “prolonged detention” — the less euphemistic term would be indefinite detention — in the first place; let alone urged the administration to do it without congressional approval?

Update: Zach Roth at TPM reports that the Center for Constitutional Rights certainly doesn’t approve of the idea.

http://washingtonindependent.com/48971/uh-which-civil-liberties-groups-want-a-prolonged-detention-executive-order

I can't think of one civil liberties group I'm familiar with that would approve of an executive order for that purpose, including the ACLU.

bystander: Thanks. For the updates & AP confirmation, too.

sysprog: LOL