EXECUTIVE WATCH

The Washington Post reports that the White House is producing an executive order that would allow the president to detain terrorism suspects indefinitely.  Such an order could use language from Bush administration memos.  Josh Gerstein reports a moderate denial of the story from the White House.  Hilzoy goes through the entire report and winds up opposed to the proposal.  Meanwhile, one town in Montana and one in Michigan both begin lobbying to house any relocated detainees.  Senators from those states are unhappy with this idea.

Deborah Pearlstein reads the war funding bill and speculates about the future of Guantanamo.  She lists various challenges that could be raised against Congress’s attempt to prevent detainees from being transferred into the United States, but doesn’t see much chance of those theories being upheld in court. Meanwhile, Ben Smith reports on speculation that the detainees transferred to Bermuda may have been sent there in exchange for a promise to give more leeway to offshore banks.

Candidate Obama promised to display all bills for five days before signing them.  President Obama’s record on that promise has, so far, been underwhelming.  The White House has now clarified the policy, stating that they will post the bills sooner, possibly before they are passed by Congress.  Jonathan Adler argues that this is part of a larger issue in Washington, noting that few, if any, members of Congress read the climate-change bill passed on Friday.

The Supreme Court tackled the thorny problem of whether school administrators may strip-search students when looking for drugs.  The court’s opinion held, 8-1, that the search violated the Fourth Amendment but, 7-2, that the school official sued was entitled to qualified immunity against the violation.  Ed Whelan has the rundown.  Patrick at Popehat summarizes the decision as “No justice for Savannah Redding, but at least they can’t do it to your kids.”  Publius at Obsidian Wings has a more upbeat take, arguing that qualified immunity is necessary for the protection of constitutional rights.

At his first daytime press conference, Obama called on Nico Pitney of the Huffington Post to deliver the first question.  As it turns out, the administration had spoken with Pitney about this idea beforehand (though they did not specify the exact question to be asked).  Michael Calderone has some thoughts and the video.  Marcy Wheeler thinks that this is a non-issue and an innovative way for the White House to get questions from Iran.  Julian Sanchez doesn’t argue with that, but does have concerns about the White House coordinating questions with the press corps.

The Pentagon has decided not to release the video of the deadly airstrike in Garani, Afghanistan.  An official reports that the issue has “run its course” and that further disclosures would only prolong the argument over “a difference of opinions in terms of the numbers of civilian casualties.”  Fox News has video of a different engagement, executed under a new policy on airstrikes.  Alice Ristroph makes some points about why images are so important and criticizes the new administration’s “impulse to silence.”

Former Congressman Tom Davis emerges as the frontrunner for the cybersecurity “czar” post at the White House.  Early reaction seems to lean negative.  Danielle Citron puts forth a list of controversial positions that Davis has taken to restrict privacy and links to Ryan Singel, who has more.

The Hill reports that Obama issued his sixth signing statement on Friday.  The five-paragraph statement denies Congress’s ability to force the president to pressure the World Bank to improve labor and environmental standards and also argues against efforts to force the Secretary of the Treasury to coordinate between the World Bank and the IMF.  Matthew Franck refers to it as “a signing statement worthy of George W. Bush.”

The ACLU admits that, while arguing against many government-created watchlists, they themselves agreed to monitor their employees as part of their participation in the Combined Federal Campaign, which helped them raise about $500,000 per year.  Bill Flanigan argues that this makes the ACLU a willing participant in the government’s watchlist programs.

Congress and the White House continue to jab at each other over the firing of former IG Gerald Walpin.  The latest salvo?  Sen. Chuck Grassley accuses the Obama administration of interfering with multiple inspectors general.  Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal calls for the abolition of inspector general posts altogether.

The Army has refused a request from Stars and Stripes to embed a reporter in the city of Mosul, Iraq.  Stars and Stripes claims that the ban was made, at least partly, because reporter Heath Druzin “refused to highlight” good news on his last embed.  David Axe reports that “dis-embedding” is not an uncommon occurrence in Iraq.

John Elwood reviews a pending OLC opinion about whether the Inspector General of the TARP program is within the Department of the Treasury or not.  Elwood notes that it is unusual for the public to know about OLC activities before an opinion is issued.  The current situation came about because of a dispute between the Department of the Treasury and the IG about some documents covered by attorney-client privilege.  Elwood suggests that the underlying issue has already been resolved and questions whether OLC will issue a binding opinion or not.

The American Constitution Society held a panel discussing Jack Balkin’s book The Constitution in 2020.  Reva Siegel hosted; video is here.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Ashcroft v. Iqbal, released in May, may be the most important business case out of the 2008-2009 Supreme Court term.  According to reporter Kristina Peterson, the case raises the pleading standard needed to survive a motion to dismiss.  Odd result for a national security case.

American troops are poised to withdraw from major metropolitan areas in Iraq.  However, roughly 130,000 troops will remain until next September.  Kelley Vlahos is scornful of the decision and claims that leaving this many troops does not constitute a “withdrawal.”

Marisa Taylor reports that DEA pilots are suing after being ordered to Afghanistan.  At issue is whether civilians can be threatened with demotions for refusing to serve in war zones.  Two years ago, the State Department faced a similar problem but managed to find enough volunteers to moot the issue.

The New York Daily News gained exclusive access to the FBI’s logs of Saddam Hussein’s interrogation.  James Gordon Meek reports, in two parts, how FBI agent George Piro was able to “break” the Iraqi dictator through dialogue.  Part I is here; Part II is here.  Links to the logs are provided at the site.

The Department of Justice requests volunteers to attend the Islamic Society of North America’s convention.  Jennifer Rubin reminds readers that ISNA was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case.  The New York Times reports that the Obama administration is facing a dispute between Treasury, State, and Justice over a report that members of the Saudi royal family provided substantial financial support for Al Qaeda.  Thomas Joscelyn sees this as being part of a larger pattern.

Vice President Joe Biden was tapped to mediate the dispute between the National Intelligence Director and the Director of Central Intelligence as to who is the primary official in the intelligence community.