PDA

View Full Version : "Preventive Detention" for *deemed* threats to national security



Solomon
05-21-09, 14:04
Obama Is Said to Consider Preventive Detention Plan (NYT article) (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21obama.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=obama&st=cse)

Obama Is Said to Consider Preventive Detention Plan

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: May 20, 2009

WASHINGTON — President Obama told human rights advocates at the White House on Wednesday that he was mulling the need for a “preventive detention” system that would establish a legal basis for the United States to incarcerate terrorism suspects who are deemed a threat to national security but cannot be tried, two participants in the private session said.

The discussion, in a 90-minute meeting in the Cabinet Room that included Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and other top administration officials, came on the eve of a much-anticipated speech Mr. Obama is to give Thursday on a number of thorny national security matters, including his promise to close the detention center at the naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

Human rights advocates are growing deeply uneasy with Mr. Obama’s stance on these issues, especially his recent move to block the release of photographs showing abuse of detainees, and his announcement that he is willing to try terrorism suspects in military commissions — a concept he criticized bitterly as a presidential candidate.

The two participants, outsiders who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the session was intended to be off the record, said they left the meeting dismayed.

They said Mr. Obama told them he was thinking about “the long game” — how to establish a legal system that would endure for future presidents. He raised the issue of preventive detention himself, but made clear that he had not made a decision on it. Several senior White House officials did not respond to requests for comment on the outsiders’ accounts.

“He was almost ruminating over the need for statutory change to the laws so that we can deal with individuals who we can’t charge and detain,” one participant said. “We’ve known this is on the horizon for many years, but we were able to hold it off with George Bush. The idea that we might find ourselves fighting with the Obama administration over these powers is really stunning.”

The other participant said Mr. Obama did not seem to be thinking about preventive detention for terrorism suspects now held at Guantánamo Bay, but rather for those captured in the future, in settings other than a legitimate battlefield like Afghanistan. “The issue is,” the participant said, “What are the options left open to a future president?”

Mr. Obama did not specify how he intended to deal with Guantánamo detainees who posed a threat and could not be tried, nor did he share the contents of Thursday’s speech, the participants said.

He will deliver the speech at a site laden with symbolism — the National Archives, home to the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Across town, his biggest Republican critic, former Vice President Dick Cheney, will deliver a speech at the American Enterprise Institute.

Mr. Cheney and other hawkish critics have sought to portray Mr. Obama as weak on terror, and their argument seems to be catching on with the public. On Tuesday, Senate Democrats, in a clear rebuke to the White House, blocked the $80 million Mr. Obama had requested in financing to close the Guantánamo prison.

The lawmakers say they want a detailed plan before releasing the money; there is deep opposition on Capitol Hill to housing terrorism suspects inside the United States.

“He needs to convince people that he’s got a game plan that will protect us as well as be fair to the detainees,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who agrees with Mr. Obama that the prison should be closed. “If he can do that, then we’re back on track. But if he doesn’t make that case, then we’ve lost control of this debate.”

But Mr. Obama will not use the speech to provide the details lawmakers want.

“What it’s not going to be is a prescriptive speech,” said David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s senior adviser. “The president wants to take some time and put this whole issue in perspective to identify what the challenges are and how he will approach dealing with them.”

Ridge_Runner_5
05-21-09, 20:31
**** you, Constitution!

Saginaw79
05-21-09, 21:22
Here it comes...1984

dookie1481
05-21-09, 21:37
Jesus Christ, this can't be for real, can it?!

dookie1481
05-21-09, 21:42
he is willing to try terrorism suspects in military commissions

I haven't heard about this. So does this mean they would be subject to the Geneva Convention? And no more 5.56 Optimized?

Jay

jwinch2
05-21-09, 21:43
Last time I checked, we were already doing that. He is just formalizing the process. You can be pissed that he railed against this sort of thing during his campaign, (I am) but this does not change our policy in any way.

It just proves again how little he actually knew about what the hell he was talking about prior to getting elected and now, when faced with the stark reality that the world does not fit into his perfect little political theories, he has to make some decisions in a very similar fashion to how President Bush made them.

Having said all of that, I do have significant problems with this, especially if the person is a citizen of the United States.

Ridge_Runner_5
05-21-09, 21:55
Dunno...sounds to me like if you are deemed an enemy of the state, they can kick in your door at 2am and drag you off to the gulag until such a time as they care to charge you with something...

dookie1481
05-21-09, 22:00
Dunno...sounds to me like if you are deemed an enemy of the state, they can kick in your door at 2am and drag you off to the gulag until such a time as they care to charge you with something...

Well that is certainly where it will eventually lead.

Jay

Erk1015
05-22-09, 00:01
So you add this to the DHS memo calling veterans and right wing nuts (all gun owners) probable terrorists, and it looks like we're all about screwed.

Ridge_Runner_5
05-22-09, 00:03
Pretty much....welcome to M4C!

dbrowne1
05-22-09, 12:39
So I guess we can just suspend Habeas Corpus forever as long as we can make up some "emergency declaration" that will persist forever. Fifth Amendment? Due Process? Never heard of those.

This entire situation with the Gitmo detainees is a crock. If you're an enemy combatant super terrorist and you're SO dangerous that we have to keep you on a remote island without trial, the we should have just killed you where we found you in the first place. It's almost as though Bush was too afraid to just kill these shitbags (depsite all of his "hunt them down" rhetoric) so he stuffed them into Gitmo and figured we'd decide what to do with them later.

If you're a mere criminal then you get put in the pokey and tried like everyone else.

buzz_knox
05-22-09, 12:46
The left railed against this in order to come to power. Now that it is in power, the left will use the same tactics it "abhorred" but, I'm sure, with restraint and dignity.

The more things change, the more things stay the same: screwed up.

m4fun
05-22-09, 15:31
The big difference is that the left is building a case for domestic terrorists, those with radical views...like whatever they dont agree too...like owning more that 100rds of ammo or putting up a Christmas tree.

Domestic terrorists will quickly be political enemies. Watch how things get worded back and fourth by the spin-miesters.

Lets see:
1)DHS exposed their card on whom they deem bad, including recently returning troops(i.e. people who give a **** for this country and have demonstrated their willing to lay down the ultimate sacrifice)
2)OBH wanting a national fighting force, rivaling the size of the armed forces - for dealing with domestic issues
3)OBH setting up the domestic holding pens(maybes as an excuse for where the folks at Guantano will go...

Whats next, forces that will swear their allegiance to OBH?