Obama Proposes Preventative Detention for Terrorists Who Can't Be Tried

[Brainster]

Once again, Obama has the choice of doing it the way "human rights advocates" suggest or the Bush way, and he's chosen the correct course:

“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.

I'll give Obama credit; he's much more of a pragmatist than I realized. Preventative detention seems like a solid tool for use in the war on terror, and I am glad to see President Bush's methods in that struggle being validated by the new president.

 

[INRM]

I can't believe anybody would consider this a good idea.

Preventative Law Enforcement if taken to the degree that Obama wishes to would essentially be like establishing a Department of Pre-Crime like in Minority Report.

And I don't know how anyone could say this would not eventually be used in regular law enforcement functions...


INRM

 

[gumboot]

Yes I don't see how anyone could think this is a good idea. They're either a POW taken on a battlefield, and can be held until the war ends, or they're a suspected criminal who must be tried or released.

Preventative Detention in the way described amounts to a blatant violation of basic human rights.

 

[INRM]

Gumboot,

Agreed

 

[INRM]

The ACLU already knows about this, I'm thinking of writing my Congressman and Senators

 

[littlehulkster]

And once again, Obama proves that he is basically black Bush.

I think I'm going to have to revert to the "Don't blame me, I voted Socialist" defense again before too long.

 

[INRM]

Littlehulkster,

Yeah, more or less he is becoming a black-Bush. Well, a more articulate, and clever black Bush...

I don't agree with your beliefs regarding socialism though...


INRM

 

[Pardalis]

And once again, Obama proves that he is basically black Bush.

My personal theory is that once he got his national security briefings from the CIA and the military, Obama heard things most people wouldn't even dream of about what's really going on out there, he got info he wouldn't ever have imagined, and that made him realize and understand that being the president of the USA isn't that easy a job after all, and that sometimes he must do things he doesn't agree with.

 

[Skeptic]

Obama puts national security above scoring partisan points against the eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil Bush. Good for him.

I dislike Obama's views. I think it is not likely he'll be a good president. But, from the very start, I said in this forum that both the hysterical support of him pre-elections, and the hyterical disappointment from him post-elections -- by the very same people -- are irrelevant.

 

[littlehulkster]

My personal theory is that once he got his national security briefings from the CIA and the military, Obama heard things most people wouldn't even dream of about what's really going on out there, he got info he wouldn't ever have imagined, and that made him realize and understand that being the president of the USA isn't that easy a job after all, and that sometimes he must do things he doesn't agree with.

Or, as is becoming increasingly evident, his veneer of liberalism he put on during the campaign was just that and he is the typical American center-right Democrat who perpetuates the same system he claims to oppose.

 

[lomiller]

The questions about how to deal with people who are undeniably guilty but have been so abused by the Bush Adminsitration they could never be convicted under US law are certainly problematic. Had US and international law been followed in the first place there wouldn't be a problem, but by most civilized standards these people would need to be released under a normal trial process.

No doubt Obamma wants to avoid this and will explore ways arround it, he's very pragmatic after all. The root of the problem, however, still falls on the Bush adminsitration for the early blunders that make giving these people a fair trial impossible.

 

[INRM]

LittleHulkster,

Or, as is becoming increasingly evident, his veneer of liberalism he put on during the campaign was just that and he is the typical American center-right Democrat who perpetuates the same system he claims to oppose.

Yeah, I'd have to largely agree with that. He ran on a platform that would make him look good to everybody, offer them change, make everybody feel good. Do a few things to get everybody to trust him, then continue right down the path Bush left off on...

lomiller,

The questions about how to deal with people who are undeniably guilty but have been so abused by the Bush Adminsitration they could never be convicted under US law are certainly problematic. Had US and international law been followed in the first place there wouldn't be a problem, but by most civilized standards these people would need to be released under a normal trial process.

No doubt Obamma wants to avoid this and will explore ways arround it, he's very pragmatic after all. The root of the problem, however, still falls on the Bush adminsitration for the early blunders that make giving these people a fair trial impossible.

Regardless of what you say being right or wrong, preventative detention is simply too dangerous and completely unacceptable. Jailing people on the grounds that they "may" commit a crime indefinitely is too extreme. It would be like something out of Minority Report.

As for trying these terrorists. Why not use a Court Martial system? That could work, and it was considered for awhile. It is a legal process and it has worked in the past.


INRM

 

[Alt+F4]

Also from the article linked in the OP:

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.

I don't get this, are they afraid they are going to escape? There are many convicted terrorists already in American prisons.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Also from the article linked in the OP:



I don't get this, are they afraid they are going to escape? There are many convicted terrorists already in American prisons.

They are afraid of being targeted by the terrorist organizations.

Also, losing their election for bringing terrorists into the backyard.

 

[Pardalis]

Or, as is becoming increasingly evident, his veneer of liberalism he put on during the campaign was just that and he is the typical American center-right Democrat who perpetuates the same system he claims to oppose.

Who knows, maybe if you became president, you would do the same.

 

[egslim]

It's amazing how scared many Americans in a country of 300,000,000 seem to be of a few 100 maltreated prisoners, whose guilt of a criminal offense can't even be proven.

On the one hand we have Americans who feel Iraqis should be grateful to the US for bringing them democracy and freedom, even though Iraq has turned into a warzone in the process. With the argument that democracy and freedom are worth sacrifice, and anyone who disagrees deserves no respect.
Ok.
On the other hand, many of those same Americans now wish to violate these prisoner's fundamental rights (innocent until proven guilty, and the right to a fair trial), because their release in the US would make them feel unsafe. Scared of a few 100 people, in a population of 300,000,00.

Disgusting cowards.

 

[Pardalis]

There egslim, feel better now?

 

[egslim]

There egslim, feel better now?

Thanks, but I already got one of these.

 

[Brainster]

It's amazing how scared many Americans in a country of 300,000,000 seem to be of a few 100 maltreated prisoners, whose guilt of a criminal offense can't even be proven.

On the one hand we have Americans who feel Iraqis should be grateful to the US for bringing them democracy and freedom, even though Iraq has turned into a warzone in the process. With the argument that democracy and freedom are worth sacrifice, and anyone who disagrees deserves no respect.
Ok.
On the other hand, many of those same Americans now wish to violate these prisoner's fundamental rights (innocent until proven guilty, and the right to a fair trial), because their release in the US would make them feel unsafe. Scared of a few 100 people, in a population of 300,000,00.

Disgusting cowards.

So if we release them in your hometown, you won't raise a fuss? Well, that's one problem solved.

 

[fishbob]

Oh, look - the *********** + argument lives on!!!

So if we release them in your hometown, you won't raise a fuss? Well, that's one problem solved.

In my hometown? Go right ahead.
Although pending trial, the detention facility up the road might be more appropriate.

Please watch the language.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar