Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama Is Said to Consider Preventive Detention Plan (Flush the Constitution!)
NY Slimes (Page A18!!!) ^ | 5/21/2009 | SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

Posted on 05/21/2009 8:05:48 AM PDT by markomalley

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.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Government
KEYWORDS: communist; cwii; detention; dictatorship; fascism; fascist; gitmo; henrybowman; lping; nazi; obamaregime; spartansixdelta; totalitarian; unconstitutional
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 341-351 next last
To: reaganaut1

We better be very careful and fight tooth and nail to ensure that this type of thing in any form cannot be used against U.S. citizens. Remember the list of potential terrorists that came out of DHS not too long ago. We don’t want people to be detained without trial for being military Veterans, pro-life, supporting the 2nd Amendment, and supporting many other conservative ideals.

If we fail to protect ourselves now through the law, we will either be marching off to detention camps, or fighting for our lives, or both in the future.


121 posted on 05/21/2009 9:18:44 AM PDT by Tammy8 (Please Support & pray for our Troops; they serve us every day. Veterans are heroes not terrorists!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NoObamaFightForConservatives

? Wrong person to reply to?


122 posted on 05/21/2009 9:20:32 AM PDT by ican'tbelieveit (Join FreeRepublic's Folding@Home team (Team# 36120), KW:Folding)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: sourcery

“The only justification for holding a person without trial is in a battlefield situation”

That’s easy, just declare a rebellious county a “battlefield”, and you can “preventively Detain” anyone you want to.


123 posted on 05/21/2009 9:21:47 AM PDT by tcrlaf ("Hope" is the most Evil of all Evils"-Neitzsche)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC

Obama’s 4 years cannot pass fast enough....

http://obamaclock.org/


124 posted on 05/21/2009 9:24:09 AM PDT by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NoObamaFightForConservatives
How is the Constitution being flushed (as you dramatically put in your title) when we are talking about terrorists not U.S. citizens? See my last post you are taking this out of context. I do not agree with much or anything Obama does do not get me wrong but you are stretching this a tad bit.

Read the first paragraph of the article closely:

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.

If the enabling act that permits him to do this is written as the journalist reports it in that paragraph, it does not state that this law would provide for preventive detention for enemy combatants captured overseas. Read it again: 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. That is a WHOLE lot more generic.

Who are terrorism suspects? According to DHS, both you and I, for the cause of posting on this site, are considered rightwing extremists (and thus could be classified as potential terrorists). There are those who make a little more radical comments on this site who could, using the definitions supplied by DHS, be considered to be threatening terrorism. (Motivation) If those same people could potentially be shown to have the capability (i.e., knowledge, supplies), then you have the two elements required to establish suspicion. You know what you need for capability? You don't need guns. You don't even need knives or spears. All you need is to be a property owner and have the normal yard care supplies on your property (a molotov cocktail can be made with gasoline; a bomb can be made out of fertilizer).

Am I paranoid? Sure. But just because a person is paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get him!

The difference between GITMO and this is that those who were imprisoned at GITMO were captured overseas and were kept overseas. Therefore, they never had constitutional rights. They were held in the status in which they were held due to the fact that the laws of armed conflict don't cover the particular situation; so they could just be shot as spies / saboteurs (my preferred solution, but they don't listen to me all the time), or given a structured process whereby their status could be determined and dealt with judicially -- all without them ever touching US soil.

This, on the other hand, as written above, would apply to anybody suspected by the administration...but whom the administration could not try. Who could the administration not try? (1) those individuals who would gain access to highly sensitive information as a result of a trial process, (2) those individuals who did not commit a crime triable in the US, (3) those individuals whose rights were not adequately protected during the arrest / pre-trial imprisonment processes, and (4) those individuals where there is insufficient evidence to convict in a court.

I'm glad you apparently trust the motives of the administration and the Congress (as well as trusting the Court's judgment), but I don't.

125 posted on 05/21/2009 9:28:31 AM PDT by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: PLMerite
“Any nation which practices this lesson will quickly run out of executioners and tyrants, or they will run out of it.” Maybe I’m just thick this morning, but “it” what?

I'm not fond of that phrase, either, but I didn't want to change the original.

The Rules are just a cut-and-paste of the first three rules from the article linked below:

http://transsylvaniaphoenix.blogspot.com/2009/02/what-i-have-learned-from-twentieth.html

126 posted on 05/21/2009 9:29:13 AM PDT by cayuga (We lost the soapbox to MSM bias, and the ballot box to ACORN. The cartridge box is all we have left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Jolla

Amen


127 posted on 05/21/2009 9:31:02 AM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Dad of a U.S. Army Infantry Soldier presently instructing at Ft. Benning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: M203M4
The post-partisan America in several decades: driving a POS electric government car at 10 mph, getting stopped by ACORN DHS union thugs every 2 miles to have one's papers, phone cards, waistlines, and drink holders examined, driving to AmeriBank (the only bank in the country, operated by the federal reserve) to deposit skin, hair, and urine specimens (Patriot Act III qualifications to detect evidence of gunpowder exposure, tobacco use, non-diet Pepsi consumption, meat consumption, super-quota diet supplementation, and unlicensed reproductive acts) and withdraw meal credits so as to use at the local UN food dispensary to pick up a monthly allotment of government tofu-cheese and People's Gruel before being shipped off to either Iraq (Overseas Contingency Operation Enduring Pacification, year 46), Sudan (Overseas Contingency Operation Soaringly Enduring Democracy, year 19), or Somalia (Overseas Contingency Operation Enduring Restoration of Hope and Change, year 4) to put on a blue helmet and hold a shovel while being shot at by Kalashnikov-wielding neolithic recipients of (apparently insufficient) US welfare payments - or, if "national service" is refused, before being subjected to government propaganda for 20 hours a day at a level III FEMA reeducation camp until either social conversion is deemed to be achieved or until you are found to be a genetic match and thus involuntary organ donor to the requisite number of protected-class individuals (possibly as low as one, depending upon how many protected groups the individual is a member of) as to justify your demise for their survival (the common good).

No paragraph break needed above - that is all one sentence.

That's very good. I give you permission to use my [/cynic] tag. ;)

128 posted on 05/21/2009 9:34:14 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Gitmo, enhanced interrogation, secret detention sites, and tribunals are all emergency necessities. Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and FDR had their own versions. But these are extralegal programs necessitated by survival. They are meant to expire when the extraordinary threat diminishes or they land on the Supreme Court docket. These tools should have never seen the light of day, let alone being codified.
129 posted on 05/21/2009 9:35:07 AM PDT by Brad from Tennessee (A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

>Disagree. In the case of sex offenders, there is a real mental health issue involved. Permanent incarceration is legit for them.

I disagree with your disagreement. If they are unable to repay their debt to society (serve their sentence & be released back into society) the only conscionable option is to execute them; for indefinite imprisonment is keeping open the risks that they will escape into society or harm those that guard the prisoners, and at the expense of the law abiding members of society to boot.


130 posted on 05/21/2009 9:38:19 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
I am glad for the record firearm sales and record ammunition sales.

I hope that's sending a message.

What I would really like to see is another 20 to 30 million NRA members.

131 posted on 05/21/2009 9:39:01 AM PDT by cayuga (We lost the soapbox to MSM bias, and the ballot box to ACORN. The cartridge box is all we have left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
If Bush had proposed the same thing, would we be calling him a Nazi? For some of the terrorists at Gitmo, this may be necessary.

Of course, it is. Absolutely necessary. But their circumstance -- illegal combatants, non-citizens, captured on the battlefield -- doesn't give them access of habeas corpus.

So, "preventive detention" isn't being aimed at them. Instead, it's being aimed at American citizens who a.) might be terrorists or b.) might otherwise dissent from administration policies. And I rather doubt we're talking about ELF or ALF, e.g.

132 posted on 05/21/2009 9:39:35 AM PDT by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance on Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Never on my watch

We are all watching the decline and fall of the United States of American and the Constitution/Bill of Rights - we all had better act against these power grabs or this will be Nazi Germany Part II.


133 posted on 05/21/2009 9:40:17 AM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Dad of a U.S. Army Infantry Soldier presently instructing at Ft. Benning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Well said.


134 posted on 05/21/2009 9:45:06 AM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: cayuga

>What I would really like to see is another 20 to 30 million NRA members.

I am apathetic/ambivalent on that issue: it would be good to have the NRA better funded to defend more 2nd Amendment cases, but it is also desirable that as many of the new gun owners have as little documentation as possible on them as owning guns.

Do you see why?


135 posted on 05/21/2009 9:45:12 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
"If they are unable to repay their debt to society (serve their sentence & be released back into society) the only conscionable option is to execute them; for indefinite imprisonment is keeping open the risks that they will escape into society or harm those that guard the prisoners, and at the expense of the law abiding members of society to boot."

Unfortunately for your position, the mental health precedent is already in existence for other mental illnesses. The insane desire to rape a young boy (or girl) has never been held on the same level as deliberate premeditated murder. A legitimate insanity defense, AFAIK, has always been a sufficient argument to avoid the death penalty.

136 posted on 05/21/2009 9:47:15 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog ( The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

When I read “preventive detention” this first thing I thought of was the movie “Minority Report”. I think that’s the name of it.


137 posted on 05/21/2009 9:54:33 AM PDT by jerri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

>The insane desire to rape a young boy (or girl) has never been held on the same level as deliberate premeditated murder.

And yet rape is a capitally punishable crime, even here in the US. (UCMJ)

>A legitimate insanity defense, AFAIK, has always been a sufficient argument to avoid the death penalty.

The key there is _legitimate_. What is it that qualifies it so? Surely not the mere DESIRE to have sex with the young; there are people with homosexual desires who do not do homosexual acts. (Or would you call them insane?)

Not only that, but kidnapping IS also a capitally punishable offense (in some states). But, there are more than just those that rape children, what about those that rape adults? I have put no qualifiers on any of my opinions other than that I believe that rape should be a death-penalty offense on even the first charge; much like murder.


138 posted on 05/21/2009 9:55:51 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

Comment #139 Removed by Moderator

To: Glenn

oopsies: Valkyrie


140 posted on 05/21/2009 10:00:35 AM PDT by Glenn (Free Venezuela!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 341-351 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson