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 ...
So far he hasn't been bothered by that pesky old Constitution.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
I love the cognitive dissonance being suffered by leftists towards their favorite son, Obama! They call Bush a Nazi but they watch in growing fear and realization that Obama is the Nazi they have always feared as coming from the right is instead coming from the left. Their growing angst is something akin to a Christian scientist suffering the pangs of acute appendicitis while at the same time, their religious views are telling them the symptoms are all in their minds!
Does this equate to suspension of habeas corpus?
So this jerk can send hi jackbooted thugs out to seize people with guns, people who oppose gay amrraiges, people who fall into Janet Napolitiano’s White Terrorist Categories?
EVERYTHING about his s.o.b. and his administration is sick and sinister.
PRAY that the Repubs can successully extract their heads from their rectums and take over Congress in 2010 or its all over.
Maybe the left and the ACLU won’t be as bothered by this as you think.
WE all know that such a policy will be used against political opponents in the USA, and I’m sure some on the left understand this as well.
Not being a lawyer, I have no idea. All I know is that there ARE legal definitions and procedures to identify the mentally incompetent, and that such identification is a defense against the death penalty (and in many cases, a defense against imprisonment in a penal institution---though the identical ends are usually met by incarceration in a mental hospital).
Those JBT’s will only get one or two of the left’s political opponents before organized resistance starts to occur.
Then, the JBTs will tend to get “gun shy”.
English dude, English!
That would all be true if Obama had not named his political competition - conservatives - terrorists. But he did, didn’t he.
This from twinkle toes:
“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.”
Linsey makes clear the Rino perspective - WE. It is “WE” against everyone else. That we is Obama and the Rinos against Republicans. Thanks for letting us know twinkletoes.
Agreed. Our being signatories of the appropriate conventions (e.g., Hague, Geneva), provide for that right.
But that's not what the article said:
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 (note it says terrorism suspects, not enemy combatants) who are deemed a threat to national security but cannot be tried, two participants in the private session said.
If he was talking about enemy combatants, he should say enemy combatants. If he was talking about foreign fighters, he should say foreign fighters. The term "terrorism suspects" is so vague, it could apply to anybody the administration claims to be a terrorism suspect (US citizen or otherwise).
As I said in an earlier post, in order to be a "suspect," the government needs to assert to things: motive and capability.
(U) Key Findings
(U//LES) The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.
— (U//LES) Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts. Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn—including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit—could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past.
— (U//LES) Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.
(U//FOUO) The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.
— (U//FOUO) During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors.
— (U//FOUO) Growth of these groups subsided in reaction to increased government scrutiny as a result of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and disrupted plots, improvements in the economy, and the continued U.S. standing as the preeminent world power.
(U//FOUO) The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.
* (U) Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.
Comment: Note the bolded text above. The above groups could include any conservative...including FReepers.
A terrorist attack could consist of anything from throwing a Molotov cocktail, planting a single car bomb, assaulting an official (as opposed to battery), a computer virus, kidnapping, hijacking, or anything up to an including a WMD. See the MIPT database for past examples.
Almost any homeowner has the capability. For example, if you store any gasoline at home, you could create a Molotov cocktail. If you have ordinary lawn fertilizer, you could build a bomb.
"Yeah, but I don't know how to do that!" Well, it's your word versus a government agent's word. Who do you think will win?
I really think that the intent of this bill is to provide a legal basis to hold the Gitmo internees who won't be accepted back by their home countries. But once it's in place, if it is worded generically, who knows how it might eventually be applied...Consider the case of Ashton Lundbey, a 16 y/o kid (US citizen) who is being held incommunicado through the provisions of the Patriot Act.
Obama’s homeland security already named conserveratives and veterns as terrorists. He is sympathic towards jihadists. Who is he going after? Let’s see...
If his voters think they are going to be excused; they better take another look. Dictators have no friends and they will rot with the rest of us. I suspect they are beginning to realize this.
OK, I don’t know ANY specific cases of the likes you are describing. However, in the case of a CONVICTED sex offender, you are dealing with someone who HAS committed a crime (and most likely it was a case involving serious offenses, or repeat offenders). I’m assuming that in the cases you are talking about after these people finish their sentences in jail, they are then sent to psychiatric hospitals because they are still considered a serious threat to themselves or others?
What Obama is suggesting IS very different... He is suggesting that the U.S. Government have the ability to incarcerate people BEFORE ANY crime has been committed, simply based upon the premise that they MIGHT be a threat - according to what standards? Who knows?
The other day there were posts mentioning 3 doctors who received letters from the BATFE that they were on some ‘list’ due to the amount of ammunition they had purchased recently... The first people — if he is so bold — that he will use this against, are the very people posting on this thread, and our fellow Conservatives...
I can’t believe I’m quoting a Kennedy here, but when Bobby Kennedy visited Chavez in CA the 2nd time regarding the farm workers’ strike there was a public hearing. Bobby challenged a sheriff who during the questioning admitted to arresting strikers who looked “ready to violate the law,” Kennedy then shot back, “May I suggest that during the luncheon period of time that the sheriff and the district attorney read the Constitution of the United States?” [Obama may wish to review that document, but it’s not like he doesn’t already know what’s in it — being a “Constitutional Lawyer” and all. Which means that he KNOWS his actions are NOT lawful - and that makes it all that much worse...]
If Obama is planning on using this “preventive detention” against U.S. Citizens it will be a direct violation of our Constitution, and all of our rights as citizens...
We already know WHO Obama will target within the US if he decides to trash the Constitution (even more than he has) and use this against the citizens. It will be people belonging to every group on that Gestapolitano document that we were all never supposed to see.
I just think there is a big difference in your example and what Obama may be suggesting here...
Like Clinton, Obama changed the meaning of terroist to be American citizens in oppistion to the sick freak one.
This is what the FEMA camps will be used for.
According to what standards... His homeland security wacko already clued us into that one. Rinos would like nothing better.
Yes, it crosses political parties. Dems and Pubs in DC collude more often than not (and frequently hide it from us).
Can sales of weapons and ammo go much higher? Hussein is a boon to weapons sales.
I think it can only go higher if the manufacturers can churn out more.
From what I can tell, there is no inventory at this time.
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.