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 ...
Excellent rules to remember, thanks.
Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin would the first prisoner.
Accordingly, POWs can be retained till the end of the conflict even if it's forever.
LOL...
I better practice my card playing.
sorry Obama fails.
I think the intellectual upper hard left might be thinking as you describe, but I’m thinking more about their useful stooges, you know the kind who are influenced by unicorns and rain-bows and green sustainable life-styles who want war no more and no god above, ect yada yada. Without their stooges amongst students,borderline personality disorder female protestors, geeks, 9/11 conspiracy nuts, actors and media folk, the hard left would have no foot soldiers with which to advance their agenda!
See my signature line.
but what if barrys not a citizen?
Not hiding much, is the stalinist POS?
Translation of the german excerpt in #16.
hmmmmmmmmm....
they did their job as they define it,not as their noble predecessors did.
Re dentention camps, et.al, govt Constitution tampering and civil rights intrusions have been going on forever and corrupt power has strengthened and perfected itself. In the past we didn't know about any of it.
Then came the Internet. The apparent suddenness of this knowledge is why voters are the way they are today, many believing that much of this info requires tinfoil hats because they never heard of it before. Or pooh-poohing all it because it came out of “thin air.” Fact is the rot is too deep, even for the Geneva Convention.
I posted a link to the Geneva Convention prisoner treatment just above - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2255496/posts?page=203#203
I’ll have to take you word for that, but “preventive detention” cannot - repeat CANNOT - be a good thing. obama is growing bolder by the day.
Not only not good, not constitutional.
terrorism suspects = white Christians and Conservatives.
There Fixed it.
“If Bush had proposed the same thing, would we be calling him a Nazi? “
We know the dims would, fer sure. They already did...
In any case, we cannot trust O, you know - which presents the biggest differential between Bush and bammy. We cannot trust O and he has not presented even his own basic information, which just underscores that his actual agenda and integrity are a complete mystery. Perhaps the nazi comparisons are a bit much, but what has he left us to go on? Not much. I then find this is zero’s own fault, for not presenting himself with more integrity.
These where captured on a battlefield in the act of fighting the USA.
Do you want returning veterans , NRA members, boy scouts, Christians, and republicans arrested to prevent extremism? yes or no?
Too bad you can’t read it - it’s a pretty funny dirty limerick.
>>> Starting with Bill Ayers?
Umm... dont forget just WHO they just recently called “terrorists”.
Former military,
Christians,
Constitutional conservatives,
Right wing republicans,
etc., etc.
Interesting thing about that type of law: who's going to enforce it?
Go back to 1930s Germany. A separate organization, known as the Geheime Staatspolizei was created. Any thoughts as to why? Germany traditionally had a Federal structure -- most law enforcement was at the State level (a Landespolizei) vice the Federal level. Without direct control, it would be difficult to enforce the "Ordnung des Reichspräsidenten zum Schutz von Volk und Staat" (Order of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State) which gave the preventive custody powers to the Federal government. The existence of the Gestapo (Geheime Staatspolizei) co-opted each state's Kriminalpolizeiamt (criminal investigative office) and allowed the federal government to do as it pleased.
In this country, we already have an extensive police power. By my count, there are over 70 separate law enforcement agencies at the Federal level (not including military police, which are limited by the Posse Comitatus statute). What if those police agencies were coordinated and if they were augmented by, say, a civilian national security force:
"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."
Who's going to go against such a power from the liberal democrats? The courts? Well, if they try, Congress (controlled by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid) can simply pass an slightly modified version of the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 and that will quickly take care of the situation.
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.