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 ...
We’ve got about 17 months to replace all the House and one-third of the Senate.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
We can severely restrain him there.
>Obama Is Said to Consider Preventive Detention Plan
Like the American citizens of Japanese decent during WWII?
Yeah, that’s a great idea! [/sarc]
I was never very keen on the Department of Homeland Security, and it seems to me that people in the forum were generally uncomfortable with it.
There were at least three problems with it:
1) It set a dangerous precedent for the future, if clinton or someone like him got back into the White House and abused the powers.
2) It was not a real security measure, but simply piled bureaucracy on top of bureaucracy in layer after layer. But underneath that, the CIA and the FBI were still largely broken.
3) Airport security was put under a government union, everone’s pay was doubled, and nobody could be fired for incompetence. We’ve seen what that has gotten us.
Bush did try hard and mean well, and for whatever reason there were no more 9/11s under his watch, for which he surely deserves credit. But the solutions were far from ideal.
The Napolitano Gestapo defines any opponent of Obama-style international totalitarian marxism as a “terrorist”. Do the math.
Recall that Lincoln suspended habeus corpus. Cynically, I’ve thought all along that there’s a reason obama tried to draw the parallel between himself and Lincoln.
A conspiracy theorist could begin to put these puzzle pieces together - the napolitano terrorist list that was “leaked,” the gitmo “solution,” the FEMA rumors, the attacks on Rush et al, etc. It all sounds way too sinister to be orchestrated, but people on the right have to be feeling there’s some intimidation going on.
BTW, why is obama expecting future terrorists who can’t be tried? I thought he was going to fix all that.
For later
I think Bush was a fine lead off hitter for Global Gov’t and control.
If a Dem would have proposed the ideas that he did there would have been calls for impeachment on this Forum.
Bush was part of the plan a it worked perfectly. Patriot Act, TSA, DHS, more Executive Authority, etc.
You got it right. This is just a way for Obama to have some wiggle room out of this and TRY TO please all... yet people are taking the article wrong. These are terrorists we are talking about they have no rights even under a Hitler stance.
And the ACLU must be just pleased as punch.
What a sham.
Starting with anyone who posts on FREEREPUBLIC!!
See #45. It's too late.
America -- a great idea, didn't last.
Starting with anyone who posts on FREEREPUBLIC!!
Bill Clinton blamed the OK City bombing on well....Rush Limbaugh.
The major difference it that this WILL be applied to US Citizens, on US soil, who are deemed a “National Security threat”.
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.
A less rosy view is that he is preparing the foundations for using state organs to persecute, attack, imprison, silence, and purge his opponents. Obama certainly appears to be a messianic radical leftist. Such behavior is like mothers milk to the ego and ambitions of this sort of man.
Perhaps he is doing both at the same time.
But we do it already.
Think convicted sex offenders deemed too dangerous to be released AFTER their sentences are done.
The easy answer is "Get out of PRNJ", but I know not everyone can do that.
If you can't leave, you will just have accept your chains. See my tagline.
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.