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.
Well, I didn't say it above a whisper (around here), but I was not in favor of establishment of either DHS or the DNI.
The rationale I used was that certain powers are required during wartime, but structural changes are dangerous because of administrations that would come in later and abuse it (I was thinking about Hitlery at the time...Bambi was not even imaginable in my worst nightmare)
Also, IIRC, Bush did what he did with Gitmo exactly because he knew that constitutionally he couldn't do so within CONUS.
But, since Congress and the Press are total Ø lapdogs, this won't ever meet more than Page A-18 coverage.
Exactly—HolyO channeling Dubya ping!
(Although HolyO’s reasons may be more sinister than liberals ever thought President Bush’s were!)
What about for anti-abortion activists and gun “enthusiasts”?
I forgot the part of the Geneva Conventions where it affords protection to terrorists.
Keep in mind that DHS just labeled all of us Terrorists because we're anti-tax, Pro-Life, etc, etc,...
Perhaps your interpretation of who is a terrorist differs from The One's interpretaion. Maybe Zero doesn't have the Gitmo detainees in mind.
The nose of the camel. Bush didn't need this and Zero certainly doesn't either.
I can see just WHO Zero would consider a threat to national security: Second Amendment advocates, anti-abortion foes, anti-illegal aliens advocates, Christain fundamentalists, etc. STRAIGHT FROM JANET RENO NAPOLITANO'S MENU BOOK!!!!
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.
The major difference it that this WILL be applied to US Citizens, on US soil, who are deemed a “National Security threat”.
The Gitmo detainees were captured abroad.
This would permit putting those deemed “threats” into concentration camps in the US.
Did you catch wind of the “threat list” that included former US military veterans, gun rights advocates, pro-life advocates, etc?
The problem is, this isn’t going to end up being used against the terrorists, but rather on political prisoners of the conservative persuasion.
And so it begins.
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.
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.
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.
“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?
Obama following Roosevelt’s example.
Unless I am sorely mistaken, the prisoners at Gitmo were captured “on the battleground” so to speak, actively fighting against the US, or they are wanted for specific crimes.
That is quite different from deciding somebody is a threat based on Lord knows what criteria, and incarcerating them presumably before they commit a crime.