Obama Is Said to Consider Preventive Detention Plan

Source: New York Times

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.

The two participants, outsiders who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the session was intended to be off the record, said they left the meeting dismayed.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21obama.html?_r=1

x(

What in the hell is wrong with this man?

What sorts of land based anti-personnel equipment is standard for al-quada? How are they a real threat to the U.S.A.? Pre-emptive detentions........what was the title of that movie Tom Cruise was in, directed i think by Spielberg? He sounds a little like he's heading into Bush turf & THAT isn't the greatest signs to be seen.

I won't attack him until he's made such a decision. Should he decide to do so, however, I could not in any way support him in that regard.

(As an aside, I take issue with the NYT claiming Obama "criticized bitterly" the concept of tribunals. He didn't. He said the system of tribunals was deeply flawed, and that they were conducted terribly. He did not, to my knowledge, attack the concept of tribunals.)

I don't think WH has leaks unless authorized...I'm getting this is BS to stir shit up.

at the meeting. The WH met with them to discuss such legal, human rights related matters with them. They don't need WH authorization to discuss it with the press.

Check out this post which links to a huffingtonpost article with a NAMED SOURCE at the meeting who gives a balanced input to a meeting. So this is why I have problems with a story that has 2 year old quotes, unnamed sources, and making hypothetical questions but people here addressing it as fact!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8422625&mesg_id=8422625

suspects deemed a threat?

Unreal.

from your article...

“He was almost ruminating over the need for statutory change to the laws so that we can deal with individuals who we can’t charge and detain,” one participant said. “We’ve known this is on the horizon for many years, but we were able to hold it off with George Bush. The idea that we might find ourselves fighting with the Obama administration over these powers is really stunning.”

The other participant said Mr. Obama did not seem to be thinking about preventive detention for terrorism suspects now held at Guantánamo Bay, but rather for those captured in the future, in settings other than a legitimate battlefield like Afghanistan. “The issue is,” the participant said, “What are the options left open to a future president?”

Mr. Obama did not specify how he intended to deal with Guantánamo detainees who posed a threat and could not be tried, nor did he share the contents of Thursday’s speech, the participants said.

He will deliver the speech at a site laden with symbolism — the National Archives, home to the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Across town, his biggest Republican critic, former Vice President Dick Cheney, will deliver a speech at the American Enterprise Institute.

It's just a guess.

What do you think?

I'll be surprised if Bush's successor relinquishes any power. . .

It's my fervent hope that whoever succeeds Bush will want to dismantle the new powers BushCo has accrued. However, power is more easily grabbed than relinquished, and whoever becomes our next Presidnet will have to prove an an exceptional man for him turn it aside.

As the recipient of a political reality altered beyond anything the wildest thinkers could have imagined just a few short years ago, it will take a remarkable will for anyone to revoke these powers, let alone strive to revert it to what it was before. Certainly, there will be a quick return to some aspects of "normality," but the allure of unbridled power will remain and, despite readily accomplished cosmetic improvements, power's seduction will be a Siren song of indeterminate appeal. I hope our next President proves a greater man than we can even hope he will prove to be.

-Frederick Douglass

I believe I predicted we would have a problem with this.

Got any good lottery numbers?

:hide:

Are the one's with the real power. Even if Obama wanted to give these powers up, they wouldn't let him. Because they've been building a unitary executive for a long time. It's easier to control one person than all of congress.

Just like the media has gone from 50 owners to just 5, it's easier to control a smaller number.

Obama used to support civil liberties when he was a State Senator.

Now that his power vs. our power is the civil liberties question, he's chosen his power.

Habeas Corpus?

Anybody got a free link to the complete article?

I refused.

:shrug:

They said Mr. Obama told them he was thinking about “the long game” — how to establish a legal system that would endure for future presidents. He raised the issue of preventive detention himself, but made clear that he had not made a decision on it. Several senior White House officials did not respond to requests for comment on the outsiders’ accounts.

. . .

The remaining graphs say, roughly, that Republicans have bashed his national security program, that Democrats seem to be jumping on board -- citing the withheld funds to close Gitmo and refusal to house released detainees --, and that his speech is going to frame his approach in broad terms.

They often put that page up if you don't.

And first off, yea, he sucks, and is just into this for his own gain. :eyes: Just listen to him. Or don't.


Mr. Obama did not specify how he intended to deal with Guantánamo detainees who posed a threat and could not be tried, nor did he share the contents of Thursday’s speech, the participants said.

He will deliver the speech at a site laden with symbolism — the National Archives, home to the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Across town, his biggest Republican critic, former Vice President Dick Cheney, will deliver a speech at the American Enterprise Institute.

what's wrong with the constitution and the rule of law?

and how do you know someone really poses a threat until you try them?

And how come you can not try someone?

activity the gov't undertakes outside of the law and constitution. "Legal opinions built to suit. Ask for Alberto."

:)

Where would he find one? Oh my...where? Maybe there are a few involved in politics? Any ideas?

What do they know that the American people aren't allowed to know?

Ya know, detention without a trial, without a crime ever being committed.

If only he had a brilliant mind...you know, those scholars from Yale, or maybe even Harvard.

If this is true, that's exactly what he needs to do and quickly.

setting up a way to incarcerate people who haven't been charged or tried and who the don't wish to charge or try.

Can there be sanity in this face of this authoritarianism . . . ???

.... wouldn't want to be locked up for any of my thought crimes.

Add in healthcare and the fact my tax revenue would once again be funding perpetual war, no fuckn thank you.

Democrats and Republicans joining forces against third parties, third parties have no realistic chance. They know the left won't vote Republican, any more than the 9% who still supported Cheney in January 2009 will vote Democrat. We're marginalized.

Maybe the first thing to which we should turn our attention is giving third parties back their rights. And taking Presidential debates out of the death grip of the DNC and the RNC. Even if you never intend to vote third party, the thought of another Perot type election might at least make both Democrats and Republicans less complacent. Next, REAL campaign financing reform.

That concept is losing its humorous edge rapidly.

Just to be clear, though, your thoughts still won't get you busted ... unless you DARE express them, either in speech OR writing.

Oops, said too much already ...

I can hear it now.

Dial down expectations, where we're just damn happy we can pretend we live under the rule of law, and not in some phony 1984 "War on Terror" land.

Down the rabbit hole, we are.

either you have some sort of evidence or you don't... am I missing something here?

I thought Obama believed this was a nation that abides by the laws.

all, it's Obama. And he looks cute and his wife is pretty and his kids are beyond adorable. And he likes pie. And he's smart and speaks well. And he's a Democrat. Shussh.

Hush, little baby, don't you cry.

Obama's gonna sing us a lullaby.


That's right. Go to sleep now.

Later, I may find I'm wrong. I hope I don't.

You can, too.

Email the White House at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

If you want to use a 9 digit zip code in the form, then you can get it from:
http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/welcome.jsp

Feel free to use some of my words:

I mean holy shit - PREVENTIVE DETENTION?!?!?!? You mean like imprisoning people you have no evidence against? Can NOT be tried? Why the hell not? Did I wake up in bizarro world today cause all kinds of Bush type non-sence coming out of the White House today it seems. :scared:

I see no reason NOT to believe it. I think a better question is - why don't you believe it? I know you don't want to believe it by reading many of your pro-Obama no matter what type posts from other threads but when two independent sources confirm this story, AND it gets published in the New York Times, I see no reason not to believe it. EOM.

So like less than 1% of their shit was made up.. oooooh they are totally unreliable now!!!11! :eyes:

and damaged the NYT's credibility considerably. As did their half baked subsequent mea culpa and continued stenography of the Bush Administration by one of Miller's former byline sharers (IIRC) who remained at the Times after Miller was paid off to leave the paper.

Futhermore, the NYT also tanked its own investigative reporting on illegal wiretapping at Bush's request. They only published it over a year later when their reporter James Risen was going to scoop them by publishing his book on the subject. The Times really had to publically tapdance on why it caved to Bush's request to hold the illegal wiretapping story...rather than publish it as it otherwise would have been before the 2004 presidential election.

And sometimes they are just sloppy in their reporting. The NYT is not always the "gold standard" of reporting.

This article may be completely right on, but people have legit reasons not to be automatically entirely credulous of such a story simply because it appears in the NYT.

a whole. We all knew Judith Miller was in bed with the Repubs when she did her shitty ass "reporting" back then. On the whole, the New York Times is the most reliable paper out there. When they fuck up, they admit it. I have no reason to doubt the story. If I had known there was going to be this huge backlash against the NYT I would have worded my reply differently. I agree though that they screwed us on the Iraq war - I just see no reason to lie here - the lie could be easily contridicted by many. The fact that they have 2 seperate sources speaks well for the legitimacy of the article.

*edited for clarity

Please do, all you are doing is kicking the story to the top of LBN again, giving it more publicity, so please, keep replying how YOU CAN'T TRUST ANYTHING WRITTEN ANYWHERE BY ANYBODY OH NOES~~`1!!11. 5 brazzilion sources wouldn't be enough for SOME people though. :eyes:

And yes Judith Miller fucked us and the NYT has fucked us on various occaisions but for real they are considered the best most reliable paper out there and ALL OF YOU KNOW THIS! There was a chilling effect on journalism during the Bush admin, but perhaps now journalists feel safe actually reporting stuff that may show the ruling administration in a bad light when necessary. I want the truth - even if it does show Obama in a bad light. So now we have 2 sources, The New York Times, and Newsweek reporting it, and I have seen exactly ZERO people who were in the meeting refuting it. So blame the NYT or bury your head in the sand if you want. I've said it plenty of times on this thread and I'll say it again - I see NO REASON NO TO BELIEVE THIS STORY AT THIS TIME!

credulous in the past in its use of anonymous sources and at times has been a mouthpiece for disinformation. So I wouldn't necessarily base the credibility of the story solely on the Times' record. They might not usually make up shit but they've been known to spread it.

But it seems a lot of people were at that meeting so I doubt the discussions at the meeting will remain entirely "off the record." And either there are participants currently anonymously engaging on a misinformation campaign (include Isikoff's story with this one) or there's a "there there." We'll see.

So far, the publicly stated revival of military tribunals, and other seeming continuations of some Bush Admin national security legal positions, etc. tend to lend credence to these reports.

And there's no reason to assume they wouldn't continue to do it if it sells papers and they don't get caught.

NEWSWEEK IS REPORTING IT TOO! Guess they just make shit up all the time as well. Is anything you wish were not true just instantly made up? We now have TWO news sources reporting this, and TWO sources from that meeting saying the same thing - with nobody coming out againt them. I understand you wish this were not true, but until I see otherwise, I have no reason not to believe that this is true.

So do you question EVERY story in the New York Times - or only the ones you wish were not true? Overall the New York Times has a very good track record. Yes they screwed us bad and screwed us hard with the Judith Miller bullhsit leading up to the Iraq war - but that doesn't mean other stories in there are not true. If you go based on the math - what % of the NYT is made up you think? 1% maybe. Come on - I'm done argueing with you people about this shit. I've said in MULTIPLE posts that I meant IN GENERAL - but I guess you were too worried about getting your 2 cents in than actually reading my posts. So whatever - I'm done argueing this with yall. Believe whatever you want. :eyes:

But please, feel free to keep replying to me - all you are doing is kicking the thread to the top of LBN giving it more exposure, which is what I love to see. People need to know the truth.

supported in court Bush national security and sovereign immunity legal claims in fighting civil suits against illegal wiretapping. Stuff like that.

How do you justify that under our Constitution? Thy doesn't Obama just tell us the names of those who threatened him? This is completely inconsistent with statements he made prior to the election.

I cannot support this. Everyone is entitled to a swift and public trial. Everyone is entitled to confront the witnesses against him or her. If Obama does this he is guilty, personally guilty of violating our Constitutional rights -- my Constitutional rights.

ok then, though, 'cause he said he'd fix it once he became President, and we believed him. At least, I did. Ane we just kept celebrating Obama--until he got into office and then didn't fix it.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/201032.php

Turns out, Obama love everything Bushco did, he just didn't like how they went about it. So, he's making some alterations and changing what we call tings. It's not the war on terror anymore. It's Special Defense Operations or some such. It's not arresting people and holding them indefinitely without charging them or trying them anymore. It's preventitive detention.


So, it's not so much change you can believe in as it is renaming you can believe in.

Bushco was good at naming things, too. PATRIOT ACT? Just try voting against that unconstitutional piece of crap so soon after 911, Congress.

Preventitive detention. It's growing on me. Something you do to avoid bad things. Like brushing and flossing.

Propylactic genital slicing.

Ok. It's all good now. Nothing to see here. Move on, please. Oh, and on your way out, please volunteer to give a house party to help move the Obama Biden agenda. Mmmthanks much.

The unending nightmare --

Let me change my refrain . . .

BUSH COULDN'T HAVE DONE THIS -- !!!!

:puke:

Obama is a politician --

Howard Zinn


Interesting also that we're getting this at the beginning of a three day

holiday!

Happy Memorial Day!

:nuke:



Also, consider what Supreme Court would find this Constitutional -- !!!???

This suggests to me that Obama will not be appointing any real liberals to the court.

I hope to hell I'm wrong!!!

****************************

I'll wait for the book.

It's not even a question of whether I trust Obama. I don't trust the NYT. After the way they've slanted stories on Gore, Kerry, both Clintons, and just about everyone else, they are not on my list of trusted sources. They practically fabricated the whole "Al Gore said he discovered Love Canal" lie out of thin air, as one example.

Geeze, I'm off today. When I try to joke, people take me seriously, and when I'm serious people laugh. :rofl:

...hold forever without trial people they decide has given substantial support to Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

This would just extend that concept to people the Obama Administration hasn't decided have done that.

I remember all the news outlets reporting that Hillary Clinton supported a flag-burning ban bill, when the truth was just about exactly the opposite. I'll wait for the official policy before forming a firing squad.

His name is Vincent Warren and he works at the Center for Constitutional Rights. He didn't sound hostile to Obama particularly but he did disagree with some of his positions.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/22/vince_warren

of about twenty people who may be real mofos and who we're going to have a helluva time prosecuting in the usual way, because the Bushbots tortured them. If we haul them into court and thecourt frees them because of coerced evidence, the Republicans will wipe the floor with us politically. Any advice? Help!

indefinite "prisoner of war" detention without charges/trials: http://news.aol.com/article/obama-military-tribunals/459839

Reportedly, this new "preventive detention" idea is for future "suspected evildoers" for whom the gov't in its wisdom (just trust them) will decide that old fashioned Constitutional due process, habeas corpus, and all that jazz is just not suitable. Just snatch 'em and bag 'em. We don't need no stinkin' badges.

<edit: spelng>

to eliminate. We try really hard NOT to throw people in jail indefinitely with no trial on a maybe. It's called our legal system--Guilt beyond ANY reasonable doubt is the goal. We have often fallen short of it, but we haven't moved the goalpost or even considered that--that we know of--until Bill Clinton ("extraordinary rendition"), Dummya and Obama.


If someone can't be tried because of torture, that means only that the there's no reliable evidence against him, and just MAY be innocent, like Binyam Mohamed. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3885684

The Constitution of the United States--it's not an inconvenient truth. The Constitution of the United States is America. Everything else is only real estate.

Love the COTUS or leave it. There is no third choice.

This is exactly what some of us have been warning about since Day 1. Once you rationalize stuff like this bc the other guys are soooo bad, soooo much worse than we are and we're just so dang scared they'll hurt us, the "War on Terror" is indeed over--and we didn't win, either. We are not America anymore. And we gave that up voluntarily, because someone hit us once--once in our entire history--on our own soil and scared the principles right out of us.

You can't be America only when it's convenient or only when you're not scared someone MIGHT hurt you.

Oh, and btw, translating for Obama, who seems to have little difficulty saying exactly what he wants to convey, is telling us only what YOU "hope" is going on, not what he is thinking.

about the politics: I tend towards the jaundiced view that the Courts are, in reality, rather political creatures -- and after years of Bushista exploitation of 9/11 to justify gross abuses and to obscure issues with cynical propaganda, the Guatanamo mess may remain something of a political landmine

Of course, you are correct that Obama is articulate and that my "translation" of reports and interpretations of his comments yesterday (correct or incorrect) are not equivalent to words from his mouth. But when large numbers of other people are reacting to Obama's purported views, based on reporters' parsings of interpretations of Obama's comments (obtained indirectly and not verbatim), I will not feel amiss in suggesting other readings of what might have been said. Whatever the actual facts are, I think my "translation" does accurately indicate the political shoals which Obama must navigate -- and the difficulty of sailing back into Constitutional waters

I thought this came out of left field. I'm still horrified by it but at least I know where it materialized from.

..obtained through torture.

Evidence which can be used in a civilian court.

Jose Padilla was tortured, but he was still convicted in a civilian court.

handed over the keys, and said "OK! Now you get to drive!" -- and now we're teetering here, trying to recover

only 100 days to be totally corrupted. did he have no real principles to begin with?

we've been conned by a smooth-talking "CONstitutional scholar" who is now actually considering jailing people for whatever reason he makes up--people who "can't be tried"--because, obviously, they can't be charged with anything--but having them in jail somehow benefits him and his quickly escalating unconstitutional powers.

One day, you or I might be deemed people "who can't be tried."
I seriously regret the hard-earned campaign dollars I contributed and the vote I wasted on this con artist.

bullshit.

Let's say it correctly, please.

I think he gets it now. What he is doing doesn't seem at all consistent with what he talked about doing before he was elected.

I wonder where he is going to open *HIS* gitmo? And this one really will be all his.

This is fucking embarrassing. Nicely done, Obama...