Three simple questions for supporters of preventive detention

a) what would I have said if George Bush and Dick Cheney advocated a law vesting them with the power to preventively imprison people indefinitely and with no charges?;

(b) when Bush and Cheney did preventively imprison large numbers of people, was I in favor of that or did I oppose it, and when right-wing groups such as http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandSecurity/lm13.cfm">Heritage Foundation were alone in urging a preventive detention law in 2004, did I support them?; and

(c) even if I'm comfortable with Obama having this new power because I trust him not to abuse it, am I comfortable with future Presidents -- including Republicans -- having the power of indefinite "preventive detention"?

Now, finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people. And I have to be honest here -- this is the toughest single issue that we will face. We're going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who've received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, or commanded Taliban troops in battle, or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.

Let me repeat: I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture -- like other prisoners of war -- must be prevented from attacking us again. Having said that, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. They can't be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone. That's why my administration has begun to reshape the standards that apply to ensure that they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible, and lawful standards for those who fall into this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.

Let me repeat: I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture -- like other prisoners of war -- must be prevented from attacking us again.

Finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people.

I want to be honest: this is the toughest issue we will face. We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who have received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.

As I said, I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture - like other prisoners of war - must be prevented from attacking us again. However, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. That is why my Administration has begun to reshape these standards to ensure they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible and lawful standards for those who fall in this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.

I know that creating such a system poses unique challenges. Other countries have grappled with this question, and so must we. But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for Guantanamo detainees - not to avoid one. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so going forward, my Administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution.

a) Obama isn't vesting himself with all the "power". He said that the entire process would be subject to congressional and judicial review. Bush and Cheney did everything they could to prevent the other powers of government from interfering with the way they were handling detainees. That is just the opposite of how the plan (as much as we know about it thus far) is going to work. Considering that practices that tainted evidence in the first place are banned by this administration, We have no reason to believe that any future detainees or POWs will have cases tainted in the same way.

b) Obama isn't going to imprison large numbers of people. From all accounts, this is going to pertain to a handful of existing detainees. The President himself pointed out that one the biggest problems in trying certain detainees is that although its pretty obvious that some of them engaged in acts of aggression against the United States, the evidence was still tainted because of things that were done to them by the past administration, things that are now BANNED.

c) See answer (A) as to why I am "comfortable" with this approach. Also, as some have pointed out, this isn't exactly setting a legal precedent. As we have used this approach in other situations within our law. Look at how we deal with people who are severely mentally ill and aren't safe to be living among the American public. The question itself is rather invalid.

Just like being in favor of abortion rights doesn't make one a supporter of abortion.

He has classified that there a certain number of prisoners who we know are a danger, but don't have enough evidence to convict in a civilian court of law, mostly because it was not documented or obtained by torture. The rest will be tried and imprisoned or released as to the outcome.

And yes, I'm speculating on some of the rest, but so are you. And if we truly don't know, I'm saying err on the side of caution and take the time to review each case as thoroughly and fairly as possible. So is Obama.

Simply ramming everyone through a civilian court is plain stupid given the circumstances. Again, they aren't shoplifters arrested by Sheriff Bob at the mall.

5150. When any person, as a result of mental disorder, is a danger
to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled, a peace
officer, member of the attending staff, as defined by regulation, of
an evaluation facility designated by the county, designated members
of a mobile crisis team provided by Section 5651.7, or other
professional person designated by the county may, upon probable
cause, take, or cause to be taken, the person into custody and place
him or her in a facility designated by the county and approved by the
State Department of Mental Health as a facility for 72-hour
treatment and evaluation.

~snip~

During these 72 hours you will be evaluated by the hospital
staff, and you may be given treatment, including medications.
It is possible for you to be released before the end of the 72
hours. But if the staff decides that you need continued treat-
ment you can be held for a longer period of time. If you are
held longer than 72 hours you have the right to a lawyer and a
qualified interpreter and a hearing before a judge. If you are
unable to pay for the lawyer, then one will be provided free.


~more~