Obama said to be mulling a "preventive detention program"

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21obama.html?_r=2

By the way... I am not surprised. Just expected them to be able to keep the illusion for a little longer... not such luck,

And the tuna sandwich recipes.

:-)

Im sure, if he could possibly locate an intellectual constitutional law professor, maybe from some Ivy League, they could point out just where he is making a mistake. But, you know, those may be hard to come by.

happened before... and it is happening again... the show will be cancelled one of these days...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

slightly better for me pocket book. But I just didn't expect the empire to be this crass. That's all.

I am wasting my hard-earned dollars donating to politicians.

but hey, they will wonder why....

And yes like all Empires this is just a hollow shell of the republic it once was... we crossed the Rubicon in 2003 by my estimation, at the latest.

Clearly Obama is the same as Bush.

But "same as Bush" is not the issue here. If this is true than he is clearly not good enough, not on this issue. Do that on enough issues and people tend to get upset.

You keep trying to make this a binary thing. It isn't. Even the rare bird who does, in a fit of pique, say "he's the same as Bush" knows it isn't really true, they are merely upset and venting. Everyone knows he's better than Bush but you know what? That, by itself, isn't good enough for me. Nixon was better than Bush, hell his own DAD was better than junior. They aren't good enough either.

Tell you what. Let's take a break for trying outsnark each other and have an actual conversation. It's bound to be more constructive.

the people who say "he's not the same as Bush at all" know that isn't good enough. You can't look at the second-ordered meaning of one party and not of the other.

As for the actual conversation? You referenced it in your headline and then wandered away from it. I don't know if it's true, and neither do you--and we certainly don't know what exactly was proposed, under what circumstances it was proposed, and how Obama was approaching it. If the story as written is true, for all we know he was talking about the feasibility of setting up a bylaw to be used only in explicitly defined and tightly regulated extraordinary scenarios, as a means of preventing future Presidents from saying "well the law didn't forsee something like this so we have to ignore the law." For all we know he's cackling in an underground lair with lightning effects and bats flying out the windows. What we have is a strange story altogether, and it's not one that makes much sense from any perspective.

What I would like to see, but which I do not remotely expect to see, is for people to demand an explanation. Instead, I see people declaring utter defeat, betrayal, and despondence, based on a few weeks of half-stories and heavily-spun rumors.

to be used only in explicitly defined and tightly regulated extraordinary scenarios


Ummmm, What the fuck are you talking about? I mean really. What. The. Fuck. ??

I'm saying it's possible that Obama was simply thinking out loud about the possibility that a future President may have to deal with a future detainee who represented a clear and present danger, who was captured in a neutral territory, after the Afghan war was over, and who was captured under conditions making it impossible to try him in a criminal court (say, if all the evidence was classified as a result of that danger). He may have been thinking it would be wise to try to account for such a scenario in the legal reforms he's developing (say, by holding him for a strictly limited period of time, during in which a regular court may be assembled, or admissible evidence may be gathered), to prevent a future President from saying "well the law didn't foresee this scenario so we need to ignore the law."

It's possible that he said such a thing and then said, "but it may not be worthwhile to encode such exemptions in the law, as it might imply that any other such extraordinary situation could be met with a similar bending of the law, even if it is not explicitly authorized, so I'm not certain it would be a good idea."

And it's possible he's planning on setting up concentration camps to kill everyone.

We don't know. The article is only a media report on an anonymous report on an informal meeting in which Obama talked about what he was thinking about. Which is why I said we ought be loudly demanding clarification, rather than loudly declaring defeat.

You are a human gibberish machine.

I said exactly what I intended to, to wit: your original contribution to the thread was A) sheer snark, and B) contained an unfair and illogical inference, and C) this is something you seem to do an awful lot of. OK, I didn't actually point out that last in my first post but it IS the reason I decided to respond rather than overlook it and move on. You put people down an awful lot, often when there is no discernible reason to. I admit, I have had conversations that ended that way when it was clear that any potential avenue of communication was being deliberately shut down by the person I was speaking to, but I don't normally open with it.

I also would like to see people demand an explanation of some kind. I think I personally will wait to see if there is any "there" there before doing so, but nonetheless that would be the way to go if there is. Ever the optimist, I DO expect to see that. Just not here. See, Obama is not a member here. We can't realistically demand anything of the sort on DU, because there is no one to demand it of. That is not the function DU serves. It might surprise you that posters here who you believe... what was the wording? Ah yes, express "utter defeat, betrayal, and despondence" (I bet they don't see it quite that way but I digress) do something completely different when the environment is changed. I, for example, communicate fairly regularly with my Senators, Martinez and Nelson, as well as Bobby Wexler, but you wouldn't expect me to do so through DU would you? Nor do my posts at DU sound anything like the letters I send them. Different audience and all that.

Of course you know all of this. In a sense, we are doing nothing more than sparring on the internet, myself somewhat reluctantly and you with a vigor that suggests you have something to prove, or perhaps simply enjoy the game. It's cyber-wanking really, which is sad because I think we could do so much better.

Acceptable steam-blowing: "Remind me what I was voting against. I supported BO through the primaries and was stupid enough to believe the things he said. Fuck Obama and fuck the spineless Dems in KKKongress."

Unacceptable, unfair, and illogical snark in reply: "Clearly Obama is the same as Bush."

I'll certainly agree that one of us is being unfair and illogical as regards that exchange. I'll also admit that in a conversation into which you have injected yourself, and in which you have twice replied to posts predominantly concerned with our general lack of knowledge regarding this situation with posts predominantly concerned with my posting habits, that one of us is sparring with vigor.

It seems we agree that patient but concerned declarations of inadequate information are a more productive, healthy response to ambiguous news than declarations of defeat, betrayal, and despondence. Since you don't disagree with me on the substance, I'll indulge your desire to shift the topic to a metadiscussion of DU posting. I don't really agree with the theory that DU is a place for unhealthy responses to news. If you believe this site is at its best a burlesque of discussion, in which gross theatrics and dishonest emotional hyperbole are the ideal form of communication, then by all means go ahead. There are KKKongresses to be fucked and votes for Obama to be regretted.

I think that DU works better when DUers talk about the news in a sensible, reasoned manner. We apparently have a disagreement of principle, and that's perfectly fine.

I didn't believe Obama during the primaries, I had my own reasons which I'm not going to reveal but I thought and think that Obama is a world class hypocrite on at least one political position he holds and I think so entirely because of his own freely expressed words.

People have a right to their emotions and if someone feels betrayed then that is their right and it is not your right to try to silence them if they should choose to express that feeling of betrayal.

I personally don't feel betrayed because my expectations were extremely low but I know a lot of people on DU wanted to think the best of Obama and are indeed feeling betrayed.

Also, it seems the mods disagree with your assessment of the post's fairness and/or acceptability.

What part of President Obama told human rights advocates at the White House on Wednesday and The discussion, in a 90-minute meeting in the Cabinet Room that included Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and other top administration officials did you not notice in the NYT article?

So that's who "ignored" is ")

I don't think that's better, frankly.

Rachel Maddow: Obama/Holder/Activists Meeting Today - 'No Prosecutions of Anyone in Bush Admin'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x314893

Because apparently someone is.

:shrug:

We are now in the business of pre-crime.

I had to laugh. Biterly I assure you.

Preventive? Hmmmmm have we heard that word used in relation to anything else that was a totally fuck up that is still going on? Nevermind...he was against the war before he was..well president. HA. I laugh at my own hitterness.

Phillip K Dick in the 1960s, that's when Minority Report was released to the readying public. Only reason why I point where this coming from is that if people bothered readying some of Dick's fiction, as well as Heinlein and of course Orwell... a lot of what is going on RIGHT NOW... they foresaw.

Totalitarian states are totalitarian by nature and do not trust their citizens.

Just put people away for life without a trial, without evidence, without ever facing the accuser. We're a nation that lets torturers go free, conspirators to commit war go free, criminal banks run us -- not people or laws or morals.