PDA

View Full Version : Obama proposes Indefinite Preventive Detention without trial


sheps999
05-23-2009, 07:25 PM
1uuWVHT1WUY

Obama proposed a new system of Indefinite Preventive Detention yesterday in his National Security speech that is stunning in its illegality.

Obama is proposing we keep people locked up not for the crimes they have committed and we prove they committed in a court of law, but on the chance that they might commit crimes in the future. There will be no trial, for no crime exists to be charged. There is only the nebulous threat of "future acts" to justify depriving people of their liberty potentially indefinitely.

Is this justice?

Imagine you are picked up off the street for daring to write something provocative in your blog. Perhaps you vaguely threaten to relocate to Afghanistan and work with a humanitarian aid organization there. Unkown to you the humanitarian aid organization might possibly be associated with the Afghan resistence. Perhaps the head of the aid organization is the third cousin twice removed of a suspected warlord causing our march for empire trouble on the border. Based on that alone you could be kept in a cell forever. After all, letting you out of that cell might mean you really would do what you threatened and we can't have that.

Don't think it couldn't happen.

Read here the story of a red crescent worker arrested for perhaps having the phone number of a possibly terror related individual, Take a Walk in Lakhdar Boumediene's Shoes. Our government kidnapped Boumediene, tortured him, kept him in a cell for seven years and seven months, had him sign an agreement not to sue and then deported him last week.

Many men have been swept up off the streets these past eight years not for what they did or said or who they knew and associated with, but based on anonymous and often false accusations from third parties who in return collected bounties equal to several year's wages. Many thousands still languish in our cells around the world with no hope of a hearing or legitimate trial and now Obama is proposing a system that will allow uncharged detainees to be held without trial FOREVER and he wants to make this system "legal." Maybe the DOJ will start producing memos to back Obama up.

Indefinite detention with no trial is unconstitutional and morally abhorrent. Bush would never have been allowed to get away with it and indeed the American Civil Liberties Union and Center for Constitutional Rights have fought de facto indefinite detention for years now.

So the question now is will Obama worship, unthinking partisanship, and irrational fear rule the day and allow this grotesque new proposal to come (officially and quasi-legally) into existence?

You who think Obama cannot do wrong (hope! change!) despite the growing number of civilian corpses and refugees in Af/Pak due to his policies need to start paying more attention to what he is really doing and saying.

On this issue Obama is proving that the new boss may in fact be worse than the old boss.

If you don't believe Obama really plans to lock people up potentially forever for "future crimes," Rachel Maddow lays it all out coherently and eloquently in the Youtube clip above which includes footage of Obama proposing and justifying this new system of indefinite preventive detention.

The ACLU doesn't miss a trick and their Executive Director, Anthony D. Romero, has already responded:

"We welcome President Obama's stated commitment to the Constitution, the rule of law and the unequivocal rejection of torture. But unlike the president, we believe that continuing with the failed military commissions and creating a new system of indefinite detention without charge is inconsistent with the values that he expressed so eloquently at the National Archives today."

From the NY Times article on Obama's speech: “It is very troubling that he (Obama) is intent on codifying in legislation the Bush policies of indefinite detention without charge,” Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU, said after the speech. “That simply flies in the face of established American legal principle.”

From http://open.salon.com/blog/behind_blue_eyes/2009/05/22/obama_proposes_indefinite_preventive_detention_wit hout_trial

Not entirely sure if this is just scaremongering speculation, but I thought I'd post it anyway.

FordGT90Concept
05-23-2009, 08:48 PM
Um, I do believe that is unconstitutional (6th amendment: right to fair trial).

"Adhoc approach for terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable."

Did we get attacked a second time while Bush was in office? No? I move to strike that statement from the record on account of bullshit.


Put simply, the words coming out of his mouth make me want to puke.

sheps999
05-23-2009, 09:09 PM
Um, I do believe that is unconstitutional (6th amendment: right to fair trial).
The constitution doesn't mean anything any more. The powers-that-be are no longer bound by a sense of "honour", nor, IMO, have they been for some time.

Put simply, the words coming out of his mouth make me want to puke.
Heh, I'm not sure we can blame Obama, as he is simply the face that people can relate to and shout at. He weilds no power whatsoever. He is merely a figurehead, if you will.


I think I can quote Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy at this point:
It might not even have made much difference to them if they'd known exactly how much power the President of the Galaxy actually wielded: none at all. Only six people in the Galaxy knew that the job of the Galactic President was not to wield power but to attract attention away from it.

FordGT90Concept
05-23-2009, 10:20 PM
Not true. The President has 6-7 roles that critical to the government as a whole including signing/vetoing bills from the legislative branch. It is the judicial branch's duty to keep everything done by the other two branches constitutional. It is the executive branch's duty to enforce rulings made by the judicial branch.

sheps999
05-23-2009, 10:51 PM
Not true. The President has 6-7 roles that critical to the government as a whole including signing/vetoing bills from the legislative branch. It is the judicial branch's duty to keep everything done by the other two branches constitutional. It is the executive branch's duty to enforce rulings made by the judicial branch.

I stand corrected.

T3hPwn3r3r
05-24-2009, 12:11 AM
I seriously doubt if this were true that it would ever happen. It's all of these NWO junkies who think the lib'ruls are out to get them who blow it out of proportion.

Fucking whiners.

FordGT90Concept
05-24-2009, 06:02 AM
It came out of his mouth word for word. The fact that he is even thinking about it is alarming. If he pursues this, it is grounds for impeachment. If he succeeds, impeachment is assured. I don't care if you're a terrorist or not, you only deserve to be locked up (paid for by taxpayers) if you earned it. The trial is the means to determine your guilt. This is why the 6th amendment exists and this is why it must be upheld.

Why is it grounds for impeachment? If he is so loose with the "interpretation" of the constitution, he is in no position to fulfill his duty as the President of the United States. It's his job to enforce the Constitution, not rip it up and consider himself above it.

His speech is appalling.

btarunr
05-24-2009, 07:19 AM
Right. If you fart on the street, you get arrested for being a potential chemical terrorist.

Obama is turning out to be yet another of those politicians who are good only at "running for the office" and not "running the office".

FordGT90Concept
05-24-2009, 08:17 AM
Obama is turning out to be yet another of those politicians who are good only at "running for the office" and not "running the office".
QFT! I need my shaded shun for Obama. XD

farlex
05-24-2009, 08:41 AM
Sounds like he's talking POWs here, not US citizens. Not exactly sound policy for sure, but he's not going to start grabbing people off the streets. Worse has been done in the name of war. I just think it's hilarious how arrogantly hypocritical he can be condemning others for the same things he then tries to do, all in the same day. Gotta love politicians.


Obama is turning out to be yet another of those politicians who are good only at "running for the office" and not "running the office".

Is there another kind? Seems to be inevitable these days, qualifications don't matter when you can give a good speech.

FordGT90Concept
05-24-2009, 08:53 AM
Sounds like he's talking POWs here, not US citizens.
US citizen or not, they require sentencing/judgement via trial or else they must be released. The bad rep GITMO got will look like a kid raiding a candy drawer compared to this if he succeeds.

farlex
05-24-2009, 08:57 AM
US citizen or not, they require sentencing/judgement via trial or else they must be released. The bad rep GITMO got will look like a kid raiding a candy drawer compared to this if he succeeds.

Sure they should, you don't think that happens now though? POWs aren't being released if there's a threat no matter whether this happens or not. But I agree it shouldn't pass, lest it become more commonplace than necessary.

FordGT90Concept
05-24-2009, 09:46 AM
It does but, more often than not, they end up sitting in GITMO for a few years before they get their trial. Speed isn't their priority there. XD

Obviously, most don't go to GITMO at all. Most are screened at the border and on airline checkpoints. It is very rare that they find any reason to hold them for more than three hours or so to make sure this person isn't a criminal before letting them they go.

btarunr
05-24-2009, 01:49 PM
Is there another kind? Seems to be inevitable these days, qualifications don't matter when you can give a good speech.

That species isn't even endangered. The decisive voter is.

farlex
05-24-2009, 05:32 PM
That species isn't even endangered. The decisive voter is.

Decisive voters are hard to come by b/c of the consistent trend of bad politics leading to disheartened voters. The only truly decisive ones are those that subscribe to one of the two major parties, and then it's more of a machine like action, completely predictable and not flexible, and in some ways not even really a decision.

Deusxmachina
05-27-2009, 08:51 PM
I seriously doubt if this were true that it would ever happen. It's all of these NWO junkies who think the lib'ruls are out to get them who blow it out of proportion.

Fucking whiners.

The government is currently doing a whole lot of stuff no one thought it could or would do. Well, it always has, really.

Re-read your post 20 years from now and see if you have a different opinion on the matter.

Trust your government, folks! :)

FordGT90Concept
05-27-2009, 08:57 PM
Me? Trust government? Never.

pepsi71ocean
05-27-2009, 09:57 PM
Is there another kind? Seems to be inevitable these days, qualifications don't matter when you can give a good speech.

A good speech, Obamabot couldn't even make full sentences when questioned, heck ive scene this guy stumble at press conference when he get a sideline question.

This doesn't surprise me at all, weather its bull shit or not will find out.

all i know is that he seem to show more and more his communist side, what that shows isn't even legal, its more communist then socialist, hell euorpe is socialist and they don't do that, but Communist do. Look at Comrade Stalin, Kruchev, Bresnef, and even guys like Putin.......... Does Obama seem to look more and more like that im thinking so.

FordGT90Concept
05-27-2009, 11:46 PM
And I thought lawyers (Barak and Michelle Obama were/are lawyers) were supposed to have intiminate knowledge of the law. :confused:

DaMulta
05-28-2009, 01:28 AM
Anyone ever see that movie where they had these people that could see into the future and would be able to tell if you were going to kill someone. So if you had a real thought about doing it, they would come lock you up and put you in prison for thinking about it.

Papahyooie
05-28-2009, 04:09 AM
Minority report. Awesome movie.

FordGT90Concept
05-28-2009, 04:28 AM
The video at the top of this article references Minority Report...

yogurt_21
05-28-2009, 03:35 PM
Um, I do believe that is unconstitutional (6th amendment: right to fair trial).

"Adhoc approach for terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable."

Did we get attacked a second time while Bush was in office? No? I move to strike that statement from the record on account of bullshit.


Put simply, the words coming out of his mouth make me want to puke.

there are ways around the 6th amendment same as anything else in the constitution.

the cherokee nation was one of the few tribes to adapt and attemtp to fit in, they built a town complete with mainstreet and newspapers and wer epromised that they would be left alone.... march of tears.... so some of them decide they'll try to sue based on their agreements and rights.

now the legal system recognizes citizens of the untited states, sovereign entities within the united states (the states themselves), foreign states and govenrments, and citizens of foreign states and governements.

the supreme court ruled that because the cherokee were neither US citizens, soverign entities within the us, nor foreign citizens or foreign states, they could not sue and could not be recognized by the courts.


similarly here with the detainees they can come up with similar excuses to nto recognize them by the courts and thus detian them indefinetly.

FordGT90Concept
05-28-2009, 09:05 PM
Damn living constitutionalists! Grr, is there nothing they haven't fucked up!?! :mad:

The Native American reservations should have been recognized as a sovereign nation but to forget the Constitution and all it stands for is just to convenient.

3991v
05-28-2009, 11:15 PM
I guess this can be a follow up on my Obama thread (http://generalnonsense.net/showthread.php?t=73) =/