NYTimes: Obama Is Said to Consider Preventive Detention Plan - GoFuckYourself.com

IllTestYourGirls · 05-22-2009, 01:43 PM

Quote:

May 21, 2009
Obama Is Said to Consider Preventive Detention Plan
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

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.

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.

?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.

Mr. Cheney and other hawkish critics have sought to portray Mr. Obama as weak on terror, and their argument seems to be catching on with the public. On Tuesday, Senate Democrats, in a clear rebuke to the White House, blocked the $80 million Mr. Obama had requested in financing to close the Guantánamo prison.

The lawmakers say they want a detailed plan before releasing the money; there is deep opposition on Capitol Hill to housing terrorism suspects inside the United States.

?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.?

But Mr. Obama will not use the speech to provide the details lawmakers want.

?What it?s not going to be is a prescriptive speech,? said David Axelrod, Mr. Obama?s senior adviser. ?The president wants to take some time and put this whole issue in perspective to identify what the challenges are and how he will approach dealing with them.?

ReGGs · 05-22-2009, 01:45 PM

Where do I sign up to be part of the thought police?

_Richard_ · 05-22-2009, 01:51 PM

if this is just so he can say he closed that prison..

DaddyHalbucks · 05-22-2009, 01:53 PM

Obama was a pro at campaigning, but wow --what a lightweight as an actual commander in chief.

Rochard · 05-22-2009, 01:55 PM

So we can now arrest people we think might commit a crime in the future? LOL.

The Duck · 05-22-2009, 01:55 PM

I told you so!

IllTestYourGirls · 05-22-2009, 01:56 PM

u-Bob · 05-22-2009, 01:58 PM

babymaker · 05-22-2009, 02:00 PM

Change we can belive in...........................

_Richard_ · 05-22-2009, 02:01 PM

jesus

kane · 05-22-2009, 03:12 PM

Somehow I thought we have already been doing this. I thought they could already arrest someone they thought was a terrorist threat to the US and hold them indefinitely if they wanted to. how is this different from what we are already doing?

nation-x · 05-22-2009, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

Somehow I thought we have already been doing this. I thought they could already arrest someone they thought was a terrorist threat to the US and hold them indefinitely if they wanted to. how is this different from what we are already doing?

They are attacking Obama for this BUSH POLICY (that has existed for years now) that he is kind of stuck with because there currently isn't a good solution.

nation-x · 05-22-2009, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

Obama was a pro at campaigning, but wow --what a lightweight as an actual commander in chief.

I think you have lightweight views... compared to Obama you are Helium.

who · 05-22-2009, 03:28 PM

Oh man it's high time a civil war broke out in USA. The states ought to be independant, this Obama fellow is a fucking curse.

nation-x · 05-22-2009, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by who

Oh man it's high time a civil war broke out in USA. The states ought to be independant, this Obama fellow is a fucking curse.

Really? Civil War? Let me introduce you to a nutsack.

who · 05-22-2009, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nation-x

Really? Civil War? Let me introduce you to a nutsack.

There's something wrong with this... ahh yes, your mouth is not on it. Strange.

IllTestYourGirls · 05-22-2009, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nation-x

They are attacking Obama for this BUSH POLICY (that has existed for years now) that he is kind of stuck with because there currently isn't a good solution.

How about not capturing/arresting people without cause? He is not only keeping the Bush policy he is expanding it. Take a look at the Maddow clip if you cant understand what Obama is doing. She dumbed it down for the sheep.

nation-x · 05-22-2009, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by who

There's something wrong with this... ahh yes, your mouth is not on it. Strange.

I figured you needed something to follow the shit you just spit out.

nation-x · 05-22-2009, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

How about not capturing/arresting people without cause? He is not only keeping the Bush policy is expanding it. Take a look at the Maddow clip if you cant understand what Obama is doing.

Check your facts... since Obama took office there have been NO NEW PRISONERS placed at gitmo... every one of those prisoners were taken under Bush... he isn't expanding the program. It's funny to me that you are quoting Rachel Maddow (a raging left winger). All he said was that they are working on a plan... he hasn't introduced a plan yet... all he did was discuss it.

IllTestYourGirls · 05-22-2009, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nation-x

Check your facts... since Obama took office there have been NO NEW PRISONERS placed at gitmo... every one of those prisoners were taken under Bush... he isn't expanding the program. It's funny to me that you are quoting Rachel Maddow (a raging left winger). All he said was that they are working on a plan... he hasn't introduced a plan yet... all he did was discuss it.

Great zero at Gitmo. He is going to close that and is looking into expanding Bush policies. Maddow is right. And when you are right you are right regardless of your political beliefs. Are you defending Obama on this issue? Do you think he should look into expanding Bush policies?

IllTestYourGirls · 05-22-2009, 03:54 PM

Another good read

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...ion/index.html

nation-x · 05-22-2009, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

Great zero at Gitmo. He is going to close that and is looking into expanding Bush policies. Maddow is right. And when you are right you are right regardless of your political beliefs. Are you defending Obama on this issue? Do you think he should look into expanding Bush policies?

No, I don't. I am saying that he hasn't even really made a proposal... all he did was open a bigger discussion. He can't make law anyway... Congress does that.

kane · 05-22-2009, 03:57 PM

So I watched the madow clip and this is what I get from it.
As far as I am aware right now we can detain people indefinitely without charging them. We have been doing so in Gitmo. Obama seems to be considering creating a system where we can detain people we think are threats, but put into place some kind of legal framework that oversees this process.

So it seems to me that it is the same policy, only with a little more oversight.

I guess I will wait to see exactly what this oversight is and how they are going to do this before I pass any judgment.

But make no mistake. Right now if the government considers you a threat to the country they can arrest you, deny you legal access and hold you forever without charging you. That is nothing new.

Madow says he is going to build this system outside the court, but in the speech he clearly says it would have judicial and congressional oversight. How is that outside the system?

IllTestYourGirls · 05-22-2009, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nation-x

No, I don't. I am saying that he hasn't even really made a proposal... all he did was open a bigger discussion. He can't make law anyway... Congress does that.

Lets hope this goes no where

nation-x · 05-22-2009, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

So I watched the madow clip and this is what I get from it.
As far as I am aware right now we can detain people indefinitely without charging them. We have been doing so in Gitmo. Obama seems to be considering creating a system where we can detain people we think are threats, but put into place some kind of legal framework that oversees this process.

So it seems to me that it is the same policy, only with a little more oversight.

I guess I will wait to see exactly what this oversight is and how they are going to do this before I pass any judgment.

But make no mistake. Right now if the government considers you a threat to the country they can arrest you, deny you legal access and hold you forever without charging you. That is nothing new.

Madow says he is going to build this system outside the court, but in the speech he clearly says it would have judicial and congressional oversight. How is that outside the system?

She is one of the far left voices that flips out anytime he says something that could be considered a right wing policy. You are right... he specifically said that any plan he would sign would include Congressional and Judicial oversight.

Just listen to the left flipping out about Health Care. They want a single payer system... he has made it clear that single payer isn't really on the table.

kane · 05-22-2009, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nation-x

She is one of the far left voices that flips out anytime he says something that could be considered a right wing policy. You are right... he specifically said that any plan he would sign would include Congressional and Judicial oversight.

Just listen to the left flipping out about Health Care. They want a single payer system... he has made it clear that single payer isn't really on the table.

I think you mean that she is on the far right and the right is flipping out about health care.

Obama is pretty far to the left.

nation-x · 05-22-2009, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

I think you mean that she is on the far right and the right is flipping out about health care.

Obama is pretty far to the left.

No... Obama isn't playing to the left on Health Care... they want single payer Health Care... he doesn't. There is a very basic reason for it... in order to provide single payer he would have to eliminate a whole industry (Private Health Insurance)... and he isn't going to do that. Rachel Maddow is a hardcore liberal. Saying that Obama is far left is purely a talking point invented by the right. He is actually pretty moderate on alot of issues.

kane · 05-22-2009, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nation-x

No... Obama isn't playing to the left on Health Care... they want single payer Health Care... he doesn't. There is a very basic reason for it... in order to provide single payer he would have to eliminate a whole industry (Private Health Insurance)... and he isn't going to do that. Rachel Maddow is a hardcore liberal. Saying that Obama is far left is purely a talking point invented by the right. He is actually pretty moderate on alot of issues.

Makes sense. I didn't know much about Maddow and to be hones I haven't paid that much attention to the health care issues yet. After the election I have gotten pretty burned out on politics.

Thanks for the info.

05-22-2009, 01:53 PM	#4
DaddyHalbucks A freakin' legend! Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Las Vegas, Nevada USA Posts: 18,975	Obama was a pro at campaigning, but wow --what a lightweight as an actual commander in chief. __________________ Boner Money

05-22-2009, 01:55 PM	#5
Rochard Jägermeister Test Pilot Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NORCAL Posts: 73,969	So we can now arrest people we think might commit a crime in the future? LOL. __________________ “The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.” - Sarah Huckabee Sanders YNOT MAIL \| THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

05-22-2009, 01:55 PM	#6
The Duck Adult Content Provider Industry Role: Join Date: May 2005 Location: Europe Posts: 18,243	I told you so! __________________ Skype Horusmaia ICQ 41555245 Email [email protected]

05-22-2009, 01:56 PM	#7
IllTestYourGirls Ah My Balls Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Under the gold leaf ICQ 388-454-421 Posts: 14,311	__________________

05-22-2009, 02:00 PM	#9
babymaker Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: philly Posts: 4,751	Change we can belive in........................... __________________ $99mo Hosted CMS From ElevatedX! ICQ 293125596

05-22-2009, 01:45 PM	#2
ReGGs Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: SoFla Posts: 248	Where do I sign up to be part of the thought police?

05-22-2009, 01:51 PM	#3
_Richard_ Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Earth Posts: 30,989	if this is just so he can say he closed that prison..

05-22-2009, 01:58 PM	#8
u-Bob there's no $$$ in porn Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: icq: 195./568.-230 (btw: not getting offline msgs) Posts: 33,063

05-22-2009, 02:01 PM	#10
_Richard_ Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Earth Posts: 30,989	jesus

05-22-2009, 03:12 PM	#11
kane Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: portland, OR Posts: 20,684	Somehow I thought we have already been doing this. I thought they could already arrest someone they thought was a terrorist threat to the US and hold them indefinitely if they wanted to. how is this different from what we are already doing?

05-22-2009, 03:28 PM	#14
who So Fucking Banned Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: ICQ #23642053 Posts: 19,593	Oh man it's high time a civil war broke out in USA. The states ought to be independant, this Obama fellow is a fucking curse.

05-22-2009, 03:54 PM	#21
IllTestYourGirls Ah My Balls Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Under the gold leaf ICQ 388-454-421 Posts: 14,311	Another good read http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...ion/index.html __________________

05-22-2009, 03:57 PM	#23
kane Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: portland, OR Posts: 20,684	So I watched the madow clip and this is what I get from it. As far as I am aware right now we can detain people indefinitely without charging them. We have been doing so in Gitmo. Obama seems to be considering creating a system where we can detain people we think are threats, but put into place some kind of legal framework that oversees this process. So it seems to me that it is the same policy, only with a little more oversight. I guess I will wait to see exactly what this oversight is and how they are going to do this before I pass any judgment. But make no mistake. Right now if the government considers you a threat to the country they can arrest you, deny you legal access and hold you forever without charging you. That is nothing new. Madow says he is going to build this system outside the court, but in the speech he clearly says it would have judicial and congressional oversight. How is that outside the system? Last edited by kane; 05-22-2009 at 03:58 PM..