Anyone Care To Explain "Preventive Detention"?

[AllState17]

So you what the United States to go around the world telling other countries what laws to pass.

And for real don't you ever try to tell me what to say out my mouth.

Yes the US should get those countries to pass specific laws.

And you still havent answered my question. Im beginning to think you cant.

Since when is war about waiting for your enemy to blow you apart before you capture them?

Can anyone explain to me what is so wrong with detaining enemy combatants once they have been identified as such?

 

[actinanass]

The Astrology defense huh?

Never makes a clear statement of what he wants to do?

Says one thing, but really means something else?

Leaves everyone confused?


Incredible that a large portion of the U.S. electorate thinks those are the qualities of an effective leader?

Put the shovel down bro. Your making this too easy.

Everyone knows that 2008 election was basically American Idol on steroids.

Anybody with a brain, that didn't get caught up with the historical nature, would of understand that Obama was pandering like a pimp talking to an 18 year old virgin.

 

[Nat_Turner]

Bush lite

Agree!

 

[BigUnc]

Yes the US should get those countries to pass specific laws.

And you still havent answered my question. Im beginning to think you cant.

Since when is war about waiting for your enemy to blow you apart before you capture them?

Can anyone explain to me what is so wrong with detaining enemy combatants once they have been identified as such?

You can think whatever you want. I use my brain to analyze a situation for what it is not on some I'm scared of boogie men shit or the government won't do anything that might get me caught up in somebody else's bullshit.

If you can identify someone as an combatant then by all means lock them up. What you have not reconized is this doesn't give someone a chance to challnge such an assertion. This "war" isn't like armies on a battlefield where each side can be clearly identified. These people are students, people who hold down jobs, etc. They are mingled in with the general population, possibly your neighbor, friend or family. If you are observed interacting with this person without knowing what they do on night's and weekends you could get caught up also.

Who you gonna call?----->nobody

How you gonna let your family know?------->you can't

What impartial judge can you appeal to------->not one

How long you gonna be locked up-------nobody know's

When your family files a missing person report with the local police the only response is we don't know shit, can't find him anywhere, dude has disappeared.Leave us alone

The reason the Constitution is being evoked and Congress would need to pass laws to ok this is because they plan on using this on U.S. citizens. If it was just for foreigners that is covered by international treaties.

But if you trust the government to keep you, your familyor friends out of somebody else's shit then go ahead and support it. I don't believe they will and do not support this.

 

[QueEx]

If you can identiy someone as an combatant then by all means lock them up. What you have not reconized is this doesn't give someone a chace to challnge such an assertion. This "war" isn't like armies on a battlefield where each side can be clearly identified. These people are students, people who hold down jobs, etc. They are migled [sic] in with the general population possibly your neighbor, friend or family. If you are observed interacting with this person ot knowing what they do on night's and weekends you could get snached up also.

Who you gonna call?----->nobody

How you gonna let your family know?------->you can't

What impartial judge can you appeal to------->not one

When your family files a missing person report with the local police the only response is we don't know shit, can't find him anywhere, dude has disappeared.

The setting of your hypothetical involves citizens and is clearly within the United States. Hence, the Constitution and all of its protections, including Habeas Corpus, clearly applies.

The reason the Constitution is being evoked and Congress would need to pass laws to ok this is because they plan on using this on U.S. citizens. If it was just for foreigners that is covered by international treaties.

I may have missed it, but I thought the focus of the video above was the dentention of enemy combatants for their past crimes -- NOT U.S. citizens for their crimes. The U.S. Constitution clearly provides for citizen crimes and for crimes committed by FOREIGNERS, ON U.S. SOIL, but unclear is the breadth of its coverage for "enemy combatants" captured on grounds OUTSIDE of the United States. Hence, your "assumption" that "they plan on using this on U.S. citizens" is inaccurate and not based on the facts, is it ???

I haven't researched the issue; I'm sort of going from memory. Correct me where I have erred.

QueEx

 

[Lamarr]

I may have missed it, but I thought the focus of the video above was the dentention of enemy combatants for their past crimes -- NOT U.S. citizens for their crimes. The U.S. Constitution clearly provides for citizen crimes and for crimes committed by FOREIGNERS, ON U.S. SOIL, but unclear is the breadth of its coverage for "enemy combatants" captured on grounds OUTSIDE of the United States. Hence, your "assumption" that "they plan on using this on U.S. citizens" is inaccurate and not based on the facts, is it ???

QueEx

gotta chime in:

1) If Dick Cheney introduced the term "Preventive Detention", What would you think it meant? Don't wait for him to tell you what it means, rely on your independent analysis

2) I'm sure you're familiar with the term "Domestic Terrorist". Even you can connect the dots and understand how this policy can easily be turned against the American people. Just look at the MIAC reports to see how opinions and ideologies can earn you an undeserving label.

3) It follows the thread title: Do you care to explain "Preventive Detention"?

 

[thoughtone]

gotta chime in:

1) If Dick Cheney introduced the term "Preventive Detention", What would you think it meant? Don't wait for him to tell you what it means, rely on your independent analysis

2) I'm sure you're familiar with the term "Domestic Terrorist". Even you can connect the dots and understand how this policy can easily be turned against the American people. Just look at the MIAC reports to see how opinions and ideologies can earn you an undeserving label.

3) It follows the thread title: Do you care to explain "Preventive Detention"?

Yea right, where was the "Preventive Detention" during the Oklahoma City bombing? Where was the "Preventive Detention" during the anthrax attacks? Where was the "Preventive Detention" during the Olympic bombing? "Preventive Detention" will not be used as long as right wing extremists do the damage.

 

[QueEx]

gotta chime in:

1) If Dick Cheney introduced the term "Preventive Detention", What would you think it meant? Don't wait for him to tell you what it means, rely on your independent analysis

2) I'm sure you're familiar with the term "Domestic Terrorist". Even you can connect the dots and understand how this policy can easily be turned against the American people. Just look at the MIAC reports to see how opinions and ideologies can earn you an undeserving label.

3) It follows the thread title: Do you care to explain "Preventive Detention"?

My point is and remains that neither you nor he (BigUnc) have said what Barack Obama has said about preventive detention. Both of you are riding the words of Ms. Maddow, and coming off making ASSumptions and presumptions based on what SHE said, instead of analyzing what the President said.

QueEx

 

[AllState17]

You can think whatever you want. I use my brain to analyze a situation for what it is not on some I'm scared of boogie men shit or the government won't do anything that might get me caught up in somebody else's bullshit.

If you can identify someone as an combatant then by all means lock them up. What you have not reconized is this doesn't give someone a chance to challnge such an assertion. This "war" isn't like armies on a battlefield where each side can be clearly identified. These people are students, people who hold down jobs, etc. They are mingled in with the general population, possibly your neighbor, friend or family. If you are observed interacting with this person without knowing what they do on night's and weekends you could get caught up also.

Who you gonna call?----->nobody

How you gonna let your family know?------->you can't

What impartial judge can you appeal to------->not one

How long you gonna be locked up-------nobody know's

When your family files a missing person report with the local police the only response is we don't know shit, can't find him anywhere, dude has disappeared.Leave us alone

The reason the Constitution is being evoked and Congress would need to pass laws to ok this is because they plan on using this on U.S. citizens. If it was just for foreigners that is covered by international treaties.

But if you trust the government to keep you, your familyor friends out of somebody else's shit then go ahead and support it. I don't believe they will and do not support this.

Your hypothetical rants mean shit to me.

They wanna use this on innocent American citizens according to... who? You? You got any kind of tangible proof?

Let me ask you a question, how many American citizens are locked up in Guantanamo Bay right now? How many neighbors of yours are locked up there under suspicion of terrorism? Your family had to file a missing person report for you lately? Seems like you are the one creating boogey men.

You say all this then turn around and say if you can identify someone as a terrorist by all means lock them up. Make up your mind please.

As far as getting other countries to pass laws, its the least hose countries can do in return for what they are getting. First lets not forget that AQ and the Taliban kill more of their own people then American troops. Second look at all the cash and the human resources the US is pouring into those countries. Passing laws during war is the least they can do if the US asks.

 

[BigUnc]

The setting of your hypothetical involves citizens and is clearly within the United States. Hence, the Constitution and all of its protections, including Habeas Corpus, clearly applies.




I may have missed it, but I thought the focus of the video above was the dentention of enemy combatants for their past crimes -- NOT U.S. citizens for their crimes. The U.S. Constitution clearly provides for citizen crimes and for crimes committed by FOREIGNERS, ON U.S. SOIL, but unclear is the breadth of its coverage for "enemy combatants" captured on grounds OUTSIDE of the United States. Hence, your "assumption" that "they plan on using this on U.S. citizens" is inaccurate and not based on the facts, is it ???

I haven't researched the issue; I'm sort of going from memory. Correct me where I have erred.

QueEx

If this would not apply to U.S. citizens what is the point of trying to find some Constitutional framework to make this happen. As you know the Constitution carries no weight outside the U.S. and cannot be used against foreign nationals outside the U.S. unless it can be demonstrated to the courts of that country that the individual committed a crime. Now y'all wanna throw that out also.

What kind of nonsense is this idea that an Afghani Talban who has never left Afghanistan and has broken no U.S. law can be taken in Afghanistan by the U.S. because he may some time in the future come here and attack the United States. Do you really want to open that pandoras box? This would open the door to any country to pass laws saying they can come here and snatch up anyone they want for the same reason. Do you think thats legal for them to do that?

You say this is only for a few people from Gitmo. Isn't it in the Constitution that you can't make laws targeting individuals and laws must apply to everyone?

This administration and it's supporters are acting like this is all brand new and the world has never experienced this before. Most of this is covered by the Geneva accords and other international agreements. The rest is covered by our own domestic laws if something occurs here. During WW2 German sabotuers were hung from the gallows when caught in the U.S. even though they blew up nothing nor killed or wounded anybody.

I'll ask the same question that I asked of the Bush supporters years ago.

If most of the needed laws and procedures are already in place. Why the need for these new laws which fundamentally attack the very essence of what is claimed to be held sacred by you?

 

[BigUnc]

Your hypothetical rants mean shit to me.

They wanna use this on innocent American citizens according to... who? You? You got any kind of tangible proof?

Let me ask you a question, how many American citizens are locked up in Guantanamo Bay right now? How many neighbors of yours are locked up there under suspicion of terrorism? Your family had to file a missing person report for you lately? Seems like you are the one creating boogey men.

You say all this then turn around and say if you can identify someone as a terrorist by all means lock them up. Make up your mind please.

As far as getting other countries to pass laws, its the least hose countries can do in return for what they are getting. First lets not forget that AQ and the Taliban kill more of their own people then American troops. Second look at all the cash and the human resources the US is pouring into those countries. Passing laws during war is the least they can do if the US asks.

So your waiting for it to happen before you maybe decide thats its not right. Waiting for it to happen to me or my neighbor. Then your neighbor. And when they finally come for you who's gonna be there to help you? I'm not giving them an inch. Trust them if you want.

Where did I hear something like that before?


So what they kill more of their own people. You on a save the world mission? When we leave, and we will leave, they will continue to kill each other. You want to pass a law here for that also?

I have yet to hear you or anyone else provide a legal or moral rational for doing this even to the Gitmo detainees,nothing, absolutly nothing. All I'm seeing are diversions, smoke screens and other assorted bullshit. Not one substantive post espounding why anyone supports this. If you want this preventive detention to happen the burden of proof of it's necessity and efficacy is on you.

 

[QueEx]

If this would not apply to U.S. citizens what is the point of trying to find some Constitutional framework to make this happen.

I still want to know exactly what this is. I would do my best to answer your question but I don't know what it is you're claiming someone is trying to find a constitutional framework for.

As you know the Constitution carries no weight outside the U.S. and cannot be used against foreign nationals outside the U.S. unless it can be demonstrated to the courts of that country that the individual committed a crime. Now y'all wanna throw that out also.

Yall ??? Who are yall ??? I'm not trying to "throw out" anything out. My point in this thread is and remains, not to let people just THROW OUT assumptions or presumptions, not supported by the facts -- which is why I keep asking, WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT SAY that have you and and the OP up in arms.

You "ASSUMED" I was merely defending the President. I wasn't. But, I wasn't allowing him to be assailed without someone showing what the fuck he was being assailed, for.


BTW, I was not aware that the U.S. Constitution could apply in a foreign land, as you put it if: it can be demonstrated to the courts of that country that the individual committed a crime. First I ever heard of that. Learn something everday.

What kind of nonsense is this idea that an Afghani Talban who has never left Afghanistan and has broken no U.S. law can be taken in Afghanistan by the U.S. because he may some time in the future come here and attack the United States. Do you really want to open that pandoras box?

Can you please, please tell me who proposes that. Please. How about posting that specific contention. If the President proposes such action, I'll be the FIRST to say he has lost his fukkin mind.

If, on the other hand, he didn't say it; I want those who keep throwing spears at the man hoping they land some damn where, to stand up say: "It doesn't matter what he said, I'm just tryna fuck him up."

You say this is only for a few people from Gitmo. Isn't it in the Constitution that you can't make laws targeting individuals and laws must apply to everyone?

Hell, if you believe that, why don't YOU SHOW IT TO ME. LOL

This administration and it's supporters are acting like this is all brand new and the world has never experienced this before.

That WHAT is brand new ??? That we're engaged in asymetrical warfare with unconventional forces who don't own a single tank ??? When was it that THIS COUNTRY was involved in a conflict where, when its all boiled down, the central issue is Western religion vs. Radical Fundamental Islam ???

When did it happen before that THIS SOCIETY has had to decide how it will treat, detain and possibly even put to death -- people operating upon a religions belief sworn to our demise and willing to go to their own deaths to ensure it ???

Most of this is covered by the Geneva accords and other international agreements. The rest is covered by our own domestic laws if something occurs here. During WW2 German sabotuers were hung from the gallows when caught in the U.S. even though they blew up nothing
nor killed or wounded anybody.

C'mon bro; the Bush Administration, the military and damn near anyone else involved in this mess have struggled with the application of Geneva to asymetrical warfare. Like many occurrences in the U.S. today that don't clearly fit or appears to have been contemplated by our 200-plus year old Constitution, the Geneva Accords, developed at the height of tanks & bombs wielded by uniformed soldiers, can hardly be said to have foreseen the challenges of today's asymetrical warfare.

I'll ask the same question that I asked of the Bush supporters years ago.

If most of the needed laws and procedures are already in place. Why the need for these new laws which fundamentally attack the very essence of what is claimed to be held sacred by you?

Let me make this clear: It is not only my profession and my sworn duty to uphold these things "claimed to be held sacred", but I have put my own life on the line for that same principle, knowing at the time that part of the those things held sacred, was yet to reach its fulfillment for me and mine.

I am also not naive to believe or say that the law (like anything else on this earth) is in its final and unchanging state. Everything that we know exist in a state of constant change, formation and reformation. And, there is not now nor will there ever be a law or system of laws that contemplates and applies to every known and/or unknown situation. Hence, the living, breathing law.


QueEx

 

[BigUnc]

I still want to know exactly what this is. I would do my best to answer your question but I don't know what it is you're claiming someone is trying to find a constitutional framework for.

Obama is the one Merging the Constitution and legal frameworks to make this happen. If it's muddled and incomplete thats on him.


Yall ??? Who are yall ??? I'm not trying to "throw out" anything out. My point in this thread is and remains, not to let people just THROW OUT assumptions or presumptions, not supported by the facts -- which is why I keep asking, WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT SAY that have you and and the OP up in arms.

Can't speak for the OP. I took it as him asking a question. For me , knowing what this is, I'm asking what's the legal basis for detaining someone indefinately because they might do something against the United States in the future. It's clear what Obama wants to do even in the Maddow segment the OP posted.

You "ASSUMED" I was merely defending the President. I wasn't. But, I wasn't allowing him to be assailed without someone showing what the fuck he was being assailed, for.

I just asked a question that you wanted.Then you thought my question was too general, so i tried to make it specific. Then you wanted anyone to point at what he said. I gave you time marks from the vid. No response. Now were back to you asking someone to point to what he said.

My first post was an attempt to answer the qustion I thought the OP was asking and I left a comment at the end. How it got to this point I don't know but the dialogue has been


BTW, I was not aware that the U.S. Constitution could apply in a foreign land, as you put it if: it can be demonstrated to the courts of that country that the individual committed a crime. First I ever heard of that. Learn something everday.


might have came out wrong. I was speaking on extradition treaties between countries and the process of transfering suspects between countries






Can you please, please tell me who proposes that. Please. How about posting that specific contention. If the President proposes such action, I'll be the FIRST to say he has lost his fukkin mind.

If, on the other hand, he didn't say it; I want those who keep throwing spears at the man hoping they land some damn where, to stand up say: "It doesn't matter what he said, I'm just tryna fuck him up."

Since my first days here at the BGOL politics board I've witnessed the spear throwing at politicians and assorted others in the hopes of landing a lucky shot and no one was told to stand up and declare they just tryna fuck somebody up. Now that Obama is Prez is this some kind of unofficial rule of conduct. Just saying.



Hell, if you believe that, why don't YOU SHOW IT TO ME. LOL

Note the punctuation at the end of the sentence. I was asking a question not stating a fact.




That WHAT is brand new ??? That we're engaged in asymetrical warfare with unconventional forces who don't own a single tank ??? When was it that THIS COUNTRY was involved in a conflict where, when its all boiled down, the central issue is Western religion vs. Radical Fundamental Islam ???

When did it happen before that THIS SOCIETY has had to decide how it will treat, detain and possibly even put to death -- people operating upon a religions belief sworn to our demise and willing to go to their own deaths to ensure it ???rand strategy

Assymmetrical strategies and tactics are but a means to attaining that grand strategy. Really though, what does their strategies, tactics or religion have to do with whether they are held as POW's until the end of hostilities or hung after a fair trail is conducted in the appropiate venue. The point is due process. In the fog of war innocent people are gonna get caught up. Preventive/ prolonged detention as it is defined now does not afford due process. It's we think someone is going to try to hurt us in the future therefore lock 'em up until we don't think that way anymore however long that may take. Obama made no mention of a change in definition or a new one.



C'mon bro; the Bush Administration, the military and damn near anyone else involved in this mess have struggled with the application of Geneva to asymetrical warfare. Like many occurrences in the U.S. today that don't clearly fit or appears to have been contemplated by our 200-plus year old Constitution, the Geneva Accords, developed at the height of tanks & bombs wielded by uniformed soldiers, can hardly be said to have foreseen the challenges of today's asymetrical warfare.

Does it really matter if someone is using a shiny new million dollar tank to be considered a soldier? I believe a couple dudes shooting from the back of a Toyota Tacoma and planting IED's are warriors also. Seems like people are stuck on the idea that a soldier is someone affiliated with a standing national army with pretty uniforms. A minor change would solve that issue. Treat them all the same. Obama could lead the way on this,even claim it was his idea.





Let me make this clear: It is not only my profession and my sworn duty to uphold these things "claimed to be held sacred", but I have put my own life on the line for that same principle, knowing at the time that part of the those things held sacred, was yet to reach its fulfillment for me and mine.

I am also not naive to believe or say that the law (like anything else on this earth) is in its final and unchanging state. Everything that we know exist in a state of constant change, formation and reformation. And, there is not now nor will there ever be a law or system of laws that contemplates and applies to every known and/or unknown situation. Hence, the living, breathing law.


I have similar thought's also. But what rings in my ear concerning the oath is the phrase foreign and domestic. When I sense domestic threats either by armed groups or the actions of politicians whether by choice or un-intended consequence I'm gonna speak up. Playing around with pandora's box isn't a smart thing to do. I think thats what Obama is doing.

QueEx

BigUnc

 

[QueEx]

QueEx: I still want to know exactly what this is. I would do my best to answer your question but I don't know what it is you're claiming someone is trying to find a constitutional framework for.

BigUnc: Obama is the one Merging the Constitution and legal frameworks to make this happen. If it's muddled and incomplete thats on him.

You simply attempted to dodge the question. I asked about the "THIS" that you were talking about -- THIS as in what legislation, law, document, etc., -- and you responded with WHO: Mr. Obama.

Clearly, your problem is not with a particular law, piece of legislation, or thing the President said (the "THIS"), -- it is with the man himself. Now you try to cover pretty good -- but it is what it is.

"ASSUMED" I was merely defending the President. I wasn't. But, I wasn't allowing him to be assailed without someone showing what the fuck he was being assailed, for.

I just asked a question that you wanted.Then you thought my question was too general, so i tried to make it specific. Then you wanted anyone to point at what he said. I gave you time marks from the vid. No response. Now were back to you asking someone to point to what he said. [/I

Okay, since you refused to state which part of Mr. Obama's statement you found problematic, here goes:

AT THE 2:22 MARK

"There may be a number of people [referring to those captured as enemy combatants and incarcerated at Guantanamo] 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.'​

AT THE 2:46 MARK

“Al Qaeda terrorist and their affiliates are at war with the U.S. and those that we capture, like other prisoners of war, must be prevented from attacking us again.”​

AT THE 4:30 THROUGH 5:41 MARK

“. . . my administration has begun to reshape the standards that apply to ensure that they [the standards] 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 a thorough process of periodic review so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified; our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for the remaining Guantanamo detainees that cannot be transferred; our goal is not to avoid a legitimate framework; in our constitutional system prolong detention should not be the decision of any one man; if and when we determine that the U.S. must hold individuals to keep them form 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.”​

Now, whats your problem; and where does the President even remotely propose a violation of our Constitution ? ? ?

QueEx

 

[AllState17]

So your waiting for it to happen before you maybe decide thats its not right. Waiting for it to happen to me or my neighbor. Then your neighbor. And when they finally come for you who's gonna be there to help you? I'm not giving them an inch. Trust them if you want.

Where did I hear something like that before?


So what they kill more of their own people. You on a save the world mission? When we leave, and we will leave, they will continue to kill each other. You want to pass a law here for that also?

I have yet to hear you or anyone else provide a legal or moral rational for doing this even to the Gitmo detainees,nothing, absolutly nothing. All I'm seeing are diversions, smoke screens and other assorted bullshit. Not one substantive post espounding why anyone supports this. If you want this preventive detention to happen the burden of proof of it's necessity and efficacy is on you.

You are clearly convinced that the government wants you and yours locked up. I dont happen to have such fears about myself and those around me. Again I ask, how many people do you know are locked up in Gitmo right now?

I have this crazy theory that the less AQ operatives are free, the better it is. They kill people. They say they want to kill people until they get their way. They would kill you, your family, your neighbors, your dog... Just for living in this country. Service with a smile. And they do it just as happily to their own people. So right now they are the ones I wouldnt give an inch to. Its your business if you trust them. I have no doubt whatsoever as to what they would do to you if they could.

So again, you ask for reasoning, this is it. We are at war with them. At war you capture your enemy and make them prisoners of war. Until the war is won. Because if you dont they will blow you apart. Thats way war has been since forever. Whats changed now? Nothing to me.

 

[Lamarr]

I have this crazy theory that the less AQ operatives are free, the better it is. They kill people. They say they want to kill people until they get their way. They would kill you, your family, your neighbors, your dog... Just for living in this country. Service with a smile. And they do it just as happily to their own people. So right now they are the ones I wouldnt give an inch to. Its your business if you trust them. I have no doubt whatsoever as to what they would do to you if they could.

very Rove-esque

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." - Ben Franklin

 

[Garifuna]

What SPECIFIC provision of the United States Constitution gives the President and/or Congress the authority to detain a human being indefinitely without charge, without knowing why they are being detained, without access to an attorney or for a hearing in front of a judge?

http://books.google.com/books?id=duKJMeuoNRcC

 

[BigUnc]

You simply attempted to dodge the question. I asked about the "THIS" that you were talking about -- THIS as in what legislation, law, document, etc., -- and you responded with WHO: Mr. Obama.

Clearly, your problem is not with a particular law, piece of legislation, or thing the President said (the "THIS"), -- it is with the man himself. Now you try to cover pretty good -- but it is what it is.








Okay, since you refused to state which part of Mr. Obama's statement you found problematic, here goes:

AT THE 2:22 MARK

"There may be a number of people [referring to those captured as enemy combatants and incarcerated at Guantanamo] 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.'​

AT THE 2:46 MARK

“Al Qaeda terrorist and their affiliates are at war with the U.S. and those that we capture, like other prisoners of war, must be prevented from attacking us again.”​

AT THE 4:30 THROUGH 5:41 MARK

“. . . my administration has begun to reshape the standards that apply to ensure that they [the standards] 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 a thorough process of periodic review so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified; our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for the remaining Guantanamo detainees that cannot be transferred; our goal is not to avoid a legitimate framework; in our constitutional system prolong detention should not be the decision of any one man; if and when we determine that the U.S. must hold individuals to keep them form 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.”​

Now, whats your problem; and where does the President even remotely propose a violation of our Constitution ? ? ?

QueEx

Obama is the person proposing this. You can try to duck and dodge all you want. He wants this to happen. I'm against the idea he's proposing, not him personally. Let me make this perfectly clear, I am not an Obama dick rider. Got it? You may wish to try and frame it as me hating on Obama to try and discredit me as that has always been his supporters first line of defense when someone questions him. And btw you are defending him. You need to come right out and say it. Your attempt at preserving some kind of nuetrality is gone.


From the Salon article I posted:

"The first President of the United States to introduce a preventive-detention law" is how Obama's own White House Counsel described him.

Is he attacking Obama?

hCurrently there is no law authorizing the President to do preventive detention. Thats why the call to others to make it happen witin some yet undefined framework. My question continues to be what provision of the Constitution gives the executive the authourity to do this. Everything I've seen protects people from just this kind of government power. Am I wrong? If so, point it out to me. I'm not anything close to an Constitutional scholar such as Mr. Greenwald. His interpretation of Obama's proposal is written for all to see. I agree with his interpretation.

 

[BigUnc]

You are clearly convinced that the government wants you and yours locked up. I dont happen to have such fears about myself and those around me. Again I ask, how many people do you know are locked up in Gitmo right now?

I have this crazy theory that the less AQ operatives are free, the better it is. They kill people. They say they want to kill people until they get their way. They would kill you, your family, your neighbors, your dog... Just for living in this country. Service with a smile. And they do it just as happily to their own people. So right now they are the ones I wouldnt give an inch to. Its your business if you trust them. I have no doubt whatsoever as to what they would do to you if they could.

So again, you ask for reasoning, this is it. We are at war with them. At war you capture your enemy and make them prisoners of war. Until the war is won. Because if you dont they will blow you apart. Thats way war has been since forever. Whats changed now? Nothing to me.

OK we're in agreement with alot of this. We appear to diverge on the issue of those we can't prove are out to hurt us. I'm going to repeat this. Many people are gonna get caught up in other peoples BS ( fog of war). You say fuck 'em keep them locked up until........whenever. I say hell no. If they are not captured on the "field of battle" and are merely suspected of possibly plotting to do something in the future it would be better if we think 10 times before we do lock 'em up. Sinking to the level of seeing boogeymen around every corner in effect gives them an enormous victory, confirming in their eyes that their terror tactics are working. What's wrong with if they are caught here plotting an attack, during an attack, or after an attack that after a fair hearing they are hung from the neck until they are dead, dead, dead. That has been the time honored tradition.

According to Obama the Bush admin fucked up by gaining info through torture. I'm going to leave alone whether Obama should have admitted it, but it's too late now. The fact that he said there can be no prosecution for past crimes because of tainted evidence means,under my understanding of the system, they either have to re-charge them with different evidence or let them go.

Whatever of the 2 they decide is good with me. My opinion is that there will be casualties here in he U.S. People need to understand that and not have a knee jerk reaction that the government is to blame for not stopping every attack.I'll ferociously defend Obama if it happens on his watch. Unless of course they have in possession a brief similar to the Bin Laden determined to attack memo then I'll be all over him in a bad way.

 

[QueEx]

Obama is the person proposing this. You can try to duck and dodge all you want. He wants this to happen.

Want WHAT to happen ???

I asked you TEN times to state what and you couldn't name it. You said: see the parts in the video. I posted the parts of the video. I took my precious time to transcribe the video and YOU STILL CAN'T point out WHAT you're talking about and you say I'm dodging; get fucking real.

I'm against the idea he's proposing,

BUT, you can't point out what it is he's proposing.

So,

not him personally.

Let me make this perfectly clear, I am not an Obama dick rider. Got it?

Oh thats clear and its been clear. BUT, whats even clearer, however, is that you just oppose the guy but can't say what it is in this thread you oppose. That tends to tell me you just oppose the man for-the-fuck-of-it.

You may wish to try and frame it as me hating on Obama to try and discredit me as that has always been his supporters first line of defense when someone questions him.

LOL. You need to stop.

You framed your damn self.

And btw you are defending him. You need to come right out and say it. Your attempt at preserving some kind of nuetrality is gone.

LOL, shifting the burden, HUH? You made the statements, I didn't. You can't defend them -- and you question my neutrality. I didn't say he said shit, LOL, you did.



QueEx

 

[BigUnc]

Want WHAT to happen ???

I asked you TEN times to state what and you couldn't name it. You said: see the parts in the video. I posted the parts of the video. I took my precious time to transcribe the video and YOU STILL CAN'T point out WHAT you're talking about and you say I'm dodging; get fucking real.



BUT, you can't point out what it is he's proposing.

So,






Oh thats clear and its been clear. BUT, whats even clearer, however, is that you just oppose the guy but can't say what it is in this thread you oppose. That tends to tell me you just oppose the man for-the-fuck-of-it.


LOL. You need to stop.

You framed your damn self.



LOL, shifting the burden, HUH? You made the statements, I didn't. You can't defend them -- and you question my neutrality. I didn't say he said shit, LOL, you did.



QueEx

Bro, everything thats needed to make a determination of what this thread is about is here. You understand it perfectly by your clear statement right after the Op posted that Rachel Maddow and anyone that agrees with her is wrong. Now you want to feign you don't know what this is about. You know, always did know. You continually fall back on show you then you'll know but according to you no one can know what's in Obama mind. So in effect any question that is posed cannot be answered except by Obama.Curious thing though, Obama's own White House counsel Greg Graig seems to understand that legislation is forthcoming. Legal Scholars such as Greg Greenwald and the dude in the clip, who sat down with Obama and talked to him about it, knows whats coming. I just asked a question which still has not been addressed. If you don't know the answer then say you don't know.

 

[QueEx]

Bro, everything thats needed to make a determination of what this thread is about is here. You understand it perfectly by your clear statement right after the Op posted that Rachel Maddow and anyone that agrees with her is wrong.

What I saw was what you proved. Neither YOU nor MADDOW had any FACTS, but you were on the attack. You see, Bro, I noticed the want-to-be-crafty word associations that she used in the clip -- in a sorry-ass attempt to make the President's words mean something different than what he actually stated.

Thats why I asked YOU to point out what it is that Mr. Obama had said. And, you have yet to do that. Oh, I've known all along that you couldn't, since I listened to the clip as well. I saw the clever little game Maddow was playing, but I couldn't understand what appears to me to be an intelligent person would fall for Maddow's OkeyDoke, unless, however, you really didn't need a reason, you were going to cut him down, WITHOUT THE FACTS.

Now you want to feign you don't know what this is about. You know, always did know.

Yeah, I've known what it is about all along: YOU and several other posters who can't wait to say the man is fucking up. YOU and several others who want to call everybody else dickridders, when they call you on your obvious bias. YOU and severl other posters who dislike the man, FOR NO APPARENT REASON -- or, you can't articulate a reason.

You continually fall back on show you then you'll know but according to you no one can know what's in Obama mind. So in effect any question that is posed cannot be answered except by Obama.

I never, ever asked you or anyone else to say whats on Obama's mind.

DON'T LIE.

I asked you for the facts. Just the Facts, Sir. Nothing else.

Trying to get facts out of you has been like pulling teeth.

I quit.

QueEx

 

[BigUnc]

What I saw was what you proved. Neither YOU nor MADDOW had any FACTS, but you were on the attack. You see, Bro, I noticed the want-to-be-crafty word associations that she used in the clip -- in a sorry-ass attempt to make the President's words mean something different than what he actually stated.

Thats why I asked YOU to point out what it is that Mr. Obama had said. And, you have yet to do that. Oh, I've known all along that you couldn't, since I listened to the clip as well. I saw the clever little game Maddow was playing, but I couldn't understand what appears to me to be an intelligent person would fall for Maddow's OkeyDoke, unless, however, you really didn't need a reason, you were going to cut him down, WITHOUT THE FACTS.




Yeah, I've known what it is about all along: YOU and several other posters who can't wait to say the man is fucking up. YOU and several others who want to call everybody else dickridders, when they call you on your obvious bias. YOU and severl other posters who dislike the man, FOR NO APPARENT REASON -- or, you can't articulate a reason.




I never, ever asked you or anyone else to say whats on Obama's mind.

DON'T LIE.

I asked you for the facts. Just the Facts, Sir. Nothing else.

Trying to get facts out of you has been like pulling teeth.

I quit.

QueEx

You quit huh?

For the record:
I didn't just rely on Maddow. As a matter of fact I ignored her since I'm not a fan of hers. She seems goofy to me. I focused on the issue of Obama and preventive detention using other sources also and the opinion of experts one of whom thoughts I posted . Seems quite clear what Obama wants but you don't want to admit it or more appropriately you disagree with everyone's interpretation of his proposal yet you have not expounded on what you disagree with or how you interpret this.

You totally ignored the statement from the White House counsel, which is a fact.The comments from the person who sat with him and discussed the issue with him you also conveniently did not address.So if you want to ignore facts. It's Ok with me.





"You're not Obama's "mind", therefore, I wouldn't expect you to explain, what he meant".

Are you claiming you did not say this? How would I or anyone point to what he says if you believe this?
But yet you want others to point to what he said so you can explain what he meant? I'm more than a little confused by that. Unless......you.....are....????.Naw can't be

It's alright bro we agree on most issues. Just on this issue you see an Orange I see an Apple. It happens but I ain't mad at you cause you don't see this the same as I do, although ,I can't see why you don't. Matter of fact I was getting worried we we're starting to sound like we were the same person


Until the next time bro.
BigUnc

 

[destrehan]

The setting of your hypothetical involves citizens and is clearly within the United States. Hence, the Constitution and all of its protections, including Habeas Corpus, clearly applies.




I may have missed it, but I thought the focus of the video above was the dentention of enemy combatants for their past crimes -- NOT U.S. citizens for their crimes. The U.S. Constitution clearly provides for citizen crimes and for crimes committed by FOREIGNERS, ON U.S. SOIL, but unclear is the breadth of its coverage for "enemy combatants" captured on grounds OUTSIDE of the United States. Hence, your "assumption" that "they plan on using this on U.S. citizens" is inaccurate and not based on the facts, is it ???

I haven't researched the issue; I'm sort of going from memory. Correct me where I have erred.

QueEx

i can't believe you think the constitution is still relevant. don't you know the patriot act all but suspended it? bush did everything he could to undermine our rights que ex wtf is wrong with you?

 

[AllState17]

OK we're in agreement with alot of this. We appear to diverge on the issue of those we can't prove are out to hurt us. I'm going to repeat this. Many people are gonna get caught up in other peoples BS ( fog of war). You say fuck 'em keep them locked up until........whenever. I say hell no. If they are not captured on the "field of battle" and are merely suspected of possibly plotting to do something in the future it would be better if we think 10 times before we do lock 'em up. Sinking to the level of seeing boogeymen around every corner in effect gives them an enormous victory, confirming in their eyes that their terror tactics are working. What's wrong with if they are caught here plotting an attack, during an attack, or after an attack that after a fair hearing they are hung from the neck until they are dead, dead, dead. That has been the time honored tradition.

According to Obama the Bush admin fucked up by gaining info through torture. I'm going to leave alone whether Obama should have admitted it, but it's too late now. The fact that he said there can be no prosecution for past crimes because of tainted evidence means,under my understanding of the system, they either have to re-charge them with different evidence or let them go.

Whatever of the 2 they decide is good with me. My opinion is that there will be casualties here in he U.S. People need to understand that and not have a knee jerk reaction that the government is to blame for not stopping every attack.I'll ferociously defend Obama if it happens on his watch. Unless of course they have in possession a brief similar to the Bin Laden determined to attack memo then I'll be all over him in a bad way.

We looking at it in completely different ways.

In this war there is no field of battle. What field is there when they show up at the supermarket strapped with C4? They use old women and children to sneak in bombs and hide themselves within the population after the deed. There is no field of battle.

You seem to want to win by playing police with them. If thats the way its done its gonna just as successful as the war on drugs in America. No war has ever been won by policing the other side. Since when do we charge enemy combatants with crimes before locking them up?

Again, to me this is war. Yes in war innocents get caught up. Its never happened in the history of the world that innocents did NOT get caught up in war. I know its not right but at some you either want to win the war or you dont.

If this policy is being used at home on us soil and American citizens, I would have a serious problem with it, because here you CAN control such things. But abroad? I have no problem with it.

 

[muckraker10021]

Facts and Myths about Obama's Preventive Detention Proposal

... According to one of the highest level West Wing officials in the Obama White House, Obama does not give a scintilla of attention to its right-wing critics, he does read, and will read, everything Glenn Greenwald writes. Obama, according to an administration official, finds this outside pressure healthy and useful...


No Preventative Detention, period!!

That’s my personal view. It’s a simple question, not complicated.

Do you believe in Civilization or Barbarism?

During the reign of the “great” Roman Empire the killing of orphans and Infanticide were “normal” accepted practices. If any government today in the 21st century was involved in infanticide and the killing of orphans, there is the highest probability that they would be invaded militarily by a UN sanctioned military force. I can see the cable channels now 24/7, 365, even <s>FOX</s> FAKE News would be outraged.

Preventative Detention is Barbarism

The Bush Crime Family managed to kill the writ of habeas corpus with the connivance of a cowardly House and Senate.

With a 65% approval rating, Democratic Party majorities in the House & Senate, What is “constitutional scholar” Barack Obama waiting for to reinstate Habeas????

Preventative Detention is Barbarism

Despite inheriting the wretched -- Extrajudicial Torture-Gulag-Death System that the Bush Crime Family handed off to him, President Barack Obama must NOT use his oratorical skills and well liked demeanor to sell barbarism to a mostly clueless American public.

Preventative Detention is Barbarism

Barack should look at the bust sculpture in his oval office, the bust sculpture that he replaced the Winston Churchill sculpture with, after that bust was sent back to the British Embassy ; he should look at that sculpture of Dr. Martin Luther King and think, would Dr. King authorize Preventative Detention???

Preventative Detention is Barbarism

Use the link below and read the Glenn Greenwalds blog post about Preventative Detention. Barack Obama is reading it. Hopefully the factual analysis and point-counterpoint, bogus points-debunked content it contains will mitigate & void any inclination he might have had to authorize Preventative Detention

Preventative Detention is Barbarism

Facts and Myths about Obama's Preventive Detention Proposal

<hr noshade color="#0000FF" size="6"></hr>

 

[thoughtone]

So where is the "Preventive Detention" against domestic terrorist that state explicitly that killing will occur?

source: Huffington Post

Scott Roeder, Abortion Doctor Murder Suspect, Warns Of More Violence

WICHITA, Kan. — The man charged with murdering a high-profile abortion doctor claimed from his jail cell Sunday that similar violence was planned around the nation for as long as the procedure remained legal, a threat that comes days after a federal investigation launched into his possible accomplices.

A Justice Department spokesman said the threat was being taken seriously and additional protection had been ordered for abortion clinics last week. But a leader of the anti-abortion movement derided the accused shooter as "a fruit and a lunatic."

Scott Roeder called The Associated Press from the Sedgwick County jail, where he's being held on charges of first-degree murder and aggravated assault in the shooting of Dr. George Tiller one week ago.

"I know there are many other similar events planned around the country as long as abortion remains legal," Roeder said. When asked by the AP what he meant and if he was referring to another shooting, he refused to elaborate further.

It wasn't clear whether Roeder knew of any impending violence or whether he was simply seeking publicity for his cause. Law enforcement authorities including the Justice Department said they didn't know whether the threat was credible.

Tiller's clinic in Wichita was among only a few in the U.S. that perform third-trimester abortions. He was shot while serving as an usher at the Lutheran church he attended.

Asked if he shot Tiller, Roeder replied that he could not comment about that and said he needed to clear everything with his lawyer.

Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller said in a written statement Sunday that "we take this matter seriously, which is why the Attorney General ordered increased protection of appropriate people and facilities last week."

Tiller's clinic had been a target of regular demonstrations by abortion opponents. Most were peaceful, but his clinic was bombed in 1986 and he was shot in both arms in 1993. In 1991, a 45-day "Summer of Mercy" campaign organized by Operation Rescue drew thousands of abortion opponents to Wichita, and there were more than 2,700 arrests.

The Justice Department opened an investigation Friday to see if the gunman who killed Tiller had accomplices. The DOJ said its Civil Rights Division and the U.S. attorney's office in Kansas will investigate whether the killing violated a 1994 law creating criminal penalties for violent or damaging conduct toward abortion providers and their patients.

An attorney for the Tiller family, Dan Monnat, said he wasn't sure they should be dignifying Roeder's actions and threats with a response "every time he makes a hare-brained phone call."

"I am hopeful that state and federal authorities, including Homeland Security, will give Mr. Roeder and his information a deserving response," Monnat said, declining to elaborate.

Nancy Keenan president of NARAL-Pro-Choice America, said Roeder's comments "continue to escalate that kind of activity, that kind of violence. Quite honestly, I think it's imperative for anti-choice groups to tone down that rhetoric and keep the more extreme elements in their movement form copying Scott Roeder."

A funeral was held Saturday for Tiller. Most anti-abortion groups avoided the service, having denounced Tiller's shooting.

Troy Newman, president of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, read about Roeder's statement and e-mailed The Associated Press, saying: "This guy is a fruit and a lunatic."

Roeder, a 51-year-old abortion opponent, was arrested a few hours after the shooting just outside Kansas City.

He told the AP he refused to talk to investigators when he was arrested, and has made no statements to police since then.

"I just told them I needed to talk to my lawyer," Roeder said.

In two separate calls to AP on Sunday morning, Roeder was far more talkative about his treatment at the Sedgwick County jail, complaining about "deplorable conditions in solitary" where he was kept during his first three days there.

Sedgwick County Sheriff Robert Hinshaw said that Roeder is receiving appropriate medical treatment.

"It is after all a jail, but a modern state-of-the-art facility with professional staff," Hinshaw said. "While Mr. Roeder may not care for being in the Sedgwick County jail, all of our conditions and policies are designed to provide safety and security for all inmates, staff and public at large."

Roeder said it was freezing in his cell. "I started having a bad cough. I thought I was going to have pneumonia," he said.

He said he called AP because he wanted to emphasize the conditions in the jail so that in the future suspects would not have to endure the same conditions.

Roeder also said he wanted the public to know he has been denied phone privileges for the past two days, and needed his sleep apnea machine.

Hinshaw disputed that phone privileges had been denied.

So as long as the right declares open season on anyone they oppose, this right wing conspiracy theory holds no water. And remember, those crack pots love guns.