It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Preventive Detention, specifics coming out

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 07:21 AM

Ever since President Obama proposed holding terrorism detainees without trial, the debate over preventive detention has been growing. Now, NPR has the first look at a detailed legislative proposal to hold detainees indefinitely. The document comes from two experts outside of government, and it is already being discussed in the Obama administration. In a speech last month at the National Archives, President Obama opened the door to the possibility that some terrorism detainees will neither be tried nor released. "If and when we determine the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war," he said, "we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight."

This is not something that either side of the isle is happy about, with concerns on each side being legitimate.

Some conservatives say it will turn the battlefield into CSI: Afghanistan, requiring soldiers to collect evidence as they're being shot at. Some liberals say holding people without trial is fundamentally un-American. "I think most concerns that most people express on the left and right are legitimate concerns," says Wittes. "One problem that I have with the debate over this is that people aren't careful enough to acknowledge that these issues are really hard and that most concerns expressed are legitimate to some degree."

Here is the so called details that would hold a person suspected of having serious potential to harm the nation.

In the first phase of detention, the president could pick up anyone who fits those criteria and hold the person for 14 days. If the president wanted to hold the person longer, a judge would have to approve. The detainee would have an attorney and hearsay evidence could be used against him, though not evidence obtained through coercion. If a judge is persuaded that the detainee is a threat, the president could hold the detainee for six months. At the end of six months, the president could go back to the court and repeat the process. Effectively, Wittes concedes, someone could be locked up forever as long as a court approves of the detention twice a year.

Now we can see the plans coming into focus. How charming that our nation is now laying plans to incarcerate those who may or may not be a danger.

Thought police anyone?

posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 07:33 AM
Looks like a move towards a Globalized Government.

No longer can we capture POW's, wait for the war to end, and return them to their country (or try them in an international court).

In the 21st century, there are no governments to go to war with, just people, and therefore the laws have to be rethought.

I think this could be the most disastrous policy to ever come out of the mouth of a cult of personality like Obama. If people buy into this idea, it will legitimize a new era of tyranny, which could spread like a cancer, even back into our own borders.

posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 07:46 AM

The detainee would have an attorney and hearsay evidence could be used against him, though not evidence obtained through coercion.

Okay so what exactly is the difference? The "detainees" don't get tortured, but the people can stand up and say well he said he was going to do this whether he said it or not.

This is the most unconstitutional thing I've ever heard of. He is being such a hypocrite on this, we have to let the detainees under Bush go because it is politically unpopular and we have to pander to our base, but never mind the fact that if we did it then we wouldn't have a problem with it. Bunch of bull#.

posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:54 AM
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

My thoughts exactly, hearsay is this court is unlike any other now. More crap from a man that is supposed to be an expert in constitutional law! This man is worse that Bush and he has too much control with the majority in both houses, and the Dems are afraid to really oppose the WH.

So much for a change to a more humanitarian nation!

new topics

top topics

log in