Backlash grows against Obama's preventive detention proposal

[billyoc]

The backlash against President Obama's extraordinary proposal for indefinite "preventive detention" -- already widespread in the immediate aftermath of his speech -- continues to grow. On Friday, Sen. Russ Feingold sent a letter (.pdf) to Obama which, while praising some aspects of his speech, vowed to hold hearings on his detention proposal, and in the letter, Feingold rather emphatically highlighted the radical and dangerous aspects of Obama's approach:

My primary concern, however, relates to your reference to the possibility of indefinite detention without trial for certain detainees. While I appreciate your good faith desire to at least enact a statutory basis for such a regime, any system that permits the government to indefinitely detain individuals without charge or without a meaningful opportunity to have accusations against them adjudicated by an impartial arbiter violates basic American values and is likely unconstitutional.

While I recognize that your administration inherited detainees who, because of torture, other forms of coercive interrogations, or other problems related to their detention or the evidence against them, pose considerable challenges to prosecution, holding them indefinitely without trial is inconsistent with the respect for the rule of law that the rest of your speech so eloquently invoked. Indeed, such detention is a hallmark of abusive systems that we have historically criticized around the world. It is hard to imagine that our country would regard as acceptable a system in another country where an individual other than a prisoner of war is held indefinitely without charge or trial.

You have discussed this possibility only in the context of the current detainees at Guantanamo Bay, yet we must be aware of the precedent that such a system would establish. While the handling of these detainees by the Bush Administration was particularly egregious, from a legal as well as human rights perspective, these are unlikely to be the last suspected terrorists captured by the United States. Once a system of indefinite detention without trial is established, the temptation to use it in the future would be powerful. And, while your administration may resist such a temptation, future administrations may not. There is a real risk, then, of establishing policies and legal precedents that rather than ridding our country of the burden of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, merely set the stage for future Guantanamos, whether on our shores or elsewhere, with disastrous consequences for our national security. Worse, those policies and legal precedents would be effectively enshrined as acceptable in our system of justice, having been established not by one, largely discredited administration, but by successive administrations of both parties with greatly contrasting positions on legal and constitutional issues.

Feingold's last point -- that the more Obama embraces radical Bush/Cheney polices, the more entrenched they become as bipartisan consensus -- is critically important, and extends to other policies as well, from the use of state secrets to block judicial review of executive branch lawbreaking, the concealment of evidence of government crimes, the veneration of "looking-forward political harmony" over the rule of law in cases of extreme government lawbreaking, and the denial of habeas corpus rights to individuals we abduct and transport to a war zone (such as Bagram).

...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/25/obama/

[vaberella]

1. I believe this has been posted. There has been a lot of repost of the same things. n/t

[billyoc]

2. I checked for dupes, can you point to one?

[snowdays]

13. Is it a sin to post articles?-No, it is not.

[bvar22]

16. And I'm going to re-post it tomorrow.

Some things are THAT important.
Especially this part:

Once a system of indefinite detention without trial is established, the temptation to use it in the future would be powerful. And, while your administration may resist such a temptation, future administrations may not. There is a real risk, then, of establishing policies and legal precedents that rather than ridding our country of the burden of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, merely set the stage for future Guantanamos, whether on our shores or elsewhere, with disastrous consequences for our national security. Worse, those policies and legal precedents would be effectively enshrined as acceptable in our system of justice, having been established not by one, largely discredited administration, but by successive administrations of both parties with greatly contrasting positions on legal and constitutional issues.

Feingold's last point -- that the more Obama embraces radical Bush/Cheney polices, the more entrenched they become as bipartisan consensus -- is critically important, and extends to other policies as well, from the use of state secrets to block judicial review of executive branch lawbreaking, the concealment of evidence of government crimes, the veneration of "looking-forward political harmony" over the rule of law in cases of extreme government lawbreaking, and the denial of habeas corpus rights to individuals we abduct and transport to a war zone (such as Bagram).
---Glenn Greenwald
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/25/obama/

[MadBadger]

3. I wouldnt call this "backlash growing" Mr. Greenwald

That was apart of the original backlash.

[ClarkUSA]

5. BTW, I saw a MSNBC interview w/ Rep. Sestak where he strongly agreed w/Pres. Obama's Gitmo speech.

Sestak was on right after the televised speech for comment. He didn't hold back when asked whether he felt President Obama was doing the right thing.

[NYC_SKP]

4. Obama does not have a "preventive detention" policy. And the RightWing LOVES this drama.

They had to know it would happen, all the Bush crap left on Obama, and the left wing helping it to stick.

FYI, Obama used the term "prolonged dentention", meaning IMO "until we find solutions", he never used the term "preventive detention" which connotes detention of individuals for yet to be committed crimes and perhaps individuals who haven't even been detained yet.

Karl Rove is LOVING this!!!

Until someone offers alternative solutions, they really should STFU (not you, billyoc).

I believe the president is doing the best he can, he and Congress have their work cut out for them on this mess.

:patriot:

[Senator]

7. No, it's a "paranoid detention" policy. The "alternative solution" is to abide by/enforce the law.

Obama has adopted the core bushcheney/beltway paranoia -- about how to treat "evildoers" on both sides of the permanent "war on terra."

The notion that our founding principles, our Constitution, and the treaty promises our greater generations made have suddenly become "quaint" and have now failed us -- that we must create "special purpose entities" (like Enron and the Banksters), rather than abide by their collective wisdom and experience -- is the core delusion that will continue to eat like an acid through our social fabric.

There is no legal problem to solve. Just laws to faithfully enforce.

---

[NYC_SKP]

8. He hasn't adopted jack shit. He has put it out there that there are challenges.

And if you think it's responsible to not sort this mess carefully and just announce a simple solution, you'd be disappointed no matter who was in the whitehouse.

It's complicated, it will work out.

[Senator]

21. It's sad that it's so "challenging"...

...to abide by and enforce the law as it has existed for decades. See, it's not so complicated.

And I fail to see how it might "work out," when thus far http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE53H1Y020090418">they've only made things worse.

You might want to consider that there are disappointments more important than "who was in the whitehouse."

--

[firedupdem]

10. Rove is sitting back laughing. There is no easy, quick solution

to this issue.

[struggle4progress]

6. Do we actually have a definite "proposal" yet? No, I didn't think so. What do we have? Well,

we have the President pointing out (to anybody willing to listen) that the last Administration left us with a killer migraine headache

And why is it a headache? Because the SOBs gathered up a bunch of people they said were "the worst of the worst." On closer examination, some turned out to be completely innocent. The SOBs released others, while constantly screaming the released folk were returning to terrorism. And the SOBS tortured a number of the rest, obtaining some false confessions. The point of that horror show was to create fear and to use the fear to augment executive power. But it left us with a group of people, many probably unjustly imprisoned and most probably psychologically damaged, a few of whom might really be dangerous, whom we have to try to handle properly -- despite the fact that much evidence is tainted. And we have to try to do the proper thing while the rightwing noise machine kicks and screams "Terra! Terra! Terra!" as it has for the past eight years

Let's get more transparency at Guantanamo. Let's beat back the rightwing noise machine so we can get these folk onto the mainland. And let's start dealing with cases ASAP

Let's try to bring the US further into the international framework. And let's not bitch about a "proposal" that doesn't exist yet

[NYC_SKP]

9. Exactly. nt

[autorank]

11. Retaining GITMO and torture or torture-lite are not going to be consensus

They're absurd positions. Most people oppose them. Jesse Ventura did more for enlightenment than anyone lately
just by smacking down Sean and other RW deviants. It seemed almost effortless on Ventura's part but he put a
great deal of intelligence into handling these people.

I expect no less from my president.

[ima_sinnic]

12. notice that everything being retained conveniently covers up war crimes

Feingold's last point -- that the more Obama embraces radical Bush/Cheney polices, the more entrenched they become as bipartisan consensus -- is critically important, and extends to other policies as well, from the use of state secrets to block judicial review of executive branch lawbreaking, the concealment of evidence of government crimes, the veneration of "looking-forward political harmony" over the rule of law in cases of extreme government lawbreaking, and the denial of habeas corpus rights to individuals we abduct and transport to a war zone (such as Bagram).

If those pests, the tortured kidnap victims--including young children who were sodomized--were ever allowed to testify, and the other avenues to lawfulness that Obama is trying so hard to thwart were opened up, the magnitude of the crimes committed in our names would be staggering. Any human who wouldn't then descend on D.C. with torches and pitchforks to erect gallows and guillotines would have to be a barbaric animal without a shred of decency. Imagine the Germans "moving forward" after their crimes were revealed. Would you respect that country today? I think I would avoid it like the plague. I would consider it a spiritual leper colony.

The more Obama covers up for the bushies, the more I lose respect for him. I take nothing he says seriously any more. His own political career is more important than the rule of law and respect for life, liberty, and human decency.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Russ talks like an actual American

with a love of the Constitution that surpasses his love of his own career. Such a rare thing in today's DC, where ethics are just a style of speech, not a way of living.

[QC]

15. Those who speak of preventive detention must be placed in preventive detention

in order to protect the people.

[grantcart]

17. and yet, unless I am mistaken, ACLU Human Watch and others were strangely muted

in their response.

It seems that they want to see the details before launching their criticism.

All of the points cited in the Feingold letter, including Judicial and Congressional oversight, were a part of the President's original statement.

[billyoc]

18. The ACLU has dubbed this the Bush-Obama Doctrine.

I'd hate to see them when they're unmuted. :hi:

[grantcart]

19. If you go to ACLU.Org on the front page is this response:

"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." — Anthony D. Romero

Anyone familiar with the strong positons that the ACLU normally takes would have to consider this a 'muted' respons.


Perhaps they have decided to wait until the details are issued before making an informed critique of a program the President has only indicated MAY be necessary.


http://www.aclu.org/

[redqueen]

20. Whatever happened to that ad campaign? Did they decide against it?

Seeing as how it's kind of idiotic?