Obama's "Preventive Detention" policy?

[kvltism]

Hey guys, let's welcome our American friends to a real-life version of the movie Minority Report. A reality where, according to criteria which is highly ambiguous, you can be (legally) detained indefinitely - not because you've committed a crime, but because you might commit one. Kooky shit.

Where'd I glean this? Well, from US government documentation for one, including the DHS "Right-wing Extremists" dossier which listed the following groups as domestic threats:

- Single-issue activists. But note they're not talking campaigners in favour of same-sex marriage or amnesty for illegal immigrants; they target folks who are pro-life, pro-gun, etc.
- Returning war veterans. Fancy that, a soldier returning home and being pissed the fuck off that Obama's foreign policy has ended up being Bush Mk II.
- Ron Paul supporters. No, I'm not joking. Seems that people clamoring about this obscure thing called a Constitution are a national security threat.

Oh, and then there were the speeches given by Obama and Cheney. Now, it's no surprise that Slick Dick was all about vindicating Bush-era policies (ie: the agenda he ran) in his speech. The rationale seemed OK at times, except the fact he purposely failed to acknowledge the massive encroachment upon citizens' civil liberties. The "aw, but we kept you safe since 9/11" argument holds no water.

However, the real spectacle was Obama, for his whole speech reeked of contradiction, and boy was that stench pungent. Forget about the cheap symbolism, speaking in the National Archives, in front of the documents (Bill of Rights, Constitution) his administration are hell-bent on flouting. And look through the cheap lip-service about the "rule of law." The best TV analysis of this affront to civil liberties comes from Rachel Maddow, good thing she's laid off the Kool-Aid for a bit:



And before anyone asks, "What's your interest in this?" know that similar shit is in the pipeline over here. All of it, from increased "voluntary" service (read: an ode to the Brown-shirts) to government infringement upon free speech, internet use, etc. The UK has also found itself jousting with "preventive detention," but remember they don't have a Constitution to uphold. Just thought people would like to be somewhat aware of what's going on around them, because you certainly don't get the truth from lapdog media.


P.S: For the benefit of the clueless, this garbage is strengthening Bush-era detainment policy. Only they're not really targeting "terrorists," it's a control mechanism for use on the populace. And this time, the head honcho (Obama) is actually claiming legal authority.

[Anthony Jordan]

I really didn't think Obama would stray far from Bush in this area. It's easy to criticize, but hard as hell to chance once you get the job. Also, if he relaxes policies and we get attacked, then even his image wouldn't survive it.

It's a tough call to make, and I appreciate the difficulty. However, the fear of a national body being able to detain anyone and not have to justify it via due process is scary and could easily be abused. It's security vs. freedom. Striving for one likely means weakening the other.

[kvltism]

While it's stating the obvious, Obama (as with Bush) isn't really in charge, so analysing policy based on personality is a fool's errand. That's also the reason he's serving up even more of that rubbish. Both men are beholden to the same oligarchs and CFR/TC members, it's been that way for decades. While wedge issues like abortion are exploited to perpetuate the Left vs. Right kabuki theater, government's kept getting bigger. Hell, remember that Reagan suckered most people by cutting taxes while expanding government. The longer people fall into the Left vs. Right trap and neglect researching history, we'll just be damned to repeat it. That is, government will grow bigger while individual freedom shrinks.

I strongly disagree with your contention - security vs. freedom is in fact a false choice. Actually, I'd go even further and say that to a greater extent freedom IS security. Playing the two off against each other is equally absurd to that "they hate us because of our freedom" crap warmongers shoveled down the world's throat for the past 6-7 years. Bogus fear tactics to justify a bullshit war and ghost in garbage like the PATRIOT (cheap symbolism much?) Act, while the un/misinformed populace stands idle and watches their civil liberties get sold out. And you should know by now that whenever government gets a new toy (power) to tinker with, it's a case of when, not if, they'll abuse it.

Take a look at this check-list of beliefs (source), adhered to by puppets of the elites in Washington, London, Canberra, etc. Of course some points aren't applicable to non-American governments, however you'll find they still tick most of the boxes. Here's the bulk of the points, but assess the content for yourself and see where we stand today:

- They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
- They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
- They accept the notion that the ends justify the means—that hardball politics is a moral necessity.
- They express no opposition to the welfare state.
- They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
- They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
- They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
- They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
- They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill advised.
- They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
- 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
- They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)
- They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
- They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.

[Anthony Jordan]

There are always selfish interests in government, and that's never going away. It's part of every governing system and is a flaw you accept when you choose this system (there are no ideal systems).

I'm not quite as cynical about this because I don't want it to be true. I'm willing to accept that it is true, if it is proven enough to satisfy my skepticism. I majored in political science, so I feel as if this is something placed directly in my ballpark.

I agree that there isn't as big of a difference between Obama and Bush as people would like for us to believe. Obama is basically a popular version of W, which the Left won't even bother to keep in check on issues like national security. It falls to the very weak GOP to try to rally to defend the Constitution as that seems to be the calling card of whichever party is out of power. Regardless I don't like their chances.

I believe we get to a point when security and freedom become a zero-sum game. If we go to the far end of the freedom spectrum, then I feel we are less safe. A completely open southern border makes us more secure by your logic. I vehemently disagree. Overindulgence in freedom, equality or security isn't good for a country. I believe there is an appropriate mix. Obviously I value freedom the highest, but I doubt many would say that complete freedom is a good idea.

When faced with a threat that it cannot magically make disappear, America gets jumpy. America is quite a paranoid country and not without good reason. We're powerful and know that we are the leaders of the free world. That paints a bullseye on the Stars and Stripes. We went off the deep end multiple times out of fear of the Russians, but I cannot blame the government for that. I never lived in that time (at the end, I did, but I didn't know what was going on), so I can only judge so much. Here comes 9/11 and we another enemy who is not contained within one border. Any enemy that could be anywhere makes you paranoid, and we acted as such.

Does that paranoia justify everything we do? No. The answer to that comes to how you look at 9/11. Did the terrorists finally luck up and break through our ironclad defenses or did they finally exploit how unsafe and inept we are at defending ourselves against terrorists? If you believe the former, then we are taking many unnecessary acts. If you believe the latter, then you'll have an easier time accepting what is going on. Personally, I don't think we need a Department of Homeland Security. We would have been fine with giving the FBI and CIA more funding. We also need to work more with our countries facing the same threat (America isn't the only target, just the largest (maybe 2nd largest with Israel in the picture)).

I agree that government abuses just about any power we give it, but we have to convince people that our hypothetical fear is real (we think it will happen, but we can't go all Minority Report and be hypocritical by taking the government for something it hasn't abused, yet. It'd be hard to win an argument by using the logic you're condemning). The best way of doing that is to showcase the wisdom of our founders and defend their Constitution.

We're in a very unique time against an enemy that can never truly be vanquished, thus there is perpetual justification for such unconstitutional acts. I'm interested to see how it all works out.

[Whitey Ford]

What the fuck is this doing on a game board? I mean, seriously. Copying and pasting from CNN.com doesn't make it any more pleasant.