NYT: Obama to consider preventative detention plan

[Weatherman]

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21obama.html?_r=1

Hmm..this is more than Bush did no?

[Valmy]

I do always find it interesting that once our peeps get into positions of power they tend to come to same conclusions about so many things.  You almost think that they are coming to those conclusions because they are the logical ones with the information provided.

Either that or they have the exact same advisors.

[Sheilbh]

I do always find it interesting that once our peeps get into positions of power they tend to come to same conclusions about so many things.  You almost think that they are coming to those conclusions because they are the logical ones with the information provided.

Either that or they have the exact same advisors.

Or the exact same institutions to deal with.  I don't know if it's that these are the most logical policies or that there's a few Sir Humphreys around :p

[jimmy olsen]

I don't see how that could pass constitutional muster.

[alfred russel]

When Bush "beat" Gore, he ran with a pledge to reopen Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House. Never happened--in fact security was stepped up. The Secret Service put together a presentation to show how serious the terrorist threat was, and it convinced him.

[saskganesh]

some of a, some of b, some of c.

there's also some bargaining: "I will let your dept continue to do this (old policy), if you support me doing that (new policy)"

[alfred russel]

My disappointment in the loss of civil liberties in the U.S. is almost entirely offset by the anticipation of the reaction from the Huffington Post.

[Sheilbh]

On the issue I don't actually object.  I think as long as there's a relatively low limit and reasonable oversight - ie. not the 42 days we have or the 90 days the government wants - then this can be okay.

[Faeelin]

Wow, talk about a rape the dog moment.

[Berkut]

On the issue I don't actually object.  I think as long as there's a relatively low limit and reasonable oversight - ie. not the 42 days we have or the 90 days the government wants - then this can be okay.

And as long as Bush isn't in charge, of course. I can get behind it if it is Obamas idea, like his clever plan to not withdraw from Iraq.

[KRonn]

Interesting, and perhaps no surprise, that Pres Obama is having similar difficulties in deciding how to deal with some of the same security issues that the Bush admin had. Too bad that some of this became so politically partisan and angry, when instead solutions might have been worked out and acted on, so that we didn't get so far along and still without solutions.

[Sheilbh]

And as long as Bush isn't in charge, of course. I can get behind it if it is Obamas idea, like his clever plan to not withdraw from Iraq.

I supported this when the British government tried to do it, I think that it's fine.  Though, as I say I think the 90 days or 42 days is ridiculous. 

[Valmy]

like his clever plan to not withdraw from Iraq.

You have to admit that was pretty brilliant.

[Faeelin]

On the issue I don't actually object.  I think as long as there's a relatively low limit and reasonable oversight - ie. not the 42 days we have or the 90 days the government wants - then this can be okay.

And as long as Bush isn't in charge, of course. I can get behind it if it is Obamas idea, like his clever plan to not withdraw from Iraq.

I have to say the last several months have come far closer to making me believe in a liberal media than Hans ever did. I can only imagine the outrage if Bush had done this.

[jimmy olsen]

On the issue I don't actually object.  I think as long as there's a relatively low limit and reasonable oversight - ie. not the 42 days we have or the 90 days the government wants - then this can be okay.

Maybe I'm just being overly skeptical, but I doubt greatly that the time frame will be anything limited or reasonable.