Obama's Preventive Detention Policy Compared To "Minority Report"

Among the many aspects of Obama's Thursday speech on national security that drew criticism from human rights advocates and civil libertarians, the notion that the United States could engage in preventive detention proved most objectionable.

In an interview with the Huffington Post, Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, compared the whole program to something out of the Steven Spielberg flick "Minority Report."

"[Obama] is re-wrapping a preventive detention scheme and giving it some more due process," said Ratner. "In the end, it still comes down to holding people -- much like Minority Report or pre-crime stuff -- for being dangerous, and that is not something that I think is constitutional or this country should be engaged in."

Another official with a civil libertarian group giggled at the comparison, before acknowledging that Ratner "has a point."

Indeed, the notion that American forces could hold a suspected terrorist without charge out of concern for the country's safety is being hailed by both conservatives and progressive alike as just adding bells and whistles to Bush administration policy. The only difference is that conservatives applaud the approach while progressives lament it -- though it's hard to track the issue along a traditional ideological scale.

When pressed on the matter during Friday's White House briefing, press secretary Robert Gibbs reiterated that the president wanted "to work through this with Congress and make sure that whatever is done will hold up legally." As for preventive detention, Gibbs stressed that Obama was doing his best to balance the rule of law with the demands of threats from terrorism.

"The president takes very seriously the oath of office that he took to protect the American people," he said. "There may be cases... were somebody received explosive training from al Qaeda or commanded Taliban troops, but these detainees based on any number of circumstances aren't able to be tried but still pose an obvious threat to this country. And I would say that is a scenario where we ensure that the safety and security of the American people" is protected.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[Acharn]

I don't know why this needs to be said, but the President does not "take an oath to protect the citizens of the United States." He takes an oath to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to faithfully execute the laws." Somehow this truth has been obscured.

Of course it's tragic when Americans are killed because of the President's failure to do what he could to prevent it (like Bush), but people die all the time and sometimes there's nothing the government can do to prevent it if they are acting in accordance with the Constitution and the laws. Somehow Obama has to come to grips with the fact that the Constitution has been under attack from domestic enemies, and the damage they did must be undone. I don't believe this can be done by refusing to investigate past behavior that has the appearance of violation of laws.

Do the people supporting this tyranny think there are no dangerous people walking around free right now? Are the only people to ever receive extensive explosives training from Al Qaeda currently in Gitmo? Are the only people who ever commanded Taliban troops in combat currently detained?

But worst of all is that people who are supporting this tyranny never realize that all these procedures could be applied to them! There is nothing in these proposals that says they will only be applied to brown-skinned people with funny names.

[Haitiana4Obama]

RepublicanTs need to snap back to reality and leave this fantasy world alone. The President is trying to think proactively, meaning not always reacting but preventing. Obviously this concept is as unwelcoming to the RepublicanT party as taxes on the rich, whether because it is alien to them, or they rather do things the hard way. All I know is that it's time for this obstructionist to take their freedom of rant to FauxNews and shut their traps, while the President delves in head-on ready to right the many years of wrong.

[ThisIsJustMyObservation]

Gates said in an interview that opponents of Obama’s decision to close the “war on terror” prison at Guantanamo were engaging in “fear-mongering,” a reference to Cheney’s stance on the issue

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/22/bush-officials-cheney-fearmongering/

[Coinyer101]

FREE BONGHITS FOR EVERYONE! FREE BONGHITS FOR EVERYONE!

YES WE CANNABIS! YES WE CANNABIS!

5 minute toke break for everyone! [i get 2 extra minutes for bringing it up]

woooohoooo!

ceeeeeee-le-bra-tiooooon!

These have been healthy debates, so i just declared a celebration party. [no prohibitionists allowed.]

lol

[rockyb26]

yeah! it's about that time

[rockyb26]

Off topic, but noteworthy,

you have to see this conservative radio host calling waterboarding torture and drowning after being waterboarded. this needs to go viral!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/22/734465/-Conservative-radio-host-after-waterboarding:-Its-absolutely-torture...thats-drowning

[Coinyer101]

You would think the affects of long term 'boarding', would leave KSM and zubaydah with mush for brains. I wonder just how much of a threat they really would be?

[rockyb26]

the psychological aftermath of torture is one that is poorly understood and largely ignored. the red cross report was so damaging because it revealed that actual physicians were involved in its use. it seems BushCo only used the relevant psychiatric literature to exploit the mental consequences for their larger criminal purposes rather than to understand the hor ror of what they were doing. sad

[research]

Better lock up all the Muslim Arabs too.

Since you want to compare this to the Japanese interment.

Really, you believe that a these few guys are so dangerous, more dangerous than millions of angry Muslims around the world,

But we can't find the evidence to Prove it?

So dangerous that were they to be released into Afghanistan or Iraq, they would tip the balance of power there?

But we can't prove it?

[rockyb26]

no one is advocating that

[research]

the following commenter does.

so, what about the inability to prove that such dangerous people really are dangerous.

Does that pass the smell test for ya?

[votingthistime]

Excellent point. One could even say crucial. Americans need to decide how they feel about this issue. Obama seems to feel that the Presidency is like some exclusive country club to which he has been recently allowed to join, where it would be inexcusably rude to have his attorney general vigorously prosecute his predecessor's administration. Particularly for war crimes. Specifically for torture. It just so happens that President Obama, his family, and his new administration are such a breath of fresh air after eight years of George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the Republican Congress that the American people might just turn out to be quite willing to let him get away with it. Torture is wrong. Preventive detention is wrong. If we can agree on at least that much, then this President needs to be held to account, criticized, and challenged on these points. One almost hates to take Obama to task for this, for he's SO much better than Bush in SO many ways, but it needs to be done. The man taught constitutional law at Harvard, for God's sake. He knows what he's doing. If you're against torture, you're probably against preventive detention as well. One would think.

[MsLiz]

Who delivered the great line "the Constitution is not a suicide pact" ? This nation has always played loose with the Constitution during war time. That's how Americans of Japanese ancestry got put into internment camps during WWII, and their suits weren't heard until years later. That's how Lincoln suspended the right of habeus corpus during the Civil War.

I gather that there are some prisoners who have histories that would make the headlines bleed red if they were to be released, but there is insufficient admissible evidence to convict them with. Obama could not contain the political heat of releasing some of these men.

Maybe I see it this way because I am a lawyer. I may heartily believe something is true, but not be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt with admissible evidence. They may have made threats, been trained to carry out these threats, and associated with people who committed bad acts, but that isn't enough to get a significant conviction (a misdemeanor harassment charge for threatening to do someone harm just isn't satisfactory). It's tough to prove guilt under our system, and particularly hard when the acts complained of happened in enemy territory and the witnesses are spies, informants, dead or otherwise unavailable.

I don't know much about the rules of war, but I know historically, there wasn't much due process meted out in war time.

I trust Obama's opinion about the threat posed by these prisoners more than Bush's or Cheney's.

[felisa11]

well stated

[MsLiz]

Thank you. I wish I could get paid for this stuff.

[Coinyer101]

This is true. Perhaps they should be re-labeled as POWs? as long as it is legal, and not just something that bush/cheeney made up, then I have no problem with his decision..

[research]

the two countries we probably picked them up in are now new governments.
The wars we picked them up in, are over.

So instead we will claim they were cuaght in the war on terror.

That war never ends.

[rockyb26]

i think that's what will happen. they will just reverse Bush's exemption then treat them like POWs. they've pretty much said it already. they said it could work because POWs can be tried and punished for the duration of the conflict. the war on terror is an ongoing conflict so there will need to be constant oversight by the other 2 branches.

[Torsin]

I'm with you however it is my sincere hope that our trust isn't misplaced.

[CypressTree]

So since we played fast and loose with the Constitution we got Japanese Internment. And yet you say that this is how we should continue to treat the Constitution during this supposed "War on Terror?" The Japanese must love you.

[KluvsO]

Refreshing to see some common sense on HP.

[Mavsreader]

I understood this third group of detainees to be a result of the old policy. Not the new policy going foward. Something must be done with this group and I haven't heard a lot of other solutions.
I do think it's unfair to categorize this as the President's preferred option going forward. That is I don't see us adding to our third group.
Listening to the radio people ARE stating group three as our new perferred policy stance.

[Marcospinelli]

You do not create laws for one particular group of people.

That, in itself, is a breach of the Constitution.

Once this kind of legislation happens, preemptive incarceration of American citizens is next. And it will happen. There is no doubt.

This is Bush's policy that Obama is embracing. The one change is that Obama would make it a Starchamber. A few people, a few LIKE-MINDED people to decide who might commit a crime in the future, should be imprisoned.

[MsLiz]

When someone says "no doubt," there is doubt.

[rockyb26]

that's actually not all correct. there are amendments to the constitution that are created for one particular group of people. think about the civil rights amendments. sure, the constitution said all men are equal, but the law wasn't being implemented that way. they had to pass the voting rights laws etc. to ensure rights for blacks. that was a set of laws created for one group of people.

[Coinyer101]

prosecute them, label them as POWs , or let them go. Next time ,don't compromise the strength of our morality, and our rule of law, out of trumped-up fear, and to justify illegal invasions of sovereighn natiions.

[Mavsreader]

Obama's NOT creating new law. There IS a third group of people. It's not "bad Obama," it was done A LONG time ago presumably with the blessing of Congress. It WAS as the president stated, "Not well thought out".
So then start the national debate for releasing prisoners that we cannot try legally. I do understand the argument. I suspect it's political suicide.
Only why should President take the fall for a policy he didn't make? I also understand morally, it's probably the right thing to do. It's an argument he/you cannot win, unless I misread the country.

[judyannh]

this i agree with. but the bush/cheney folks didn't approach it that way and untangling the mess they got us in will take some time.

[rockyb26]

the problem was created because in 2002 BushCo expempted "war on terror" detainees from the Geneva Conventions. this meant that 1) they could torture them and 2) they could avoid having to bring them to the U.S. for trial. this was done so that they could commit war crimes without oversight or restraint. as wrong as it is, he made it binding.

the congress, president, and supreme court will have to reverse this decision before any of this can be resolved. which is what the president said yesterday.

[Coinyer101]

I agree. And , more importantly, [to me], he promised to let congress and the DOJ to do their jobs on investigations. He definitely appeased my concerns, for now, because I realize he hasn't completed a detailed plan on the most difficult aspects of this issue, but, I can see he is giving it much thorough thought, and I have confidence in the rule of law, if it is allowed to 'work' , as intended. Bush twisted things ,so bad.

This will be bush's 'legacy'.

[rockyb26]

off topic, michael steele just lost any chance he had (which was none) of getting black votes. he just proved himself to be a token sellout. as a black woman, i'm extremely offended. hopefully HP will post it...

[felisa11]

honestly, do you really think he had a chance from the get go?

[rockyb26]

he never had a chance. i just think it's funny that after the comments he made today, the GOP should finally realize it. his comments will spark a backlash in our community

[MsLiz]

Oh I can't wait to find out what this is about.

[rockyb26]

he basically said barack obama wasn't vetted by the media because he's black

[rockyb26]

here's the link:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/steele-the-media-didnt-vet-obama----because-hes-black.php?ref=fpc

[frontstreet]

I understand the criticism. However, this particular problem that Obama inherited is a nightmare. There are a SMALL number of detainees who are in fact high-level Al Qaeda operatives, and the best course would be to try them. However, because of Bush's "enhanced interrogation" techniques and other abuses in confinement, any evidence against them would be tossed out. It's pretty clear that Holder has figured out (and most legal experts agree) that these cases cannot be prosecuted successfully. This leaves the administration in an impossible position. These few prisoners are so dangerous that they shouldn't be released, but at the same time Bush has bungled their detainment so badly that they can't be prosecuted.

Another reason not to torture prisoners.

[ThisIsJustMyObservation]

Thank you for breaking it down so clearly

[research]

we got them in Iraq or Afghanistan.

If you can't prove anything,

You must let them go.

Yes, they will probably go back to plotting to kill us.

But maybe they are innocent.

After all, the Gov CAN"T PROVE THEIR GUILT!

[rockyb26]

spot on. many cannot accept that because it's a hard truth to accept. some of these detainees are dangerous. some of them are completely innocent. in both instances the evidence is nonexistent at worse or inaccurate and incomplete at best. the innocent ones should clearly be set free, but as for the real bad guys i'm not clear. it's an issue all 3 branches of govt will have to determine, as president obama said.

if indeed our laws and constitution are contrary to president obama's plans (which i doubt) then that will be determined as the legislative process moves on.

our democracy is designed to work out issues such as these, let's let it play out

[research]

If you can't prove they are dangerous in a court of law,

You must release them back to where we took them.

[RepublicansRejected]

Favorited and fanned...

See when you actually stop, relax, and use your brain for once? It's not as black and white and smoke and mirrors like it's being projected to be folks...

[Marcospinelli]

You don't change fundamental principles in our laws, in the Constitution, for a SMALL number of detainees.

Just to show you how ridiculous it is to think that our government is afraid of future problems from these detainees is the reason behind legislation like this, if you know anything about the history of black ops by our government you know that people like these detainees have been under surveillance by government agents until they are arrested again for new crimes. Note, the FBI's arrests of terror suspects this past week.

Or, they've been murdered by CIA, never to be seen or heard of again. Ex-CIA officer Bob Baer has talked openly about this.

[rockyb26]

those guys in Newburgh appear to have been trapped by the informant. i don't trust it.

[felisa11]

Convicted felons, even US citizens, gets their rights suspended. They lose the right to vote and other privileges.

[research]

Convicted Felons, by definition, got their right to TRIAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ThisIsJustMyObservation]

You're not sleep yet

[felisa11]

I didn't say that they have no rights, but SOME are suspended until overturned.

[Citizen-Jane]

"Convicted felons" ie result of due process.

[rockyb26]

Looking down the line at the posts and I realize I've offended some of my longtime HP buddies because I used the term woo woos.

I apologize for using the term, especially since insults are being thrown my way as a result.

I honestly didn't think much of it when i typed it, but this is a sensitive issue so i understand why it would make y'all feel attacked.

But in all seriousness, I also think it's wrong to characterize people who agree with the president as Bush supporters. That to me is way more of an insult than being called a woo woo.

I think we all agree that torture is unacceptable and that our govt. should uphold the rule of law and the constitution. I just don't understand how all of a sudden liberals are fighting other liberals.

Let's leave that to the repubs, we better than that.

Truce?

[GnomeDigest]

No! No truce. I dont care about calling people things but I just dont think some of you appreciate why some of us "extreme lefties" are so upset about this and the overall direction that has led us here.

For some of us what the closing of Gitmo represented, the ending of indefinite illegal detentions without access to courts just for being labeled an "enemy combatant", was a huge reason we voted for Obama. Imagine if a Republican president after being elected while still giving speeches about how they cared about "Pro-Life" issues instructed their Department of Justice to continue litigation on behalf of ongoing cases in favor of "Pro-Choice" positions.

Well Obama has done just that. His DOJ continues to appeal in court for the same powers Bush used to imprison people at Gitmo, but instead they are arguing to to the exact same powers at Bagram in Afghanistan. I am not talking about just combatants in Afghanistan as they want powers to render folks from anywhere and take them there, hold them without access to courts, and keep them indefinitely.

This is a 180 degree shift from Candidate Obama's positions, and those of use who supported him based on those promises have every right to be upset, and call him on it.

No Truce.

[research]

Too many years of the hypocritical GOP have dulled people sense of outrage.

[rockyb26]

that's productive

[Coinyer101]

then you cant play, anymore.

[MsLiz]

Obama is the president now, not a candidate, and he has access to secret information that he did not know as a candidate. He had a different role now -- that of our chief protector.

I voted for him because he is a rational, thoughtful person who makes sound decisions in difficult situations.

[felisa11]

"Surley we can disagree without being disagreeable"

[Coinyer101]

sure. no problemo and no offense taken. these are difficult issues and passions run amok some times. i'm am guilty as well, at times.

[rockyb26]

thanks for being a big person coinyer101, it's why i'm one of your fans. also because you enjoy a good dubie as much as i do

[research]

Did the country take a huge turn right because of

GOP Compromise????????

Have you been paying attention?

You all would compromise with the devil,

Which is the GOP.

You are compromising with War Criminals.

Get a spine.

[rockyb26]

it didn't research. the GOP is still headed for extinction. i really don't think we're going to be compromising with war criminals.

[research]

The country did not take a huge right run over the GOP years of rule?
Which county is that?

[MsLiz]

What's that grey matter at the top of the spine, Research?

Rigidity is foolish.

[research]

Useless if you lack the will to use it.

[Koreanovice]

Do detainees have constitutional rights?

[rockyb26]

no but they have human rights

[natalie0nine]

So did the 3,000 people that were murdered on 9-11-01.

This is war, and the war isn't over. You don't release pow's until the war is over.

It was the terrorists who declared open-ended war againt the US.

[Citizen-Jane]

Ditto. Terrorist are domestic too what about holding them indefinitely with out being charged with a crime by the government. "received explosive training" or commanded Taliban troops" Is receiving explosive training against international law? If sooo........

It is well Known that some use the US Military to training as a predessor for joining some of these right winged and or leftwing groups who believe that the US government is baaaad.

What kind of arguement would the US to the world if some country like say Iran should come across one our military commanders or journalist and holding them indefinitely because they are a perceived threat to their country.

The US should make its case and try them in a court of law and let the people decide based upon the evidence provided to them.

If you are a US citizen arrested in Turkey, Germany, Malasia guess which law you are tried under?

[felisa11]

technically, no, because they are the US citizens. But the USA has been known for it's fair and just treatment of it's prisoners....that is before the bush adminstration pissed on the constitution

[MsLiz]

Did you admit a "not"?

[felisa11]

i meant they are not Us citizens

[ArticleFriendly]

If they came to America and committed a crime they would. But according to cheney/bush, and if you are a cheney/bush supporter, then apparently if we go overseas and kidnap, torture and hold other people indefinitely, then no they don't have any rights including basic human rights or considerations.

[research]

do visitors to the USA have rights?

If you have rights when you come to the USA voluntarily,

Why would you lose them if you are forcibly rendered to the USA?

[felisa11]

if you are a citizen of another country, you are under their constitiution not ours.

You have constitutional rights if you are a visitor of your own country, but not the USA unless you are a citizen.

[rockyb26]

non citizens cannot be tried in Article III courts

[afgail]

Obama is making the same mistake George Bush did. He is placing our constitutional rights behind seemingly more urgent matters. Obama has to secure our liberty while securing our safety. It is NOT an either or circumstance. He must do both.

It is easy to have both safety and liberty in tranquil times. And more difficult during times of armed conflict. But liberties sacrificed during conflicts are rarely recovered after the conflict is over. Jefferson said, "If you trade liberty for safety, ultimately you will have neither."

[judyannh]

i already posted this below but:

we all have the same stance that torture is wrong...give the president some room to correct this injustice...it can not all be done at the same time..he has to take steps!

[StephenS]

If you reread the article to which you are replying, you'll notice that it does not mention torture.

It's about Obama claiming the right to keep people in prison indefinitely without ever convicting them of anything because they might commit a crime in the future.

In his speech, Obama calls them "detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people." They are "people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States". He says that his "detention policies cannot be unbounded" but puts no bounds on how long he can hold people without a trial or after a trial fails to convict them. Please go back an re-listen to or reread the speech.

When the U.S. government thinks it does not have enough evidence to convict a detainee, it could just hold them without risking a trial. Or try them knowing that even if they are found not guilty, the detainee can still be kept in prison indefinitely.

[Marcospinelli]

^ - Obamabot

Obamabots, those who defend him, counsel "patience", "give Obama time", are the most immediate problem.

While we are patient, Republicans and conservative Democrats aren't being patient. They're actively in there lobbying for their agenda. Without any pushback from liberals, Obama, whose numbers remain high because of Obamabots, responds with, "My numbers are good, it's only the liberal base that's complaining (and I don't hear them because they're not at the table). And I don't have to worry about that anyway because come 2012, if liberals do leave me, the moderate Republicans who I've served well will."

Obamabots are the problem.

Obamabots, like the Bushies, aren't well educated or well-versed on the issues. They talk about Obama's "playing chess", or "I just know he's got a plan", (the "double secret"-plan that they first learned about from 'Animal House') and other imaginings about Obama's intentions that they couldn't possibly know unless they were Obama. Foolish, but it has to be taken seriously because it's an effective means for interrupting momentum of unrest among the public.

For some Obamabots, it's discomfort when they hear arguments and they want it to stop. Other Obamabots are moles, paid political operatives, DLC operatives (DINO), on the side of corporations. That's our money they're getting paid with, from political contributions to the DNC, going to screw us.

Whichever it is, Obamabots are the immediate problem. Shout them down here, and everywhere else you encounter them online and off.

[Mavsreader]

I don't see a lot of alternatives to release them or keep them locked up, if they cannot be tried. I think one could make the case for either alternative. Releasing them would generate involves risk and criticized mercilessly.