"Indefinite Preventive Detention"

Postby Jennifer Diane Reitz » Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:21 am

You all know I think Obama is as bad, or worse, than Bush. That I say he is owned and operated by the same powers.

Obama has just proposed Indefinite Preventive Detention.

This means imprisoning people without trial, potentially forever, because of what they MIGHT MAYBE do someday in the future.

It means imprisonment without trial, without appeal, without a crime, just because, forever, on a whim.

This is the absolute opposite of not merely the Constitution, but the Magna Carta and indeed every single tenant of democratic civilization in any country that has such. It is nothing less than Orwellian Nightmare.

Don't believe it?

Listen to the filthy bastard traitor yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVChNmN9y7E
Jennifer Diane Reitz
'Giniko-chan'
Image
User avatar
Jennifer Diane Reitz
Creatrix

  Offline
 
Posts: 1218
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:25 am
Location: Olympia, Washington

Re: "Indefinite Preventive Detention"

Postby Anna » Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:08 am

To be honest If I would be an american I had would vote for Obama.
McCain is a Bush critics, but he had sold his soul to a team of very reactionary Rebublicans helpers, and the Ms. Alaska adventure was for me the last nail into the coffin, so I was really happy as Obama did win.

And now it seems Obama can't do as he wants, and indeed, he is selling his soul also.
Obama is caught, and he is in trouble and does ... nothing,...
Or he is a real politician, did promise everything and get a big amnesia after the election.
To be honest again, that's no surprise.

Under the circumstances, it is the best what you can get, - but who had told you that the fight is over?
Go on Jennifer, don't stop your rants.

Another thing, an example seen on Spiegel-Online:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 20,00.html
User avatar
Anna
Worthy Forumite

  Offline
 
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:45 pm
Location: Germany, west, not south.

Re: "Indefinite Preventive Detention"

Postby Skatche » Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:32 pm

This... is deeply troubling for a number of reasons.

It's troubling for the first, obvious reason that what he's proposing is unconstitutional - the "legitimate legal framework" he wants to create cannot logically exist.

It's troubling because he does not want to be saying these words, and you can detect that in his face and in his tone of speech. He tried to close Guantanamo Bay, he tried to bring home the detainees, and congress almost unanimously opposed him. He tried to fulfill his promises, and was prevented from doing so, and now he has to work that into his speech in a positive light, in order that the government appear to present a unified front. He's disgusted at himself.

And it's troubling because all that is no excuse - he damn well didn't try hard enough.
Skatche
Kumquat Class Sensei

  Offline
 
Posts: 268
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:55 pm

Re: "Indefinite Preventive Detention"

Postby Shackler » Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:49 am

The Maddow video is essentially one big strawman argument. I wouldn't give it any credence.
Shackler
Blueberry Class Leader

  Offline
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:21 pm

Re: "Indefinite Preventive Detention"

Postby Jennifer Diane Reitz » Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:39 am

Shackler wrote:The Maddow video is essentially one big strawman argument. I wouldn't give it any credence.


Why do you say that?

Ignoring everything that Maddow has to say, just shutting off the sound while she talks, what Obama says is nevertheless what... he says.

There is no argument, strawman or otherwise. Obama says the words, the words mean what they are, and it is fucking scary, fucking unconstitutional, and fucking wrong.

The only reason I chose Maddow was because it was convenient. The whole speech is fucking long and boring; she narrows the important scary bit down to manageable size.

Don't be distracted by Rachel Maddow. She is not the show here. Obama is.

As he sells us all down the river.
Jennifer Diane Reitz
'Giniko-chan'
Image
User avatar
Jennifer Diane Reitz
Creatrix

  Offline
 
Posts: 1218
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:25 am
Location: Olympia, Washington

Re: "Indefinite Preventive Detention"

Postby Shackler » Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:47 am

On the contrary; I found all the clips from Obama's speech rather reasonable, and Maddow's reactions to be the frightening part; it's frightening that someone like Maddow, or any of her counterparts, are on the air influencing people!
Shackler
Blueberry Class Leader

  Offline
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:21 pm

Re: "Indefinite Preventive Detention"

Postby Jennifer Diane Reitz » Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:10 am

Shackler wrote:On the contrary; I found all the clips from Obama's speech rather reasonable, and Maddow's reactions to be the frightening part; it's frightening that someone like Maddow, or any of her counterparts, are on the air influencing people!


What part of putting people in prison, indefinitely, by government fiat, doesn't make you crap you pants?

You see, I do not trust any one, any government, to be able to wisely determine when to imprison anyone without trial, without crime, based on suspicion, ever. The reason I do not trust imprisonment without trial or crime is the same reason the founding fathers, and the nobles behind the Magna Carta did not trust it.

And if I have to explain that reason, I think I will lose the capacity for civil speech.

In fact, I honestly do not think I could express it at all without major epithet usage.
Jennifer Diane Reitz
'Giniko-chan'
Image
User avatar
Jennifer Diane Reitz
Creatrix

  Offline
 
Posts: 1218
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:25 am
Location: Olympia, Washington

Re: "Indefinite Preventive Detention"

Postby Shackler » Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:52 am

Jennifer Diane Reitz wrote:What part of putting people in prison, indefinitely, by government fiat, doesn't make you crap you pants?


I don't think that's what this is, which is why I found Maddow's coverage so appalling.
Shackler
Blueberry Class Leader

  Offline
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:21 pm

Re: "Indefinite Preventive Detention"

Postby Anna » Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:42 am

Here is an interview from Spiegel Online

AMERICA'S TORTURE LEGACY
'Obama Isn't Off to a Good Start' on Human Rights

Daily Kos contributor Joan McCarter says President Barack Obama is on the wrong track when it comes to confronting torture committed under his predecessor. SPIEGEL ONLINE spoke with her about the torture photo debate and whether the US needs a Truth Commission.

...
full text is here:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 81,00.html


NO DETAINEES IN MY BACKYARD
Obama Under Fire over Guantanamo Closure Plans

By Britta Sandberg, Gregor Peter Schmitz and Gabor Steingart

After a promising start, US President Barack Obama is now in hot water over his plans to close Guantanamo. His fellow Democrats are worried detainees will end up in prisons in their districts, angering voters and pushing down real estate prices.
...
full text is here:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 82,00.html
User avatar
Anna
Worthy Forumite

  Offline
 
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:45 pm
Location: Germany, west, not south.

Re: "Indefinite Preventive Detention"

Postby Plasman » Mon Jun 15, 2009 8:06 am

Funny how I immediately thought of Minority Report before I even saw the video... :?
If this last post seems ridiculous, please disregard it. Thank you. ;)
________
By the way I made two level packs for Boppin' in case anyone is interested... :oops:
User avatar
Plasman
1000 Post Forum Master!

  Offline
 
Posts: 1143
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 8:23 am
Location: Australia

Re: "Indefinite Preventive Detention"

Postby Shackler » Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:13 pm

Plasman wrote:Funny how I immediately thought of Minority Report before I even saw the video... :?


The curse of framing strikes again.
Shackler
Blueberry Class Leader

  Offline
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:21 pm

Re: "Indefinite Preventive Detention"

Postby draque » Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:56 am

Shackler wrote:
Plasman wrote:Funny how I immediately thought of Minority Report before I even saw the video... :?


The curse of framing strikes again.


As poor as the framing might be, Obama is talking about imprisonment without trial for an indefinite period of time. He mentioned that there are people who pose a threat to US security, but can't be convicted of a crime as if it were a loophole in the justice system to be corrected. If you can't prove someone is guilty of a crime, then you have no right imprisoning them under US law. This isn't comparable to POW situations, either. Prisoners of war are typically released after the immediate conflict is over. This means that there is typically an upper boundary of two years or so. Obama made it clear that he feels it's unlikely that this will be over before 10 years, and might continue into future generations. This means potential life imprisonment without a system of court having established guilt or innocence.

If absolutely nothing else, I am the only one who sees this as very ironic? The same guy who was preaching an end to gulag styled prison camps, unfair treatment of prisoners we do hold and war is now preaching the necessity for trailless imprisonment (in a system that he will make himself - it does not exist yet) and a multigenerational war.

Further reading by someone more eloquent than myself that anyone interested should read: here.

In the wake of Obama's speech yesterday, there are vast numbers of new converts who now support indefinite "preventive detention." It thus seems constructive to have as dispassionate and fact-based discussion as possible of the implications of "preventive detention" and Obama's related detention proposals (military commissions). I'll have a podcast discussion on this topic a little bit later today with the ACLU's Ben Wizner, which I'll add below, but until then, here are some facts and other points worth noting:



(1) What does "preventive detention" allow?

It's important to be clear about what "preventive detention" authorizes. It does not merely allow the U.S. Government to imprison people alleged to have committed Terrorist acts yet who are unable to be convicted in a civilian court proceeding. That class is merely a subset, perhaps a small subset, of who the Government can detain. Far more significant, "preventive detention" allows indefinite imprisonment not based on proven crimes or past violations of law, but of those deemed generally "dangerous" by the Government for various reasons (such as, as Obama put it yesterday, they "expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden" or "otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans"). That's what "preventive" means: imprisoning people because the Government claims they are likely to engage in violent acts in the future because they are alleged to be "combatants."

Once known, the details of the proposal could -- and likely will -- make this even more extreme by extending the "preventive detention" power beyond a handful of Guantanamo detainees to anyone, anywhere in the world, alleged to be a "combatant." After all, once you accept the rationale on which this proposal is based -- namely, that the U.S. Government must, in order to keep us safe, preventively detain "dangerous" people even when they can't prove they violated any laws -- there's no coherent reason whatsoever to limit that power to people already at Guantanamo, as opposed to indefinitely imprisoning with no trials all allegedly "dangerous" combatants, whether located in Pakistan, Thailand, Indonesia, Western countries and even the U.S.


(2) Are defenders of Obama's proposals being consistent?

During the Bush years, it was common for Democrats to try to convince conservatives to oppose Bush's executive power expansions by asking them: "Do you really want these powers to be exercised by Hillary Clinton or some liberal President?"

Following that logic, for any Democrat/progressive/liberal/Obama supporter who wants to defend Obama's proposal of "preventive detention," shouldn't you first ask yourself three simple questions:

(a) what would I have said if George Bush and Dick Cheney advocated a law vesting them with the power to preventively imprison people indefinitely and with no charges?;

(b) when Bush and Cheney did preventively imprison large numbers of people, was I in favor of that or did I oppose it, and when right-wing groups such as Heritage Foundation were alone in urging a preventive detention law in 2004, did I support them?; and

(c) even if I'm comfortable with Obama having this new power because I trust him not to abuse it, am I comfortable with future Presidents -- including Republicans -- having the power of indefinite "preventive detention"?



(3) Questions for defenders of Obama's proposal:

There are many claims being made by defenders of Obama's proposals which seem quite contradictory and/or without any apparent basis, and I've been searching for a defender of those proposals to address these questions:

Bush supporters have long claimed -- and many Obama supporters are now insisting as well -- that there are hard-core terrorists who cannot be convicted in our civilian courts. For anyone making that claim, what is the basis for believing that? In the Bush era, the Government has repeatedly been able to convict alleged Al Qaeda and Taliban members in civilian courts, including several (Ali al-Marri, Jose Padilla, John Walker Lindh) who were tortured and others (Zacharais Moussaoui, Padilla) where evidence against them was obtained by extreme coercion. What convinced you to believe that genuine terrorists can't be convicted in our justice system?

For those asserting that there are dangerous people who have not yet been given any trial and who Obama can't possibly release, how do you know they are "dangerous" if they haven't been tried? Is the Government's accusation enough for you to assume it's true?

Above all: for those justifying Obama's use of military commissions by arguing that some terrorists can't be convicted in civilian courts because the evidence against them is "tainted" because it was obtained by Bush's torture, Obama himself claimed just yesterday that his military commissions also won't allow such evidence ("We will no longer permit the use of evidence -- as evidence statements that have been obtained using cruel, inhuman, or degrading interrogation methods"). How does our civilian court's refusal to consider evidence obtained by torture demonstrate the need for Obama's military commissions if, as Obama himself claims, Obama's military commissions also won't consider evidence obtained by torture?

Finally, don't virtually all progressives and Democrats argue that torture produces unreliable evidence? If it's really true (as Obama defenders claim) that the evidence we have against these detainees was obtained by torture and is therefore inadmissible in real courts, do you really think such unreliable evidence -- evidence we obtained by torture -- should be the basis for concluding that someone is so "dangerous" that they belong in prison indefinitely with no trial? If you don't trust evidence obtained by torture, why do you trust it to justify holding someone forever, with no trial, as "dangerous"?



(4) Do other countries have indefinite preventive detention?

Obama yesterday suggested that other countries have turned to "preventive detention" and that his proposal therefore isn't radical ("other countries have grappled with this question; now, so must we"). Is that true?

In June of last year, there was a tumultuous political debate in Britain that sheds ample light on this question. In the era of IRA bombings, the British Parliament passed a law allowing the Government to preventively detain terrorist suspects for 14 days -- and then either have to charge them or release them. In 2006, Prime Minister Tony Blair -- citing the London subway attacks and the need to "intervene early before a terrorist cell has the opportunity to achieve its goals" -- wanted to increase the preventive detention period to 90 days, but MPs from his own party and across the political spectrum overwhelmingly opposed this, and ultimately increased it only to 28 days.

In June of last year, Prime Minister Gordon Brown sought an expansion of this preventive detention authority to 42 days -- a mere two weeks more. Reacting to that extremely modest increase, a major political rebellion erupted, with large numbers of Brown's own Labour Party joining with Tories to vehemently oppose it as a major threat to liberty. Ultimately, Brown's 42-day scheme barely passed the House of Commons. As former Prime Minister John Major put it in opposing the expansion to 42 days:

It is hard to justify: pre-charge detention in Canada is 24 hours; South Africa, Germany, New Zealand and America 48 hours; Russia 5 days; and Turkey 7½ days.

By rather stark and extreme contrast, Obama is seeking preventive detention powers that are indefinite -- meaning without any end, potentially permanent. There's no time limit on the "preventive detention." Compare that power to the proposal that caused such a political storm in Britain and what these other governments are empowered to do. The suggestion that indefinite preventive detention without charges is some sort of common or traditional scheme is clearly false.



(5) Is this comparable to traditional POW detentions?

When Bush supporters used to justify Bush/Cheney detention policies by arguing that it's normal for "Prisoners of War" to be held without trials, that argument was deeply misleading. And it's no less misleading when made now by Obama supporters. That comparison is patently inappropriate for two reasons: (a) the circumstances of the apprehension, and (b) the fact that, by all accounts, this "war" will not be over for decades, if ever, which means -- unlike for traditional POWs, who are released once the war is over -- these prisoners are going to be in a cage not for a few years, but for decades, if not life.

Traditional "POWs" are ones picked up during an actual military battle, on a real battlefield, wearing a uniform, while engaged in fighting. The potential for error and abuse in deciding who was a "combatant" was thus minimal. By contrast, many of the people we accuse in the "war on terror" of being "combatants" aren't anywhere near a "battlefield," aren't part of any army, aren't wearing any uniforms, etc. Instead, many of them are picked up from their homes, at work, off the streets. In most cases, then, we thus have little more than the say-so of the U.S. Government that they are guilty, which is why actual judicial proceedings before imprisoning them is so much more vital than in the standard POW situation.

Anyone who doubts that should just look at how many Guantanamo detainees were accused of being "the worst of the worst" yet ended up being released because they did absolutely nothing wrong. Can anyone point to any traditional POW situation where so many people were falsely accused and where the risk of false accusations was so high? For obvious reasons, this is not and has never been a traditional POW detention scheme.

During the Bush era, that was a standard argument among Democrats, so why should that change now? Here is what Anne-Marie Slaughter -- now Obama's Director of Policy Planning for the State Department -- said about Bush's "POW" comparison on Fox News on November 21, 2001:

Military commissions have been around since the Revolutionary War. But they've always been used to try spies that we find behind enemy lines. It's normally a situation, you're on the battlefield, you find an enemy spy behind your lines. You can't ship them to national court, so you provide a kind of rough battlefield justice in a commission. You give them the best process you can, and then you execute the sentence on the spot, which generally means executing the defendant.

That's not this situation. It's not remotely like it.

As for duration, the U.S. government has repeatedly said that this "war" is so different from standard wars because it will last for decades, if not generations. Obama himself yesterday said that "unlike the Civil War or World War II, we can't count on a surrender ceremony to bring this journey to an end" and that we'll still be fighting this "war" "a year from now, five years from now, and -- in all probability -- 10 years from now." No rational person can compare POW detentions of a finite and usually short (2-5 years) duration to decades or life in a cage. That's why, yesterday, Law Professor Diane Marie Amann, in The New York Times, said this:

[Obama] signaled a plan by which [Guantanamo detainees] — and perhaps other detainees yet to be arrested? — could remain in custody forever without charge. There is no precedent in the American legal tradition for this kind of preventive detention. That is not quite right: precedents do exist, among them the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 and the Japanese internment of the 1940s, but they are widely seen as low points in America’s history under the Constitution.

There are many things that can be said about indefinitely imprisoning people with no charges who were not captured on any battlefield, but the claim that this is some sort of standard or well-established practice in American history is patently false.



(6) Is it "due process" when the Government can guarantee it always wins?

If you really think about the argument Obama made yesterday -- when he described the five categories of detainees and the procedures to which each will be subjected -- it becomes manifest just how profound a violation of Western conceptions of justice this is. What Obama is saying is this: we'll give real trials only to those detainees we know in advance we will convict. For those we don't think we can convict in a real court, we'll get convictions in the military commissions I'm creating. For those we can't convict even in my military commissions, we'll just imprison them anyway with no charges ("preventively detain" them).

Giving trials to people only when you know for sure, in advance, that you'll get convictions is not due process. Those are called "show trials." In a healthy system of justice, the Government gives everyone it wants to imprison a trial and then imprisons only those whom it can convict. The process is constant (trials), and the outcome varies (convictions or acquittals).

Obama is saying the opposite: in his scheme, it is the outcome that is constant (everyone ends up imprisoned), while the process varies and is determined by the Government (trials for some; military commissions for others; indefinite detention for the rest). The Government picks and chooses which process you get in order to ensure that it always wins. A more warped "system of justice" is hard to imagine.



(7) Can we "be safe" by locking up all the Terrorists with no charges?

Obama stressed yesterday that the "preventive detention" system should be created only through an act of Congress with "a process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified." That's certainly better than what Bush did: namely, preventively detain people with no oversight and no Congressional authorization -- in violation of the law. But as we learned with the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the Protect America Act of 2007, the mere fact that Congress approves of a radical policy may mean that it is no longer lawless but it doesn't make it justified. As Professor Amann put it: "no amount of procedures can justify deprivations that, because of their very nature violate the Constitution’s core guarantee of liberty." Dan Froomkin said that no matter how many procedures are created, that's "a dangerously extreme policy proposal."

Regarding Obama's "process" justification -- and regarding Obama's primary argument that we need to preventively detain allegedly dangerous people in order to keep us safe -- Digby said it best:

We are still in a "war" against a method of violence, which means there is no possible end and which means that the government can capture and imprison anyone they determine to be "the enemy" forever. The only thing that will change is where the prisoners are held and few little procedural tweaks to make it less capricious. (It's nice that some sort of official committee will meet once in a while to decide if the war is over or if the prisoner is finally too old to still be a "danger to Americans.")

There seems to be some misunderstanding about Guantanamo. Somehow people have gotten it into their heads is that it is nothing more than a symbol, which can be dealt with simply by closing the prison. That's just not true. Guantanamo is a symbol, true, but it's a symbol of a lawless, unconstitutional detention and interrogation system. Changing the venue doesn't solve the problem.

I know it's a mess, but the fact is that this isn't really that difficult, except in the usual beltway kabuki political sense. There are literally tens of thousands of potential terrorists all over the world who could theoretically harm America. We cannot protect ourselves from that possibility by keeping the handful we have in custody locked up forever, whether in Guantanamo or some Super Max prison in the US. It's patently absurd to obsess over these guys like it makes us even the slightest bit safer to have them under indefinite lock and key so they "can't kill Americans."

The mere fact that we are doing this makes us less safe because the complete lack of faith we show in our constitution and our justice systems is what fuels the idea that this country is weak and easily terrified. There is no such thing as a terrorist suspect who is too dangerous to be set free. They are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. There is not some finite number of terrorists we can kill or capture and then the "war" will be over and the babies will always be safe. This whole concept is nonsensical.

As I said yesterday, there were some positive aspects to Obama's speech. His resolve to close Guantanamo in the face of all the fear-mongering, like his release of the OLC memos, is commendable. But the fact that a Democratic President who ran on a platform of restoring America's standing and returning to our core principles is now advocating the creation of a new system of indefinite preventive detention -- something that is now sure to become a standard view of Democratic politicians and hordes of Obama supporters -- is by far the most consequential event yet in the formation of Obama's civil liberties policies.



UPDATE: Here's what White House Counsel Greg Craig told The New Yorker's Jane Mayer in February:

"It’s possible but hard to imagine Barack Obama as the first President of the United States to introduce a preventive-detention law," Craig said. "Our presumption is that there is no need to create a whole new system. Our system is very capable."

"The first President of the United States to introduce a preventive-detention law" is how Obama's own White House Counsel described him. Technically speaking, that is a form of change, but probably not the type that many Obama voters expected.



UPDATE II: Ben Wizner of the ACLU's National Security Project is the lead lawyer in the Jeppesen case, which resulted in the recent rejection by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals of the Bush/Obama state secrets argument, and also co-wrote (along with the ACLU's Jameel Jaffer) a superb article in Salon in December making the case against preventive detention. I spoke with him this morning for roughly 20 minutes regarding the detention policies proposed by Obama in yesterday's speech. It can be heard by clicking PLAY on the recorder below. A transcript will be posted shortly.



UPDATE III: Rachel Maddow was superb last night -- truly superb -- on the topic of Obama's preventive detention proposal:



UPDATE IV: The New Yorker's Amy Davidson compares Obama's detention proposal to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II (as did Professor Amann, quoted above). Hilzoy, of The Washington Monthly, writes: "If we don't have enough evidence to charge someone with a crime, we don't have enough evidence to hold them. Period" and "the power to detain people without filing criminal charges against them is a dictatorial power." Salon's Joan Walsh quotes the Center for Constitutional Rights' Vincent Warren as saying: "They’re creating, essentially, an American Gulag." The Philadelphia Inquirer's Will Bunch says of Obama's proposal: "What he's proposing is against one of this country's core principles" and "this is why people need to keep the pressure on Obama -- even those inclined to view his presidency favorably."



UPDATE V: The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder -- who is as close to the Obama White House as any journalist around -- makes an important point about Obama that I really wish more of his supporters would appreciate:

[Obama] was blunt [in his meeting with civil libertiarians]; the [military commissions] are a fait accompli, so the civil libertarians can either help Congress and the White House figure out the best way to protect the rights of the accused within the framework of that decision, or they can remain on the outside, as agitators. That's not meant to be pejorative; whereas the White House does not give a scintilla of attention to its right-wing critics, it does read, and will read, everything Glenn Greenwald writes. Obama, according to an administration official, finds this outside pressure healthy and useful.

Ambinder doesn't mean me personally or exclusively; he means people who are criticizing Obama not in order to harm him politically, but in order to pressure him to do better. It's not just the right, but the duty, of citizens to pressure and criticize political leaders when they adopt policies that one finds objectionable or destructive. Criticism of this sort is a vital check on political leaders -- a key way to impose accountability -- and Obama himself has said as much many times before.

It has nothing to do with personalities or allegiances. It doesn't matter if one "likes" or "trusts" Obama or thinks he's a good or bad person. That's all irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether one thinks that the actions he's undertaking are helpful or harmful. If they're harmful, one should criticize them. Where, as here, they're very harmful and dangerous, one should criticize them loudly. Obama himself, according to Ambinder, "finds this outside pressure healthy and useful." And it is. It's not only healthy and useful but absolutely vital.



UPDATE VI: Bearing in mind what Obama repeatedly pledged to do while running, this headline from The New York Times this morning is rather extraordinary:

As Greg Craig put it: "hard to imagine Barack Obama as the first President of the United States to introduce a preventive-detention law."
User avatar
draque
Watermelon Graduate

  Offline
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:57 am
Location: <=CLEVER-LOCATION=>

Re: "Indefinite Preventive Detention"

Postby Relee » Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:48 am

Obama isn't like Bush. Bush was an idiot, and a puppet, and didn't know what he was doing.


Obama knows EXACTLY what he's doing, and he's doing it anyway.

I wasn't going to link it, and I figured someone else would, but I guess you guys missed his speech against Gay Marriage? http://ionotter.livejournal.com/572657.html
-- Relee the Squirrel --
User avatar
Relee
Watermelon Graduate

  Offline
 
Posts: 904
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:25 am
Location: Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way, Universe 2

Re: "Indefinite Preventive Detention"

Postby Skatche » Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:01 am

Just want to say that although draque's quote seems tl;dr, I urge everyone to read it. It's clear and as concise as it can be and makes important points.
Skatche
Kumquat Class Sensei

  Offline
 
Posts: 268
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:55 pm

Re: "Indefinite Preventive Detention"

Postby Shackler » Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:00 pm

Relee wrote:I wasn't going to link it, and I figured someone else would, but I guess you guys missed his speech against Gay Marriage? http://ionotter.livejournal.com/572657.html


I was not aware that racism was welcomed here.

draque, your quote is interesting but blatantly appeals to cognitive biases on multiple occasions, which makes me somewhat skeptical. I think I'll reserve my judgement until we see the actual proposal that Obama puts forth.
Shackler
Blueberry Class Leader

  Offline
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:21 pm

Re: "Indefinite Preventive Detention"

Postby draque » Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:39 pm

Shackler wrote:
Relee wrote:draque, your quote is interesting but blatantly appeals to cognitive biases on multiple occasions, which makes me somewhat skeptical. I think I'll reserve my judgement until we see the actual proposal that Obama puts forth.


While I felt that the points were very well made, particularly the ones about democrats that had previously opposed Bush's measures now supporting these, I'll grant that there's an overall biased tone to the text. Could you point out some of the particular places where there are errors of cognitive bias?
User avatar
draque
Watermelon Graduate

  Offline
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:57 am
Location: <=CLEVER-LOCATION=>

Re: "Indefinite Preventive Detention"

Postby Shackler » Tue Jun 16, 2009 2:43 pm

At the beginning of the piece, the author claims that he wants to conduct a dispassionate and fact-based discussion; this appears to be mere signaling rather than an honest claim, as his very first point contains unsupported predictions. His second is an overt appeal to consistency. The irrational emphasis on consistency in today's society is a significant problem; it is better to be correct than to be consistent, and indeed being "consistent" should not factor into one's evaluation of an issue such as this, especially not in a dispassionate and fact-based discussion. His third point is a series of rhetorical questions to opponents, while his fourth suffers from a lack of hard information regarding Obama's proposal. The fifth point is interesting but marred by aggressive rhetoric. The first half of this point, regarding the circumstances of capture, is valid but merits further investigation, especially regarding Geneva rights; the second, dealing with the circumstances of the war, is totally irrelevant. The sixth point is strong, but again suffers from aggressive rhetoric, while the seventh is almost totally meaningless.

The updates are largely appeals to consistency, misrepresentations, or sensationalism. The fifth update, however, is extremely good and I will reproduce it here:

[Obama] was blunt [in his meeting with civil libertiarians]; the [military commissions] are a fait accompli, so the civil libertarians can either help Congress and the White House figure out the best way to protect the rights of the accused within the framework of that decision, or they can remain on the outside, as agitators. That's not meant to be pejorative; whereas the White House does not give a scintilla of attention to its right-wing critics, it does read, and will read, everything Glenn Greenwald writes. Obama, according to an administration official, finds this outside pressure healthy and useful.

Ambinder doesn't mean me personally or exclusively; he means people who are criticizing Obama not in order to harm him politically, but in order to pressure him to do better. It's not just the right, but the duty, of citizens to pressure and criticize political leaders when they adopt policies that one finds objectionable or destructive. Criticism of this sort is a vital check on political leaders -- a key way to impose accountability -- and Obama himself has said as much many times before.

It has nothing to do with personalities or allegiances. It doesn't matter if one "likes" or "trusts" Obama or thinks he's a good or bad person. That's all irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether one thinks that the actions he's undertaking are helpful or harmful. If they're harmful, one should criticize them. Where, as here, they're very harmful and dangerous, one should criticize them loudly. Obama himself, according to Ambinder, "finds this outside pressure healthy and useful." And it is. It's not only healthy and useful but absolutely vital.


This is an extremely important point. If you don't like the President's ideas, write in and criticize them-- don't just complain online! Participation is key to the democratic process.


I actually agree with much of the piece's sentiments, but find the author's presentation style highly undesirable and confusing. As more information about this plan comes out, we will have a better idea of what the situation is; for now, though, pieces such as this one seem to do little other than stir up emotion regarding something that we don't even know the specifics of yet. Therefore, I find the author's claim that he is promoting dispassionate, fact-based discussion with this piece misleading at best.
Shackler
Blueberry Class Leader

  Offline
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:21 pm

Re: "Indefinite Preventive Detention"

Postby Relee » Tue Jun 16, 2009 3:12 pm

draque wrote:
Shackler wrote:
Relee wrote:draque, your quote is interesting but blatantly appeals to cognitive biases on multiple occasions, which makes me somewhat skeptical. I think I'll reserve my judgement until we see the actual proposal that Obama puts forth.


While I felt that the points were very well made, particularly the ones about democrats that had previously opposed Bush's measures now supporting these, I'll grant that there's an overall biased tone to the text. Could you point out some of the particular places where there are errors of cognitive bias?


No, and that was part of the reason I declined to post it originally. But I got caught up in the moment when I read the OP here and decided to link what my friend Ion wrote, and what he linked too.
-- Relee the Squirrel --
User avatar
Relee
Watermelon Graduate

  Offline
 
Posts: 904
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:25 am
Location: Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way, Universe 2

Re: "Indefinite Preventive Detention"

Postby Shackler » Tue Jun 16, 2009 3:17 pm

Relee wrote:
draque wrote:
Relee wrote:draque, your quote is interesting but blatantly appeals to cognitive biases on multiple occasions, which makes me somewhat skeptical. I think I'll reserve my judgement until we see the actual proposal that Obama puts forth.


While I felt that the points were very well made, particularly the ones about democrats that had previously opposed Bush's measures now supporting these, I'll grant that there's an overall biased tone to the text. Could you point out some of the particular places where there are errors of cognitive bias?


No, and that was part of the reason I declined to post it originally. But I got caught up in the moment when I read the OP here and decided to link what my friend Ion wrote, and what he linked too.


Woah, what's going on here? That wasn't actually a quote from you, Relee- it appears to be some weird kind of forum artifact from draque's post. My issue with the link that you posted was that it was blatantly, explicitly racist.
Shackler
Blueberry Class Leader

  Offline
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:21 pm

Re: "Indefinite Preventive Detention"

Postby strange_person » Tue Jun 16, 2009 3:24 pm

I'd say the comparison to Japanese internment is deeply flawed. WWII's Pacific theater was a proper, declared war against a specific government body which overtly identified itself with a specific ethnic group, so there was at least a halfway-coherent reason to suspect members of that group. The detention ended when the war ended, and everyone knew from the start exactly what it would take to end the war.

The provisions being proposed here more closely resemble the form of 'detention' abolished by the 13th amendment, which constitutes a particularly noxious form of irony in this context.
Hello!

Praise be to Athè, and Hob, Her living vessel.
2<3
For I have crescent pies to bake
And smiles to throw before I wake
User avatar
strange_person
2000 Post Medal Of Wow!

  Offline
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:09 pm

Next

Return to The Political Arena

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron