How is the Constitution being flushed (as you dramatically put in your title) when we are talking about terrorists not U.S. citizens? See my last post you are taking this out of context. I do not agree with much or anything Obama does do not get me wrong but you are stretching this a tad bit.
You must have missed how Homeland is defining “terrorists” these days.
(from the breathless article) “much-anticipated speech Mr. Obama is to give Thursday”
I may listen to 0’s weekly State of the Union address to try and divine what he means, keeping in mind that his words are at least as trustworthy as Slick Willie’s, and he has his lapdogs Shumer and Hillary making noises about how the border is secure, but we’re (the USA is) arming Mexico ...
The issue seems to be, who does he mean when he says “terrorists”.
? Wrong person to reply to?
Read the first paragraph of the article closely:
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.
If the enabling act that permits him to do this is written as the journalist reports it in that paragraph, it does not state that this law would provide for preventive detention for enemy combatants captured overseas. Read it again: 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. That is a WHOLE lot more generic.
Who are terrorism suspects? According to DHS, both you and I, for the cause of posting on this site, are considered rightwing extremists (and thus could be classified as potential terrorists). There are those who make a little more radical comments on this site who could, using the definitions supplied by DHS, be considered to be threatening terrorism. (Motivation) If those same people could potentially be shown to have the capability (i.e., knowledge, supplies), then you have the two elements required to establish suspicion. You know what you need for capability? You don't need guns. You don't even need knives or spears. All you need is to be a property owner and have the normal yard care supplies on your property (a molotov cocktail can be made with gasoline; a bomb can be made out of fertilizer).
Am I paranoid? Sure. But just because a person is paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get him!
The difference between GITMO and this is that those who were imprisoned at GITMO were captured overseas and were kept overseas. Therefore, they never had constitutional rights. They were held in the status in which they were held due to the fact that the laws of armed conflict don't cover the particular situation; so they could just be shot as spies / saboteurs (my preferred solution, but they don't listen to me all the time), or given a structured process whereby their status could be determined and dealt with judicially -- all without them ever touching US soil.
This, on the other hand, as written above, would apply to anybody suspected by the administration...but whom the administration could not try. Who could the administration not try? (1) those individuals who would gain access to highly sensitive information as a result of a trial process, (2) those individuals who did not commit a crime triable in the US, (3) those individuals whose rights were not adequately protected during the arrest / pre-trial imprisonment processes, and (4) those individuals where there is insufficient evidence to convict in a court.
I'm glad you apparently trust the motives of the administration and the Congress (as well as trusting the Court's judgment), but I don't.
Listen Bub, try reading the 5th and 6th Amendments sometime. They restrict the government in it’s ability to deprive citizens of due process and trial by jury.
You may have missed it but Obama’s DHS labeled us as terrorists a couple of months ago.
Sorry, you fail.
“...we are talking about terrorists not U.S. citizens?”
The article does not have much detail in this area. it just says “terrorism suspects” without mentioning citizenship status. There is a hint later on of ‘not necessarily on the battlefield’.
Plenty of room for speculation, but the natural thought is “he MUST mean non-citizens because that’s the way we’ve always done it here”, but this man promised to change everything.
A year ago I never would have dreamed that the US Government would force their way into owning 50% of General Motors, 39% owned by the automakers unions, and a little more than 1% owned by stockholders...but that just happened.
There is nothing in the somewhat limited article restricting Obama’s Preventive Detentions to noncitizens.
Tell me where in the plan a U.S. citizen cannot be considered a terrorist? The two are not mutually exclusive.