President Barack Obama in a May 21 speech outlined a new policy of preventive detention, without trial, for people he suspects might commit crimes in the future. Flanked by copies of the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence in the address at the National Archives, Obama’s speech would have been more appropriately given at the Blu-Ray release of the 2002 Steven Spielberg movie Minority Report.

Starring Tom Cruise, Minority Report is a science fiction film where powerful psychics called “precogs” are able to detect crimes before they happen, and the role of the police is to arrest the perpetrators before the crimes are actually committed.

Obama’s new policy proposes the same thing: to imprison people — not for crimes they’ve already been tried for, or even for crimes that have already been committed — but for crimes Obama suspects that these persons might commit some day commit. Who would decide such a thing? The same man whose Department of Homeland Security put out a terrorist threat report in April that termed pro-lifers, people who buy a firearm, political conservatives and military veterans as “the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States.”

Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano told congressional leaders in a May 12 defense of the memo that DHS was trying to create “situational awareness” but not to target groups with this memo. “What there was,” Napolitano told congressional leaders, “was an understanding that veterans are sometimes targeted for recruitment — that is an assessment.”

Two days later Napolitano announced the memo had been withdrawn. She had already announced to congressional investigators that the DHS intelligence operatives are working on a new memo that would have the old one “replaced or redone in a much more useful and much more precise fashion.”

“We do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat,” Obama told a loyal audience of government employees during the May 21 speech. The proximate reason for the detention of people who haven’t committed crimes but are being imprisoned indefinitely without trial is the backlog of cases at Guantanamo Bay. “There are 240 people there who have now spent years in legal limbo. In dealing with this situation, we don't have the luxury of starting from scratch,” Obama noted. That is, he’s going to continue the Bush policy of imprisoning people who haven’t committed any prosecutable crimes, but bring them into U.S. prisons to mix with other U.S. prisoners. “There remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people,” Obama elucidated. “I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people.”

How does he know if someone presents a threat to the American people? Does he possess some special psychic powers like Spielberg’s “precogs”? Obama apparently thinks so, and he failed to outline any difference between foreigners deemed to have committed "pre-crime" and American conservatives deemed to be "the most dangerous domestic terrorist threat in the United States." The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights makes no such distinction, it should be noted. All it says is that everyone is entitled to a jury trial. But the institutions of our criminal procedures need an "update," Obama has reminded us. 

In enunciating such a policy, Obama sounds increasingly like the Bush-Cheney regime’s rhetoric in justifying the Bush-Cheney trampling of the Bill of Rights. In Obama's words:

My administration has begun to reshape the standards that apply to ensure that they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible, and lawful standards for those who fall into this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified…. I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for the remaining Guantanamo detainees that cannot be transferred. Our goal is not to avoid a legitimate legal framework. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man.

That last phrase is a keystone of Obama’s strategy to avoid prosecution of executive branch officials for his attack on the Constitution:

If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight.  And so, going forward, my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution.

Vice President Dick Cheney noted in a May 21 address to the American Enterprise Institute that “Some are even demanding that those who recommended and approved the interrogations be prosecuted, in effect treating political disagreements as a punishable offense and political opponents as criminals. It's hard to imagine a worse precedent filled with more possibilities for trouble and abuse than to have an incoming administration criminalize the policy decisions of its predecessor.”

Cheney’s attempt to whitewash the crime of torture as mere “politics” is risible, but Obama is pursuing a much more sophisticated strategy to justify his crimes against the Constitution. Obama’s proposal to allow “congressional oversight” is an attempt to immunize himself against prosecution by bringing politics into the mix in a way the Bush-Cheney regime never invited. It’s a way for Obama to spread the blame around if his open policy of indefinite detention of people not accused of a crime ever gets ouit of hand. If Congress can be put on the hook for this trampling of constitutionally-guaranteed liberties, then the likelihood he’d ever be prosecuted is virtually nonexistent.

Photo of Obama at National Archives: AP Images

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (3)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Phil Blanchard said:

Open letter to President Obama Dear President Obama, I'm taking the liberty to suggest a possible way out for the Guantanamo prisoners - and the subsequent closing of the Guantanamo prison camp - Why don't you ask the International Community (i.e. UN / the International tribunal in La Hague) to handle the prisoners and to judge them on the merit of each case - You could transfer all jurisdiction and all evidence over... I mean, isn't terrorism really an International problem? Especially in light of all the Extraordinary Rendition situations and all the countries that were involved then... Why should the US be the only country to deal with that? And setup special legal framework for it? A legal framework for terrorism really extends outside the sole US jurisdiction. It's about time the Internation Community setup its own legal framework for terrorism and maybe, maybe, eventually all countries could begin to abide by international standards for the handling of all terrorism suspects. My 2 cents. Deepest regards, Phil.

report abuse vote down vote up

May 22, 2009
Votes: +1

Flu-Bird said:

	Obama is no president Barack Obama is less a predient then he is a tyrant in the same mold as ADOLPH HITLER and JOE STALIN his rulership could leave america ruined
	report abuse vote down vote up

May 23, 2009
Votes: +0

Art Massucco said:

obama:preventive detention It is too late to save the Country. The American people are too fat, stupid and lazy to understand that the democrap and repugnican parties must be politically destroyed. Our "culture" is decayed and fragmented and the ruling elites are swindlers and moneywhores. Even if we had a revolution, the citizens are too stupid to build a new constitutional republic. It is too late.

report abuse vote down vote up

June 09, 2009 | url
Votes: +1