Yesterday I put a post up about why I didn't believe that President Obama's speech actually constituted a call for "preventative detention". I also made a comment at Greg Sargent's ThePlumLine blog about the same thing. The major point I was trying to make was that, at least in his speech, President Obama was referring to detainees who had in fact committed crimes in the past but we just couldn't prove it in court for one reason or another. I recognize the slippery slope this might invite but I also am not freaking out because he, at least says, he plans to do this all in the light of day, starting from scratch and bringing in Congress and the Judiciary to help him form a system that actually conforms to our rule of law. I know I know easier said than done. And no I am not just an Obamatard. I just believe in at least giving the man a chance to prove he is going to be true to his word....or that he isn't.
However, the other day while on the Attackerman blog I made a comment that I THOUGHT would just be an exercise in provoking thought about this issue. I said:
I should add that the notion of holding someone indefinitely without charges is not cool in my opinion but I just think that is the difference in the two positions.
However can’t we lock people up in this country against their will for psychological reasons if they are going to be a danger to themselves or others? Not saying its the same thing but just throwing it out there for conversation.
Well maybe I wasn't that far off after all. Cue Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse:
To argue by analogy, one can go to court and to a civil standard of proof show that someone is a danger to themselves or others, and obtain a civil commitment restricting their freedom. If we can do this with Americans, it seems logical that we could also do it with foreign terrorists. The question is, what checks and balances should surround the initial determination of danger, and what safeguards should stay with the person through the period of confinement? I look forward to hearing more from the Obama Administration about what schedule of rule of law safeguards they intend to apply, but I think that the example of civil commitment shows that it is not categorically forbidden to restrict someone’s freedom based on a finding of danger.
Posts
