Preventive Detention?

1. 65

   repstrydieflyposted 14 years ago

   "President Obama" is looking to set a law called Preventive Detention that allows the police to imprison or facilitate "future suspected criminals". Meaning if an individual is suspected of committing a crime in the future, then that individual will be imprisoned to prevent this crime from happening.
   
   What are your thoughts or feelings about this and why?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Nelle Hoxieposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Can you quote the Senate or House Bill or some other source so we can see the exact language? Is this an Executive Order? Or could you just give the source reporting this?

      replyreport
      1. 62

         I am DB Cooperposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I'd also like to see this. It seems like it's just speculation based on quotes from a video that are taken out of context. This is like the White House "Holiday Tree" rumor all over again. As far as I know, this is no "future crimes" bill making its way to Congress.

         replyreport
   2. 68

      IntimatEvolutionposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Wow....  I'd really like to know where you got this information.  Surely this is a hoax.  However, if not I think it is an awful idea.  Really, awful idea.  Talk about taking us back to the days of King George.  The ACLU and the Supreme Court would never let this fly.  Wow.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      You may be joking, I dunno, but if he comes up with that, I'd think
      the same thing I always think about the fool.
      He has a hard time separating fiction from reality, apparently.
      He's always saying "there's no silver bullet" to fix things, so he believes in werewolves and vampires but not God; he gets a kick outta people thinking he's some kinda "Superman", and now he apparently watched "Minority Report" way too many times....the man lives in a "movie scene" state of unreality.
      
      But hey what else can we expect from a man who accepted the Nobel Prize from other fools because of the "possibility" of things he's supposedly gonna do in the future?

      replyreport
   4. 61

      double_frickposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      is this news?
      can you site your source, possibly?
      i've heard this rumored before he was even elected. so far, i've yet to see many of the rumors come to pass. not that i completely doubt they will in the future, i keep an eye on it, but no sense in being chicken little over rumors.

      replyreport
      1. 65

         repstrydieflyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         this is no rumor watch this video to hear Obama mention it in his own words...
         
         http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkcUIBvImWI

         replyreport
2. 63

   Mishaposted 14 years ago

   It all develops in expected direction, back to USSR

   replyreport
3. 60

   dave272727posted 14 years ago

   Thought that they had this already....

   replyreport
   1. 65

      repstrydieflyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Misha- I'm sorry, but what do you mean by this?
      
      dave- In 2007 or so, they passes the Patriot Act which practically limits a citizens right to privacy, because it states that the Government does not need a warrant to access a citizen's private information for certain purposes. But the Preventive Detention law has not been passed yet.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         dave272727posted 14 years agoin reply to this

         The Patriot Act was expanded in 2008 to allow for detention of suspected terrorists or threats the national security.  Many police and federal agencies used that threat to hold people for up to 3 days without charging them. 
         
         What I was meaning was Guantanamo, Juvenile Detention, and things of that nature.

         replyreport
         1. 65

            repstrydieflyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            dave- while the Patriot Act may have been intended to allow detention for suspected "terrorists", the Preventive Detention scheme will be used for and individual suspected of committing any crime in the future whether it be drugs, murder, theft, etc.
            
            My view is that this is a negative form of legislation. Let me use an example: somebody could say jokingly not intentionally that they are going to get high off of crack cocaine that night, and if authorities find out they could be incarcerated before they actually used the drug. At least that's my understanding of it.

            replyreport
4. 63

   Mishaposted 14 years ago

   Just what I said - America moves fast towards becoming a communist country, and what you said fits perfectly into this movement.

   replyreport
   1. 65

      repstrydieflyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Misha- nicely put lol. I guess I just wasn't thinking but this is unfortunately correct, but what are you as an American citizen doing to maintain your rights as a human being?

      replyreport
5. 63

   Mishaposted 14 years ago

   I am not an American citizen - but thank you for asking

   replyreport
6. 0

   shazwellynposted 14 years ago

   big brother is watching you!

   replyreport
   1. 65

      repstrydieflyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Misha- So where are you from? And what are the conditions in your area when it comes to political corruption?

      replyreport
      1. 65

         repstrydieflyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         shaz- Big Brother can watch me all they want. All I know is I have a freedom of speech and I will do whatever it takes to redeem it. NOBODY has the right to dictate what I say or what I think about!!

         replyreport
      2. 63

         Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I live in your capital suburbs for more than 10 years now. And your government located here is totally corrupt - but I guess you know this already

         replyreport
7. 58

   Webmatronposted 14 years ago

   That's pretty scary.  I hope they don't go there.  It could be used to get "undesirables" out of the way.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      dave272727posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      It would have it upside and its downside.  As a knee-jerk reaction, we all see the downside to something like this.  Let me pose a question.  Or a scenario and then the question.  Suppose you had a child and some pedophile murdered your child.  He was caught, but there was no REAL proof other than the police just KNOW he did it.  Would you want that person to be free so he can hurt someone else?  Or would you rather him be incarcerated until the proof be found?

      replyreport
      1. 57

         twuxedoposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         The paedophiles just keep on repeating, but get ya with bent Police, or Police that would find it an easy fix, or those few baduns that jackup evidence to get, the thing solved.

         replyreport
      2. 0

         Stevennix2001posted 14 years agoin reply to this

         wow, you just described the exact same plot for "lovely bones."  lol.  that's eerily scary.  sadly, it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of pedophiles get away with it because of lack of proof.  it's really sad when you stop to think about it.

         replyreport
      3. 84

         wychicposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I guess that would depend on if you were the person who just KNEW the person did it, or if you were the person who was being held in prison because someone else had a feeling about you. Frankly, if I was the person that there was no proof against, darn right I'd want to be free! Pardon me if I don't really trust in the hunches of the police force, loved ones of victims, and so on...do you know how many people were executed on death row, only to later be proven innocent by scientific advances that finally told people it really WASN'T the person everyone thought it was?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Stevennix2001posted 14 years agoin reply to this

            yeah, you make a lot of good points there wychic.  plus, what if this alleged pedophile that the police locked up was merely framed by the real pedophile. i mean lets face it, if the person had any real morals, then they wouldn't have done it to begin with.  therefore, it's logical to assume that the real pedophile might try to find a patsy to take the fall if the police start to look into things.  im not saying this would happen, but it is a hypothetical scenario that could happen.

            replyreport
8. 60

   dave272727posted 14 years ago

   yep.  It's been corrupt since the beginning.

   replyreport
9. 88

   Len Cannonposted 14 years ago

   Nice use of quotation marks.

   replyreport
10. 61

    mel22posted 14 years ago

    It would be easier just to set NO PAROLE for certain criminals who've had over a certain number of felonies.. Make then do the full time in multiple felonious cases. Not saying never release , just make the full sentence count.

    replyreport
11. 57

    twuxedoposted 14 years ago

    Some would fall through the cracks, But it would get the dirty old perverts rapists and those that just can't miss a chance to do there fav. crime. I repeat offenders.
    China just shoots them, I like that idea better, alot less costly in terms of their Housing, this would also increase the Prison population drastically, has it been thought through.
    Its the sort of directive that would mean, more gaols would need to be built. No just shoot them.

    replyreport