Friday, May 22, 2009

So Close, and Yet So Far

Thirty seconds left on the clock, you're four points behind and backed up against your own goal line, Pro Bowl quarterback about to put the game out of reach, he steps back, throws and ... your rookie cornerback snatches it out of the end zone and runs for daylight. Past the 50-yard-line, the 40, the 30, he's all alone, the 20 ... and trips and falls at the 10.

Yesterday, President Obama came this close to reversing the anti-Constitutional policies that nearly destroyed the nation, only to kill his case with preventive detention.

Hilzoy explains:

If we have to have preventive detention, it ought to be subject to the kind of oversight Obama is talking about. There should be rules. There should be checks and balances. I like that part.

But that's like saying: if we have to have censorship or prohibitions on particular religions, they ought to be subject to judicial oversight. Yay for judicial oversight. Hurrah for explicit legal frameworks. Whoopee. That said:

Preventive detention????????

No. Wrong answer.

If we don't have enough evidence to charge someone with a crime, we don't have enough evidence to hold them. Period.

The power to detain people without filing criminal charges against them is a dictatorial power. It is inherently arbitrary. What is it that they are supposed to have done? If it is not a crime, why on earth not make it one? If it is a crime, and we have evidence that this person committed it, but that evidence was extracted under torture, then perhaps we need to remind ourselves of the fact that torture is unreliable. If we just don't have enough evidence, that's a problem, but it's also a problem with detaining them in the first place.

SNIP

The long game? If we have a need for preventive detention, which I do not accept, it's a short-term need produced by Messrs. Bush and Cheney. The long game is the preservation of our republic. It is not a game that we can win by forfeiting our freedom.

People seem to be operating under the assumption that there is something we can do that will bring us perfect safety. There is no such thing. We can try our best, and do all the things the previous administration failed to do -- secure Russian loose nukes, harden our critical infrastructure, not invade irrelevant countries, etc. -- but we will never be completely safe. Not even if we give up the freedom that is our most precious inheritance as Americans.

Freedom is not always easy, and it is not always safe. Neither is doing the right thing. Nonetheless, we ought to be willing to try. I wish I saw the slightest reason to believe that we are.

Read the whole thing.

2 comments:

Jack Jodell said...

Obama's apparent endorsement of Bush's illegal and immoral preventive detention policy is a major disappointment and very disturbing. Worse yet, it reinforces it and almost certainly guarantees that another devious Bush or Cheney will arise to use it again in the future. Our republic cannot afford policies like this. The very principle defies the practice of western law ever since the Magna Carta was granted back in 1215 and is a massive step backward for human rights.

BimBeau said...

There is NO legitimate, legal, moral or ethical defense of preventive detention. The concept is so egregiously capricious that there is neither conceptual ceiling nor abstract threshold for application.

I like the football analogy.