Preventative Detention

With the passing of the bill that will allow Indefinite Preventative Detention a few questions have been raised by some concerned citizens about whom the bill gives authorization to detain. Questions have also been raised about how long one might be detained without being charged with a crime. So we will take a moment to answer some of these looming inquiries, although I cannot guarantee that the answers will erase your suspension of the bill, or set your mind at ease. On the contrary, it is often the informed mind that has the most cause for concern, as the uninformed breeze through their lives in a sort of happy, hazy bliss, attainable only by the ignorant. Below we attempt to answer the most popular questions about the bill:


How Long Can Someone Legally Be Detained Without A Charge Against Them?

As the name states, an individual may be detained indefinitely. Presumably until the threat of there possible future crimes have passed. Which may be two days, or a hundred years. In other words, they keep you as long as they please.

Who May Be Legally Detained, According To The Bill?

The bill is rather vague about who may or may not be detained. It does not state anywhere in it's language that only terrorist may be detained, and it does not specify whether those being detained will be only foreign or if they will include U.S citizens, which probably means that they intend for the bill to apply to both. It is also important to note that indefinite imprisonment is not based on proven crimes or past violations of the law, but also authorizes the imprisonment of individuals whom the government deems a "threat" or whom they consider generally "dangerous".  

In short, people who may be detained include everyone from terrorist who cannot be convicted in a legal court, to people the Government determines are likely to commit a crime in the future. Now the question must be raised, what exactly makes someone dangerous? What makes them likely to commit a crime?

Do they need any proof that you planned or are planning to commit a crime?

In short, no. If they had proof that you committed a crime then they would charge you with that crime and try you in court. If they had proof you are planning to commit a crime, then they could charge you with conspiracy to commit, and would try you in a court of law. The point of the bill seems to be that they can't charge you with anything, but they would like to, so they imprison you like they would if they had proof. 

Do other countries have preventative detention?

Yes, there are other countries that have preventative detention. And that is one of the facts that Obama is trying to use as a way of showing that it isn't a radical idea. Other counties do it, so it isn't radical? There are countries that will stone you for being a victim of rape. There are other countries that will imprison or kill you for your words and beliefs. The fact that other countries do something does not mean that it isn't radical. And I would like to point out that some of the countries that Obama is pointing to- the ones that aren't all that radical, do not have "indefinite" detention. 

In the times of IRA bombings, the British Parliament passed a law allowing the Government to preventively detain terrorist suspects for a maximum of 14 days.  After a rash of subway bombings the time which someone can be detained for was ultimately increased to 28 days. I think we all agree that there is a big difference between saying "I think you may be a terrorist, so we are going to detain you for 28 days." and "We think you may possibly commit a crime in the future, so I'm going to detain you for as long as I want." 

 This law has drawn a lot of criticism from human rights advocates, and it's hardly difficult to see why.

How do you feel about this? Do you agree that people can and should be held for an indefinite period of time without a trial?