Obama’s Changing the constitution and Introducing Prolonged Detention Policy

Obama constructing “legitimate legal framework”?

Before the Presentation Rate the claims on a scale of 1-5.

1 =Fully disagree5=Fully Agree

Claims:“We have to do everything we can to fight the terrorism “

“Everything is allowed in the time of war”

“We are forced to use the same methods as terrorists”

“We are not going to release anyone if it’s danger our national security,”

“In the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half measures keep

you half exposed.”

Obama Orders Guantanamo Prison Closed Within One Year

22 January 2009In a major reversal of Bush administration policies, President Barack

Obama has ordered the shutdown of the U.S. terror detention facility at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.  Mr. Obama has also ordered a review of military trials for terror suspects and acted to ban so-called "enhanced" interrogation techniques.

"We are going to do so effectively and we are going to do so in a manner that is

consistent with our values and our ideal, in the name of law"

• The new US president signed two other executive orders to review the use of military trials for terror suspects and ban the harshest

interrogation techniques, such as water boarding.

• 119 Days after the Order to Close Guantánamo prison President Obama introduced a new Policy of

• “Prolonged Detention” • 21. May 2009 Obama made a Speech at the National Archives in

front of the constitution.

Minority Report-Movie Prolonged Detention

“Rule of law”?

At the same time, President Obama is considering creating a new system of “preventive” indefinite detention for some detainees “who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American

people,” as he said in his May 2009 Speech at the National Archives. That prospect has sparked a bitter controversy among legal and

national security experts over who would be detained, the legality of such detention, and the implications for the national security of the

United States.

Sarah Cleveland, professor of human and constitutional rights law at Columbia Law School, testified that Hamdi v. Rumsfeld only allowed “states to apprehend enemy

troops in a traditional conflict and to hold them until the end of that conflict.” The only issue in that case, she said, was the detention of an armed combatant in the U.S. war

with the Taliban-led Afghan government, which was a traditional international conflict.But the U.S. government has also claimed “a roving power to detain persons seized

outside a traditional theater of combat,” and that claim “has brought the United States widespread international condemnation, eroded our moral authority, and inspired

new converts to terrorism,” testified Cleveland.

• “Reshape the Standards that Apply”.

Human Right Organizations “The tension between whether the United States is fighting a “war”

or trying to track down and prosecute violent criminals has created a rift — with human rights advocates and some military and national security experts on one side, and the Obama administration, which on this issue seems aligned more closely with Congressional Republicans, on the other.” Guarding May 25 2009

First Democratic Country using the long-term detention No other European or North American democracy has resorted to long-term detention without charge outside of the deportation context,” Cleveland said. “Our closest allies—including the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Germany, Australia, and Canada—do not resort to such detention. … Among advanced democracies, only Israel and India have adopted long-term detention systems for terrorism suspects. Both regimes are highly controversial, and the U.S. State Department consistently has criticized the practices of both countries.”

“We will construct a new Appropriate Legal Regime”“Reshape the standards”

• Is that Obama’s Rule of Law?