Wait a minute! I'm Terminus, dammit! Of course I disagree!
Kauffmann is bummed because the film doesn't explore the political/Constitutional issues brought up by the premise of predicting future crimes. A predictable complaint from a political magazine. But, in my opinion, Kauffmann is the shallow one. The issue that needs discussion in this film isn't political, its philosophical. In the world of the film, the precrime procedure is seen as flawless, and it has a flawless record. Not a single person has been falsely imprisoned. The Constitutional issue would be swept aside in real life just as easily as it is in the film, if not moreso, given the facts as presented. [In fact, seeing the film in today's post 9/11 Ashcroftian environment, I thought the approach it took to civil liberties was liberal almost to the point of quaintness.]
The film isn't concerned with the political ramifications of predicting crime. It's concerned with the philosophical ramifications. The system continues to function properly until such time as a person receives a premonition relating to himself. This introduces a logical paradox, and this paradox is the core of the film. Indeed, it is through this paradox that several massive plot holes creep into the story. But, the plot holes are unavoidable. They aren't the product of lazy writing or shallow plotting. They are the product of an unfortunate collision of metaphysics and logic.
Once a character sees his own future, either he fulfills it, or he doesn't. But the moment of seeing the future inevitably informs his actions. Thus, if the prediction hadn't been made, it wouldn't have come true. But if it doesn't come true, than it wouldn't have been made. The entire film, then, is not concerned with the Bill of Rights. The whole thing is a giant reductio ad absurdum written in celluloid. The film is a counter-example to its own premise. That is why it is brilliant.