Rachel Maddow - Obama Advocates Indefinite Detention?
tags:Wasn't this his strongest campaign pledge?
I guess the way to tell if a politician is lying, really is simply watching if his lips are moving...
I guess the way to tell if a politician is lying, really is simply watching if his lips are moving...









Stumble This










*law
I hope that he is lying to congress, taking this "we need a legal framework" line in order to implicate them in making decisions. At the moment congress is happy to say "no", but by forcing them to set a legal framework he can put himself back in the position of shutting them down, instead of the other way around.
You vote the best as you can, and then you make a big fuss when the guy in power doesn't do what you want. That's every American's responsibility.
Write letters, people. It's Congress (even/especially the Dems in congress) that this crap is meant to appease.
>_>
1) send prisoners back to countries in which they were captured (i.e. not cuba), even if they were captured in the US.
2) have those countries prosecute based on laws in those countries. If guilty, likely death penalty, if not - it's those countries who let the people go.
3) spend time and money keeping track of anyone released, to see if they lead to other terrorist cells.
The point of saying "I will close Guantanamo Bay", Mr. President, was that it showed that you think the Constitution is important. More important than the potential crimes of future terrorists against Americans. You are not Jack Bauer, Mr. President, because he is a fictional character.
Richard Clark was exactly right about the war on terror - it's not just a war on the ground, it's a war of ideas. And we cannot win the war on terror without winning over the hearts and minds of muslim world. Every action we take, as a nation, that sends the message of "we can do whatever we want" or "we are better than you" gets immediately turned into terrorist propaganda that recruits more people and expands their funding base. We are NOT safer after invading Iraq. We are NOT safer for holding people indefinitely without trial.
And Obama doesn't want to prosecute previous administration because it's dangerous politically. Would also be expensive due to the appeals process, and would just be divisive among left and right wing people/states. Jesse Ventura would prosecute, because he doesn't care about getting reelected.
Come on people, this guy spent time as a constitutional professor. He's not going to pull the same tricks as the last one. Lets way to see how this works out, and how he proposes to detain them within constitutional law before telling him 'fuck you.' ah?
Her whole 'minority report' fear mongering is not typical of her. Tisk tisk Rachel Maddow.
To me, this business about "indefinite detention" only means that they won't put hard dead-lines on releasing detainees. They've already said that they will be giving each individual a fair hearing, but I'm sure they just don't know how long that would take.
It's great how quick you guys are to say "Fuck you, Obama" when he's only been in office for 6 months. Yeah, he hasn't solved all the world's problems yet. What a despicable man!
Not quite what Rachel made it out to be.
I don't blame her for being attentive on this issue -- I sure as hell am. I also don't blame her for using her show to try to build political pressure for Obama to Do The Right ThingTM, but I don't see any reason to think from this speech that he's decided to do something bad, or even left the door open to do something bad.
What I heard was what he's always said: we don't have to choose between our values and our safety.
He's just pointing out, in a very, very delicate way, that Guantanamo as is operates entirely outside of the law, but that it would be irresponsible to release the people we can't try because Bush ignored due process and the Geneva conventions and made it impossible to build a legitimate legal case for holding some of these people.
I think the idea is to come up with a way to charge them for "conspiracy to commit terror attacks" that passes muster, so that their detention ceases to be unlawful and indefinite. As Xaielao said, there is some precedent for this with Prisoners of War, though most of the law written about that assumes there's a state with a government to deal with in some clear way about the release, so we'd need a new legal framework for dealing with non-state actors...