Rachel Maddow calls out Obama's flowery 'values' bullshit - brilliantly invokes 'Minority Report'

[ProfessorPlum]

Run time: 07:42 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uuWVHT1WUY   Posted on YouTube: May 22, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: May 22, 2009 By DU Member: ProfessorPlum Views on DU: 4087

 
Obama is explicitly calling for indefinite detention. Bullshit. And to think I thought that electing a constitutional law professor would bring a respect for the rule of law and habeas corpus.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

1. I thought it was disgusting that Obama

stood in the very place where the US Constitution is placed and proposed something as unconstitutional as indefinate detention. I was in the "grand chess move" chorus for a number of weeks, I now see that Obama has no intention of prosecution or even a truth commission and now he is proposing measures that are defiantly unconsitutional. I can now safely say that Obama has lost me.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Liberation Angel]

12. Obama's Worse than Bush?

PLEEEEZE!

See my post below.

Unfortunately the right wing media machine has ratcheted up its smearing of Obama to the point where Obama feels he HAS to make efforts to undercut the criticisms.

As much as I have issues with the policy and agree with Maddow - she left out a key point: some of the detainees (especially when you cannot use illegally obtained evidence against them) are in point of fact, as Obama stated, prisoners of war caught in the act of making war against the US.

I think this issue, as I reflect on it, is much deeper than the shallow black and white approach suggested here.

Obama is walking a razor thin line of dealing with realities (prisoners of war who will be determined likely to kill Americans if released and whose treatments by Bush et al have made a lawful criminal prosecution practically impossible)) vs. the Bush doctrines of illegal detentions as "enemy combatants" (not subject to the rules pertaining to prisoners of war) and illegal prosecutions using tainted and corrupt evidence.

There are very good distinctions between these two and Obama's approach, while still insufficient from my perspective, is FAR better.

I guess one analogy is persons who suffer a mental illness who make them a danger to others (due to actual behavior of threats and articulation of intent to do harm). In America these persons are often locked up if they manifest dangerous intent even if they have committed no crime. Happens all the time.

So Obama's attempt to formulate a system that factors in the intent of those imprisoned as prisoners of war under rules of the Geneva conventions (which Bush dissed) to return to war against us.

The analogy to Minority Report doesn't quite ring true. Remember: in that fiction you had seers in tanks wired to foretell the future about anyone which might or might not be real or accurate. In this case there is in fact a very real war with soldiers who want to kill and will kill Americans and others if they can BECAUSE it is a war.

And while I think that some form of legal determination must be made to actually see who "qualifies" as a "prisoner of war" and who is not - Obama's approach is far superior to that of Bush - even where it still is lacking in many elements that progressives want.

But to say he is worse than Bush is ...

wrong

[jgraz]

17. You can't have prisoners of war if you never declare war

These people are just "prisoners".

[Liberation Angel]

25. Look, war has been declared against the U.S.

and whether or not you agree with the REASONS for those who are fighting against the policies of the US and who are doing so militantly and militarily, the reality is Obama is ATTEMPTING to deal with the reality that SOME of those detained WILL likely continue to attempt to make war on us.

I think the designation IS important.

Calling them prisoners of war (which is what I believe Obama is TRYING to do) is very important so that international rules and norms apply.

I do not think it is as simple as many here seem to think. It is not cut and dried.

If you were, for example, a battered wife who had been threatened with attack and/or death (and the threats are the key evidence here) would you be satsified if a judge said that the perpetrator must actually HARM you before they could be arrested?

Problem is that there is in law the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine which says illegally obtained evidence cannot be used. Bush et al illegally obtained the evidence by torture - so Obama has the thorny dilemma of crafting a legal procedure which permits holding those whose actions demonstrate that they are at war against the US (or the west, generally).

I think that there MUST be evidence that these people qualify as prisoners of war.

But, frankly, I trust Obama far more than most human beings to look carefully at these cases. That is not to say he will be infallible, and I expect him to err on the side of caution if an individual poses a demonstrable and imminent threat, but if Obama can craft a system which is transparent AND affords due process and the right of appellate review then I will be far more comfortable with it.

The main problem is that many of these detainees have been made enemies of the US by the Bush treatment of them. So Obama has the unenviable problem of potentially releasing people whom can't be convicted but who WILL try to kill us if they get half a chance.

There has to be a better way --- but I am not sure what it is and I am not sure Obama has figured it out yet either.

BUT I do give him credit for trying even where many here do not.

[jgraz]

26. No, it hasn't.

Macho rhetoric does not equal a declaration of war. Attacks from criminal organizations do not equal a declaration of war.

The distinction is important because, unless you have an actual war, you can never have an *end* to the war. And you can never release your so-called prisoners of war.

I'll accept your argument if you can answer this question: what criteria do we use to declare an end to this war? When can these so-called prisoners of war be released?

[Liberation Angel]

56. Good questions

and I admit to not having the answers.

But I think that these are exactly the questions that Obama is grappling with and, frankly, to his credit.

On the other hand, I do think that the fundamentalist jihadist proclamations of criminal organizations along tribal lines are tantamount to a declaration of war, albeit not a "national" declaration by a recognized state (although arguably, as in Israel/Palestine, the jihadists there ARE under a nationalist/governmental entity - though I guess that is debatable)

I think that working out how to do any of this in a just and humane and safe way is what Obama's goal is; it is just that he has to be able to survive politically too - so it is complicated.

[dotymed]

6. Why

Can't we release these people, who have not yet(if ever),
broken the law? And then keep them under surveillance if we
believe that their "intentions" are inevitable. The
FBI does it everyday.Are we a "Nation of Laws?" We
are a nation of corporate control.

[scentopine]

8. i've come to conclusion that...

we are not seeing a great chess master, but a rather simple pawn avoiding controversy to the point of it becoming controversial. I'm pretty sure all of this will come into play during 2010 mid-terms. Dems are notorious for sitting out elections in disgust or protest. I am convinced that Obama's calculus is to build enough right wing support (the more reliable voters) to make it an 8 year term and keep a few "blue ball dogs" in congress. He knows that he won't be able to count on grass roots democratic support since he is incapable of putting modest rhetoric into policy and legislation. It all about winning and power and corporate sponsorship. To the extent that the public good is served, its completely accidental.

[roguevalley]

59. you 'can't' be tried and you can't be let go. why not hit them in the

head with a shovel and get rid of them like Pinochet? what a terrible terrible stain this is on us all and what a blight to his legacy he is creating.

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. Just for fun, who do you think brainwashed this Constitutional Law scholar?

[rjwin]

3. please

did anyone think they were going to be spared the "Reverend Wright Treatment"?

[progressoid]

4. Ruh roh. This'll confuse some DUers

Who to be disappointed with...Rachel or the President.

[Liberation Angel]

7. Obama has said "make me..."

Make Obama do what is right.

Obama's body language and intonation tells me that he is very uncomfortable trying to defend the indefensible.

He did make an interesting point which is not in this clip and that is that these are "prisoners of war" and that as long as the war is on we can legally hold them.

My recollection is Bush et al wanted these detainess not looked at as prisoners of war (and thus not subject to rules and laws pertaining to such).

BUT look at what the demorats in Congress did by denying funding to shut Guantanamo.

So we have a multiple dilemma here: Obama is making many steps in the right direction but is thwarted by his own party - THUS he has to make concessions which are meant to appease the critics in his own party AND his own military advisors (who as we seem to know, include the folks who ran Cheney's assassination squads)

So..

He jumps into the slippery slope slip and slide

and gets rightfully ridiculed for it by the wonderful Maddow

Obama deserves to be embarrassed into doing the right things by such critiques

Progressives MUST keep the lines of dissent fully engaged and active.

But Obama is not the only one who deserves these critiques and the thrusts of activism

and so the progressive media and places like DU must be vocal and persistent.

One final note here:

Cheney is on the move, invoking 9-11 over and over with his Vader-like snarl and glare

Battle-lines, new ones, for the soul of democracy are being drawn and reshaped and the architects of past evils are sucking the air out of rooms trying to undermine Obama. Many dems are caving.

So the artful crafting of strategies and opposition to unjust policies of Obama are required of progressives who want to support the good that Obama is trying to do.

Maddow has, at this point, it exactly right on the critique. But without identifying the underlying problem that Obama has with the right and the appeasers of the right in Congress and in the media, she misses a valuable opportunity to educate the public and to get those who oppose the slippery slope to rally effectively.

Tricky business we all need to be mindful of. Obama says some great things, but he is still on a learning curve and unfortunately has demons as well as angels on his shoulders whispering in his ears.

In order to get him to resist the demons we have to drown them out with our own shouts and marches and noise and protests.

[Mithreal]

13. "Make me do what is right" is starting to wear thin as an excuse. nt

[Liberation Angel]

28. The right wing spin machine has the upper hand

so that the general public is made very afraid that Obama will release people who WILL kill Americans, Jews, soldiers, civilians, Christians, tourists, WHOEVER opposes the fundamentalist Islamic Jihad.

That is the media assault which makes it essential that we utilize a MESSAGE that counters those positions with respect to what os to be done with those individuals who are likely to return to a state of war against us.

Obama NEEDS our help in pushing the debate in his favor on issues where we agree with him (closing Gitmo, for example) and pressure must be intensive.

But as I have said elsewhere in this thread - I actually think Obama is TRYING to fine a reasonable middle ground on those cases where the evidence is tainted by torture but there is still evidence that some prisoners are likely to use violence against our troops and citizens in the future.

REMEMBER too that Obama is going to the Arab countries for speeches and meetings in a few weeks so he is trying to craft a message that balances US fears with the desire to make peace in the middle east.

I think for the most part his message is not horrible and deals with desperately difficult realities of the war the Bush created.

[marshall]

29. Does the possibility that they might kill somebody make it right for us to hold them?

If we want to be really safe we could just bomb the hell out of the rest of the world and be alone on this planet.

Life is not worth living if we give up our values.

[Mithreal]

60. I won't disagree that he is trying to have it both ways

The right has no intention of giving him an inch but often it feels like he is a mile away from me.

My original comment stands though, "make him do it", is what many of us here on DU are regularly trying to do, send emails, make phone calls, visit representatives, and participate in local organizing. Our shouts are pretty effectively countered by rightwingers that are "making him do" the wrong thing.

I am not even sure what "make him do it" means unless I am already doing it. It may not mean what I think it means and really starts to sound pretty sad if you really listen to the words. Does someone really need to make you do the right thing? I know some goofballs here will rightly argue that there are shades, but some things aren't shady. In my life, no one needs to make me do the right things. It just sounds stupid after hearing it a few too many times is all.

[zipplewrath]

9. I actually thought she went too far

I'm uncomfortable with this "indefinite detention" stuff too. To some extent the lack of detail on this also speaks to Obama's apparent lack of comfort as well. However, he was fairly vague upon what and whom he was talking about. Potentially, we could be talking about folks who were conspiring to attack US targets. Possibly even people who were previously involved in attacks. Conspiracy is a crime, it isn't some "minority report" kind of "thought crime" charge. However, especially because the previous administrations so screwed up the situation, Obama may realize he has very credible threats, and no prosecutable felons. He won't be able to release them to "home countries" because they won't take them. He won't be able to release them here, at least politically. And even in some sort of military tribunal, he will have trouble running any sort of credible trial. He's searching for an answer, and I get the impression he has not found one yet. He apparently is groping for some sort of process by which these decisions can be made collectively between the branches of government.

My problem is that although that gives it some sort of "air" of due process, in the end it is a prosecution without a trial, using evidence that would never be allowed, and without any real ability to present a comparable defense. He can spread responsibility for these detentions between all of the branches of government, and have all manner of people review it, but in the end it's a system stacked against the detained. And unlike a trial, where the fairness of the trial can be challenged on appeal, the process itself will be above appeal. To be quite honest, I don't think the SCOTUS will think so either.

[Liberation Angel]

16. The best way to deal with these procedures is transparency

IF the individuals so held are offered due process as prisoners of war in a transparent process which lets us see in each case what the evidence is that they are in fact "soldiers" who INTEND to do harm if released, then I think the rule of law is much better served.

It is fairly obvious to me that criminal acts are different from acts done as soldiers making war against the US, against Jews, against western "imperialism", etc.

And if they are held as prisoners of war, under international rules applying in wartime, then I will be much more comfortable with Obama's perspective and goals here.

BUT if Obama does NOT make these determinations open and transparent and subject to the right of appeal etc, then the indefinite nature of these detentions makes them inherently unreasonable.

I think Maddow makes some excellent points - but it is, after all, entertainment catering to the left and I agree that the minority report analogy is way over the top.

BUT, again, it is the criticism that NEEDS to be declared IN ORDER that Obama's proposals for future procedures to deal with these detainees (and presumably future ones) do NOT mirror the policies of Bush et al and put in place one which adheres to international law AND provides substantial and reasonable elements of due process for prisoners of war.

[zipplewrath]

20. The right of appeal

I think we are in fairly close agreement. I would say that an important part of the appeal right has to include appealing the process itself, including particular features of that process.

[CTyankee]

72. I'm beginning to think that in this area SCOTUS is irrelevant.

They can rule any way they like but do we believe the President will comply if he feels the country will not be safe if he does?

THEN what happens?

[meegbear]

10. RACHEL MADDOW DISSES OBAMA????

THE END IS NEAR!!!!

[aquart]

66. It well may be.

Because he talks beautifully out of both sides of his mouth and doesn't even seem to notice.

[Umbral]

11. I'm shocked...

shocked that Obama is so much worse than I expected, so much worse than ever thought Clinton could be.

[Jack Rabbit]

14. K/R

While I trust President Obama to use such powers wisely, he will be president for at most eight years and will be succeeded by who knows. Would any one want to entrust these powers to Newt Gingrich? or Sarah Palin? or Rick Parry?

Obama must be defeated in this attempt to concentrate presidential power.

That President Obama is attempting to institute this kind of power in the Oval Office does not excite me to have any serious discussion about whether he should have his way. Rather, it furthers convinces me that the presidency itself is the problem, that it has grown too big and imperious to be consistent with the principles of free, popular government and is an inherent threat to American liberty. Any serious discussion should be about abolishing the office.

[Canuckistanian]

15. So much for restoring Habeus Corpus

With this revelation, Obama has just made the standard of jurisprudence even lower than Bush.

This is a severe disappointment.

[zipplewrath]

22. Not sure he was that clear

I was/have been disappointed that there has been apparently no talk about restoring Habeus Corpus. It isn't clear to me that this is not the intent of his process, but it has not been explicitly stated (and may be the subject of my next letter to the White House).

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. Obama is explicitly calling for indefinite detention. FOR SOME.

Some of the detainees ARE sworn enemies of the US who will continue to wage war. Others, not jihadists, but local resisters to American invaders of their country, will fight so long as Americans are IN their country, but have no interest in waging war outside their country - when we finally leave, it's over for them. Others, like the completely innocent Uyghur prisoners have to be dealt with some other way - even while they cannot be repatriated to their own country - China - because they are adamant anti-communists who would be executed within moments of their return. Others, yet, are just Afghani peasants who would be glad to just go home, but in the eyes of their own government they are terrorists, simply because they were at Gitmo, and would probably not long survive returning. And yet others may be proved terrorists in a court of law and could be convicted and sentenced to prison in the US.

There is no one answer. Bushco had THEIR one answer, which was to keep EVERYBODY locked up indefinately. Obama, in wanting to close Gitmo, is obviously NOT wanting to go in that direction, but he still needs to find legitmate, legal means of dealing with all the different populations in Gitmo (not to mention at Diego Garcia and Baghram and who knows how many secret prisons around the world).

One solution does NOT fit all. It is simplistic to expect that, and I'm disappointed in Rachel for implying it was that easy.

[ProfessorPlum]

23. We ALREADY HAVE A SYSTEM.

One solution doesn't fit all - but we already know how to deal with people like this - we've already done it, successfully. We don't need any "new", unconstitutional, systems.

[RaleighNCDUer]

30. Really? Where are the POW camps?

Those who would be held indefinitely BELONG in POW camps, accessible to the Red Cross.

We DO know how to deal with all these different catagories - but the last administration did nothing to differentiate between them and NOW we need to sort them out and deal with them. Some, as legitimate POWs; some, as international criminals; some, as civilians caught up in unfortunate circumstances. We need to independently adjudicate EACH individual case, figure out where it belongs, and then have the facilities to deal with them. And it needs to be done carefully and thoughtfully - we can't just send people home to be killed by their own governments; we can't release dangerous terrorists; we can't continue to conflate freedom fighters with jihadists. Proper military commissions can determine who belongs in what group, and it will take a little time to have individual hearings for all the hundreds of prisoners. In re-structuring the military commissions we will no longer have all the prisoners pre-judged to be terrorists, and the tribunal passing sentence on them. They will, instead, be saying 'there is evidence this one is a jihadist - he can be tried in federal court; this one is a resistance fighter - he needs to be considered a POW under the Geneva Conventions; this one is innocent, and can go home; this one is innocent, but needs a place to go; etc.

We DON'T have a system - we have precedent FOR a system. Our federal court system had NEVER dealt with prisoners of war, and we can't turn people over to the federal courts in this country whose only crime was, in their own eyes, defending their home and country from foreign invaders. THAT is a crime equivalent to anything that the last administration did.

[ProfessorPlum]

31. It's called the criminal justice system

and it has been used successfully in these cases, many times.

[RaleighNCDUer]

33. At the risk of repeating myself

Our federal court system had NEVER dealt with prisoners of war, and we can't turn people over to the federal courts in this country whose only crime was, in their own eyes, defending their home and country from foreign invaders. THAT is a crime equivalent to anything that the last administration did.

How do our courts have ANY jurisdiction over some guy in Afghanistan, his home, shooting at our troops? He's not a jihadist, carrying on an international war against the infidel - he's a guy trying to get invaders out of his country. How do you justify him going into our court system, and upon conviction being housed with rapists and drug dealers when he is the moral equivalent of one of our Minutemen?

He should be a prisoner of war in an approved prisoner of war camp, in accordance with the Geneva conventions.

Why do YOU want to make him a criminal?

[ProfessorPlum]

36. These people aren't prisoners of war. War has not been declared.

They are people in our custody, and as such are clearly covered by the Geneva conventions.

Just because you are ignorant of the laws of this country, doesn't mean that such laws don't exist and haven't already been used effectively in other situations. You are buying the Bush/Cheney administration spin that somehow 9/11 blew all of our laws and treaties away and we have to act like this is some kind of unprecedented, never-before-thought-about situation.

[RaleighNCDUer]

41. They ARE prisoners of war - but the previous administration would

have us believe they are not, that they are criminals. They are NOT criminals.

Or do you think they are? Is it a criminal act to defend your home, your country? If Burma invaded the US, and you were captured by the Burmese military while fighting them as a civilian, would they have the authority to haul you off to Burma and try you in a criminal court and put you in prison with rapists and drug dealers?

Really. Again, by what authority can we invade a country, capture someone defending his country against us, and haul him off to OUR country, to try him in OUR courts when he has not broken any of OUR laws?

Such a person can ONLY be considered a legitimate prisoner of war, to be held until the war is ended or such time as he can be repatriated under the conditions of the Geneva Conventions.

Please note - in case you missed it in your eagerness to slam Obama - I am differentiating between the jihadists and the guys who are fighting us because we are in their country. The jihadists are international terrorists, and can be tried in the US for crimes against America and Americans. The legitimate freedom fighter who is attacking US troops in his own country is NOT necessarily a jihadist. He does not deserve to be imprisoned with them.

BTW, the Geneva conventions say we MAY treat irregulars and insurgents differently than uniformed troops - but it doesn't say we HAVE to. To now, we have been treating 'insurgents' as terrorists - we should more legitimately treat them as POWs. Treating them as terrorists CREATES terrorists. Treating them as irregulars who are fighting invaders of their country keeps them from being radicalized by the terrorists - they would be well treated in POW camps, allowed to correspond with their families through the Red Cross, and would know that when the fighting is over they would be going home.

[cui bono]

37. Good point about what some were doing, merely defending

their own country and sometimes only their own homes. They shouldn't be thought of as criminals.

[ProfessorPlum]

38. most of them aren't! Wait, are we arguing the same point here?

For the vast majority of them, we don't have any proof that they committed crimes. Since we aren't in war, they aren't POWs. They should be released.

[RaleighNCDUer]

42. Declared or not, we ARE at war, and if they are released they WILL

continue to fight.

The Geneva Convetions have rules covering the handling of irregular troops, but nothing in the conventions says we have to follow the much looser guidelines that apply to irregulars instead of treating them as we would uniformed troops. In fact, treating them as we would regulars is a great improvement of their treatment - many of the protections afforded regulars are not there for irregulars.

As the tribunals discern which prisoners are jihadist criminals (such as the embassy bombers) and which are home-grown insurgents, we can send the criminals into the justice system and hold the insurgents as POWs. And those who are innocents swept up with the others can be released. All it takes is a little rational judgement, and knowing just who we are dealing with.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProfessorPlum]

51. first WTC bombing

[BigD_95]

19. Yea so what???

Its not about American citizens.


Its about known terrorist. Its on a world stage. These people are not American citizens and do not get the same rights.


If you run and talk with terrorist then you are with the enemy and should be treated as such.

Rachel Maddow can get off her high horse and stop talking about terrorist like American citizens.

Again we are at war. The CIA has these people for a reason and its Obama's number one job to keep America safe.

And one more thing. Terrorist play by a different rule then the rules that were set in place so yes and hell yes Obama has every right to come up with different procedure to deal with them.

Its so easy to sit in your TV studio and claim the high road but when your in a meeting with the CIA and are looking at classified reasons why these guys cant be let go and classified reason why the information cant be let out then you have to make the right choices to save American lives.

[ProfessorPlum]

21. Take that shit elsewhere

We are at war? With whom? Has it been declared?

There is no law in this country, and it is due to weak minded fools.

[BigD_95]

44. How about I take that shit right here

and in your face!

Isnt that what the forum is for? How the hell is sticking up for the Democratic President not allowed on the Democratic Underground?

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jeff30997]

27. "These people are not American citizens and do not get the same rights."

"The Nuremberg Laws by their general nature formalized the unofficial and particular measures taken against Jews up to 1935. The Nazi leaders made a point of stressing the consistency of this legislation with the Party programme, which demanded that Jews should be deprived of their citizenship rights."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws


"The Nazi version of the struggle between "us" and "them," between the "community of the people" and the "enemies of the community," was not just hostile, but vehement and full of language that dripped with war and images drawn from the Darwinian struggle for survival. In the kind of total-war rhetoric the Nazis used, it followed that mercy and compassion toward all enemies was portrayed as a vice, while intolerance and fanaticism were transformed into virtues."

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/holoprelude/nazprop.html

So like the prof said,take that shit elsewere.

[BigD_95]

46. Yea this is the same as what the Nazi's

did?

holding a few people that are believed to be terrorist. Give me a break

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProfessorPlum]

54. some of them are taxi drivers

enjoy your stay at DU.

[Canuckistanian]

32. These are global rights, not American rights

Ever heard of the Geneva Convention? Duly ratified by the Congress and signed by vaious Presidents, the four treaties are now the law of the land.

You have NO BASIS for claiming that any prisoner of the US has NO RIGHTS.

These "terrorists" have not had any evidence brought against them, nor have they had a chance to defend themselves.
There may be some that have committed crimes but then agin there may be some who are INNOCENT.

And that's the problem. Neither you or I KNOW FOR SURE that they're criminals.

[cui bono]

35. They are not "known" terrorists.

They've never had a trial. It is known that a lot of them are innocent. A lot of people got turned over as terrorists because our govt. was paying anyone who told them who was a terrorist.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Solly Mack]

34. K&R

[BigD_95]

39. Sorry but

Abu Zubaydah & Khalid Shaikh Mohammed would be set free because no judge would allowed the evidence gather from water boarding. Do you really want these guys let go? Give me a break! Obama knows what he is doing and I trust him.


And your damn right were at war. I dont want to sound like some right wing nut job but they attacked us on 9/11. They want us dead. Get off your high horse and let the man do his job. Bush left him a mess and he is trying his best to fix the mistakes. But letting terrorist go free is just crazy.

[ProfessorPlum]

40. Let's ignore the people we actually think are guilty of something

for one second. What about the dozens of others for whom we have no evidence? Can we at least agree we can let them go? Having the president declare someone is "dangerous" is not the same as having evidence that a) they committed a crime or b) should be held until this "war" of yours is over.

Can we at least agree to that? That if we have zero evidence against someone, they should be released?

Then we can talk about others who might or might not actually be provably guilty of something.

[BigD_95]

43. I dont have a problem with that

but you and I have no idea what the CIA has on these guys and they might not be allowed to release that information because it is classified.

I dont want people locked up for no reason. But I believe that is what Obama is saying..... Creating a system in place to check and revisit those being held. To make sure there arent people being held for no reason.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProfessorPlum]

52. Actually, we do know what they have on most of them

Obama's people came in, examined what they "had", and found the vast majority of them had no evidence against them. If they are not criminally prosecutable, then they are subject at least to the Geneva conventions.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProfessorPlum]

53. "captured in fighting, shouting death to America"

Nice fantasy you have built in your own mind.

[jeff30997]

61. I'm not sure that this thing have a mind prof.

He's a Freeper waiting for a pizza delivery.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jeff30997]

58. Good bye now.

And don't forget your appointment for that loose screw under your primate scull.

:hi:

[jeff30997]

49. "Abu Zubaydah & Khalid Shaikh Mohammed would be set free..."

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed

According to the 9/11 Commission Report he was "the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks." He is also thought to have had, or has confessed to, a role in many of the most significant terrorist plots over the last twenty years, including the World Trade Center 1993 bombings, the Operation Bojinka plot, an aborted 2002 attack on the U.S. Bank Tower in Los Angeles, the Bali nightclub bombings, the failed bombing of American Airlines Flight 63, the Millennium Plot, and the murder of Daniel Pearl.

So for all those crimes this scumbag is accused of on a period of over 20 years,all they have

against him are his "confessions" under torture ? That guy will never walk the streets again.

He's dead meat.And so is Zubaydah.They have far more proofs of their guilt than the waterboarding

"informations" because those two and a couple of others have been under investigation for years.


I have no sympathy for criminals of any kind but how to sort the innocent from the guilty if

they never see a real tribunal ? The CIA have been paying to be supplied with suspects since

Project Phoenix during the Vietnam war:

"Of the tens of thousands of South Vietnamese detained,at least 20,000 were summarily executed. Copying a Viet Cong practice,the severed heads of those executed were frequently displayed in the villages. Even more common was collecting the ears of dead Communist troops.

The principal incentive the CIA used for arresting suspects was money, and it was said that paid informants "often lied and set-up innocent people." Many detainees at Guantanamo were turned in by Afghan bounty hunters who were paid off by coalition officers. In night raids on Iraqi homes all males were routinely detained, but only 10-15 percent, admits intelligence officer Jose Garcia, are of any intelligence value."

http://www.newwest.net/index.php/main/article/9930/

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jeff30997]

57. I know what you would do.

Kill em all and let God sort em out.

"Having awakened from a leftist peace-nik sleep"

Well,hurry up to wake up and realize that you're on

a Liberal board and go back to Freeperville to be

Cheered as a hero by your little friends for your

fabulous exploits.You've been trying to turn people

against each other for hours.Enjoy your pizza.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jeff30997]

65. Why are you sweating like that ?

Nervous or swine flu ?

[knitter4democracy]

73. Are we the shining city on a hill or not?

Did we waterboard the British soldiers who burned Baltimore and DC? Did we torture anyone we captured in WWII? Who the hell are we anymore?!

[emsimon33]

63. Well said!

[slay]

67. Minority Report was exactlly what I thought of too! Great job Rachel!

And for the Obama cheerleading squad who mocked me and called me a liar when I first posted this was true - care to apologize? I didn't think so.

[Papa Boule]

69. The NYT story quote at 3:12 in...

"We've known on the horizon for many years, but we were able to hold it off with George Bush. The idea that we might find ourselves fighting with the Obama administration over these powers is really stunning."

Stunning indeed.

[DutchLiberal]

70. Not surprising. He never wanted to impeach Bush, because he wanted his powers for himself...

That's why he doesn't want to go after Bush.

Obama only *seems* to be better than Bush. Bush said what he was going to do out loud and didn't care. Obama wants to do the same, but he dresses it up nicely. I think that's why he spoke so warm about Ronald Reagan: like Reagan, Obama is a 'Feel-Good President' who knows he can get away with anything as long as he looks charming while doing it.

[Senator]

71. K&R

[Mari333]

74. K and R

right on the money, Rachel!

[Javaman]

75. Kick and Recommend nt