Obama Implements 'Precrime' 'Prolonged Detention' Rachel Maddow Reports

CaféAuLait

This Space for Rent
Oct 29, 2008
7,777
1,971
245
Pacific Northwest
Obama Implements 'Precrime' 'Prolonged Detention' Rachel Maddow Reports


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBdPEK5pNtE]YouTube - Thanks Patriot Act - Obama Implements 'Precrime' 'Prolonged Detention' Rachel Maddow Reports[/ame]


:eek:
 
See? MSNBC isn't leaning only towards worship of Obama. They hold him to account if he fucks up.
I would not say that, Rachel Maddow does, and its not the first time.

Olberman is trying to rent space in Barry's colon for his head.

I heard she is going over to fox news.

:eusa_whistle:

I'd take that bet. She doesn't really blend in with the FAUX crowd. They (FAUX) are part of the ultra conservative right wing, and they are terrified of gays, as they think that they are contagious.

Rachel is a sexually alternative lifestyle member.
 
I would not say that, Rachel Maddow does, and its not the first time.

Olberman is trying to rent space in Barry's colon for his head.

I heard she is going over to fox news.

:eusa_whistle:

I'd take that bet. She doesn't really blend in with the FAUX crowd. They (FAUX) are part of the ultra conservative right wing, and they are terrified of gays, as they think that they are contagious.

Rachel is a sexually alternative lifestyle member.

Really are you sure about your claim? Watch more videos of Greg, who is a gay fox news show host, if you dont think this one is enough.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oMW-jCjNDo]YouTube - RedEye: Gay Penguin Marriage[/ame]
 
No fucking way that they're going to give her a news show and an anchor desk, they'd put her off as a correspondent or some such.

Why would she leave an anchor desk of HER OWN SHOW?

You're just bating again. Always knew you were a Master Baiter Pilgrim.
 
:clap2: :clap2: :clap2: WTG Rachel!

I've only seen her once or twice and liked what I saw . . . even though she's at MSNBC. Granted, the one time she had some bartender on making mojitos for Cinco de Mayo.

Preventative, indefinite detention via a legal regime (regime???) combined with a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded as the military. He's surrounded by radical czars that are accountable only to him most of whom were never confirmed, his college days were filled with carefully chosen friends and professors who were radicals and marxists, he grew up listening to Rev. Wright and his radical marxist based BLT preachings, he has a massive network of connections, power and money working for 'social justice' via ACORN, Apollo Alliance, Tides Foundation, SEIU, GE, NBC, he promised transparency and is transparent about nothing, . . . . does anyone really, really not see what's going on here?
 
Last edited:
No fucking way that they're going to give her a news show and an anchor desk, they'd put her off as a correspondent or some such.

Why would she leave an anchor desk of HER OWN SHOW?

You're just bating again. Always knew you were a Master Baiter Pilgrim.

Well its what happened with Glenn Beck when he was at that other news station. Just saying it seems to be the way it has gone when hosts on the liberal news networks start talking like this.


What bait BTW? I crushed your argument that fox wouldn't take her cause she's gay, i didn't bait you at all.
 
So.......you're saying that Rachel is as stupid as Blech?

Nope........sorry.......she's actually got a brain and can read, as well as understand history.

Unlike "Slave Man Beck" and his interpretation of the Slave Tax as being immigrants (not slaves) paying for the privledge of coming to America. 10 bucks.
 
Is this why GTMO hasn't quite been closed yet? Is this why we haven't been attacked during Bush? This POTUS has no shame, does he? (And interesting this should come up seeing the events of this past week where some attacks seem to have been thwarted in four separate incidents?

Hmmmmm.........
 
I heard she is going over to fox news.

:eusa_whistle:

I'd take that bet. She doesn't really blend in with the FAUX crowd. They (FAUX) are part of the ultra conservative right wing, and they are terrified of gays, as they think that they are contagious.

Rachel is a sexually alternative lifestyle member.

Really are you sure about your claim? Watch more videos of Greg, who is a gay fox news show host, if you dont think this one is enough.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oMW-jCjNDo]YouTube - RedEye: Gay Penguin Marriage[/ame]
ROFLMAO
well done
 
This speech is from May. A bit of context:

The White House - Press Office - Remarks by the President On National Security, 5-21-09

I will explain how each action that we are taking will help build a framework that protects both the American people and the values that we hold most dear. And I'll focus on two broad areas: first, issues relating to Guantanamo and our detention policy; but, second, I also want to discuss issues relating to security and transparency.

Now, let me begin by disposing of one argument as plainly as I can: We are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people. Where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders -- namely, highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety.

As we make these decisions, bear in mind the following face: Nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal, supermax prisons, which hold hundreds of convicted terrorists. As Republican Lindsey Graham said, the idea that we cannot find a place to securely house 250-plus detainees within the United States is not rational.

We are currently in the process of reviewing each of the detainee cases at Guantanamo to determine the appropriate policy for dealing with them. And as we do so, we are acutely aware that under the last administration, detainees were released and, in some cases, returned to the battlefield. That's why we are doing away with the poorly planned, haphazard approach that let those detainees go in the past. Instead we are treating these cases with the care and attention that the law requires and that our security demands.

Now, going forward, these cases will fall into five distinct categories.

First, whenever feasible, we will try those who have violated American criminal laws in federal courts -- courts provided for by the United States Constitution. Some have derided our federal courts as incapable of handling the trials of terrorists. They are wrong. Our courts and our juries, our citizens, are tough enough to convict terrorists. The record makes that clear. Ramzi Yousef tried to blow up the World Trade Center. He was convicted in our courts and is serving a life sentence in U.S. prisons. Zacarias Moussaoui has been identified as the 20th 9/11 hijacker. He was convicted in our courts, and he too is serving a life sentence in prison. If we can try those terrorists in our courts and hold them in our prisons, then we can do the same with detainees from Guantanamo.

Recently, we prosecuted and received a guilty plea from a detainee, al-Marri, in federal court after years of legal confusion. We're preparing to transfer another detainee to the Southern District Court of New York, where he will face trial on charges related to the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania -- bombings that killed over 200 people. Preventing this detainee from coming to our shores would prevent his trial and conviction. And after over a decade, it is time to finally see that justice is served, and that is what we intend to do.

The second category of cases involves detainees who violate the laws of war and are therefore best tried through military commissions. Military commissions have a history in the United States dating back to George Washington and the Revolutionary War. They are an appropriate venue for trying detainees for violations of the laws of war. They allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence-gathering; they allow for the safety and security of participants; and for the presentation of evidence gathered from the battlefield that cannot always be effectively presented in federal courts.

Now, some have suggested that this represents a reversal on my part. They should look at the record. In 2006, I did strongly oppose legislation proposed by the Bush administration and passed by the Congress because it failed to establish a legitimate legal framework, with the kind of meaningful due process rights for the accused that could stand up on appeal.

I said at that time, however, that I supported the use of military commissions to try detainees, provided there were several reforms, and in fact there were some bipartisan efforts to achieve those reforms. Those are the reforms that we are now making. Instead of using the flawed commissions of the last seven years, my administration is bringing our commissions in line with the rule of law. We will no longer permit the use of evidence -- as evidence statements that have been obtained using cruel, inhuman, or degrading interrogation methods. We will no longer place the burden to prove that hearsay is unreliable on the opponent of the hearsay. And we will give detainees greater latitude in selecting their own counsel, and more protections if they refuse to testify. These reforms, among others, will make our military commissions a more credible and effective means of administering justice, and I will work with Congress and members of both parties, as well as legal authorities across the political spectrum, on legislation to ensure that these commissions are fair, legitimate, and effective.

The third category of detainees includes those who have been ordered released by the courts. Now, let me repeat what I said earlier: This has nothing to do with my decision to close Guantanamo. It has to do with the rule of law. The courts have spoken. They have found that there's no legitimate reason to hold 21 of the people currently held at Guantanamo. Nineteen of these findings took place before I was sworn into office. I cannot ignore these rulings because as President, I too am bound by the law. The United States is a nation of laws and so we must abide by these rulings.

The fourth category of cases involves detainees who we have determined can be transferred safely to another country. So far, our review team has approved 50 detainees for transfer. And my administration is in ongoing discussions with a number of other countries about the transfer of detainees to their soil for detention and rehabilitation.

Now, finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people. And I have to be honest here -- this is the toughest single issue that we will face. We're going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who've received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, or commanded Taliban troops in battle, or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.

Let me repeat: I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture -- like other prisoners of war -- must be prevented from attacking us again. Having said that, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. They can't be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone. That's why my administration has begun to reshape the standards that apply to ensure that they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible, and lawful standards for those who fall into this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.

I know that creating such a system poses unique challenges. And other countries have grappled with this question; now, so must we. But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for the remaining Guantanamo detainees that cannot be transferred. Our goal is not to avoid a legitimate legal framework. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so, going forward, my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution.

Now, as our efforts to close Guantanamo move forward, I know that the politics in Congress will be difficult. These are issues that are fodder for 30-second commercials. You can almost picture the direct mail pieces that emerge from any vote on this issue -- designed to frighten the population. I get it. But if we continue to make decisions within a climate of fear, we will make more mistakes. And if we refuse to deal with these issues today, then I guarantee you that they will be an albatross around our efforts to combat terrorism in the future.

I have confidence that the American people are more interested in doing what is right to protect this country than in political posturing. I am not the only person in this city who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution -- so did each and every member of Congress. And together we have a responsibility to enlist our values in the effort to secure our people, and to leave behind the legacy that makes it easier for future Presidents to keep this country safe.

He's talking about a particular subset of the Guantanamo detainees, and only them. Sorry, Rachel... I usually agree with most everything she says, but she selectively edited this and the context shows a far different story.
 
Last edited:
No she didn't Emma, she is saying, quite rightly, that Obama is doing exactly what Bush did and trying to claim he's different.

Not only is he a liar, but a hypocrite as well.
 
No she didn't Emma, she is saying, quite rightly, that Obama is doing exactly what Bush did and trying to claim he's different.

Not only is he a liar, but a hypocrite as well.
To me, she's making it sound as though he's planning to do this to anyone and everyone...

I was running late last night and may have misunderstood, but I didn't hear her say this was specifically regarding a small subset of those being held at Guantanamo.

I don't think he's being a hypocrite regarding the other 4 classes of prisoners; he's doing with those what he promised to do. I honestly can't recall what he said (or IF he said) what he would do with those he describes here---ones that have been picked up on the battlefield and that we know they are at war with us, yet for whatever reason (and that wasn't quite clear) can't be tried. That IS a mess.

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but if (for whatever reason) there is not enough evidence against someone to bring them to trial, in either civil or military court, then they should be released. In that I agree with what she is saying here; no one should be detained indefinitely without charges or trial. Now if they want to re-classify them as POWs, fine. Although that would open up a whole 'nother can of worms, I'm sure.

The point of my post however was that she did some fancy editing, and what he proposed is NOT what she implies. I'm kinda disappointed that she'd do that...
 
And btw, if you re-read what he said, it's not even clear that this is going to happen in any case:

We're going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States.

It sounds as though he's looking at the possibility that some may not be able to be prosecuted, not that he's saying for certain that exists. And I'd like more detail on what he means by judicial and Congressional oversight.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top