Obama suggests indefinate detention? Pre-crime overtones?

[AAjax]

Maddow talks about Obama's speech and its implications.

Wow, this dose not look good, but is no real surprise I guess. With Obama's refusal to prosecute war crimes, why not see how far you can push it? It seems that neither the Dems or the Repubs take the rights of the citizens of the US seriously. All the while promising to keep you safe from terrorism.

 

[SAWYER]

*cues the bu bu bu and apologists*

I for one am glad he is getting tough on these savages

 

[fskimospy]

I think Obama will lose on this in court. I mean I guess his indefinite detention policies are still better than Bush's as he is promising legislative and judicial oversight of them, but indefinite detention without trial is indefinite detention without trial. It's always wrong.

 

[AAjax]

Interesting Democracy Now peice on this, and some rather weird stuff on secret meetings.

 

[bamacre]

Nothing to worry about. This will only be in effect until the "war on terror" is over and won.

If you can't take the "tidal wave of change," then get out of the kitchen.

Edit:

And who cares what right-wing fanatic homophobe Maddow has to say anyway?

 

[Darthvoy]

truly disgusting... I guess Obama is just another politician

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Darthvoy
truly disgusting... I guess Obama is just another politician

Worse than that. He has absolutely ZERO respect for civil rights, nor the Constitution.

Obama has made some decent changes, but when you look at the issues that made Bush a horrible president, we haven't seen one once of change. The American people, once again, bought a lemon.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Darthvoy
truly disgusting... I guess Obama is just another politician

Worse than that. He has absolutely ZERO respect for civil rights, nor the Constitution.

Obama has made some decent changes, but when you look at the issues that made Bush a horrible president, we haven't seen one once of change. The American people, once again, bought a lemon.

Either this is a Democracy and the people are getting what they want, the destruction of the Bill of Rights, or this country is no longer a functioning Democracy.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Darthvoy
truly disgusting... I guess Obama is just another politician

Worse than that. He has absolutely ZERO respect for civil rights, nor the Constitution.

Obama has made some decent changes, but when you look at the issues that made Bush a horrible president, we haven't seen one once of change. The American people, once again, bought a lemon.

Either this is a Democracy and the people are getting what they want, the destruction of the Bill of Rights, or this country is no longer a functioning Democracy.

What? In a representative Democracy, those we elect to represent us occasionally do things that we don't like. That doesn't mean democracy has failed.

This is bad and we should fight against it, as indefinite detention attacks the heart of a free society. Saying that democracy has failed because of it is pretty ridiculous though.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Darthvoy
truly disgusting... I guess Obama is just another politician

Worse than that. He has absolutely ZERO respect for civil rights, nor the Constitution.

Obama has made some decent changes, but when you look at the issues that made Bush a horrible president, we haven't seen one once of change. The American people, once again, bought a lemon.

Either this is a Democracy and the people are getting what they want, the destruction of the Bill of Rights, or this country is no longer a functioning Democracy.

What? In a representative Democracy, those we elect to represent us occasionally do things that we don't like. That doesn't mean democracy has failed.

This is bad and we should fight against it, as indefinite detention attacks the heart of a free society. Saying that democracy has failed because of it is pretty ridiculous though.

Because, we'll be capable of electing someone who will support our cause? The two party establishment will not allow them to be nominated. You elected Obama to support the Bill of Rights cause Bush tarnished it. Lot of good that did you.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: eskimospy

What? In a representative Democracy, those we elect to represent us occasionally do things that we don't like. That doesn't mean democracy has failed.

This is bad and we should fight against it, as indefinite detention attacks the heart of a free society. Saying that democracy has failed because of it is pretty ridiculous though.

Because, we'll be capable of electing someone who will support our cause? The two party establishment will not allow them to be nominated. You elected Obama to support the Bill of Rights cause Bush tarnished it. Lot of good that did you.

See this is the whole 'if you don't get everything you want then you must have gotten nothing' argument that I don't get. Obama does mostly things I like, and some things like this that I really hate. It doesn't mean that Democracy failed, it just means that no one person is going to be able to please everyone on everything.

It doesn't matter if there were 100 parties, whoever became the president would have the same issue.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Sawyer

I for one am glad he is getting tough on these savages

Exactly which savages would those be? Those who have never been accused of, let alone tried for, committing any crimes? :shocked:

Obama is wrong on this. He has a problem, but he is no more above the Constitution and the rule of law than the Bushwhacko criminals.

It will be interesting to watch the ultra right wingnuts when they have to choose whether to support the ACLU when they challenge Obama's position.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: eskimospy

What? In a representative Democracy, those we elect to represent us occasionally do things that we don't like. That doesn't mean democracy has failed.

This is bad and we should fight against it, as indefinite detention attacks the heart of a free society. Saying that democracy has failed because of it is pretty ridiculous though.

Because, we'll be capable of electing someone who will support our cause? The two party establishment will not allow them to be nominated. You elected Obama to support the Bill of Rights cause Bush tarnished it. Lot of good that did you.

See this is the whole 'if you don't get everything you want then you must have gotten nothing' argument that I don't get. Obama does mostly things I like, and some things like this that I really hate. It doesn't mean that Democracy failed, it just means that no one person is going to be able to please everyone on everything.

It doesn't matter if there were 100 parties, whoever became the president would have the same issue.

What exactly has he done that you liked? Sure some minor issues. But like I said above, regarding all the major issues that made Bush a horrible president, we haven't seen one once of change. Still fighting useless wars, about to expand one which has no end in sight, still a total lack of respect for civil rights, and deficits are expanding exponentially.

And they say those who voted 3rd party are the fools. :roll:

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Darthvoy
truly disgusting... I guess Obama is just another politician

Worse than that. He has absolutely ZERO respect for civil rights, nor the Constitution.

Obama has made some decent changes, but when you look at the issues that made Bush a horrible president, we haven't seen one once of change. The American people, once again, bought a lemon.

Either this is a Democracy and the people are getting what they want, the destruction of the Bill of Rights, or this country is no longer a functioning Democracy.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: eskimospy

What? In a representative Democracy, those we elect to represent us occasionally do things that we don't like. That doesn't mean democracy has failed.

This is bad and we should fight against it, as indefinite detention attacks the heart of a free society. Saying that democracy has failed because of it is pretty ridiculous though.

Because, we'll be capable of electing someone who will support our cause? The two party establishment will not allow them to be nominated. You elected Obama to support the Bill of Rights cause Bush tarnished it. Lot of good that did you.

See this is the whole 'if you don't get everything you want then you must have gotten nothing' argument that I don't get. Obama does mostly things I like, and some things like this that I really hate. It doesn't mean that Democracy failed, it just means that no one person is going to be able to please everyone on everything.

It doesn't matter if there were 100 parties, whoever became the president would have the same issue.

What exactly has he done that you liked? Sure some minor issues. But like I said above, regarding all the major issues that made Bush a horrible president, we haven't seen one once of change. Still fighting useless wars, about to expand one which has no end in sight, still a total lack of respect for civil rights, and deficits are expanding exponentially.

And they say those who voted 3rd party are the fools. :roll:

Nope, he's ending the war in Iraq in pretty much the exact way he promised during the campaign. I like that. I don't mind his expansion of the war in Afghanistan, because people in that country DID in fact attack us. I like his stimulus bill (actually I wish it had been larger), I like most of his spending priorities, I could go on and on.

Voting for a third party isn't foolish, it's just not done in order to actually elect the candidate you're voting for... third parties are only really useful in US politics as vehicles to influence the two major parties. It's unfortunate, but it's reality.

 

[Budmantom]

Wow just Wow, this is classic Obama.

In one breath he bashes Bush for Gitmo and in the next he's saying he will do the same.

Does he read the speeches before he gives them?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: AAjax
Maddow talks about Obama's speech and its implications.

Wow, this dose not look good, but is no real surprise I guess. With Obama's refusal to prosecute war crimes, why not see how far you can push it? It seems that neither the Dems or the Repubs take the rights of the citizens of the US seriously. All the while promising to keep you safe from terrorism.

Of course any suppression of US citizens' rights would likely be hidden behind things like promises to keep you safe from terrorists.

Those who would sell out the moral rights of others not to be tortured and detained indefinitely are little deserving of the protections they are duped into losing.

While standing for protection of foreigners is right for its own sake, it also adds to the security of our own freedoms.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Voting for a third party isn't foolish, it's just not done in order to actually elect the candidate you're voting for... third parties are only really useful in US politics as vehicles to influence the two major parties. It's unfortunate, but it's reality.

Until we implement 'ranked voting', which allows voting third party without throwing away your vote and IMO should be our second top voting priority after finance reform.

 

[Budmantom]

Let's not forget Obama also supports torture.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Let's not forget Obama also supports torture.

Let's not forget you couldn't prove that if your life depended on it. :thumbsdown: :|

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Sawyer

I for one am glad he is getting tough on these savages

Exactly which savages would those be? Those who have never been accused of, let alone tried for, committing any crimes? :shocked:

Obama is wrong on this. He has a problem, but he is no more above the Constitution and the rule of law than the Bushwhacko criminals.

It will be interesting to watch the ultra right wingnuts when they have to choose whether to support the ACLU when they challenge Obama's position.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.

Obama's not in the wrong. I think he's just being pragmatic. The guys left in Gitmo are the worst of the worst.