Obama wants "indefinite detention" vs. Constitutional detention limits

[HumanePain]

http://rachelmaddow.newsvine.com/_ne...constitutional

I was disappointed to hear Obama say this, but he wants to keep indefinite detention (incarceration without charges brought).

I expected this of Bush, but not him.

(sigh)

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

http://rachelmaddow.newsvine.com/_ne...constitutional

I was disappointed to hear Obama say this, but he wants to keep indefinite detention (incarceration without charges brought).

I expected this of Bush, but not him.

(sigh)

Originally Posted by Some complete horses ass who posted a response to the article

It sounds as though Rachel thinks it's not only unconstitutional but evil that President Obama has embraced prolonged detention for terrorist suspects. Has Rachel stopped to think for a second and put aside her righteous banter and consider that there may be a good reason for President Obama to go down this route? Has Rachel possibly considered that our government and the President have more information than the general public? Maybe President Obama knows something that Rachel and the rest of us don't know, and that is why he has made this choice. You decide.

Originally Posted by My response to him as posted on the site

I'm sorry, but four lines in I just started hearing, "BAAAAAAH".

You never, EVER, assume that a politician is making a right decision unless you know the facts they do. That kind of blind, sheepish trust is what let some complete idiot like George Bush run this country into the ground for eight years. I voted for Obama, and I still think he's one of the better presidents we've had so far, but indefinate imprisonment and arresting people for @!$%# they MAY do is immoral. You are not psychic, and neither is Barak Obama. You can not prove that someone will do something in the future, and you certainly can't jail them for it.

You want to see an example of a government like that? Go read 1984 by George Orwell, then come here and tell me we should blindingly trust our leaders.

Fuckin idiots

[HumanePain]

Well done man, excellent response.

[Solumina]

I will say in Obama's defense that keeping it as an option is not the same as taking advantage of it. For instance we have all of those guys down in Guantanamo who are still being held because we can't place them (mainly because no elected official has the guts to let them be housed in their state) and you can't hold trial without having somewhere for them to go if they are convicted. Yes it is a bunch of crap and Obama should be able to just issue an executive order saying that X prison system will have some new inmates but as over crowded as our prison systems are it may take a while before we find enough places for them.

(Note this isn't to say that I agree, it just shows that it isn't strictly an terrible thing for him to have done)

[Despanan]

You kinda got suckered HP.


Article quoted:

"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."

Quote in full is:

"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."

He's talking about some of the worst inmates at Gitmo.

The author of the article you linked basically quote mined, and re-arranged sentences to fuel their anti-government rant, and exaggerate Obama's position to the point where it seems ridiculous. It's not.

That said, I do have a problem with this, but please appreciate the situation Obama is in. Because Bush went about this so fucktardedly and never declaired a full state of War, Obama is in a very poor position to deal with a bunch of POW's.

But mainly I think we should take this thread as an example of heavily biased reporting. You know how when someone says something sounds too good/bad to be true? That's probably because it's not.

Sol:

Carbon Leaf is awesome. I saw them live in Washington DC.

[gothicusmaximus]

Jack, I thought you didn't vote for anyone because you didn't want your "fingerprints on the trainwreck".

[Despanan]

Also:

Originally Posted by Obama

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.

Ie: Trial by appropriate legal regime (jury) and constitutional punishment. Indefinite detention is an option in extreme cases, but it's a last resort. Obama said this five times in the speech, this Racheal Maddow is either just an idiot, or is intentionally obscuring the truth to lend credence to her argument.

[Pineapple_Juice]

Question: do all of America's prisoners of war end up in Guantanamo? Like is Guantanamo basically a big fat internment camp disguised as a prison? Because I would assume that the people Obama is talking about-those who led Taliban troops and received training from Al Quaeda-are POWs, not that they've actually committed a specific crime.