Holy cow, Rachel...

[Subdivisions]

She is livid about Obama's "prolonged detention" policy. I completely missed this angle when listening to his speech today. Hindsight is 20/20. I'm rather disturbed about it myself.

Comments?

[Parker CA]

1. She's speculating on many levels. She's comparing this to Minority Report. She's

not offering even one suggestion as an option to a situation that many people have admitted is clearly the most complicated. Bashing works for me when alternative solutions are presented. So far, I have heard zero.

[mmonk]

2. Its not complicated. You either have evidence to charge someone

and take them to trial or you don't. It's the basis of western law.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. There's also western basis for holding dangerous people for prolonged lengths of time

Mentally disturbed people, for example. Or perhaps more fittingly for the context- prisoners of war.

[mmonk]

7. What military do all these detainees belong to?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. Well now that's the problem, isn't it?

What country do you repatriate them to if no country wants them back?

[mmonk]

18. What is the problem?

All of them are not refused reentry back to their home country. Do you hold them in prison the rest of their lives with no charge?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

8. Wrong on the mentally disturbed. Hearings have to be held in a court of law.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. You have hearings, but you don't charge them with crimes or jury trial.

More of a tribunal, really.

[mzmolly]

15. People can be hospitalized for X amount of time, via a Dr.s recommendation.

Think Britney Spears.

[shadowknows69]

9. How can you keep prisoners of war if the war is never going to end

We're fighting an ideology not some enemy that is eventually going to surrender and sign a peace treaty.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. True.

But what do you do with the prisoners of such a conflict?

[Blue Meany]

16. I expect that just about anyone held under those conditions

for so long would be mentaill disturbed in some way.

[votingupstart]

Evidence - what standard

even if we sort out what type of prisoner they are - what standard are we holding the evidence against them too?

[shadowknows69]

5. +1

[Blue Meany]

19. Yes and if you strongly suspect that they are terrorists but

you couldn't prove it in court, you let them go and keep them under surveillance. It's done all the time in other countries and its one of the ways they break up plots. Maybe one of them will lead us to osama bin laden.

[Parker CA]

27. In these cases the issue is often that evidence has been tainted due to the manner in which it was

retrieved. What is the solution in those instances? I have no idea, that's why I'm asking. Set them free is a simple and idealistic answer based on a black and white reading of the situation, but as Obama said in his speech today and has said multiple times, this specific set of detainees and their cases complexities that have been compounded for a whole host of reasons.

You suggest we set them free and monitor them. Do we do that in the US? The backlash from the GOP would be worse than anything we've heard yet. They don't even want people in max-security prisons. There is no chance these people will simply be set out on US soil to go back to normal life. Their home countries often will not accept them. Other countries don't want these people free on their soils. Options are limited.

[Generator]

14. When the hell did criticizing the president

become "bashing"? That was what the right always accused us of with Bush. And they called us haters. And now any one that disagrees with Obama-especially on DU gets called that by "our own". Supposedly you know, you.

Why is that? Is about supporting a team, a hero, or actual ideas and policies? Because I goddamn assure you, Rachel Maddow is as educated as anyone pundificating on teevee. You may disagree with her completely but:

Bashing is superifical.

Hating is personal.

Not liking polices of leaders we elect is neither.

[Parker CA]

21. My choice of words is my choice of words, the point is not that critique should not be allowed. I

certainly think it should be. My point is that during her rant and discussion with her guest, a professional with a constitutional group, not once was the idea of an alternative raised. I respect critique of policy and method when someone offers at minimum an alternative, and if that does not exist, that the critic admits the complexities of the issue at hand and further admits that they don't know what they would do.

Your sly insinuations that I am not one of "our own" are juvenile and completely take away from the point of your retort, which if phrased in a slightly less aggressive manner may have been more effective.

[Mari333]

3. Thank God someone is calling him on it nt

[WeDidIt]

6. She's way off base over it.

She claimed he was going around the courts right after he said the framwork would involve the judicial, legislative, and executive branches.

I'm thinking this will be something along the lines of FISA based upon his words. And it wouldn't be necessary had the likes of Kalid Sheikh Mohammed not been tortured.

[Gregorian]

23. I hope this is the case. As much as I find this disturbing, I still have trust in Obama.

But this sounds far worse than a two week retroactive search warrant. Obama is talking about a hypothetical decade of detention for "guiltless convicts", if I may put it in those terms.

[hootinholler]

12. They can be held as prisoners of war in humane surroundings

Within the bounds of our treaty obligations. I think they can be held in that status pretty much indefinitely.

-Hoot

[Mari333]

17. its an occupation not a war nt

[malaise]

20. DavidSwanson had a good thread earlier today

The Gonzo signing off on torture explains why they covered his back for so long.

[dorkulon]

22. All I know is I'd hate to be one of the innocent ones. They're never getting out. /nt

[Gregorian]

25. "Guiltless convicts"? I have to wonder how unconstitutional Obama would be willing to go.

I fully suspect Obama is not the ogre this scenario plays him out to be.

[dorkulon]

28. But how can we know if they're innocent or not?

Nearly all prisoners protest their innocence. Would the administration take a chance on releasing anyone, given the inevitable public response?

[Gregorian]

29. Maybe the question should be whether they're civilians or enemy combatants.

Because unless they're proven guilty, they're innocent. I have a problem when it comes to calling them enemy combatants if the invasions into the Middle East were not wars. Admittedly, knowing next to nothing about law, I don't know under which they fall. John Walker Lind is in jail after a military tribunal.

Perhaps Maddow is making much about little. And maybe this talk only pertains to a small group. But this seems to be a direction that has broader implications.

And then ultimately there is the question of innocent people spending time in jail. The burden should be on us to prove guilt. It's all too easy to lock people away. That's what made this country stand apart from the world.

[Mari333]

24. CCR spokesman

Vincent Warren, Executive Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, met yesterday with President Obama. He released this statement:

CCR attended the meeting as did ACLU, Human Rights Watch, Charlie Swift and others. The president did not preview his speech for us. The president was very open in hearing CCR’s concerns on a range of guantanamo policy issues. I came out of the meeting deeply disappointed in the direction that the administration is taking and I don’t see meaningful differences between these detention policies and those erected by President Bush.

May 21, 2009

[jillan]

26. Did I miss something today? Perhaps I should go back an read Obama's speech, but I thought

he said that this was a possibility, not something he is definitely going to do.