I love Rachel Maddow

[CatWoman]

but she seriously needs to pull that stick out of her ass.

[Parker CA]

1. Comparing things to Minority Report was beyond a stretch. n.t

[neverforget]

2. You're right. We don't have the "precogs" yet.

[polichick]

3. She asked the question I had in mind all day...

How can President Obama use a speech about the rule of law to talk about a new program for prolonged detention??

[latebloomer]

4. Exactly, this is very disturbing

and, if this were GWB, this place would be up in arms about it.

[Hieronymus]

10. Damn right ... I was anticipating this thead, even as Rachel was speaking....

Wrong is wrong, regardless of who does it.

[CatWoman]

13. thank Goddess I didn't disappoint you

[polichick]

28. Amazing, isn't it?

[MissDeeds]

30. Yes it is

And I agree, DU would be screaming foul if a Republican president was saying this.

[Solomon]

83. Get a clue. Republicans wouldn't be telling you anything.

Obama is telling you about an accute problem that they are trying to work through. Why do you think it bothers him? For the same reason that it bothers you. But he's the one the has to do something about it and at least he's filling you in on it so you can get your whine on. Otherwise you can go back to the peaceful era of Bush when problems are too sophisticated to let the stupid public know.

[Raineyb]

85. Telling me you intend to disregard the law in a speech in which you talk about

returning to the rule of law doesn't make indefinite detention any more palatable. It doesn't. I don't give a damn who the hell proposes it.

[Solomon]

90. He said no such thing. Jump to conclusions do you.

He explained the problem and said they were worjing on it. Giving you the chance to whine like you are doing. Hope you enjoy your whine.

[Raineyb]

92. Working on it meaning a mechanism to bring in both the judicary and the legislative branches

into a scheme to indefinitely detain people without having convicted them. There's not a goddamn thing wrong with my comprehension. Although it is painfully apparent there is something wrong with your manners. You can take your whine comment and shove it up your ass.

[eleny]

5. I'm with you...

And it's not just the words spoken with the echoing atmosphere of the hall where he spoke. Although that certainly didn't help.


:scared:

[polichick]

25. It really was eerie. :/

[Parker CA]

6. Until a solution is crafted in the Obama admin, what alternatives are there to deal with these

people currently being held? The evidence has been trashed bc of the methods it was compiled under. Should they be set free? Should they be tried under tainted evidence? I hear the bashing of this idea, but I have not heard a cogent argument for a viable alternative.

This is not directed at you specifically, rather, a general set of questions since I haven't seen a complete answer yet.

[Clio the Leo]

12. Thank you, took the words out of my mouth.

Since Rachel isn't offering any solutions, what do you guys think?

That's not an invitation to debate, that's a SERIOUS question. Idealism is WONDERFUL, I'm all for it ... but we also need practical applications.

[Clio the Leo]

58. and still ........ I wait .............................. NT

[Gregorian]

18. I guess my answer would be in the form of a question. What makes them different?

If there is no evidence in a case, what do we do now? If the unibomber's evidence couldn't be matched to his crimes, he'd have probably been acquitted.

And if there is no evidence, then would these detainees be detained forever? And why?

I do not see why these people should be treated any differently than any other suspects.


Another point- Let's just say we're walking down the street and someone comes up to us and says they want to kill us. We run to the police and tell them we've just been threatened. Could the police arrest someone for doing that? Maybe I'm behind the times, but I have always thought that until someone committed a crime like assault, they were still considered innocent. Unless we've turned into a country of thought crime laws, I don't see how these people can be considered guilty of anything worthy of incarceration.

Either I'm very brave or stupid, or this is a country of pathetic weaklings. I hate to talk like that, but I hear Thomas Jefferson whispering one of his famous quotes about safety.

[Clio the Leo]

21. Because they're prisoners of war......

... and subject to different "laws" or standards if you will.

I think that's where the problem is, we're taking POWs and expecting to treat them as if they're criminal defendants.

Now, if you dont think that's fair or right or just ... I suppose that's one point .... but then that begs the question of how do we hold foreign born nationals, captured on foreign soil, to American laws? If we dont treat them as POWs, that's basically what we'd be doing.

[Gregorian]

35. Was it a war?

Or was it a war crime?

I was thinking of what you have said while I posted. I see the context of their incarceration. This was supposedly a war zone where they were perhaps enemy combatants. Or was it, and were they?

I've seen enough real journalism on the Middle East to know that what happened at Abu Ghraib was not wholly just. There were completely innocent people who were thrown in jail and mistreated.

The legal justice of war tribunals is far from being constitutional in the civilian sense of the word.

The problem I see with everything that has happened since 2000 to 2009 is that it was a house built on a crumbling foundation. Bush stole an election or two, for starters. Just what was legitimate? The attack on a country that was not an imminent threat? Rumsfeld is indicted in Germany, for those who have forgotten. How far do we have to back up in order to erase the taint on the country? Is Justice Roberts even a legitimate Supreme Court justice? I'm sure that starts to sound like crazy talk. But there is a question about just what was real and what wasn't. Election fraud, revealing the identity of a covert CIA agent, and the list goes on for miles. I can't stop looking back. It's a disaster back there.

So what do we do with Bush's disaster? Take it out on a group of people in some makeshift prison in a makeshift court?

[Clio the Leo]

40. But even if you want to argue that they weren't captured in a war zone....

... they definitely weren't captured on US soil. (And I realize that we're dealing with lots of parties and lots of circumstances so there is not just ONE scenario.)

The only detainee I'm aware of who was captured for doing something on US Soil was US citizen Padilla who has been tried and convicted in a US court. And then of course there's the shoe bomber, also a US citizen convicted in a US court of attempting to bomb a US bound plane.

That's the root of the problem ... folks are wanting the President to take foreign born nationals and prosecute them in US criminal courts for crimes allegedly committed on foreign soil.

And, while I'm no Constitutional law professor, apparently THAT is wrong.

See? It's a whole big miss.

WHY cant we just make them all go live on Bush's ranch and be done with it!!! lol

[Gregorian]

50. To Crawford!

And then the majority of detainees were already released. So how does that square with uniform treatment of the accused?

It IS a mess. And something tells me Obama is several squares ahead. I just wish we could get to a place where common sense and the rule of law stand on their own two feet. This is getting tiresome. I honestly thought we'd be in the middle of war tribunals by now. But then I was a fool who voted for Kucinich in the primary.

[Clio the Leo]

52. lol and *I* just wish he'd call me up and 'splain it all to me....

.... I couldn't post it HERE of course as it would be confidential .... but I could IM it to folks. :)

[Jennicut]

63. Its a huge mess. Obama is using several ways to deal with different types of

prisoners. I do agree Bush should deal with them. Give him something to do.

[Elidor]

91. No, they're not prisoners of war.

That was the whole point of Camp X-Ray: denying prisoner-of-war status to the prisoners.

Did you defend any of this when Bush was president?

[polichick]

22. I agree - we're either a nation of laws or not.

[Clio the Leo]

32. And then men being held are not US citizens nor were they captured on US soil...

.... therein lies the problem.

For clarification, I am NOT saying that they, as human beings, do not deserve to be afforded the basic human rights that the Constitution believes should be guaranteed to all mankind. But the fact of the matter is, we're expecting to hold them to laws that weren't written with them in mind.

It's not as simple as we're trying to make it seem.

[choie]

88. These are goddamn human beings!!!

If they were sold to us for $5,000-25,000, tortured and then are we are unable to bring them to trial or tribunal because evidence against them was garnered through torture - they need to be released. Period, end of subject. How would we feel if our sons were kidnapped by some foreign army and then detained with no possibility of release? For god sake. Let's face it, WE FUCKED UP. and the only just thing to do is to create some mechanism to release them.

[The Hope Mobile]

64. White House Contact information!

Lets do this!! I don't want my country run by banks and corporations anymore. I want the criminals from Bushco prosecuted. I want real healthcare and financial reform. I want caps on credit card rates. I want health care for all thats as good as congress has. I want DADT revoked. I want investigations into Bushco's crimes. I don't want more rhetoric. Why aren't we flooding them with faxes, emails and calls??

Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: [phone]
TTY/TDD

[WestSeattle2]

67. You need campaign finance reform first....

Until we change how we finance campaigns, we'll have nothing but legislative prostitutes in Washington D.C.

Well, for the most part. There are a few honest souls there, I don't want to trash all of them.

[The Hope Mobile]

77. I agree with you but right now our only option is to attempt to hold

them accountable. If we throw up our hands then we're going to continue to be railroaded like we were with Bushco.

[bertman]

68. Parker CA, here's my attempt at a viable alternative: Since we cannot, by law, just kill

these people we are holding without convicting them of something. And since we don't seem to want to try them. Why don't we just take them back to Afghanistan where they were captured or where their pissed-off brother-in-law turned them in for the reward money, AND LET THEM GO.

If they're Al Qaeda they'll go back to Al Qaeda. If they're civilians who aren't terrorists, maybe they'll go back to their lives.

Either way, they're no longer being held illegally and we don't have to worry about them escaping from Gitmo or Leavenworth and nuking Manhattan.

[Gregorian]

11. I'm still in shock over this. Yours is the first post I've seen here on it. Very important.

What he proposes is more than a little frightening. I can't just assume that Obama is playing some intense and convoluted game of logic. At some point this is going to have to make some sense. Like Rachel said, not even Bush went there.

We have a Constitution. And he's a constitutional lawyer. So what is he trying to do?

[polichick]

24. At this point, you can't even tell he's read the Constitution. I don't know...

...what he's trying to do. With each decision, it gets stranger.

[firedupdem]

27. So you understand the constitution and the rules of law better

than the President? Or is it he's not doing what you want him to do?

[Clio the Leo]

33. Quick! Tell me! What article is he in violation of ...........

... no peaking! (smile)

[napi21]

16. I don;t agree with Rachel tonight. IF what we've been told is true,

and the detainees they're talking about have consistently professed aliance with al Qaida and full intent to rejoin the fight to kill as many Americans as they can, I think they can & should be kept in prison. That's a THREAT! Maybe prolonged detention is not the proper term, but I sure can understand why you wouldn't want to just send them back to their home country to try again!

[The Hope Mobile]

78. They shouldn't be held without trial nor should they be released.

They need to go through the judicial system. We know that a huge percentage of them (I have no idea how many) were innocent. Holding them indefinitely just makes us look bad and makes them and their countrymen angry with us. Its counterproductive.

[amborin]

66. imho, O is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't

he's got the rethug smear machine running full blast, lying and spinning and attacking....plus some dems who aren't that much better

we have to close Gitmo....but it's also a political pandora's box....and if O were to move too much toward truly adhering to the rule of law, all hell would break loose from all the rethugs, etc.....

terra is the mantra they've used to con americans for 8+ years and many americans swallow it

[polichick]

87. imo it would help to move toward prosecution of Cheney & Co...

...since you can't have it both ways ~ saying the rule of law matters, except when it doesn't.

[Syrinx]

7. I think she's right

And I'm really beginning to wonder if the new boss is the same as the old boss.

[Cleita]

17. It does remind one of the Gulags of the Soviet Union and

since his speech is so unambiguous in syntax and use of words, there's no confusing what he said like with Bush, who was unintelligible most of the time. It does make you wonder.

[MissDeeds]

36. Prepare for incoming

:hide:

Good point, by the way.

[firedupdem]

45. She's right about what? Obama is wrong and the same as bush

so what is the alternative? What should be done with the people at GITMO?

[Clio the Leo]

47. I volunteered to take in ONE of them...

... as long as he was cute and could cook.

I'm on record as saying that like two days ago .... it's there ... yall can go look it up!

One is really all I have room for. I'm sorry.

[firedupdem]

54. You are crazy!

:rofl:

[Clio the Leo]

57. I'm tellin ya ..... I'd even get the man some half way fashionable clothes. NT

[Political Tiger]

8. Unfortunately, she seems to need to use fear as a talking point

which doesn't help her case when she complains about pukes using fear.

[Clio the Leo]

9. Criticizing the President is WONDERFUL....

..... seriously. I'm PROUD of the fact that one the symbols of the liberal media :) calls the President and leader of her party out when she feels the need.

But criticizing the President WITHOUT offering an alternative solution is a cheap shot, IMO. Granted, the whole notion of prolonged detention is a bit smarmy ... but what would she rather him do? I certainly dont have a better plan so I'd LOVE to hear what she thinks we should do with these men. I have yet to hear her offer any constructive advice on the matter.

And I bet this Vince Warren is Issikof's secret source from last night. ;)

[Parker CA]

15. Clio, I agree 1000%. Not trying to shut the discussion down, but it helps credibility matters

a great deal IMO when the person arguing the methods or concepts has some alternatives of his/her/their own. So far, I have not been able to find one, either from Rachel and her guests or anywhere else for that matter. There is a reason Obama said multiple times that this aspect of the Gitmo detentions is the most difficult to sort out.

[firedupdem]

20. It is a cheap shot. She means for it to be a cheap shot. What is the

alternative? Let the people loose? If they weren't terrorists 7yrs ago, I'm not sure of what they may be now. One thing about this President. He knows the constitution and values it. He inherited this shit and there is no easy fix. It's really easy to sit back and nit pick because you don't like him anyway..but at least she could pretend to have an alternative solution. Ugh.

[Clio the Leo]

26. And WHERE are all the constitutional lawyers on DU?

Is what *I* want to know .... as many have pointed out "he's a Constitutional lawyer ... why is he doing this?" Well, maybe because he's a constitutional lawyer, perhaps he knows better than we do? Sorry if some view that as my showing deference to "Beloved Leader" but it's the truth.

I sell wedding gowns for a living. If Barack Obama walked into my store and tried to tell me that my bride's veil was on incorrectly, I'd respectfully suggest he go sit down somewhere .... well, I'd tell him to go find some flat-fronted pants and THEN go sit down somewhere.

... until we had a question that involved constitutional law and THEN we'd need him! :)

[Parker CA]

29. Even if she didn't personally have an alternative, raising the question, even if only in a

rhetorical manner because there isn't a solid alternative, to her guest, the man from the constitutional group, would have made her arguments and accusations more valid and interesting to me.

Obama said today in the speech that this aspect of the detainee cases is the most complicated and that his group of legal advisers is looking for an answer to the issue that will fall within the rule of law. Unless someone else has an alternative that he can apply, I think the latitude in exploring options is very necessary.

[firedupdem]

34. That's what makes it a cheap shot to me...

If these people have the expertise and knowledge to know he's not doing the right thing....than what is the right course of action? I don't watch her show...I'm just chiming in based on the comments here. :)

[Parker CA]

39. That's all I'm asking for. And if a viable alternative does not come up in the discussion,

I think it's appropriate for a critic to admit the complexity of the situation and to recognize the difficulties one may face in ultimately crafting both a legally responsible and morally responsible solution.

[firedupdem]

Exactly. Most of these critics fail to point out the complexities...

it's easier to just disagree and call people names. They fail IMO

[Parker CA]

46. Well, IMO they succeed with their one-sided rants, but fail framing an incredibly

complex situation in a balanced manner, but so be it.

[Clio the Leo]

37. lol, well then, someone get Mr. Holder on the phone now!

Tell his legal team to fire up the Macs and PCs! 'Cause We got all the answers right here on DU!!!

Well .... except we dont have any answers at all.

I was REALLY hoping that she'd have an alternative opinion on that segment ... I love Rachel and I love her show but she's too often lacking in letting us hear the other side in a debate. That's all well and good when we're bashing Republicans, but it would have been nice tonight.

That's one thing I love about Chris' show, even if it's Uncle Pat spouting some BS that even HE doesn't believe, you can at least hear the other side.

[Parker CA]

41. Better be careful with that term, 'bashing,' Clio. I was taken to task and it was suggested

in another thread that I may not be one of "our own" (DU's) because of my use of that word in regards to Rachel's critique of this situation.

;)

[Clio the Leo]

44. lol, no no no, I'm talking about BASHING Republicans which...

.... last I checked, was something we could all agree on! lol

There is NO bashing of Democrats ... just lots and lots and lots of friendly banter! :spank:

[Parker CA]

48. Oh, we can all agree on it!!! I didn't have any idea I needed to be so selective with my words, but

I shall try to withhold my uses of bashing only for references regarding the pukes.

[avaistheone1]

82. He did not seem like he valued the Constitution with his FISA ruling.

[Raineyb]

86. We can't lock people up indefinitely because people who weren't terrorists 7 years ago

may be terrorists now after what we did to them. It's wrong. Frankly, we should probably let them go and hope like hell they decide to move on and not come after us in revenge for what we did to them while doing all we can within the law to prevent that from happening. But locking people up indefinitely without a conviction of some kind cannot be considered an option and twisting our governmental workings in order to give such blatantly wrong detention the veneer of legality is definitely not the right thing to do.

[Tarheel_Dem]

70. Sorry Clio, but I thought Rachel was an old Naderite.

..... "seriously. I'm PROUD of the fact that one the symbols of the liberal media calls the President and leader of her party out when she feels the need."

And if anyone here is waiting for solutions from Ms. Maddow, you'll be sorely disappointed. Solutions don't make for ratings.

[Clio the Leo]

73. lol, lemme rephrase that....

.... "the symbols of the liberal media calls the President and the leader of the party with whom the right associates her."

better?

[Tarheel_Dem]

75. Perfect! (nt)

:toast:

[Towlie]

14. Towlie casts one vote for Rachel Maddow. (and adds "say it ain't so, B.O.")

[truedelphi]

31. I vote for her by sucking up and turning on the idiot box to

Watch her.

If she weren't on, I wouldn't watch it.

[Clio the Leo]

19. What I loved were the commercials all day where she's gonna ....

.... chastise the Senate Dems for not backing the President with the Gitmo vote.

That's going to be interesting .... it's a sticky wicket home fries! A sticky wicket!!!

Lol, I'm SO CONFRUSED!!!! :crazy:

[CatWoman]

23. you're killing me, Clio

:rofl:

[Uzybone]

38. What bothers me is the way the media all sees this as a game

When you are wearing a surgical mask looking like a fool one segment and then sternly talking about the rule of law in the next segment, it makes this all look silly.

Leave the snark and comedy to Jon Stewart, at least he is a master of the craft.

[Clio the Leo]

42. Nah, I like the snark.

Surprise surprise..... if it weren't FOR her charm, she's pissed me off so much lately I prob. WOULD turn her off ... well, that and the fact that I agree w/her 80% of the time.

And I dont want to watch Hannity. :)

[Phx_Dem]

43. I don't know if she can. I think it's wedged in there pretty good. n/t

[dorkulon]

49. Yeah, what a jerk, scrutinizing the President's words and criticizing them like that.

You mean you love her when she focuses her criticism on Republicans.

[Clio the Leo]

51. .... without offering another solution.

... and I'm still waiting for someone here to suggest one.

[dorkulon]

53. So what? She can't throw up a red flag without a legal proposal?

"Full of criticisms but not offering solutions" Is the weakest response to a critic. Case in point: The Bush-bots used this same defense against us all the time.

Besides, the solution is simple: Prove they are guilty or release them.

[Clio the Leo]

56. No, criticizing on such a complcated matter without offering even ONE alternative...

... is weak.

Anyway, we've covered all that ^^ up there.

[dorkulon]

59. The alternative is to FOLLOW THE LAW.

You don't have to come up with anything new. What I've noticed is that people get angry at Rachel because she has enough integrity to cast a critical eye on whoever is in power, whichever party they belong to.

[Clio the Leo]

61. Oh good! So you've found the part of the Constitution that pertains to....

.... foreign born nationals committing war crimes on foreign soil! Good! We've been waiting for this answer all thread! .... But dont waste your time on me, quick! Call the White House as I'm sure the President would like to hear a quick and simple answer as well!

And if you'd READ this whole thread, which, I'm thinking maybe you haven't, you'd have seen my remarks applauding Rachel for criticizing the President when she disagrees with him....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8424595&mesg_id=8424624

My problem is that she's over-simplifying the problem and not offering an alternative solution or a chance for the White House to defend their side .... sure, she doesn't HAVE to do that .... but she's a fair minded and intelligent journalist, and I expect more of her. ;)

[redqueen]

89. Fair minded? After a few of the stunts she's pulled lately...

not so sure about that.

[Clio the Leo]

55. lol! Wait a minute!!!

So she makes clear at the end of the Gonzales segment that the show, as any good journalist should, contacted his office offering him a chance to go on the record and defend himself(and because he's a big wuss, he declined) ..... so are to assume she ALSO contacted the White House offering them a chance to defend themselves? Too funny.

For cryin' out loud! Where's Austan Goolsbee when I need him!?


GRRRRR!!!! ...... I love ya Rachel, but you're making me go "GRRRRRR!!!" a lot lately.

[Clio the Leo]

60. And on a side note........

.... YES Mr. Gibbs, MOVE Ana Marie up the front row!!!!

Let her knock out one of those stupid network tools or ..... dare I say it ........ Helen!

[jenmito]

62. K&R. David Gergen just praised Obama's speech for taking such a complex issue and

talking about bringing it within the constraints of the Constitution.

[O is 44]

69. Thanks for that tidbit....

I gave up on CNN, I disagree with Gergen on many of his assessments, but I agree with him on this issue.

As for Rachel, I admire her smarts, but she does seem to be using partial statements made by the President and then blasting him, she missed the major point of his speech today, which is that this is a mess. Name me one previous President in history that was handed such a mess on all major fronts. It would be nice if she offered a solution, I wish the civil liberties guy would have stated option.

[Clio the Leo]

72. ... or one who promised such oversight ......

.... name another President who promised such oversight of HIMSELF.

I think we've all become a bit spoiled already.

[JamesA1102]

65. She loves bashing Obama

And she's completely mischaracterizing what he said. That's why here ratings are tanking.

[Clio the Leo]

71. Yes, I have just now finished watching the speech.....

... she totally left out the part where he said, "IF we used this method...." ;)

[jillan]

76. Thank you!

I just posted that in another thread.

Obama said IF and When that needed to be done it would be done with oversight, within our constitution and our value system.

Jeez - talk about cherry picking parts of a speech to make your point. (referring to Rachael, not you ;) )

[Tarheel_Dem]

74. No one I know, outside DU, even bothers with Rachel anymore. I turned

her off in the primaries (because her predictions were ALWAYS wrong), and doesn't sound as if she's improved since. She came out of the gate really strong, even besting Keith's ratings sometimes. But like her radio show, she just couldn't hold 'em.

[cagesoulman]

79. Stick in her ass? She doesn't swing that way, dude.

:evilgrin:

[Tarheel_Dem]

81. ...

:popcorn:

[FrenchieCat]

80. I like her some of the times.....

and at other times, I have to turn her off.

But that's just me. :shrug:

[Syrinx]

84. I would like to retract my earlier comment

But I finally saw the President's speech, and suddenly I don't know what Rachel was talking about.

The speech was great, and I like the president again. :)

I shouldn't allow Rachel to do that to me.