Rachel Maddow challenges Obama's "PROLONGED DETENTION"

[galtgulch]

Here is the link to the 7:42 minute youtube video :

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/#18693

She sounds like she believes in the Constitution in this well made presentation.

www.campaignforliberty.com 22May 11PM 153,874; 23May 6AM 153,942

gulch

Edited May 23, 2009 by galtgulch

[Rich Engle]

I always liked her. She's got some fire in her belly. Nothing like a Power Lesbian.

Edited May 23, 2009 by Rich Engle

[BaalChatzaf]

Here is the link to the 7:42 minute youtube video :

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/#18693

She sounds like she believes in the Constitution in this well made presentation.

www.campaignforliberty.com 22May 11PM 153,874; 23May 6AM 153,942

gulch

The constitution is for us 'merkins and foreign persons here legally. It is not for p.o.w.s or foreign terrorists caught in combat. We had the right to shoot these people right off with no pretense of legal process. The constitution is NOT a universal document of rights. It is a legal instrument used to control the power of government (it is not being well used in that capacity at the moment) over its legal subjects and citizens. It does NOT apply to strangers universally.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I am flabbergasted that I agree with Madow about anything.

It is weird to hear her defend Bush and Cheney and attack Obama.

I will take that with a grain of salt for now. I want to wait for when she starts in on Obama with nonstop snarky ridicule (her normal journalistic rhetoric) to believe she has had a true change of heart.

One thing is for sure. Madow is slowly coming to the realization that President Obama is not run by principles, but by pragmatic common sense as his fundamental standard. This means he will try to do right as he sees it short-term, and he will be willing to sacrifice any and all supporters and principles in doing so. That's the nature of the beast.

The more we see of President Obama, the more I believe my original evaluation of him was correct: that he is (philosophically and practically) the left-wing equivalent of Richard Nixon.

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

Here is the link to the 7:42 minute youtube video :

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/#18693

She sounds like she believes in the Constitution in this well made presentation.

www.campaignforliberty.com 22May 11PM 153,874; 23May 6AM 153,942

gulch

I'll believe that Rachel Madcow cares about or believe in the Constitution if/when (fat chance) she attacks Obama for firing corporate executives or abrogating senior/junior creditor relationships with the bankrupt auto companies or abrogating contractual provisions for bonuses. If any of that is more due to Congressional action, then she should attack them too/instead.

As for prolonged detention, do any of you realize that the U.S. would have been within its rights to simply shoot these detainees at the outset, rather than transport them to Gitmo and hold on to them for possible questioning about terrorist plans? Which is better? To exercise the right to kill them -- or to carry out the supposed non-right to strenuously grill ("torture") them for information?

I fully expect Obama, who says that war is the last resort, to propose new guidelines to which we will unilaterally adhere, to fight wars left-handed, with one hand tied behind our backs. The guy is a charlatan and a blatant fascist (read Rand's definition), and Rachel Madcow is just engaging in a minor tiff with him over this. She fully loves and admires his trashing the U.S. economy and the right to contract and to engage in free enterprise. And her lopsided snarky smirky face drives me up the wall--even worse than logic and epistemology discussions on OL! I can't stand to watch her and haven't for months.

REB

[kiaer.ts]

The constitution is for us 'merkins and foreign persons here legally. It is not for p.o.w.s or foreign terrorists caught in combat. We had the right to shoot these people right off with no pretense of legal process. The constitution is NOT a universal document of rights. It is a legal instrument used to control the power of government (it is not being well used in that capacity at the moment) over its legal subjects and citizens. It does NOT apply to strangers universally.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Amen! (Except to being called a crotch patch.)

[syrakusos]

I am under no obligation to adhere to the Constutition; and neither are you... unless you happen to be a government official. From 2005 to 2008, I served on a county/city citizens board. In 2006-2008, I also served as precinct delegate to the Republican Party state convention, having been elected in an open primary. In both cases, we took an oath to faithfully discharge our duties and to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Two oaths apply in the military.

Oath of Enlistment

I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Oath of Commissioning

("Officer's Oath")

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

"One notable difference between the officer and enlisted oaths is that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders; while enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders, officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States." -- Wikipedia

The Constitution follows the flag. Bob Baal claims that the Constitution does not apply to "illegal immigrants" (whatever that might mean. So, if the police pull you over on a pretext and you cannot prove that you are a citizen, do they have the right to shoot you, to torture you, to enslave you?

I agree that armed combat creates its own context. Here in Michigan, police officers have more power than the state. We do not have capital punishment here but the police shoot to kill. That power does not include the right to torture suspects, to hold them indefinitely and incommunicado.

Guantamo today. Norfolk tomorrow.

http://www.norfolkfour.com/

In fact, actually, it was the egegious injustices like Norfolk that made Guantamo possible.