*isdupe>> ^xxovercastxx:

dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Rachel-Maddow-Obama-Advocates-Indefinite-Detention

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Rachel-Maddow-Obama-Advocates-Indefinite-Detention

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by xxovercastxx. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

This report aired in 2009 sometime, a few months into Obama's presidency. There are clips from it in this sift here: http://videosift.com/video/Minority-Report-2-Indefinite-Detention.

Maddow would never be allowed to present this report now.

TSA in the near future:
http://videosift.com/video/Terrorist-Pre-Crime-Detector-Field-Tested-in-the-U-S

When did I argue for the illusion of safety? I was just trying to answer honestly... Of course I would FEEL better if I didn't know someone was carrying a gun because I would have no obvious reason to fear them.

Did I say that was better then carrying it openly?

What I was arguing is that I believe I'm safer in a system where no civilians are allowed to carry guns because if I did see someone with a gun, I would immediately know they have bad intentions because they are breaking the law just to be carrying it. Thus I could take action immediately instead of having to figure out their intentions.

I find it kind of sad that you think the US 'beats' Canada on some rights because people are allowed to walk around with unloaded guns. Ya that's a great right you have there, it's really working out well for you guys.

Sorry I think I'll give up that particular right in exchange for no interception of communications without warrant, no secret military trials where me or my lawyer can't see the evidence, or no indefinite detention of foreigners etc... oh, and free healthcare.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^PalmliX:
Well technically I would feel safer because I wouldn't know they were carrying it. So I'd have no immediately obvious reason to fear them. Does that make it better? I suppose it depends on a lot of things.
In Canada there are permits to carry a weapon but it's basically to impossible to obtain one. Essentially the only time a civilian is allowed to OPENLY carry (never concealed) a weapon is in extreme wilderness areas where their life could be threatened by not having one.
So basically that leaves us with a situation where the only people who are allowed to carry guns in Canada are police officers. Personally I appreciate this approach more then the American one because if I saw a civilian carrying a gun I would immediately know it was illegal and would be able to defend myself properly.

In paragraph 1 you're arguing for an illusion of safety rather than actual safety. You might feel safer being unaware of how many guns are being carried around you, but you actually are safer if you're aware of them, because then you can respond accordingly.
Re: paragraphs 2-3...
I guess it's nice to know that the US still beats Canada on some rights, because we're not doing so well on most of them.

http://videosift.com/video/Minority-Report-2-Indefinite-Detention

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Sounds like you still believe we live in a democracy. Obama went into office with the intention of ending torture, restoring habeas corpus, ending the patriot act, ending the war in Iraq and creating public health care system. He was not allowed to achieve any of these things in earnest. If Ron Paul were to be miraculously elected in 2012, he would encounter all the same roadblocks to the parts of his agenda that do not fall in line with corporatism.

I agree that RP would hit resistance left, right and center to damn near everything he stands for.

I disagree that he would be giving speeches 2 months into his administration endorsing habeas corpus free, prolonged, preventative detention.

Hate RP's positions all you want, at least he sticks to them.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'rachel, maddow, barack, obama, guantanamo, bush, indefinite, detention' to 'rachel maddow, barack obama, guantanamo, bush, prolonged detention' - edited by xxovercastxx

Family is family, right?

I've been saying Obama is a Republican for a while now and it's telling that Republicans hate him as much as they do.

Let's review...
- Endorsed indefinite detention, charges not required
- Supports preemptive war and nation-building (Congressional approval optional)
- Nationalized Romneycare
- Lowest taxes since the 50s
- Gitmo is open for business
- Supports Military Tribunals for accused terrorists

What exactly are the Republicans so pissed off about? That someone from the other team enacted all their policies for them?

@NordlichReiter it's always amazing to me how many things right-wing people (and like it or not, you're definitely one!) try to blame Obama for that originates from Bush and conservatives generally.

Case in point: indefinite detention.

I'm annoyed that Obama and the Democrats haven't made this a big front-burner issue. But honestly, I'm annoyed that Obama and the Democrats don't seem to understand how to really drive the national conversation about public policy at all. Their big victories (outlined by Rachel), were all the result of Democrats focusing on inside-the-beltway posturing and maneuvering, with little or no salesmanship aimed at the American people.

That said, here's the state of play: the Constitution says you can't do what Bush did, the legislature hasn't ratified what Bush did, and the case that went before the Supreme Court was ruled narrowly, rather than broadly striking down the Bush legal justification for indefinite detention.

Now, suppose Obama really believes it's best that we try to not get into a nasty partisan game of finger pointing game over this issue, but also wants to close the door on this sort of thing permanently.

In that situation, would he a) talk to every journalist he could about this, and give speech after speech about this, b) seek some sort of toothless legislative remedy to a non-legislative issue c) promise not to do it while he's President, and pretend that's good enough, or d) keep making the legal arguments of the Bush administration in court until some judge somewhere actually reads the Constitution before making a decision?

He seems to have chosen a mixture of C and D.

For example, this case has nowhere to go but the Supreme Court, and it will be forced to respond to the claim that Boumedine doesn't apply to Bagram.

As far as I'm concerned, the only mistake Obama is making about this is that he isn't using this as a political weapon to destroy the Republican party. Instead he's giving them a bailout, by trying to quietly clean up their mess, without drawing attention to just how big a mess it really was.

I'm kinda puzzled that civil libertarians are giving the Obama camp such a bum rap for testing the Bush legal theories in court. Do they believe the Bush legal theories will win the day? Do they believe if they aren't unequivocally struck down by a court, that President Palin won't resurrect them? In short, are they now putting forward the bogus idea that simply kicking Bush out of the White House was all we needed to do, and that no one will vote for a maniacal President again?

@blankfist, umm, which liberals support preemptive war? For that matter, which liberals think bailing out corporations is something we love, and need to do more of?

I don't understand why you seem intent on disputing what overlap there is between liberals and libertarians.

Neither of us want a war on drugs.

Neither of us want a war on terror.

Neither of us want our government to be able to wiretap us without a warrant.

Neither of us want our government to torture anyone, for any reason.

Neither of us want a global military empire.

Neither of us want corporations to be unaccountable.

Neither of us want government to be unaccountable.

Neither of us want to discriminate against people.

Neither of us want to limit free speech.

Neither of us want our government to be corrupt.

Neither of us want indefinite detention without trial for anyone.

You dispute many of these, for no rational reason that I can discern.

There's plenty of stuff that we really disagree on that we could debate. I'm not sure why you can't seem to find a way to argue against my real positions.

For example, I think government should make sure children's toys don't have lead paint on them. I presume, since this is a law "against free individuals who have not created a victim", you are opposed.

What do you propose we do to keep children safe from lead paint on children's toys?

>> ^volumptuous:
Wait. What American citizen has Obama assassinated?
And if I remember correctly, not only has Obama signed documents over a year ago to close GITMO, but he's also pushing for criminal trials of terrorists. But, it's the congress that is holding this shit up, not Obama.
So, maybe Dr.Paul here needs to have a R3VOLUTION to push these things forward. Not just give a fucking speech on an empty house floor.


He has made more dark and insidious the evils of the past administrations. Indefinite detention without trial is his, he owns it. Closing one prison to open another 5k miles away in Afghanistan is no great achievement for the ideals you would say he pretends to espouse.

He also has to own up to the fact that the current CIA director is saying this out in the open and hasn't gotten a rebuke from the administration. The director position is an appointed one, so any problems that stem from the CIA are tie back to the executive branch...the president is ultimately responsible for their blunders.

>> ^JiggaJonson:
How can you say "We need a commander and chief not a law professor!" and get applause? So what? The laws in this country aren't valuable but someone who makes bold idiotic decisions is? Wait, it all makes sense now!
p.s. Regan put us in a worse recession than Bush did, not something to celebrate.


agreed jigga.
the problem is americans collective short term memory and the majorities abject failure in not only knowing recent history but understanding its full impact on their own civil liberties.
habeas corpus is a british law enacted in 1250 a.d for the specific purpose of right of redress.
start tampering with that and the government can charge you with anything and your right to face your accuser in a court of law is toast.result=indefinite detention.
the "war on terror" is an arbitrary term with no definitive goal nor specified target.the "enemy" can be anyone or anything the government deems a threat.this can lead to wholesale abuse considering the the "war on terror" is actually a war on ideology.
historically speaking,it is not uncommon nor unimaginable that when a government is granted power it will always use that power and in many instances against it's own citizens.
the real problem in my opinion is when you add up americans lack of historical knowledge and our collective ability to forget and the corporate medias total failure to address politicians who flat out lie or manipulate facts to fit their narrative,we find ourselves dealing with a powerful cocktail of ignorance and fear which political parties use with amazing proficiency.
the majority of american people have given authority to the corporate media to tell them what to think and how to think it.until they realize that the mainstream media had utterly failed,and that journalistic integrity has been forfeited for ratings and profit we will see more sarah palin like politicians in the future.

Repeat a slogan enough times and it loses its meaning. Then you can do the opposite of what you said and nobody is supposed to notice.

"Change we can believe in" becomes "indefinite detention."

>> ^blankfist:
I wonder how NetRunner will vote.

Pretty Good.

>> ^Deano:
Not so good so far. He's doing great as a celebrity but I'm not hearing about "real change".

What were you expecting to have happened already?

>> ^gtjwkq:
I'd vote terrible, he's doing everything wrong regarding the economy, nothing else he does will matter if the economy gets screwed.

You repeat whack-job talking points well! I'd be grading him as "Awesome" if he'd already done so much to "screw" the economy from your point of view. Tell me, are you a Friedman-style monetarist, an Austrian Business Cycle Theorist, a Neoclassicist, or just an asshole?

Mostly though, MrFisk has it just about right. I'm still waiting to see what he's able to do on several fronts. I'm shocked at the savage and vicious attitude of his opposition. I think he's doing fairly well, though I see some areas of concern (unwillingness to investigate Bush administration, willingness to continue indefinite detention, willingness to deal with crazies Republicans). Mostly though, it's a hell of a shit storm to sail through and I trust in his ability to keep us afloat.