Rachel Maddow Talkin Shit about Obama+Indefinite Detention[Warning, political thread]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Damn... that bitch is a retard. She was totally twisting his words.

From what I understand, Obama is proposing jailing people who are suspected of plotting against the US. I *sorta* can agree with this, but only if its on a more case-by-case basis. He states near the end that people will be plotting against America 1 yr, 5 yrs, and in all probablility, 10yrs from now (which is why we should jail them). She uses that to say that 10 yrs is the "timeframe" of Obamas "Prolonged Detention".

What a retarded bitch. Anyone else thinks she looks like a man?
 


hannahmcintyre said:
I laugh whenever you Americans believe that all your news channels except Fox News are left-wing.

They're ALL centre-right, except Fox News which is very right.

Also, this is quite possibly the stupidest decision ever. Land of the free my ass.
Click to expand...
Parents warned of Wikiporn risk - Technology - smh.com.au
PARENTS have been warned not to let children use the website Wikipedia unsupervised after an entry on a popular children's book was edited to contain pornographic material.
Sexual and violent acts between characters were added last week to the online plot summary for Mrs Frisby And The Rats Of NIMH, which is recommended for students in years 5 to 9.
Click to expand...
Optus has joined the Federal Government's broadband internet filtering trial, beginning a six-week evaluation which ends in early July.
The company is the eighth internet provider to join the scheme, piloting the filter in Sydney and Newcastle households.
Click to expand...

Go australia go ;)
 
Garrett said:
From what I understand, Obama is proposing jailing people who are suspected of plotting against the US.
Click to expand...
Which violates habeus corpus.

It's jailing people before they have even conceived, let alone committed a crime, which means there is no evidence of even conspiracy.

There can not be any rational standard which can be objectively applied if there is no material basis for the claim. It's basically a free for all.
 
guerilla said:
Which violates habeus corpus.

It's jailing people before they have even conceived, let alone committed a crime, which means there is no evidence of even conspiracy.

There can not be any rational standard which can be objectively applied if there is no material basis for the claim. It's basically a free for all.
Click to expand...

Well, if it violates Habeus Corpus, then Obama is kinda an idiot for proposing it. But at the same time, Rachel Maddow is totally putting words in Obamas mouth, which is fucked up because she is supposed to be reporting the facts, not her opinions.
 
Garrett said:
Well, if it violates Habeus Corpus, then Obama is kinda an idiot for proposing it. But at the same time, Rachel Maddow is totally putting words in Obamas mouth, which is fucked up because she is supposed to be reporting the facts, not her opinions.
Click to expand...

I really don't think she's stupid, but making a dramatic point to the argument that this is very wrong. Yes there are no specifics right now, but you can almost guarantee that these "cases" will not be seen in a normal court of law. It will be all behind the scenes, and if you let that happen who knows how long they could detain you for.

The possible implications of this are catastrophic. Change / broaden the definition of terrorist to say anyone whom speaks out against the government. All of sudden purely innocent people are being secretly "detained" for no crime. But how would you know? Trial was behind close doors.

Don't think it can happen? They change anything else (such as the definition of torture for example) to meet their current geo-political needs.

So while you can't seem to get her point (where does this stop, and how is this ethical) you sheepishly criticize her for no reason.

So no Garrett, she's not the stupid one - you are.
 
Rage9 said:
I really don't think she's stupid, but making a dramatic point to the argument that this is very wrong. Yes there are no specifics right now, but you can almost guarantee that these "cases" will not be seen in a normal court of law. It will be all behind the scenes, and if you let that happen who knows how long they could detain you for.

The possible implications of this are catastrophic. Change / broaden the definition of terrorist to say anyone whom speaks out against the government. All of sudden purely innocent people are being secretly "detained" for no crime. But how would you know? Trial was behind close doors.

Don't think it can happen? They change anything else (such as the definition of torture for example) to meet their current geo-political needs.

So while you can't seem to get her point (where does this stop, and how is this ethical) you sheepishly criticize her for no reason.

So no Garrett, she's not the stupid one - you are.
Click to expand...

I agree that detaining innocent people for no reason is very very wrong... and the implications of this are catastrophic, as you said. But Rachel Maddow is side-stepping the issues that need to be talked about. She is using her platform to say that Obama is trying to turn shit into Minority Report and whatever. I think Obama is just proposing that people who are proven terrorists to the US (Al Qaida, etc...) should be jailed before they can carry out their plans. Like you said earlier though, the implications of this are huge if it gets abused, which as we all know, is bound to happen.

I'm not taking sides on this one. It is a sketchy issue that is tough to deal with. Attack the terrorists and jail them before they can strike... or deal with it after?

I think it will take some sort of event to unite humanity before these problems ever go away.

Seacrest out.
 
guerilla said:
Which violates habeus corpus.

It's jailing people before they have even conceived, let alone committed a crime, which means there is no evidence of even conspiracy.

There can not be any rational standard which can be objectively applied if there is no material basis for the claim. It's basically a free for all.
Click to expand...


I knew that I should have just shot the mutherfuckers in the face instead of detaining them. Then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

BTW: I may be wrong but habeus corpus doesn't apply to non-us citizens/enemy combatants/insurgents/suspected insurgents picked up on a foriegn theater of battle.
 
Garrett said:
She is using her platform to say that Obama is trying to turn shit into Minority Report and whatever.
Click to expand...

Garrett said:
I think Obama is just proposing that people who are proven terrorists to the US (Al Qaida, etc...) should be jailed before they can carry out their plans.
Click to expand...

Which is minority report.

The whole point of having courts and a legal system is to prevent the government from arbitrarily administering justice.
 
medicalhumor said:
at least the left media is holding their own to be accountable for their actions, unlike the 'fair and balanced' bullshit from fox. you never heard Hannity hold bushtard accountable for anything

AND, they did it on their own. it's not a reaction to any accusations from the right.
Click to expand...

Maddow is the only lefty that I have seen this on. Chris Matthews is still getting tingles up his leg and Colbert is still screaming about something Bush did in 03.
 
guerilla said:
Which is minority report.

The whole point of having courts and a legal system is to prevent the government from arbitrarily administering justice.
Click to expand...

Garret is wrong(or at least not exactly right), that's not what Obama is proposing. He's proposing that we hold enemies engaged in a war against us just as we have held prisoners in every other war we've fought. We should hold them according to the Geneva Convention(even though our enemies won't adhere to it) which means we can hold them until hostilities cease. This is what he said: "Al Queda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States and those that we capture, like other prisoners of war, must be prevented from attacking us again" So was it wrong to hold Germans, Italians, Japanese, North Vietnamese, Korean, Iraqi, and all the others that we've held captive during war?
 
This is actually quite interesting. Let me tell you what is going on in Singapore and Malaysia. There is this thing called the Internal Security Act which basically let's the government detain people for an extended (2yrs) period of time without a prosecution. Both countries are considered semi-democracies for this reason. A semi-democracy is when either proper election or civil liberties are missing. You guys are moving towards becoming a semi-democracy.

When it comes to the censoring of the Internet here in backwards Australia, what else would you expect? Remember that post a while back where some numbnut claimed the Internet belonged to the US, and some of you guys jumped on a bandwagon claiming that I was "preaching" false commoditization through government regulation? Well, guess what? Censorship in Australia, confiscated domains in the US, US businesses "influencing" Swedish police and legals in the case agains TPB, the list goes on. This is why we want the Internet to be governed and regulated by a supra national organisation that is insulated from crony capitalists.

You can try to pick my argument apart, but I would have to say that if you do not agree with me, you do not understand what I am talking about.
 
LogicFlux said:
Garret is wrong(or at least not exactly right), that's not what Obama is proposing. He's proposing that we hold enemies engaged in a war against us just as we have held prisoners in every other war we've fought.
Click to expand...
Then there is no need for a secondary legal system. The existing systems would suffice. He's talking about constructing a system outside the Constitution instead of using existing law, modifying existing law and using international law.

LogicFlux said:
So was it wrong to hold Germans, Italians, Japanese, North Vietnamese, Korean, Iraqi, and all the others that we've held captive during war?
Click to expand...
Holding a soldier, someone who has declared their hostility to you, is significantly different than holding someone (a non-soldier like many of the people at Gitmo) suspected of possibly being hostile in the future.

If someone has committed violence, throw the book at them. If they plan to commit violence and you can prove it, throw the book at them.

If there is no proof of even a conspiracy, it's a dangerous precedent to hold people in extended detention.

During WWII Roosevelt rounded up Japanese and Italian Americans (citizens) and stuck them in internment camps just because they were Japanese and Italian. That's the way government thinks. Give them a big hammer, and everything starts to look like a finishing nail.

Really, it's all for show anyways. Obama is still conducting Rendition, which is the method the CIA devised for this particular problem under Clinton. Just send problem people to Syria where they can be tortured for a couple years until their minds are destroyed. Problem solved. I think Gitmo was mostly for show and domestic posturing. Far worse torture goes on at Baghram by all reports.
 
erisch said:
You can try to pick my argument apart, but I would have to say that if you do not agree with me, you do not understand what I am talking about.
Click to expand...
I understand your argument intimately. Better than you do.

When you place monopoly control of the internet in a political body, you will destroy it. There is no supra-national organization of super smart scientists committed to upholding human rights and all civil liberties.

That is a farce. No one could even get on one of those committees without being compromised by corporate interests.

The beauty, freedom, power and resiliency of the internet is that it is decentralized, and there is no master node, or committee planning future architecture. This means the internet functions freely, organically, without being particularly American or British or French or German or Japanese or whatever.

The reason why people supported keeping the control in it's current (American) state, is that it is being dealt with in a laissez-faire manner. The power is not being abused, and it is barely even being used.

A supra-national committee will immediately try to regulate, plan, legislate and control the internet, sticking their fingers where none of us want them.

You have to understand what so many people in the 21st century have forgotten from centuries past. The power to regulate, is a monopoly power. Monopolies NEVER serve their constituencies (no competition).

If you want to reduce monopolies, get the government, licensing, barriers to entry out of the way. The minute you allow them any control, they will claim jurisdiction over the entire thing as the Aussies are experiencing. In the name of the children. Of the poor. Of the uneducated. Of the racial minorities.

All of those tired old social guilt trips they have been laying on us for decades.

Fuck the progressives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xmcp123
guerilla said:
Which violates habeus corpus.

It's jailing people before they have even conceived, let alone committed a crime, which means there is no evidence of even conspiracy.

There can not be any rational standard which can be objectively applied if there is no material basis for the claim. It's basically a free for all.
Click to expand...

I believe that habeus corpus only applies to American Citizens, but i could be wrong on that.

Chances are, if they're at GITMO in the first place, they aint exactly painting churches as a full time job. Lets get realistic here. They're capturing people who are known to be associated with terrorists, or terrorists themselves. They arent exactly involved with Noble Piece Prize winning activities.

ALSO

Notice how Obama has been swinging more center-right, FAR from his extreme left backing. After getting support from the left, including the media, winning the election and then being briefed on what the real deal actually is, he was swung towards the right. Now the media is upset, because Obama isn't exactly the puppet they once perceived him to be.
 
guerilla said:
I understand your argument intimately. Better than you do.

When you place monopoly control of the internet in a political body, you will destroy it. There is no supra-national organization of super smart scientists committed to upholding human rights and all civil liberties.

That is a farce. No one could even get on one of those committees without being compromised by corporate interests.

The beauty, freedom, power and resiliency of the internet is that it is decentralized, and there is no master node, or committee planning future architecture. This means the internet functions freely, organically, without being particularly American or British or French or German or Japanese or whatever.

The reason why people supported keeping the control in it's current (American) state, is that it is being dealt with in a laissez-faire manner. The power is not being abused, and it is barely even being used.

A supra-national committee will immediately try to regulate, plan, legislate and control the internet, sticking their fingers where none of us want them.

You have to understand what so many people in the 21st century have forgotten from centuries past. The power to regulate, is a monopoly power. Monopolies NEVER serve their constituencies (no competition).

If you want to reduce monopolies, get the government, licensing, barriers to entry out of the way. The minute you allow them any control, they will claim jurisdiction over the entire thing as the Aussies are experiencing. In the name of the children. Of the poor. Of the uneducated. Of the racial minorities.

All of those tired old social guilt trips they have been laying on us for decades.

Fuck the progressives.
Click to expand...
<3
(that is all)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom