Talk Me Down! Isn't the idea of indefinite preventive detention radically unconstitutional?

My family has enjoyed sitting down together several times a week to watch your show since it began airing last fall. Rarely have we missed what is one of the most intelligent hours of commentary on television.

However, your May 21 show contained an extended segment criticizing President Obama's description of "prolonged detention" and it was frankly very upsetting. I wanted to let you know why.

Imagine it's 1943. Allied troops break into a command center for the Nazi Army and capture some high placed officers who personally assist Adolph Hitler. They pose a threat to the security of the United States. They have received special ops training at Third Reich commando centers, or commanded Nazis in battle, or expressed their allegiance in full to Hitler, or have otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. No peace treaty has yet been signed; as they are locked up as prisoners of war, they remain at war with the United States.

But in our haste to capture them, no warrant was obtained. Evidence was mishandled, and a criminal court would have a hard time, under the rules of normal criminal law, prosecuting these individuals.

In reality, those officers would be held as prisoners of war until a peace treaty was signed - eliminating the threat to Americans. They would then be traded back for our own POWs, unless they committed crimes against humanity. If that was the case, then a world court (ie: Nuremberg) would be convened to try them.

This is, in fact, the situation which the President described in his speech. I quote:

there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who've received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, or commanded Taliban troops in battle, or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.

The problem with the entire scenario of the detainees at Guantanamo is that the United States never formally declared war on Al Qaeda. So Bush had to create a new category - "enemy combatants" who became "detainees" and put in a special off-country camp - instead of using the well-understood "Prisoner of War" label and the "prison camp" structure.

Regardless of that error in the Bush "ad hoc" run up to the war, we are now faced with a few of what are indeed "Prisoners of War" in a "prison camp" to which we cannot be expected to apply normal criminal law rules. They continue to be at war with us. Figuring out some way to hold them, even when a crime cannot be formally charged, is equivalent to holding the worst of the Nazis in prison camps during WWII.

Your "Minority Report" analogy didn't apply because the government in that film was suspending normal Bill of Rights guarantees against its own citizens and not in a time of war. The analogy is more properly used in the case of the US government's internment of Japanese-American citizens during WWII for crimes the government thought they might commit in the future due to ancestral ties to our Pacific enemy.

Additionally, the analogy was ill-used because in the film the government used surveillance against its own people in order to increase its own power & reach in the lives of ordinary citizens. If the President wanted to do so, he would not be insisting on oversight by Congress and the Judicial branch (he used the word "oversight" five times). Also, the government in "Minority Report" created laws and changed their Constitution in order to break the law against their own citizens. In contrast, the President called for all three branches of government to figure out what legally can be done within the existing laws. He called this "develop(ing) an appropriate legal framework so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution."

But in labeling his call to do this essentially a post-Bush power grab, you totally missed the mark, as did your guest. He was "stunned" that those words were used. I was shocked that he would be stunned. Here is a man who has dedicated himself to upholding and teaching the existing Constitution - not to changing it to suit his need for ever-increasing power. Your guest spent two hours the day before in the same room as the President, as he took the unprecedented action of explaining his thoughts to people whom he knew would disagree with him to his face. Are these the actions of someone intent on breaking the Constitution as he attempts to bend it to his dictatorial will?

I believe in our haste to rid ourselves of the scourge of the Bush illegalities we may be painting too many people with too big a brush. Our intense vigilance can, in fact, get the better of us, and skew our interpretation of the intent and the actions taken by a new President. Please don't fall prey to these errors. Your need to be "talked down" is understandable. Your satisfaction that you were not, however, reveals the insecurity you feel when tempted to put trust in someone who should have legitimately earned it. The insecurity and mistrust feels so familiar because the former administration caused it. There are many villains in the stories of the past eight years, beginning with the folks who sit in black robes on our highest court. But please do not yet label the newest occupant of the Oval Office in the same manner.

It sounds as though Rachel thinks it's not only unconstitutional but evil that President Obama has embraced prolonged detention for terrorist suspects. Has Rachel stopped to think for a second and put aside her righteous banter and consider that there may be a good reason for President Obama to go down this route? Has Rachel possibly considered that our government and the President have more information than the general public? Maybe President Obama knows something that Rachel and the rest of us don't know, and that is why he has made this choice. You decide.

First let me say i love your show, and think it is telling me the truths on issues. in saying that i am concerned about this issue, that you have over blown it a bit, we should wait for the final law on this, before we jump down this Great President's throat. I think we have circumstances that are calling for a new way to deal with, these kind of threats and what he said didn't alarm me as you. because, he said he was going to follow the current laws to develop a new system. Great we need a new system, I don't think non US citizen deserve the rights and privileges we have, I don't think torture is OK on any level. we have a different kind of criminal here and they need a different kind of system that's all he said. very clear and very clear that the ideas are in the works, so yes, he is not stupid and he knows that the way left are going to be up on this issue. To bad!! just like the way right we need to come to the middle. I believe in him and what he is doing and or trying to do. Rachel Keep doing a great job, just don't go left wing-nut on me.

I can't talk you down when I agree with you ....

It bothers me that several issues seem to be waivering with our new president.

1. Don't Ask Don't Tell was the worst form of "stay in the closet" and out of my hair AKA Look busy, do nothing policy. I was hoping this president would do something. It is just sad that people who are ridiculously qualified have to hide who they are (made by God that way) or face being fired. I can not believe we are still discussing human rights in 2009.

2. I want him to stop trying to cosy up to the Republicans. They don't want to play ball.

3. Our prisons are fine for the existing people in GITMO. My concern, because it seems rather close to what you are discussing... is gang organizations. Just because they have in the past, and are prone to acts of violence, they can be detained for something they have not done yet.

It is scary and sets a precedence... and you just know a lawyer or in this case, more likely, a prosecutor/DA would argue this.... If it got to court

O.K. Obama formulated ad hoc justice after condemning it. But listen to the man. He inherited an unconstitutional mess from a criminal regime. His words and actions indicate a deeply convicted Constitutionalist as opposed to the facist tendancies of the failed Unitary Executive. I feel like I have escaped to the free world...without going anywhere! God Bless Him!

I'm a Vietnam veteran and I suppose you could say I'm a civil liberterian. For a long time, I've been concerned about how we handle the hardcore jihadist. Senator Feinstein solved my problem the other day in an interview on MSNBC. She said, "According to the Rules of War, a combatant can be held until the end of hostilities." I was not aware of this and have to say that it makes all the difference in my thinking about "prolonged detention". There is no "legal" way for us to declare war on jihadists. But, we are at war. No one in their right mind can deny this.

So, based on Sen. Feinstein's statement, we throw away the key on captured jihadists. Certification becomes very important in this case. Maybe it can be based on statements, maybe a lie detector test, maybe a "truth" drug. Obama's position that the certification will be from the executive and the legislative branch, and possibly the judicial ( can you imagine turning Scalia loose on this one! :-)) gives me considerable comfort. A holy warrior fades away when he goes in the ground, not before. Recanting does not seem to be an option because that is to impose a death sentence on one's self.

The Rules of War give us a way out on this one. The alternative is to free a person who has sworn to Allah to kill you. I think the Quran trumps Blackstone here. It is ugly and distasteful but it is the way the world is.

Ted

I'm a Vietnam veteran and I suppose you could say I'm a civil liberterian. For a long time, I've been concerned about how we handle the hardcore jihadist. Senator Feinstein solved my problem the other day in an interview on MSNBC. She said, "According to the Rules of War, a combatant can be held until the end of hostilities." I was not aware of this and have to say that it makes all the difference in my thinking about "prolonged detention". There is no "legal" way for us to declare war on jihadists. But, we are at war. No one in their right mind can deny this.

So, based on Sen. Feinstein's statement, we throw away the key on captured jihadists. Certification becomes very important in this case. Maybe it can be based on statements, maybe a lie detector test, maybe a "truth" drug. Obama's position that the certification will be from the executive and the legislative branch, and possibly the judicial ( can you imagine turning Scalia loose on this one! :-)) gives me considerable comfort. A holy warrior fades away when he goes in the ground, not before. Recanting does not seem to be an option because that is to impose a death sentence on one's self.

The Rules of War give us a way out on this one. The alternative is to free a person who has sworn to Allah to kill you. I think the Quran trumps Blackstone here. It is ugly and distasteful but it is the way the world is.

Ted

Rachel

-love your show. I appreciate your commitment to holding our leaders honest. No matter who is in the office we must not allow power to run unchecked again. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. However, if his actions begin to run counter to his soaring rhetoric of him being an advocate of the common man he must be called out and checked... As should anyone else.

Respect

This is fall out from the fact that Obama didn't call Cheney's bluff.

Cheney said publicly a few days ago that the policy of wire tapping, torture and other violations of the American Constitution(my words not his, obviously) were all defendable and legal. No-one moved on Obama's side to challenge that argument. That was a challenge. The Obama team really did not face that challenge correctly with his "Looking forward, not back" policy and now he's having to answer on the particulars of everything because the Republican are hiding behinds scare tactic words and pointing fingers.

Further more, Cheney has made it clear that it was the inner circle of the White House that made those decisions... A select few people... making constitutional decisions... by themselves... violating international agreements (such as the Geneva Convention)... Erasing international notions like the USA doesn't attack other countries or torture people.

By not pursuing "war crimes", constitutional violations, treaty violations and civil rights violations that went on under the Bush administration with more vigor, Obama and the Media, have allowed all these extraneous issues arise and have life. He's answering questions about topics that frankly I'm not sure they have really thought out yet. As long as the violation is tolerated in the root form, then it becomes very difficult to answer to a single or individual violation in another form.

I am no fence sitter... But I am not convinced (yet) that what Obama is saying is really a severe as it sounds. I think that what Obama is after is, as an example; the Canadian Dangerous Offenders Act. The act allows for a person deemed to 'dangerous' to be released to be held indefinitely. Originally designed to deal with mass murderers and those who have demonstrated they are dangerous in a sociopathic way (like a Terrorist) it allows for extended detention. A person who can plot to blow-up a building(even if they don't pull it off) can no longer be trusted in public.

"And so going forward, my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution."

As a Canadian... that Law does not frighten me. The Court obviously has to meet a huge burden of proof in these cases and the debate very public. The law and government needs to be able to act on 'grey area' cases. There are people who do things that exceed the generosity of society in general. Societies do need a place in their laws for (what I call) legal oddities like terrorists or plotters. The issue of the existence, creation and use of said law needs to be debated and formulated by the proper people. The Government and Law enforcement chain is there to do just that thing, not decided in a speech because the President has to answer to another Bush created mess.

I just believe that currently the republicans and the media have diffused the topic so badly that Obama is getting ahead of himself. Um' How good is your economic policy going to be when you are told in the middle of the night that the Banks are failing? and - you only have 8 to 10 hours to do something about it? Probably not very good.

Obama doesn't strike me as a power monger like "Dick" does. I believe, given the nature and tone of the 2 speeches President Obama gave was more in the "We are currently looking at the problem and want to do the right thing from now on" vain, not a lot more than that. President Obama has been hounded on issues not of his making. I think the President needs to create a sense of closure to the Bush era, which so far it has been unable to do. The Republicans should be busy answering for their mistakes instead of pointing fingers at the current administration or stirring up fear tactic defenses for every bad decision.

Dick has so intertwined everyone of his functions between the White House & CIA that he doesn't answer to anything. At all. "It was not against the law..." ? What? Why? because the President said it wasn't? The President isn't the Law. Defend yourself I say! If the are prisoners being held then the military must know why. Tell us. Show the proof and tell where or how you got it. Supreme Court Judges would do just fine.

As an example: we'll say (I believe-in part) that Obama doesn't want to walk down the road to having trials because it: A) looks bad to have a former President being held up on charges... yada yada and B) Because it exposes - "things". Well the answer to that is simply that A) If you break the law then you face the law and B) exposed "things" usually turn out to be more broken laws. If the Obama Government is going to tolerate these massive affronts to every American's rights by not correcting and defending the law, absolutely, in all it's forms, then yes... gulp.. I will concede that you're correct or on the right path.

If President Obama pressed on some of the "look back in anger topics" that are still in the american voter's psyche then looking ahead, he actually may find he has gained strength rather than lost any. People don't like to be lied too. Take for instance 'Nancy knew this, Nancy knew that' Come on, if your not going to deal with the jokers that broke the law, then why even talk about who or who didn't know?

You're my hero but you'll need more than what you gave me to pin a heavy handed rap on Obama. The only smoking gun is Obama's own in-action on this one.

Rachel, I understand your point of view about what the Obama stated in his speech but I do not agree. You have to understand that these terrorist are gonna seek habeas corpus in a trial and acording to the president the evidence "might be tainted", inwhich they would most likely win, and then what do you suppose we do with them then, what country is gonna take them? and as you know as a species we run on revenge in some kind of way good or bad and if you were imprisoned for years, for something you were accused of.... just something to think about, and I still love the show and that hairdoo.

Rachel, as I understand it, you're a Liberal in the purest sense of the word, so of course you'd call out politicians (muchless the POTUS) on such flagrant hypocrisy. I also understand that you hold a Doctorate in Poli Sci (correct me), so, likewise, you'd see/understand the, Only-Houdini-Could-Escape-This veritable straightjacket Obama has been handed.

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am/ Stuck in the middle with you.

President Obama has responded to, and acted upon, pressure from both sides. He turned over on the veterans' benefits. He forced a retracted statement from the Pentagon on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, " because of Ana Marie's polite pushing. Of course he's throwing the RePubs (does that mean we can go to the pubs, again?) some biscuits. I know, biscuits are boulders in the superhuman law of "truth and justice in the American way." But these asteroids are pebbles for the right "Superman." (By the way, you're the hottest Superman I've yet seen or heard) Keep putting the fire under his a** because this Prez has made it clear that the hottest fire is what he responds to.

Also, if you haven't listened to the entire "Carmina Burana," please do so. O Fortuna will not only make more sense in the context of its recent, manipulative usage, but will prove irony divine.

Yours,

S.E.W.

I can't talk you down because you are right. This is truly horrifying.

I used to watch you with pleasure,b4 you started demonizing obama! I totally disagree with you! What would you have him do with these people,If he releases them and they kill us then what! He did not create this mess.I also think he has enormous problems he inherited and is trying the best he can to deal with them,I also think there is probally more to this than we know.You expect obama to have the perfect solution to everything,He is a man trying to right all the wrongs of the bush years and we may not agree with every solution and he said that during the campaign! My other problem with you is Obama is dealing with problems with a schedule you seem to want him to work on them according to your schedule,and seem to be using your program to try to make him do what you want him to do when you want him to do it! The dont ask dont tell situation,he said he will correct it,but it has to go through congress,why didn't those guys keep there mouths shut untill he gets to it,or the one guy anyway.The whole world has problems they would like the President to work on first, he is not on Rachels time schedule,THANK YOU! Also what a cheap shot last night saying if Obama cant get congress to fund the closing of gitmo then maybe hes not a good leader! I believe you were told that they want details first, from several congressman,that seem reasonable to me. I think we need to give the President a chance,nobody jumped on bush for years and years until the last year,Obama is the most criticized and scrutinized and demonized President in his first 3 months than any president in history! The world was so proud of themselves for electing a black President only to expect miracles in 3 months! I think you are probally a good person in some cases trying to help people,but on the other hand you are very pushy! i use to watch your program with wine but now i watch it and cringe not knowing what your going to say bad about the President! I am usually a nice person,but you have pushed my buttons.ONE MORE THING,the guest you had on friday who weeks b4 said that black people are glad no one shot at Obama yet was a idiot for saying that! I know this letter is ranting and could have been written better,but you get the point whether you care or not!

Rachel is correct.

You apologists should also note that Obama has done nothing to reduce our Military footprint in Iraq. He has increased our presence in Afghanistan and is rattling his saber more loudly at Pakistan than even Bush did. Republicans lie. Democrats lie. Bush too was elected on a platform of a "Humble Foreign Policy". PLEASE vote for a third party candidate next time around. The Democrats and Republicans ARE the establishment! Escape the Matrix people!

The President has only just begun his first term of office. But I no longer buy the argument, "if you could see what I see, I get position papers daily", having listened to all the arguments to the run up of the Iraq war. Tony Blair used that one over and over, knowing that what he was saying was false. Only uninformed, gullible people think that what we see is what there is. We usually see only the tip of the iceberg. But position papers are written by people with their agenda, their biases. The CIA, the M15, are also capable of giving false positions. What remains is good sense, good judgment, a sense of fairness and justice, and yes, adherence to THE RULE OF LAW. When it seems that all is sacrificed on the altar of expediency, then hope fades, and hope is the last thing to go.

As I don't have access to all the classified materials, the discussions with military experts and foreign nations, I'll have to hedge on this one and hope the president is stalling for time on while working on something behind the scenes.

This isn't a reason stop supporting the president on other issues, but does deserve lip service (just not rabid) to keep the topic alive and pressure on to make a decision that supports values over fear.

If it comes down to a black and white decision, I'll have to side with the president based on his knowledge - that we don't have access to.

Kudos to Rachel Maddow for continuing to be hard on Obama, and kudo to David Plotkin for a good rebuttal. Exchanges like this is what will keep the discussion honest and provide us all with well presented and validly differing views and make us think harder about what we hear and observe. It's a whole lot better than had she gone easy on Obama.

Rachel is quite to the left of me, but she is honest and she is fair about the issues she brings up. People shouldn't cringe about the prospect of turning on to the show to potentially see a criticism of Obama. He is a much better man than George W Bush is, and it's those like Rachel Maddow who dare to keep him on his ethical toes who will be able to look back on themselves proudly many years from now, if all turns out well and Obama had proven the right man to steer the USA back to the right course toward being a good democratic country that others are glad to have friendly relation with, and know that they did their job well and weren't fooled by any misplaced sense of loyalty the way the Bushies of the previous era did. Honest criticism is the best policy... especially on the party one is cheering for!

Did Obama secretly keep these policies and ideas in his head before he was voted in? Where are these ideas coming from? Who is driving the the administration? Obviously we are not privy to these machinations.

On a slightly related note I have to say 9-11 has really done a number on the American psyche. Anyone living outside of America can see that clearly.

Smorg you say rachel is "quite to the left of me"

I say can we really group our values on a linear left-to-right spectrum ?

I don't see anyone as left or right anymore, it's just too restricting.

Love the show Rachel.

Rachel, you are doing some fine fear mongering on this issue! I read the speech before I saw your show and did not remotely conceive of your interpretation. If I want to listen to people misconstrue, misinterpret and twist Obama's words, I can always rely on Fox and friends. I am really disappointed in you.

I am disappointed in your reaction to what I considered a comprehensive analysis by President Obama of the realities that exist in the horrible situation at Gitmo. The fact is that the category of prisoner subject to indefinite detention is identical to that of a POW. As in the case of all POW's in US history, they will be repatriated (with some exceptions) at the end of hostilities and signature of applicable treaties.

Oops! Kinda falls apart here doesn't it, Rachel. No home nation, no end of war, no treaties. The president has no choice but to devise a new system to deal with a situation for which there is no precedent. His stated intent to have multi-agency oversight of whatever process evolves is a good start in the right direction. What I do not consider anywhere close to the right direction is to release them anywhere and I am frankly astonished that you apparently believe this would be the proper course of action.

My wife and I are moderate progressives and watch your show regularly. We would urge you not to conclude that your show is survivable without the support of viewers like us. Continue to speak truth to power, but please stay in the real world.

The precedent does exist with our incarceration of the criminally insane. We will need to put combatants who believe in comitting suicide in order to kill Americans in the same pot as our own home-grown nut cases. It works! Don't complicate the problem. OK?

The precedent does exist with our incarceration of the criminally insane. We will need to put combatants who believe in comitting suicide in order to kill Americans in the same pot as our own home-grown nut cases. It works! Don't complicate the problem. OK?

Mr Plotkin,

Don't you think that part of the problem, for generations, is the fact that we sometimes treat citizens and non-citizens differently under the law? At Guantanamo we potentially have a mix of prisoners of war, criminals, and innocent people. There are detailed guidelines for charging prisoners of war as, detailed in the Geneva Convention; whilst at war a country can still charge a POW, and if convicted the POW has to serve the sentence. Criminals who aren't citizens can be tried and convicted in the U.S. - many foreign citizens have. And the innocent can clear their names either way.

What Obama proposed is actually similar to what was proposed in the UK a while ago - I think it was called parliamentary oversight, and it was proposed to ensure that the proposed indefinite detentions are "within the law". It was rejected (instead we have a maximum of 28 days without charge, judicial renewals in-between) - partly because of the observed abuses of other special laws developed during previous years. Partly because many did not want to be identified with an indefinite incarceration system based on rumours or flawed investigations rather than evidence.

The laws introduced in the UK are used against citizens who look like foreigners. This has created a rather tense situation in the UK. When people argue that a law is against foreigners only, they seem to forget that foreigners are human beings, and sometimes might be innocent of any crime. And the person's innocence or guilt can only be clarified in a court of law - be it for a POW or civilian. Otherwise you have the situation in the UK were many foreign looking people, and sometimes foreigners, have been harassed and or detained extensively without being charged, and then released.

Obama's approach reminds me of Tony Blair's approach. Blair is also a lawyer, and his wanton disregard and abuse of the law has made the U.K. one of the most oppressive western countries to live in. I have read some of the bills or agreements that Blair has "eloquently" defended in parliament. The ID Card Bill cum Act is one of the worst. The March 2003 Extradition Agreement with the US is so embarassing and unbelievable that my colleagues didn't believe me when I told them about it; it has been ratified by the UK but not by the US, I actually think it is against US law, however the US does use it in the UK. The terrorism bills, the DNA database, the trial by jury debate, etc, underlined how authoritarian a labour government, albeit led by a lawyer, can be. Blair's "eloquence" (personally I thought it was mephistophelean rhetoric) was proportional to his oppressive intent. Disturbingly, parliamentarians vote in the bills. And then when the law is abused by officers or prosecutors - parliamentarians complain that they were deceived. It makes one wonder (1) do they ever read the bills, (2) do they not understand the art of rhetoric. Even more frustrating is the fact that these bills, and eventual acts, might have been worse if not for the efforts of the Lords, the unelected and much maligned upper-house.

The laws were "framed" and "constructed" to reflect British values, but to deal with non-citizens/foreigners [A wrong justification. Secondly, if it is supposed to reflect the values of the land, why are separate laws needed?]. Unfortunately the ugliness of these new laws become apparent to most when used against non-foreign looking citizens. Most recently against a parliamentarian (). It was sadly amusing to listen to parliamentarians protest so loudly. However because arrestee is an MP he was not detained indefinitely. Everyday people aren't so lucky. It was also used againsta heckler a few years ago ().

The bottomline is, it is wrong to construct a new framework that would legalise processes that we deem unsuitable to fellow criminal citizens. The President alleges that the evidence might be tainted, but goes on to discuss other evidence such as being trained in a camp, explosives training, allegiance to Al Qaeda, etc. Why can't that be used in the court of law? In spite of Blair's lack of respect for the judiciary, and the jury system, suspects have been tried without a problem and based on the afore listed types of evidence ()

Obama's talks remind me of Blair, a few of his manouevres have reminded me of Putin (if you read A Russian Diary by Anna Politkovskaya you'll understand why). However it would be great to be wrong - but that would only happen if he has constructive critics. It is quite important to keep an eye on President Obama, and critique his actions. (To lose one's temper occassionally is human)

By the way Green Dolphin, I think Obama's character and beliefs have been widely misunderstood. More another day.

Well, I have rambled enough. The point my tired brain is trying to make is that - we've tried a route similar to Obama's in the UK, and it has been disastrous for the country.

Goodnight

Rach, ya just don't GET IT!!! These people are trying (and succeeding) to kill us. You don't mind, but I do. It's too bad, but I prefer to do something about it. In a perfect world, which you seem to live in, none of this would be necessary, HOWEVER, it does appear the only thing that these 'humans' understand is either death (and paradise) or a TOTAL repudiation of their ideals. (i.e. Saudi Arabias reindoctrination) I'll take either one, but no more blue sky, why cant we all just along, isnt life wonderful, etc. etc. Our life, (& yours) are at stake.

Rachel,

You're comparing real life to a movie...but since you are, you have to understand that neither in real life or this particular movie is information perfect. Yet, it doesn't need to be perfect, it needs to be very near perfect. Why?

In the movie, it's a proven technology that is virtually perfect. Yes, someone may be wrongly arrested, but what about the hundreds or thousands of peopel correctly arrested and all the crimes that never occured and all the innocent victims that did not become victims. It's not perfect, but it's sure better then having thousands of victims.

Even with todays judicial system, we are not perfect...but we accept it, because it's the best we've come up with so far.

In Obama's speech, taken in a non-partisian context, is that we know what we know (metacognition), and that is this person has acted against our country, yet those in charge at the time screwed up and tainted the evidence, so we can't prosecute them and detain them through the current legal system (military or public).

BUT, instead of simply releasing them, we're going to retain them, because we know what we know. At the same time, we're not going to torture them while they are detained.

So, why are you getting on Obama for protecting America by not letting someone we know is going to continue to cause harm go. I'm sure if he let them go, whether by just releasing them or putting them through a costly court case that we know we'll lose (tainted evidnce), and they caused America harm you'd be all over him for that.

With you, he's in a loose loose situation, so I guess he'll take his lumps and keep doing a great job!

Enjoy,

Steve