(Untitled)

[anothermarcus]

Hooray for Obama giving a wonderful and inspiring speech! (I actually mean that, btw.) However, my enjoyment of every clip of the speech I've seen is seriously hampered by the two out of focus figures sitting behind him, so obviously waiting for the next cue rise to their feet and pretend to be inspired into paroxysms of applause. As a speaker,

Comments

[granolachica]

You might have seen a link about this on my facebook, but I also think someone needs to tell him that he should probably NOT keep going with Bush's understanding of the legal rights available to detainees. Maybe he just didn't get the memo.....

[anothermarcus]

I agree -- although from what I understand that was specifically about detainees in Afghanistan not having Constitutional guaranteed rights, which, though I definitely think they should have equivalent rights, the legal grounds for claiming people captured and held by our military in foreign countries where we are (kind of technically?) at war being owed Constitutional rights is.... well, isn't it the Geneva Conventions that has authority there? How can one argue our Constitution has authority in situations like that

[granolachica]

You're right that it's the Geneva Conventions, not the Constitution, that's the authority. And what the crux of my beef with all this nonsense is the use of the term "unlawful combatant." Under the Geneva Conventions (as I understand, this could be completely wrong) countries in conflict don't have to give rights to unlawful combatants. The trickiness comes in how we define unlawful combatants. One factor which used to help define someone as an unlawful combatant was whether or not they were wearing a uniform when caught doing whatever naughtiness they were up to. But in today's warfare, we're pretty much the only ones wearing uniforms. So is this a factor worth keeping? The Bush administration would say yes because it gave them the opportunity to pretty much snatch anybody with a gun and say "look, no uniform and gun = unlawful combatant! we don't have to give them squat!" Which isn't necessarily accurate. I'm sorry if I'm not being coherent...basically I'm saying that I resent the Bush administration using dated definitions

[anothermarcus]

Oh, but there's this:


Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

So... That's kinda good, right? (Have I mentioned that I would totally become a lesbian for Rachel Maddow?)