I can't find any decent sources other than this, but the vid was posted today.
Found the transcript, there, no more context errors.
I can't be bothered to watch the video, because I'm dumb as hell. Can someone explain to me in text?
Wow fuck off Obama. I thought you were cool.
Alright, I read some more of the thread, and GunFox's post. Not really sure what to think.
I am losing more and more respect for Obama every day.
It's the NWO! Illuminati! Police state! Oh teh noes
Just some reporter giving us lines from the speech out of context to make it seem more crazy
Yet it doesn't make the things he said about the Bush administration any less true.
So when people protesting are classified as domestic terrorists they will be detained without trial?
Quite a biased report, only picking out points which are disagreeable.
I though GB meant Great Britain until I watched the video.
I don't know what to think. On one hand, if they have accurate intelligence that a person is a future threat to national security, they should be able to detain them or whatever. And it sounds more transparent and legal than the Bush administrations process.
On the other hand, it is still not 100% justified, and could have some casualties due to inaccurate or misleading intelligence. Plus, it is basically the same system the Bush administration had, but with a democratic spin on it.
And I don't believe this is a plan that is "more fucked up than anything before". That is being a bit dramatic.
This is just like that whole military detainment thing. If I recall correctly it specifically said it can't be used on U.S. citizens. Definitely a sensationalist headline
Oh conspiracy nuts
Isn't this really old? I read about this years ago.
I hope this is all just taken out of context or something.
Isn't this reporter always being overly sensational about everything?
Okay so here goes. Please bear with me, I am going to take the side that most are not likely to agree with, but please realize that this is a shittier situation than most care to recognize.
So you have a person that is not a citizen or currently residing in your country. He is not a soldier or affiliated with any government. He is in a foreign nation, hostile or otherwise, but is actively taking action against you. We'll say he makes IED's and then either attempts to supply them to domestic terrorists in your country, attacks allies, or simply attacks your people inside allied territory.
Intel reports back that he is responsible. You deploy special operations in the dead of night, bust into what is obviously an IED producing facility, and kidnap him. Yes, kidnap. Soldiers lack actual legal authority, so they are kidnapping him. Remember though, makes bombs in order to kill your people. They yank this person out of his facility, drag him back to an extraction point, and get the hell out of dodge, before his friends figure out what has happened and raise hell.
Now we reach a problem. Again, stay with me, I really am not trying to be a dick.
What do you do with this guy?
You know that he made bombs. You have access to the intelligence and photos needed to prove it. The soldiers on the ground all can file after action reports which report that he was captured inside a bomb making facility.
But you can't prove any of that to a civilian court. A civilian court in the United States requires evidence, and that is evidence you can't provide because it is highly classified and you could literally get your sources killed. Whats worse is the evidence back at that factory? Gone. Either blown up by an air strike or dismantled by other members of the opposing force. Not to mention the area is likely hostile to the extreme and sending in forensic teams would simply get them killed.
Civilian courts also require jurisdiction and that your rights be read to you. These soldiers still kidnapped the person, they did not arrest them because they are not law enforcement officers. That is not their job. The point of the military is that they neutralize threats OUTSIDE of the laws of other countries. You also can't exactly provide them with a jury of their peers because their peers have no legal authority to serve as jurors. They also have no business judging a person for crimes committed against your people.
There are provisions for dealing with soldiers, but these people aren't soldiers. The rules not only don't apply, but they don't actually work.
Sooo you can't put them on trial. Executing them is obviously a bad idea. Whhaaaaat do you do with them?
Really, what do you do with them? Because so far, the best idea has been to just hold onto them =/
Did they seriously use a movie as a comparison?
IIRC MSNBC is left leaning, so I'm not sure why they don't just report it without the fear mongering
More FEMA camp bullshit.
I'm just going to watch the speech for myself
What a shit reporter
who dat bitch talking shit about b
Isn't that the same self declared reporter who said Sesame Street and The Muppets were "liberal brainwashing"?
Never would I have expected this 4 years ago. What a shame you are, Obama.
Commentary != news. Seriously, I might as well have listened to Bill O'Reilly. (I'd take his commentary over Rachael Maddow's any day)
I didn't watch the whole thing, but I'd assume it's yet another "reporter" blowing that NDAA thing way out of proportion.
I wish she would just shut up and play the speech. No one cares what she has to say.
Thought she wasn't crazy. Color me surprised.