Left-wing MSNBC pundit Rachel Maddow has aired a surprisingly penetrating critique of President Barack Obama’s new prolonged detention, or preventive detention, policy, a policy announced in Obama’s May 21 speech at the National Archives. Under this policy, suspected terrorists may be held indefinitely by the executive branch without trial, based on the presumption that they may commit a crime in the future.

How good was Maddow’s critique? It is so good, and so dead-on, that every patriotic American should see it. There isn’t a word in the seven-minute critique with which any conservative who respects Creator-given inalienable rights would disagree.

For those of us on the right, it’s a pleasant surprise to see at least one leftist holding Obama to the same standard the Bush Administration was held by the left. In this case, Maddow is holding Obama to the standard of the U.S. Constitution, and the Anglo-American 800-year legacy of common law liberties.

As a life-long leftist and Air America radio host, Maddow should be seen as an unlikely opponent of the Obama administration. It may not happen again.

I’m a conservative who took some flack from neo-conservatives for criticizing President George W. Bush over the past eight years, and I know how partisan push-back works. It couldn’t have been easy for her to stand up for the Constitution on the most Democratic of national news networks.

Maddow’s segment on Obama’s speech reminds me of an animated street debate I long ago witnessed during a rally where a leftist was arguing with a handful of young conservatives about some issue that I’ve long since forgotten. But I remember this bearded, middle-aged leftist man being peppered with questions from enthusiastic conservatives. The leftist man had made some correct factual statement that they had contested, and I told him that I agreed that he was correct on this minor point. The increasingly frustrated man replied without irony: “For that one moment of brotherhood, I am truly grateful.” Maddow’s segment on Obama’s “preventative detention” policy makes me want to tell her: “For this one moment of unity, I am truly grateful.”

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (8)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

zambraneisrta said:

	... Enough is enough. Seriously, seriously how much more repression can we take? Enough, stop it, stop it. Where is this all headed? This beautiful country is being recked completley ruined by an elite group of ego mongers... God please step in!
	report abuse vote down vote up

May 24, 2009
Votes: +6

Jennifer Eileen Stillings said:

	... It seems that our President believes that the Judicial and Congress overrides the Constitution rather than that they are restraint by it. What is the rule of Law if it is not adherence to the Constitution? The scary thing is that most may think this only applies to other-nationals and that it will not apply to American citizens.
	report abuse vote down vote up

May 24, 2009
Votes: +6

us and them said:

	duh u think? funny rachel didn't see through the rhetoric before she cast the ballot for the new stalin!
	report abuse vote down vote up

May 25, 2009
Votes: +2

DUSTOFF said:

	... If we catch guys on the battlefield of Iraq or Afghanistan indefinite detention I believe is a good thing. I am just worried that this would carry over to include U.s. citizens. The Taliban or foreign Al Queda fighter do not deserve the protections granted by our Bill of rights.
	report abuse vote down vote up

May 25, 2009
Votes: -1

Urban Plebe said:

Citizen Rachel: That sound that woke you from your slumber, that you thought was simply a bird flying into a window, was actually someone breaking into your house. I hope that you may totally awaken so that you can stop the intrusion. But, be careful....if you go too far, you might be considered "fair and balanced" and we wouldn't want that. That might cause Olbermann and Mathews to lose their jobs

report abuse vote down vote up

May 25, 2009
Votes: -1

Ron Warrick said:

What about Let's keep our heads, Ms. Maddow. Let's keep things in perspective. We invaded Iraq with very few dissenting voices, including the left-leaning media, when Iraq was about to be invaded - killing, wounding and displacing - thousands of civilians, because of what we feared Saddam might do in the future, period. I don't recall any of the dead getting a trial first. A person who cannot find a responsible government that is willing to admit and protect him is the closest thing to a non-person there is. He is probably as well off in detention as anywhere else. No one said the framers of the Constitution thought of everything. The Constitution can be changed by ratification by 37 states. Prohibition was ratified in a little over a year. I think a reasonable Amendment of this importance and popularity could be ratified in a matter of six months. Ron

report abuse vote down vote up

May 25, 2009
Votes: -4

Jane said:

... Ms. Maddow I appreciate your thoughts. Honestly, had you not pointed this out it would have gotten by me without notice. Thank you! I was very angry about this for a few days, but, then I understood what a pickle he is in. We know detainees were tortured, some held without cause. Suppose those tortured were the ones held without cause. I still don't agree with this solution. Seem's like to arrive at a solution thinking outside of the box is required.

report abuse vote down vote up

May 25, 2009
Votes: +1

Ivan Price said:

This gal is not stupid. Well…well…well. A big crack just ran through the liberal structure. When your own people point out how wrong you are, that's trouble! Maddow is not entirely stupid. She's done her homework and has informed herself. Besides an excellent understanding of the Constitution she should also be commended for making sense of that jerk's blathering. Have you ever heard such gibberish? Yet another speech that wandered around and around in circles.

report abuse vote down vote up

May 26, 2009 | url
Votes: +0