And so you know the political position of the person speaking these words:

Rachel Anne Maddow (born April 1, 1973) is an American radio personality, television host, and liberal political commentator. Her syndicated talk radio program, The Rachel Maddow Show, airs on Air America Radio. Maddow also hosts a nightly television show, The Rachel Maddow Show, on MSNBC; she is a former guest host of Countdown with Keith Olbermann and other MSNBC shows.

Maddow is the first openly lesbian anchor to host a prime-time news program in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Maddow

Does this crap count as news in the USA? It's like watching a tabloid newspaper on TV with condescension and sarcasm thrown in. Oh well, I guess news is just entertainment like everything else nowadays.

OT: In this speech he sounded a little like Bush, I don't like it. He seemed to push the Bush administration out of the way in this speech to attempt to establish his ideas as dissimilar. But he hasn't pulled it off well at all.

Anyway. I disagree that people should be detained indefinitely without trial and so I will not support the change if that turns out to be the case. To be quite frank the 3 months in Britain was bad enough, I'm glad it didn't pass.

this is very sad and doesn't make any sence.
It seems like now he's trying to out evil bush

Mafoo, can I ask you a question?

I see you talk alot about losing freedoms, and I would like to know how much is too much for you?

What do you think is the government role in this? What should the government (or dont do) to stop terrorism without taking away people's liberties?

Im not attacking, Im brazilian so terrorism isnt really a big problem here. Im just curious. I would like to hear alternatives. I know that I would never run for office, cause the responsibility of deciding something this important is something I wouldnt choose.

It's not really a big problem there either. It's often used as an excuse to push news laws and the like by sensationalising terrorism. But I would bet that even if 10% of the effort for pushing "anti terror laws" for the war on terror was the case, then there would still be as little deaths as a result from terrorism. And in reality if you want to get prioroties right for preventing deaths it would more wise to put the anti terror efforts and resources into a cure for cancer or something.

This is just my distorted viewpoint though, so don't take it seriously lol.

I dont know. You hear so much about what CIA, FBI, etc. do in the shadows, that sometimes I think that the only thing that kept more americans from dying were things like that.

Im not agreeing with it. Im just saying that if people want the government to never do anything shady, they have to accept that americans will die because of it.

Regardless of why, there are several groups out there who want to kill americans and I dont have a clue how to fight these groups.

I thnk technology is a way of doing it without harming someone, but there are privacy issues, so it gets really complicated.

The most important thing though, is that while we are talking about it, there are groups actively working to comit terrorist attacks, so the government has to do something.

Since we are dealing with humans who cant fully predict what their actions will cause, I say we take a step back. Instead of just blaming them and calling them names, we should devote more time to come up with something to do it wihout restraining people's liberties.

Man, thats a long post. Im not reviewing it for grammar errors.

lmao, just saw this comment on the video on youtube:

"Come on guys, give him a break. He didn't start the ovens, he's just throwing people in. Check the MIAC report to see if you have been included in his recipe for fascism."

Pretty searing, but LOL funny.

Depends on what we think the role of the US government should be in the world. I say we should be a player in world politics, but not the ones who shape world politics. Every US president in my lifetime disagrees with me however.

So, with that in mind, if you want to stop terrorism, it's relatively easy. Secure your borders better, and leave the rest of the world alone. Get rid of the 100+ military bases we have around the world, stay out of other peoples countries militarily. If this is a "war on terror", we need to treat the people in Gitmo as war criminals, just like any other war criminal. Try them, and punish them or send them home.

The constitution states we need a military to protect us, and nothing more. The US government has twisted that to include "forward defense". Forward defense means we can attack a country that we think will attack us. I say bullshit.

Make it known that attacking the US will unleash hell upon you, but until that happens, leave the rest of the world to be the rest of the world.

This used to be out policy, and it worked well.

You either die in the world by people funded from one of three countries. The US, Russia, or China.

So our allies on the middle east kill there allies in the middle east, and people start hating us as much as they hate them.

The answer, is to be a non player. No one wants to kill brazilians, and how you live your life on a day to day basis is basically the same as ours. The difference between the two countries, is you didn't go sticking your nose where it didn't belong.

I see youtr point , but 3 things to consider:

1) Theres a lot of people that already hate americans, so now they are actively seeking to kill americans. Wont they simply come after you? Which leads to : how do you secure a border in an effective way without being xenophobic?

2) In this day and age, where countries like Iran or North Korea can eventually build atomic bombs isnt it best to keep an eye on them?

3)What about genocide? Like Sudan or Bosnia? Are you for US intervention in these cases?