Tonight, on the Rachel Maddow Show, Maddow is discussing the issue of Habeas Corpus and whether these rights should be given to "third country prisoners." Although Obama has said before his election that he wanted third country prisoners to retain human rights and access to a courtroom trial, he is now repealing the rights of prisoners in Bagram, Afghanistan, a Guantanamo Bay kind of prison.
This is one of the first times I've seen Rachel Maddow disagree with Obama, so as a Communications student, I find this coverage especially interesting. As someone who is known as one of the most influential liberal news anchors, it is kind of a big deal that she is having such a large segment discussing the negative outcomes of the decision Obama made on Friday.
Maddow is worried that Obama will follow the Bush Administration's lead on interrogation of prisoners. In addtion, she noted how many policies Obama has agreed with Bush on lately, which seemed to trouble her. She hopes that Obama will rethink his decision before everything becomes official regarding the issue later in the week.
Although this is a tough issue since it involves morals and ethics, I agree with Maddow, and not Obama. Even though the prisoners of Bagram are indeed, prisoners, this doesn't mean they are no longer people in the eyes of the law. Whether one is a prisoner on United States soil or in Bagram, he or she deserves proper treatment, in addition to having an option to have a fair and equal trial.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I myself like Rachel Maddow, and I agree with both her and Lauren on this issue of Obama's policies toward prisoners. I feel as though there are proper ways to handle prisoners, and taking away their human rights isn't one. Although they may be deemed criminals, there are certain cases where people are wrongfully accused or unjustly served and the innocent wind up in prison. Even if there are only a small percentage, I find it hard to stomach the idea of their, and even the true criminal's rights being taken away and harsh treatment being instilled upon them.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Lauren on how rare and interesting it is to find a liberal news anchor discuss in detail their feelings of dissent towards the Democratic president and his recent shortcomings they've observed. I mean, no one is going to agree with everything the president does, no matter what end of the political spectrum they're on. For a liberal outlet to broadcast a disagreement the way it seems MSNBC did is uncommon, but perhaps it(MSNBC), or at least Maddow, felt the need to report the news as they saw it was more important than reporting the news in favor of the president, as it usually does.
This is really disappointing to hear. I understand no candidate or politican is perfect, nor will I always agree with him or her, but to support someone as much as I support Obama it is really upsetting to hear news like this. I have to say though it is refreshing to see that MSNBC will not just agree with him because he is a Democrat. We have scrutinized FOX a lot this semester for claiming to give fair and objective news, and never actually doing that. It is nice to see that some journalists and networks will actually stay true to the opinions and belief they set forth and critique the policies of those who work outside those boundaries even if they are technically liberal too. That's a little integrity and honesty in a world where the media cannot always be trusted!
ReplyDelete