adj...no trial??? would they be able to detain anyone just because they want to?

why do people make me read???

Finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people.

I want to be honest: this is the toughest issue we will face. We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who have received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.

As I said, I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture - like other prisoners of war - must be prevented from attacking us again. However, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. That is why my Administration has begun to reshape these standards to ensure they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible and lawful standards for those who fall in this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.

I know that creating such a system poses unique challenges. Other countries have grappled with this question, and so must we. But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for Guantanamo detainees - not to avoid one. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so going forward, my Administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution.

Examples of that threat include people who have received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans.

and rightly so

al qaeda has declared war on the united states

and doing so makes those they train enemy combatants subject to become pows

Ok, but that would mean you're OK with Americans being held for ever without charges, because they are trained enough to be a danger.

I think this is a slippery slope, and it really lowers our moral ground. We are America. We should be better than others.

Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture -like other prisoners of war - must be prevented from attacking us again. However, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded.

I do not think you read what he says AT ALL. What you are telling me is what he wants you to hear. Yeah. I get that too. I watched the video, and I read the speech transcript.

I even posted an excerpt from the transcript. And then I have showed how what he is doing is un-american, despite all the smoke and mirrors that he is saying.

Al Qaeda? Are these people going to have the service book with them, stamped "Al Qaeda"? I am guessing not. Therefore:

Obama can grab you tomorrow, and SAY that you are a member of Al Qaeda, and then put you away for 10 years, without ever needing ANY proof or evidence. That is the entire point.

Of course, he is saying that he only going to grab Al Qaeda members. How are you going to check that? In reality, he is going to grab their wives and sons, or even any political opponents he may have.

And as far as soldiers, I guess I have to chew it up. By these same logic arguments that we are using, then Al Qaeda can grab ANY of our SOLDIERS, for the simple fact that they are trained to be dangerous.

I know, they are doing it anyway. Yep. Obama didn't change that. He simply made what they doing LEGAL. Because, that is exactly what we do.

As I said, I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture - like other prisoners of war - must be prevented from attacking us again. However, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. That is why my Administration has begun to reshape these standards to ensure they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible and lawful standards for those who fall in this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.

As I said, I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture - like other prisoners of war - must be prevented from attacking us again.

But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States.

I would like to see the speech without her ad-libbing it with her thoughts and movie clips.