Originally Posted By mawnck In the USA. For any reason. Citizen or not. Courtesy of your Congress. And your President, who signed it into law on a holiday when he knew it wouldn't get any coverage. And it worked. You didn't hear about it, did you. Happy new year. >>Indefinite military detention of Americans became the law of the land Saturday, as President Barack Obama signed a defense bill that codified that authority, even as he said he would not use it. The National Defense Authorization Act states how the military is to be funded, but also includes a number of controversial provisions on arresting and holding suspected terrorists, which at first drove Obama to threaten a veto. He retreated from that threat after Congress added provisions that took the ultimate authority to detain suspects from the military's hands and gave it to the president.<< <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/31/obama-defense-bill_n_1177836.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...836.html</a> Glenn Greenwald rebuts claims that the law isn't as bad as people are making it out to be: <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/" target="_blank">http://www.salon.com/2011/12/1...ngleton/</a> Obama's statement on his decision to sign the thing, mostly saying that "oh, MY administration would NEVER use it like that". I hope President Gingrich feels the same way: <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540" target="_blank">http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-...-hr-1540</a> He signed ya, bill! Now you're a law! <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.1540" target="_blank">http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/...h.r.1540</a>: (PS - I'd like to publicly thank my ultra-conservative Rep., John Campbell, for voting "no" on this thing.)
Originally Posted By mawnck Trying again on the link to the actual bill: <a href="http://tinyurl.com/hr1540forLP" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/hr1540forLP</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I hope President Gingrich feels the same way:> We're not going to have a president Gingrich. But I sure do wish that people would think more clearly about things like this. When Beau used to defend the Patriot Act, I always asked him if he'd want President (Hilary) Clinton - knowing how much he hated her - to have the ability to spy on people or organizations SHE didn't like... of course he never had a good answer for that. This is terrible law. My guess is that Obama won't abuse it, but so what? a). It's just a guess, and we shouldn't have to guess about a principle so basic, and b). Future presidents very well could abuse it. Terrible law that he SHOULD have vetoed.
Originally Posted By ecdc Between this, Citizens United, and SOPA, it is troubling, to say the least.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones The media is worrying whether or not Ron Paul is racist while the constitution is dismantled piece by piece. He is the only candidate talking about this on either side but he may or may not have said mean ol' things about black people 20 years ago.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Apples and oranges. I applaud Paul speaking up about this, but it doesn't excuse his earlier comments (either his own, or going out under his name) that were racist AND homophobic AND anti-semitic. Not to mention seeking out (and receiving) the endorsement - THIS year - of a minister who has endorsed the death penalty for the "crime" of being gay. Just as I can basically support Obama but be dismayed by his signing this bill, I can appreciate Paul's position on this matter while still being dismayed by other things.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox We have definitely reached the point in our country where government is basically controlled by those sitting at the very top of the asset mountain, the 0.01%. Almost every single politician is controlled by these individuals, with a few notable exceptions. And when it comes to creating laws that benefit the 0.01% and no one else, all of the major players go along for the ride, because that's the only way they're allowed to play at all. Someone or some group got to Obama shortly after he promised to veto this bill. Something scared the crap out of him and his visions of maintaining the Presidency or any future career in politics. That's the only reason I can fathom for why he changed his mind. Some kind of oppositional threat, even from within his own party, if he didn't go along with yet another weakening of our Constitutional rights. The main goal for the rest of us, obviously, is to neuter the 0.01% as much as humanly possible, to make their money worthless in the political arena, to make their ownership of politicians a thing of the past. Unfortunately for us, the 99.99%, I believe that ship has long since sailed. I don't see how we can possibly elect politicians who cannot be bought for the right price, or at least not be threatened by campaign opponents with bottomless corporate SuperPAC funding, if it takes a small fortune to get them nominated in the first place. We're all caught in a nasty Catch-22 with what's available to us to change our democracy, and I don't see any of these problems being resolved in the near future, if at all during my lifetime. That being said, getting involved in the political process is still the best way to address these issues. Sitting on the sidelines only empowers those who desire dismantling what remains of our democracy, since their misinformed flying monkeys dutifully vote in every single primary/caucus and general election. For that reason, choosing not to vote is NOT an option. You choose the lesser of two evils so that the greater evil never has full control. It's the only game in town. Even though I'm seriously disappointed that his signed this bill, I will still hold my nose and vote for Obama in November. What other choice do I realistically have? Seriously... any one of those jokers in the GOP clown car wouldn't think twice about putting a citizen away who 'posed a problem' for their party and/or corporate masters. At least with a Democrat, I know there's a slightly better chance that it wouldn't be used irresponsibly, such as to permanently silence any critics of corporate crony capitalism, the main fuel which drives our nation's government. I realize it's not much of a justification, but it's better than nothing. And sometimes, that's all you get in life. The 0.01% wants to rule the world and put all of us under their collective thumbs. With the signing of this bill, they got just a little bit closer to that goal.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "Not to mention seeking out (and receiving) the endorsement - THIS year - of a minister who has endorsed the death penalty for the "crime" of being gay. " That is certainly something to think about when you're sitting in Gitmo without trial for associating with the wrong people.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Paul's buddy thinks I AM the wrong kind of people and would do worse than stick me in Gitmo. I've stated that this is bad (terrible, actually) law. Can't you admit that Paul ain't perfect either and that bigotry in the white house is something that can (and has in our history) have negative effects as well?
Originally Posted By Tikiduck It is a pretty helpless feeling, knowing that your country is in the hands of people whose greed and lust for power have won over any compassion they ever had. Sometimes the super elite seem almost non human in their detachment from the reality of common people.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Guarantee this will not affect anyone here.<< YOU guarantee this? Really? Based on what? Wishful thinking? Oh it couldn't possibly happen here. We're not like that. We're civilized. Brother can you spare a dime? Sprechen Sie Deutsch? There are people here who, because of who they are, are intensely disliked, even HATED, by candidates with at least an outside chance of becoming the next President. These candidates, if given the chance, would have no moral aversion to declaring even certain LP participants to be terrorists, and using the powers enumerated in this law to "disappear" them. You guarantee that it won't happen? There was just such a guarantee, but it just got signed away by the hopey changey guy. Of course that provision is clearly unconstitutional, but you know what a bunch of jokesters that wacky Supreme Court is ...
Originally Posted By utahjosh <There are people here who, because of who they are, are intensely disliked, even HATED, by candidates with at least an outside chance of becoming the next President. > Care to elaborate on and defend such a statement?
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "Can't you admit that Paul ain't perfect either and that bigotry in the white house is something that can (and has in our history) have negative effects as well?" I don't think it really matters what the idiot in the White House thinks or what you think he thinks. As progressive ideals have taken hold in this country, the black illegitimacy rate has skyrocketed, reaching a peak of 70% in 1994 during the first black president's term. The unemployment rate among young black men is over 50%, about double the rate of young white teens (the minimum wage has certainly affected both white and black teens, but has a disparate effect on young black men). This is hardly a consequence of the recession. So it's the schools they say. As per pupil funding in inner city schools reached the highest in the nation, the black graduate rate remains abysmal. <a href="http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/06/06/School-Budgets-The-Worst-Education-Money-Can-Buy.aspx" target="_blank">http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/...Buy.aspx</a> Okay, it's not the schools, it's the drug war. It's the fathers in jail for non-violent drug crimes. So we have a guy who wants to end the drug war. But he's too racist. Not only that, but embracing free markets is racist. Abolishing the minimum to create more jobs for young black men is racist. Phasing out welfare to increase the incentive to work is racist. Promoting personal responsibility is racist. Enforcing the law is racist. Equality under the law is racist. Ending affirmative action is racist. But after the massive failure of anti-racist progressivism in this county, I am ready to put a bigot in the White House.
Originally Posted By barboy We need a US court to decapitate this beast. What is Congress and Chief's problem? What's wIth the tyranny?
Originally Posted By barboy I say we should have law that allows us to spit on any returning soldier from Iraq...........after all I guarantee it will not affect anyone here. What do you say, DDMAN?
Originally Posted By Donny If you are an American citizen on American soil no agency should be allowed to hold you without trial by civilian court.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Spokker, your recent post starts as a non-sequitur to the topic, and proceeds as an indication of how far we still need to go on racial equality. But anyone who thinks that things aren't better than they were 50 years ago on that score is simply ignorant of our history.
Originally Posted By Labuda "1994 during the first black president's term. " And with that statement, you've re-entered the "ok, he's crazy. Stop paying attention now" part of my brain where you've previously resided.
