Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
1–10 of 150 posts
Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
#2Land of the free, eh?
Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
#3So Obama has right to detain Americans and, please note, foreigners indefinitely, but he says he will not use these privileges to keep Americans (only?) imprisoned indefinitely.
So does it mean foreigners have no rights in America? I guess its time governments all over the world start adding US to the list of rogue countries.
Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
#4[deleted]
Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
#5So Obama has right to detain Americans and, please note, foreigners indefinitely, but he says he will not use these privileges to keep Americans (only?) imprisoned indefinitely. So does it mean foreigners have no rights in America? I guess its time governments all over the world start adding US to the list of rogue countries.
Trickier than that is the following:
If such actions are committed on US soil, this section will not be applicable. So this is about arresting and detaining, indefinitely, someone on foreign land. Land where the US government has no jurisdiction. Am I missing something here?
Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
#6"Mr. Obama said in an accompanying signing statement that he will not abuse these privileges"
Sure, he'll just ask someone else to do it...
Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
#7Why is it that every leader in power seems to forget that they won't stay in that position forever? Let's take his word for it and say the power won't be abused. What of his successors?
If a power exists, it will be abused. Period. It's only a matter of time. That's the whole premise behind checks and balances and due process. You don't leave power in the hands of a few, but the many.
Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
#8Why is it that every leader in power seems to forget that they won't stay in that position forever? Let's take his word for it and say the power won't be abused. What of his successors? If a power exists, it will be abused. Period. It's only a matter of time. That's the whole premise behind checks and balances and due process. You don't leave power in the hands of a few, but the many.
Principle is difficult, short-cuts are easy. And it's so much easier to "get things done" yourself if you break all the rules, but of course once you've destroyed all the rules they no longer apply to anyone, not just yourself.
Ah yes, here we go, a great quote from "A Man For All Seasons": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9rjGTOA2NA
Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
#9So Obama has right to detain Americans and, please note, foreigners indefinitely, but he says he will not use these privileges to keep Americans (only?) imprisoned indefinitely. So does it mean foreigners have no rights in America? I guess its time governments all over the world start adding US to the list of rogue countries.
Trickier than that is the following: If such actions are committed on US soil, this section will not be applicable. So this is about arresting and detaining, indefinitely, someone on foreign land. Land where the US government has no jurisdiction. Am I missing something here?
No, I think that's the picture. It's already happening in those "black sites" we hear about and the sad thing is that the citizens in those countries would be up in arms about them if they were more widely known. It's the government complicity in each of those locations that allow these things to happen.
I.E. Not technically detained by the U.S. but they are detained the request of U.S. officials. It's the most flagrant (and disgusting) use of plausible deniability.
Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
#10Why is it that every leader in power seems to forget that they won't stay in that position forever? Let's take his word for it and say the power won't be abused. What of his successors? If a power exists, it will be abused. Period. It's only a matter of time. That's the whole premise behind checks and balances and due process. You don't leave power in the hands of a few, but the many.
Given that funding plays such a large role in US elections it opens the door for someone to effectively pay for the use of that power.