Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA

rt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 150 posts

Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA

#11

Post by birchtree »

One important aspect of "without due process" is that it means that they don't have to prove anyone is a terrorist. They don't even have to believe someone is a terrorist, they only need to pretend that they do.

I'm not sure whether this applies much in the kinds of situations where this in particular is used, but in this country people have rights such as silence that can be circumvented because suspected terrorists are treated differently and have fewer rights - those who don't cooperate will continue to be treated as terrorists.

Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA

#12

Post by junto »

This disgusts me.

Sooner or later, my public announcement of this disgust is going to place me on a list of people that are seen as dissenters, since all of our electronic communication is now being logged for posterity. That list will at some point be renamed "terrorists".

At some point in the future (as a non-American), the United States would find it legally acceptable that I can be targeted by a drone and blown up into little pieces. Should wife, my children (one a toddler and the other a baby) happen to be present, then they will be considered "collateral damage".

I love the idea of the American dream and the spirit of free speech and the glorious constitution that you have / had in America, but I'm sorry, you've just lost me. I'm like a lover you just beat up for the first time. I've lost that sparkle of first love. I'm crying inside. I'm scared to show you that emotion, because I'm afraid you'll use it against me.

You're a bully and there is no teacher to get you back in line. You scare me.

I know this will get downvoted to hell, but I just had to splurge my mind.

Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA

#13

Post by grey-area »

birchtree wrote: post #11

One important aspect of "without due process" is that it means that they don't have to prove anyone is a terrorist. They don't even have to believe someone is a terrorist, they only need to pretend that they do. I'm not sure whether this applies much in the kinds of situations where this in particular is used, but in this country people have rights such as silence that can be circumvented because suspected terrorists…

This is why terrorists, and suspected terrorists, need to be given exactly the same rights under the law as everyone else.

Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA

#14

Post by DanBC »

grey-area wrote: post #13
birchtree wrote: post #11

One important aspect of "without due process" is that it means that they don't have to prove anyone is a terrorist. They don't even have to believe someone is a terrorist, they only need to pretend that they do. I'm not sure whether this applies much in the kinds of situations where this in particular is used, but in this country people have rights such as silence that can be circumvented because suspected terrorists…

This is why terrorists, and suspected terrorists, need to be given exactly the same rights under the law as everyone else.

Suspected terrorist talking to a lawyer before facing trial and being found not guilty / guilty is much worse TV[1] than Kiefer Sutherland torturing the terrorist to prevent the bomb killing lots of people.

[1] Some people think it's worse.

Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA

#15

Post by mercurial »

So, if I understand US politics right, you have the choice between the side who will lie to you about going to war and curtail your civil liberties, and the side who will lie to you about curtailing your civil liberties and do it anyway? Tough choice between plague and cholera.

Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA

#16

Post by derefr »

junto wrote: post #12

This disgusts me. Sooner or later, my public announcement of this disgust is going to place me on a list of people that are seen as dissenters, since all of our electronic communication is now being logged for posterity. That list will at some point be renamed "terrorists". At some point in the future (as a non-American), the United States would find it legally acceptable that I can be targeted by a drone and blown u…

> Sooner or later, my public announcement of this disgust is going to place me on a list of people that are seen as dissenters

Are you sure? If half of the US citizenship also expresses public disgust at the same thing, there's not much use in making a list; that list may as well be the phone book.

Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA

#17

Post by jbooth »

DanBC wrote: post #14
grey-area wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why terrorists, and suspected terrorists, need to be given exactly the same rights under the law as everyone else.

Suspected terrorist talking to a lawyer before facing trial and being found not guilty / guilty is much worse TV[1] than Kiefer Sutherland torturing the terrorist to prevent the bomb killing lots of people. [1] Some people think it's worse.

The concepts aren't even opposed.

If, hypothetically, there actually is a ticking bomb somewhere (this has never happened that we know of), just break the law. You'll sort it out later. If you were right, there will be a pardon, if you were wrong, you'll go to jail.

In every other possible scenario, the law should protect rights of the accused.

Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA

#18

Post by Shivetya »

eksith wrote: post #7

Why 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.

Why should he care? He cannot run again. It would be so much better if Presidents only could serve one term, make it six years if you must, but it must be only one term.

This way we don't get the unaccountable second term crap we see a lot of.

Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA

#19

Post by sdoering »

junto wrote: post #12

This disgusts me. Sooner or later, my public announcement of this disgust is going to place me on a list of people that are seen as dissenters, since all of our electronic communication is now being logged for posterity. That list will at some point be renamed "terrorists". At some point in the future (as a non-American), the United States would find it legally acceptable that I can be targeted by a drone and blown u…

I just had to upvote, as you so totally found the words to express my thoughts and feelings regarding the former great idea, that was called the US of A.

Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA

#20

Post by grandalf »

mercurial wrote: post #15

So, if I understand US politics right, you have the choice between the side who will lie to you about going to war and curtail your civil liberties, and the side who will lie to you about curtailing your civil liberties and do it anyway? Tough choice between plague and cholera.

They are both the same side. The few small areas of conflict between the two parties are amplified in order to create the illusion that the outcome will be different.
Post reply on HN