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

21–30 of 150 posts

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

#21

Post by spodek »

"Congress granted the president the authority to arrest and hold individuals accused of terrorism without due process under the NDAA, but Mr. Obama said in an accompanying signing statement that he will not abuse these privileges to keep American citizens imprisoned indefinitely"

If you want to influence someone, it helps to understand their motivations. I can't conceive of what Obama has in mind with pursuing this law against resistance.

Is it not obvious to everyone the unwanted side-effects of this kind of power? Is it not obvious how much this flies in the face of the intent of the people who wrote the Constitution. Or more relevantly the Declaration of Independence? Obama is a lawyer! He's intelligent. What can he be thinking? Did he forget the purpose and spirit of the Bill of Rights as he and advisors schemed to get around its letters?

Those revolutionaries would have all been labeled terrorists today. With the King in England, any colonist would have been an enemy combatant, stripped of rights, jailed or worse arbitrarily, and who knows what else.

Whether the United States has become what we rebelled against is not the question. If nothing changes, it's only a matter of time. This country has gotten rid of slavery and overcome major hurdles of sexual and racial inequality. Let's hope we have what it takes to overcome this centralization of power and unaccountability. And that we act on it.

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

#22

Post by sdoering »

ollysb wrote: post #10
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.

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.

The best speech on this topic is the following (imho): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw2z9lV3W1g

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

#23

Post by mercurial »

grandalf wrote: post #20
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.

I do get the impression there is something different in terms of social and fiscal policies, at least.

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

#24

Post by personlurking »

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.

For listeners of "patriot radio", there are radio hosts that said, pre-Obama, that Bush was putting into place mechanisms of control and it was the next president's role to put them to use. In this sense, it's not about staying in office but rather getting certain deeds done or mechanisms in place.

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

#25

Post by [deleted] »

Shivetya wrote: post #18
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.

[deleted]

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

#26

Post by sdoering »

eksith wrote: post #9
x3c wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 flagr…

> the sad thing is that the citizens in those countries would be up in arms about them if they were more widely known.

By the way. These sites in Europe were discussed, could be/are widely known, but I really do not see anyone here up in arms against these sites. On the contrary, a lot of people think of them as something good, as they are clearly there, to get rid of some nasty terrorists. And that only. And as long, as it is the poster-boy for democracy (the US) doing it and not say China, nearly (a very little exaggeration) everybody just goes along.

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

#27

Post by chris_j »

Shivetya wrote: post #18
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.

If a president could only serve one six year term then wouldn't you get the unaccountable second term crap for the whole of that six year term? Surely one thing that keeps a politician accountable to the electorate is the prospect of having to fight an election at some point in the future.

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

#28

Post by notimetorelax »

Shivetya wrote: post #18
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.

That's a hard problem to solve, how can you be sure that the first and the only term will not be abused?

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

#29

Post by Aqua_Geek »

Shivetya wrote: post #18
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.

Or they would actually be able to do something in the first term instead of worrying about/working toward re-election.

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

#30

Post by venomsnake »

mercurial wrote: post #23
grandalf wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I do get the impression there is something different in terms of social and fiscal policies, at least.

If you live in continental Europe - Democrats are on the right part of the isle and Republicans are on the right of Le Pen.

Rough approximation.

Post reply on HN