Live data from Hacker News

Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA

rt.com

31–40 of 150 posts

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

#31
post #16
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.

Do you think that half the US citizenship will ever express an opinion on any specific topic at all? Or even one tenth?

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

#32
post #16
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.

"If half of the US citizenship..."

Only, that's not going to happen, is it?

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

#33
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.

By that line of reasoning wouldn't presidents continue to perceive their final term -- in that case, also their first -- as the unaccountable one? I'm afraid the problems are much more deeply seated within political culture and won't be fixed by such simple (if still completely unattainable) measures.

Things that come to mind are the absolute restriction to a two party system and the concentration on a leader figure, ie. the identification of the government with one person. But from my limited point of view both of those things are at the core of the US political identity, utterly entrenched.

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

#34
One of the first things we learned in history and politics in school is that the worst thing you can do is the separation of power and NEVER EVER combining any of Executive, Legislature or Judiciary, because that's what distinguishes authoritarian from democratic systems.

It is something so basic and fundamental that every person here has to learn it and what it means as a child. Every politician hast to have a deep understanding of why that is so fundamentally important, else he really shouldn't be entrusted with any kind of political position in any kind of republic.

It's something that is known since the antique and has been strengthened by any bad government that appeared throughout history, so how is it that such a law (or actually anti-law) is possible and not uniformly rejected in first place?

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

#35
Hasn't that NY Court heard of the Constitution? Human rights? Or do American Courts usually not take into account international laws for human rights?

Either way, what's scary about this it's that it's happening under normal conditions. At least if they could declare an emergency state, or officially declare the war against those "enemy combatants", because then you'd know that they may get some extra-judicial powers, but only temporary.

But you can imagine this will last forever, because US will never be at "more peace" than they are right now, and it's all because how they are acting abroad. So don't think these laws will ever change unless more people speak out against them and hold their Congress accountable for it.

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

#36
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.

Because the alternative is doing nothing. If your every decision at your job is qualified by the possibility that someone else will come along someday and exploit your actions to the worst possible end, you would never get anything done.

I'm building software. But who says the algorithms I develop cannot be used maliciously, just because I won't do so myself?

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

#37
post #9
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…

Wikipedia has a whole page on "black sites"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_site

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

#38
post #3

So 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.

Obama does it again. He tries to play down the domestic upheaval by telling its citizens that they are not the primary subject; foreigners are. He did the same thing with Prism, and I don't know why the rest of the world just accepts it. (By the way, note that most of the EU doesn't care about Prism, and that the EU only became agitated when it became apparent that it's officials/embassies are being wiretapped.)

Furthermore, Obama promises that he will not abuse the right, but he can't vouch for his successors; having such laws in place is just an accident waiting to happen.

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

#39
post #16
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.

It is of course an exaggeration, but my point was more that the technology is now there to make that list.

As a foreigner, this list could prevent me entering the United States. Comments posted on Twitter and Facebook have been used as reasons to reject people from entering the US in recent times.

Remember that US citizens get different rules to everyone else. UN charters such as those on prisoner's of war, human rights and torture have been ripped up by the last two US administrations. It is pertinent to note that the US does it's brutality outside the US and generally away from the eyes of its own citizens. Other brutal regimes tend to fall quickly because they do that to their own.

As I see it from the outside, your country has been stolen from you without your knowledge. It is organisations like Wikileaks and people like Edward Snowden that have started to tell us all the truth. This is why they are so important, and so very very dangerous to the powers behind the throne.

Ok, tin foil hat time:

  Imagine for a minute that Obama and Bush both entered
  into power without nefarious aims. Imagine that you sit 
  in the Oval Office on day one of your presidency when 
  some guy in a black suit gets shown in. 

  He says "Good morning Mr President" and presents you 
  with a little black folder. You open the folder and flick 
  through the pages and pages of documents, reading it slowly. 

  You look up and say to the man, "Who are you? What do you want?". 

  The man gives you a cell phone and says, "You keep this phone 
  with you at all times. You do not question the person at the 
  other end. You do not speak about this to anyone else. You'll have 
  some wins as president if you play ball, but otherwise we own you".
"I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the President, if I had a personal e-mail,"

That kind of power makes sure that politicians do their bidding. Whoever "they" are.

Ok, tin-foil hat back in the drawer...

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

#40
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Do you think that half the US citizenship will ever express an opinion on any specific topic at all? Or even one tenth?

Alright, half is hyperbolic--but you can get a fairly-large portion of the population aping all sorts of crazy messages by putting them in the mouth of a candidate during an election. I'm guessing there'll be a whole lot of "disgust" coming from the Republicans in 2016.
Post reply on HN