More proof that the United States government is no longer considering itself under jurisdiction of the constitution.
Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
41–50 of 150 posts
Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
#42Land of the free, eh?
Don't forget, "Home of the brave".
Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's too bad you guys don't have a hair-trigger for Motions of No Confidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_of_no_confidence) like we do in Canada. We have elections every five years at the most--but it rarely ever gets to be that long, because some issue or another inevitably comes along that causes the rest of the House to be upset with the party in power, and it's very easy to throw down the "well, if you think you have the citizens' consent, just get them to vote you in again" gauntlet.
Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
#44"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 l…
The United States has become empire. We have the trappings of a democratic republic, but it's obvious that the law of the land is broken for those in power. No one should be surprised by this, it's evolution in action and the writing's been on the wall for years.
Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
#45Why 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.
> This way we don't get the unaccountable second term crap we see a lot of.
Usually the president is working so that his successor will be from his chosen party. Who thinks the next president will be a Democrat? (It doesn't really matter if you think Republican is better or worse - if they are not happy people will switch.)
Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
#46"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 l…
US is really the Roman Empire of our time.
The bigger they are, the harder they fall.
Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
#47This "I won't abuse my extraordinary privilege" mindset that people in power appear to have is naive beyond all comprehension. It reminds me of an exchange that occurred during a Clinton administration meeting on the legality of extraordinary rendition back in 1993:
> 'extraordinary renditions', were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgment of the host government.... The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: "Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'"
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition
FTFA:
> 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
How could this possibly not end up with someone abusing it? Without due process, the executive branch basically has carte blanche to do whatever the hell it wants. Political opponents. People you don't like. People in the media. Whistleblowers. No one has any rights any more. All it would take is for a covert agent or hacker to plant bomb making material on your computer to detain (and torture) you until you die.
Everyone knows that this is illegal. Everyone knows that this is insanely stupid. Everyone knows that this will be abused. Everyone knows that this is against the constitution.
Shit still happens anyway.
The terrorists fucking won. They've destroyed America, and they didn't even have to lift a finger to do it. We did it all on our very own.
I'm tired. So very tired.
Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
#48Earlier 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.
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 rig…
I do love a good conspiracy theory.
Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
#49Earlier 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.
That's a smokescreen. It's much better for the masses to be arguing over gay marriage than coming together and figuring out that maybe tax cuts for the wealthy were a bad idea after all.
Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
#50Why 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?
Not a great analogy.
What the Obama administration has done with this is more akin to creating an API for future leaders to exploit the people without recourse.