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

51–60 of 150 posts

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

#51

Post by alan_cx »

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.

"Why should he care?"

Because the is the President of the United States of America.

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

#52

Post by outworlder »

derefr wrote: post #16
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.

At some point, 1 in 6.5 citizens of the GDR were STASI informants (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi)

And yet, that was not enough to topple the regime, that only happened later. You'll probably find that the phonebook can become very fat indeed.

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

#53

Post by junto »

JonSkeptic wrote: post #48
junto wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Me too! One of favorites was the 90's BBC television series "House of Cards" and its sequel "To Play the King".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Cards_(UK_TV_series)

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

#54

Post by alan_cx »

x3c wrote: post #5
kaustubh wrote: 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.

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?

Your comment has made me realize something.

It is said that the enemies of the USA hate the USA for its freedom. Well, what you describe is American freedom, freedom for Americans to abuse non Americans on non American soil, with the backing of American law and power.

I have to be honest here, I too hate those freedoms.

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

#55

Post by eksith »

saraid216 wrote: post #36
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.

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?

  > Because the alternative is doing nothing.
The alternative is to do the right, thing as difficult a call as that may be. It doesn't mean you throw the constitution through the shredder or sit with your head buried in the sand. It means you make the calls that don't involve trampling over fundamental rights of human beings (citizens and non-citizens alike) in order to save them.

If you can't make these decisions without doing either, then you don't belong in that position. As idealistic as that may be, society is far more organic than mere algorithms and functions; thus capable of being reformulated as necessary.

And right now, it's necessary.

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

#58

Post by alan_cx »

mtgx wrote: post #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 power…

I could well be 100% wrong, but I dont think the US gov do recognize the international court of human rights as having any jurisdiction over Americans.
Post reply on HN