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

61–70 of 150 posts

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

#61

Post by minimize_me »

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'm like a lover you just beat up for the first time"

Surely that just demonstrates poor knowledge of history? I mean, between the unethical experimentation on its own citizens of the 20th century and before, Japanese internment camps, the Gulf of Tonkin, the overthrowing of democratic governments in Iran, Iran-Contra, drone attacks for the past 7+ years, Guantanamo, the illegal invasion of Iraq, retroactive immunity for executors of some of the aforementioned...(and that's just off the top of my rather poor memory), how could your disdain have only recently arisen?

I find that a better analogy would be an uncle who gave you nice Christmas presents, so you ignored the persistent rumours that he molested your cousins. And now you're starting to receive the same treatment.

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

#63

Post by canvia »

jbooth wrote: post #17
DanBC wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There was a pretty good movie that made you think about that type of situation, "Unthinkable" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0914863/

It's like the question in Swordfish, would you be willing to sacrifice the life of an innocent to save 10,000 people's lives? How about 2 innocents? What about 500?

Once you start to consider making those kinds of trade offs it's a very slippery slope. It seems to me the only correct answer is 0. There is no acceptable trade off to try and counter irrational actions.

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

#64

Post by gadders »

venomsnake wrote: post #30
mercurial wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And completely wrong. It's just that boring old "HAR HAR HAR RIGHT WING EQUALS FASCIST" trope put out by lazy lefties.

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

#65

Post by pivnicek »

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.

There is no difference anywhere. Even in the old communist countries you support one kind of corruption or another. World wide, in democracies, there is a distinct lack of an honest option.

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

#67

Post by venomsnake »

gadders wrote: post #64
venomsnake wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And completely wrong. It's just that boring old "HAR HAR HAR RIGHT WING EQUALS FASCIST" trope put out by lazy lefties.

Le Pen focuses on immigration to France, the European Union, traditional culture, law and order and France's high rate of unemployment. He advocates immigration restrictions, the death penalty, raising incentives for homemakers,[1] and euroscepticism. He strongly opposes same-sex marriage, euthanasia, and abortion.

As boilerplate modern republican as they come

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

#68

Post by twoodfin »

junto wrote: post #39
derefr wrote: 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.

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 hope pg really likes what he's let hn become by indulging threads like this. Wouldn't this submission be [dead] in about 5 minutes six months ago?

Instead, it gets to be front page material for hours while goofy comments like this accumulate.

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

#69

Post by jvm »

spodek wrote: post #21

"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…

> Those revolutionaries would have all been labeled terrorists today.

This is one of the huge ironies about contemporary conservatives. They practically worship the founding fathers like gods, but they would have hated many of them if they met them today, as many were godless radical liberals.

The most extreme example of this for me was when D'Souza and other republicans accused Barack Obama of being anti-colonialist [1], specifically in the context of British occupation, and they meant that in a bad way(!) Surely if nothing else, our country was founded on the principle of opposition to British colonialism.

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10...

Post reply on HN