Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by Shivetya » Thu, Jul 18, 2013, 2:02 PM UTC

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.

There is always the IRS, but of course no one in the government, let alone the IRS, would ever use their position to stifle freedom of expression. Oh wait, Congress is having hearings today on that.

They are already doing what your claiming they cannot possibly do. Its time to acknowledge that there is very little they cannot do, or worse are doing that we still haven't found out

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

#82

Post by jbooth » Thu, Jul 18, 2013, 2:15 PM UTC

bobo1357 wrote: post #80

jbooth wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention that they've yelled tyranny! at every minor administrative tweak, regulatory change or appointment for the last 6 years... And then, when something like this comes up, that actually does threaten our rights, crickets? Not only crickets but cooperation from the least cooperative congress possibly in history? What the fuck, guys?

How does this threaten an American citizen's rights? This is lawful under the Constitution.

Is that a serious question?

First line of the article: "The Obama administration has won the latest battle in their fight to indefinitely detain US citizens and foreigners suspected of being affiliated with terrorists under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012."

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

#83

Post by speeder » Thu, Jul 18, 2013, 2:16 PM UTC

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 know a guy (that I obviously cannot disclose who) that once a similar thing happened, not as president though...

Someone that noone knew, a woman to be more exact, once showed up with some documents, showed some to him (without allowing him to read them all or too much), then asked: "Do you want to become mayor?"

The person I knew replied: "Yes, why not?"

The woman: "Alright. I call you later." (mind you, she never asked for his phone).

Indeed, she called, and told him that if he wanted to become mayor, to do what she told him to do, and talk with her in a certain place at a certain time.

He asked why, and tried to convince her to do it in a manner that is less weird and shady...

Then she told him: "Your call, if you want to become mayor, do as we tell you, otherwise we will choose someone else."

He gave up.

And I wonder who will win the elections next year in that town... (there are currently no obvious candidates or popular politicians, the only would that would be a automatic win is the current mayor that is already re-elected and thus cannot be a candidate at all)

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

#84

Post by delinka » Thu, Jul 18, 2013, 2:18 PM UTC

bobo1357 wrote: post #80

jbooth wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention that they've yelled tyranny! at every minor administrative tweak, regulatory change or appointment for the last 6 years... And then, when something like this comes up, that actually does threaten our rights, crickets? Not only crickets but cooperation from the least cooperative congress possibly in history? What the fuck, guys?

How does this threaten an American citizen's rights? This is lawful under the Constitution.

By labeling that citizen a "terrorist" without due process of law. The entire purpose of "due process" is to force the accuser to produce the all the necessary evidence to prove the accusation and that he (the accuser) isn't simply trying to destroy someone he doesn't like.

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

#85

Post by dombili » Thu, Jul 18, 2013, 2:23 PM UTC

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.

What gave you the idea that the US government give a shit about foreigners? Even most Americans don't, let alone the US government. It's appalling.

When I was young, America was a model country. At least that's what I though at the time with my limited knowledge. I always wanted to go there and maybe live there. Now I don't think I'd go there even if I was offered money. I had met many Americans and they were all very nice, smart people. It's such a shame that they have to put up to this. But I always believed people get what they deserve in democracies. If American people really are sick of this stuff, they should act instead of sitting in front of their computers and whine about how Obama has changed.

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

#86

Post by mcv » Thu, Jul 18, 2013, 2:25 PM UTC

ars wrote: post #45

Shivetya wrote: post #18

Earlier 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.

> 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.)

The people need a third party to switch to. The current two-party system leads to a serious lack of democracy.

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

#87

Post by pandaman » Thu, Jul 18, 2013, 2:30 PM UTC

jvm wrote: post #69

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…

Taking over a colony to appropriate its land and other resources != being principally against British colonialism.

The whole distinction between one element of a set and a whole set seems to be incomprehensible to modern liberals. E.g. the recent example of shooting an attacking black thug had been made an example of racism. Because, obviously, somebody who shoots a black person to protect his life is principally against the entire black race.

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

#88

Post by smackay » Thu, Jul 18, 2013, 2:30 PM UTC

bobo1357 wrote: post #73

jvm wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Which founding fathers were godless?

Thomas Paine's deism was rather too godless for a lot of people's tastes, including Theodore Roosevelt.

http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Thomas_Paine

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

#89

Post by cmdkeen » Thu, Jul 18, 2013, 2:32 PM UTC

Systemic33 wrote: post #46

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…

US is really the Roman Empire of our time. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

What's worrying is that it always strikes me as the Roman Empire in the last days of the Republic. Vast sums being spent to buy elections, a powerful few getting very rich off wars and the government grinding to a halt, unable to deal with the problems facing the nation.

Just before Caesar came along and get into a fight with the Senate. Congress' approval ratings are so low it really wouldn't take much for a powerful populist movement to challenge the constitutional makeup.

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

#90

Post by bobo1357 » Thu, Jul 18, 2013, 2:35 PM UTC

jbooth wrote: post #82

bobo1357 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does this threaten an American citizen's rights? This is lawful under the Constitution.

Is that a serious question? First line of the article: "The Obama administration has won the latest battle in their fight to indefinitely detain US citizens and foreigners suspected of being affiliated with terrorists under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012."

Again, this law is constitutional.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld