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

91–100 of 150 posts

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

#91

Post by gadders »

venomsnake wrote: post #67
gadders wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

A question of degree, no? I don't think any Republicans want to forcibly repatriate 3m immigrants.

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

#93

Post by rfctr »

junto wrote: post #53
JonSkeptic wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

New Netflix-only "House of Cards" is too very good. Set in US Congress as a bonus.

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

#94

Post by tootie »

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…

The appeals court opinion stated in no uncertain terms that the reason they ruled the way they did is that the plaintiffs had no standing since the statute unequivocally excludes American citizens or anyone captured on American soil. The AUMF basically just extends POW-type status to non-state actors (Al Qaeda and Taliban in particular) which makes perfect sense to me.

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

#95

Post by lukifer »

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?

More specifically, many were deists, which was culturally equivalent to atheism at the time. Jefferson even published a version of the New Testament with all mention of God or the supernatural removed.

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

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

#97

Post by jbooth »

bobo1357 wrote: post #90
jbooth wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Original link: "Congress granted the president the authority to arrest and hold individuals accused of terrorism without due process under the NDAA,"

Your link: "...enemy combatants, including U.S. citizens, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the rights of due process,"

We've got 2 issues there, 'enemy combatants' requires a bit more proof than 'suspected of terrorism', although things can be fudged like in the Bradley Manning case. Then we have the whole due process.

The 5th amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The parts about the armed forces apply to military justice for troops, when wartime discipline is invoked. It's not saying that "when you're at war it all goes out the window for ordinary citizens".

Indefinitely detaining someone based on suspicion, without a requirement of due process or a way to appeal, is quite clearly unconstitutional although I hold little hope for the current Supreme Court to overturn it.

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

#98

Post by CaveTech »

confluence wrote: post #47

This "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 acknowled…

Terrorists didn't destroy America. American politicians capitalized on the naivety of American citizens and are now exploiting you to the fullest. If anything, terrorists gave America the means of destroying itself, and the vast majority of the people are too indifferent to do anything about it.

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

#99

Post by jbooth »

cpursley wrote: post #92
madaxe wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The empire never ended.

Interesting. Please explain.

After the administration was split (a few different ways were tried, settling on eastern/western halfs), the western half declined, failed to stop incursions from the Germanic tribes and eventually Rome was sacked a couple times.

The eastern half thrived, and even reconquered Rome and Spain, under Justinian. This was a continuation of the exact same government, no fall from power, just a loss of some territory. They lost Rome back fairly quickly and were controlling various parts of the Eastern Mediterranean, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and North Africa on and off until they entered terminal decline after 12-1300 or so, and Constantinople finally fell to the Turks, with the last Emperor dying in the battle in 1452.

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

#100

Post by mkramlich »

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…

> "CONGRESS GRANTED the president the authority

I'm repeatedly amused at how the first words of that sentence seem to be ignored by everybody who goes on to demonize Obama. (I made them bold for emphasis.) You almost never hear criticism or blame of Congress over this.

Post reply on HN