cough Snowden cough
Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
111–120 of 150 posts
Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Whats somewhat sad about the western half of the empire is that the final 100-150 years were just riddled with things that were entirely avoidable and other stupidity like the treatment of the Gauls.
But they had a much harder time dealing with the huge influx of displaced Germanic tribes due to the (Mongols iirc?). The western half of the empire started down the road to things like castles and other behavior like large estates that directly fed into the middle ages. Diocletian and his division of things into dioceses also helped, but I think once they started down the path of dual Augustus/Caesar rule it was bound to fail due to the inevitable clashes of personality.
That said its a great story. A good overview of things is in the "History of Rome" podcast. http://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/
Its long, but not as bad as The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. That book, the horrors.
Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
#113Earlier 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 problem is our two party system is merely a distraction to keep us fighting with each other while massive changes are being made behind the scenes. Take any issue of importance (foreign policy, national debt, warrentless wire-taping, torture, personal liberty, free speech, etc) and you'll see both parties voting together to undermine our freedom and give themselves more power/money.
Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
#114One of the first things we learned in history and politics in school is that the worst thing you can do is the separation of power and NEVER EVER combining any of Executive, Legislature or Judiciary, because that's what distinguishes authoritarian from democratic systems. It is something so basic and fundamental that every person here has to learn it and what it means as a child. Every politician hast to have a deep…
The idea of separation of power has, I believe, a flaw. Instead of considering the branches co-equal, it should be considered that the primary job of both the Legislative and Judicial is to limit the power of the Executive.
It should be obvious, but there was never any danger of the Judicial or Legislative to have too much power for itself.
At the moment, the Supreme Court/Judiciary is being usurped by by the use of secret FISA court as a sort of rival supreme court. The Legislature is essentially viewed with contempt and lied to with impunity by by the executive(Clapper, Alexander, etc.)
Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
#115Earlier 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
Men give us laws, 'God' gives us rights.
History is pretty clear that what's legal is not always what's right.
Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
#116Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
#117Earlier 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…
That irony isn't specific to conservatives. Today's liberals would have hated many of the anti-government founding fathers.
That would only illustrate the same irony if the near deification of the mythologized version of the FFs by today's conservatives referred to in the grandparent post was also common in today's liberals.
Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
#118Earlier 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…
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?
> Not to mention that they've yelled tyranny! at every minor administrative tweak, regulatory change or appointment for the last 6 years...
More like 4.5 than 6, but also for an 8 year period starting about 8 years before that, too.
Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
#119Earlier 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.
Just because it's lawful under the Constitution doesn't mean that it's not threatening rights: the US Constitution isn't perfectly complete, nor indeed even perfect in what it does cover.
The term 'rights' is also a vague one, and can be split fairly easily into those which should be considered universal and those which only apply locally -- for example, I have the right to walk across the road even where there's no designated crossing point, while in the US that would be jaywalking. That's not a universal right and certainly not a constitutionally protected one, but it's a right that's been removed from US citizens (and for good reason too, in some places). On the other hand, I would say that the right to life should be universal. The US is still largely happy with the death penalty and (per an earlier story on HN) the US Government seems to think that extra-judicial killings are fine too. They are apparently lawful under the constitution, and also threaten American citizen's rights.
Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
#120Hasn'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…
> Hasn't that NY Court heard of the Constitution?
Its not a NY Court, it is the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. (Its seat is in New York, but that's hardly relevant to anything.)
And, yes, they've heard of the Constitution. They apparently read it differently than you do. If you want to criticize the decision, feel free.
> 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
You mean like the one declared on September 14, 2001, that has been repeatedly extended since?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/11/messag...