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

131–140 of 150 posts

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

#131

Post by jbooth »

vor_ wrote: post #124
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?

I don't understand singling out conservatives here. Liberals have been at least as complicit in bloating the spectrum of government power. Even worse, the majority of the media expressed practically no skeptical interest until they found out the government was spying on them .

I'm singling out conservatives because they're hypocrites.

Liberals don't trust police/military, and are ok with the welfare state. They're generally pretty consistent on this, Obama's signed off on this program, but it's been opposed by many more liberals than conservatives.

Conservatives are the opposite, as evidenced by the reaction to this. When you combine their rhetoric about "Obama's Tyranny" when it comes to marginal tax rates or healthcare reform with their complete silence about things that are actually threatening, it's pathetic.

You're even doing it yourself. 'Bloating the spectrum of government power' is obfuscatory BS. Social workers and teachers don't carry guns or listen to phone calls, yet you're trying to conflate them with the security state.

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

#132

Post by mcantelon »

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…

Obama's pretty obviously not steering the ship. He's a salesman for whoever is.

As for motivation, since 9/11 the course has been set to gradually implement a robust domestic counter-insurgence apparatus. So either the state anticipates otherwise unmanageable instability in the face of climate change, de-inustrialization, etc. or undemocratic changes are planned that could invite domestic insurrection.

The US is reportedly making plans for war with China (http://yalejournal.org/2013/06/12/who-authorized-preparation...), so that could be an effort requiring unprecedented austerity/authoritarianism.

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

#133

Post by coldcode »

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.

Given what the NSA is doing, it is the phone book.

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

#134

Post by saraid216 »

eksith wrote: post #55
saraid216 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wit…

> The alternative is to do the right

I recognize that you believe this alternative exists. I don't. I believe every action that could be taken is wrong, including no action. I believe that one of the core properties of any system is exploitability, including legal systems.

> As idealistic as that may be, society is far more organic than mere algorithms and functions; thus capable of being reformulated as necessary.

...how many instances of "reformulation" can you name of society, as compared to systems of algorithms and functions? Changing society in a meaningful and directed manner is damn near impossible. Algorithms get reformulated hourly.

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

#135

Post by anExcitedBeast »

mkramlich wrote: post #100
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.

There's also only one person who could single-handedly stop this from becoming law. And that one person, that one single point of failure who doesn't have a hive mind to hide behind, is Obama.

But to your point, congress certainly warrants equal rebuke.

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

#136

Post by saraid216 »

frogpelt wrote: post #50
saraid216 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Not a great analogy. What the Obama administration has done with this is more akin to creating an API for future leaders to exploit the people without recourse.

> Not a great analogy.

Once upon a time, someone made a hammer. A year later, someone else took that hammer and used it to break someone's face in. Sad face.

Happy?

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

#137

Post by grandalf »

gadders wrote: post #91
venomsnake wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Claims made by parties are irrelevant. Look at the actions and both parties are nearly identical.

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

#138

Post by kunai »

mcantelon wrote: post #132
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…

Obama's pretty obviously not steering the ship. He's a salesman for whoever is. As for motivation, since 9/11 the course has been set to gradually implement a robust domestic counter-insurgence apparatus. So either the state anticipates otherwise unmanageable instability in the face of climate change, de-inustrialization, etc. or undemocratic changes are planned that could invite domestic insurrection. The US is repo…

AFAIK this has been happening since way before 9/11, now it's just picked up more pace. If you remember (I don't because I wasn't alive then) during Truman's presidency and up until around the 1990s, the U.S. consistently, without failure, used Communism as a scapegoat for instilling fear into the masses and making an international statement. It was only oh-so-convenient that Communist regimes tended to be oppressive -- Stalin, Mao, Khrushchev -- why not lead the public to believe ALL Communist regimes are that way?

Let's prevent freedom of thought, and lead the public to believe that while we actually feel threatened by the idea of communal sharing and the concept of Marxism, which we feel is harmful to the kickbacks that we receive from corporations to do what we want, Communism is actually just another word for an oppressive regime, and not a political concept derived by a highly intelligent German philosopher that has enormous benefits worldwide.

So, here's the plan: we invade 'Nam. If they're the first communist regime that actually works, the public will know we've been lying to them.

Shit, that didn't work. Okay, so there's this pretty harmless socialist dude running for office in Chile, let's call him a communist and make an example out of him. All right, let's get OUR candidate out, and-- HOLY SHIT, HE'S WON! We have succeeded. Even though Pinochet is an oppressive dictator and a mockery of democracy, let's keep him there anyway, because HE'S NOT COMMUNIST! Thank the lord. Thank, the, lord. Because he isn't communist, the public will never know that Chile is now oppressed!

So, reestablishing my point once again -- this has been going on long before 9/11, it's just that 9/11 has supercharged the process by giving the U.S. government a boost in doing so. There's a difference, though -- now we actually KNOW that the U.S. government is corrupt. It's no longer "you're with us or with the communists" or "you're with us or with the terrorists." What matters is how hard we push these people. The only way to do that is to educate. Mainstream media is a waste of time, and while Al Jazeera tends to be far more accurate and unbiased in its reporting, I don't know how well Americans will take to watching an Arabic-sponsored channel.

More high-profile names like Soledad O'Brien, and it should be enough.

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

#140

Post by medde »

quattrofan wrote: post #108

So Obama says he wont "abuse" it, but what about his successor, and the successor after that? I assume this law does not expire once he leaves office...

Also, Obama said that he won't abuse it but he didn't say when... maybe he won't abuse it yesterday. And I bet that his description of abuse is very different then ours.
Post reply on HN