
Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA - areski
http://rt.com/usa/obama-ndaa-appeal-suit-229/
======
junto
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 up into
little pieces. Should wife, my children (one a toddler and the other a baby)
happen to be present, then they will be considered "collateral damage".

I love the idea of the American dream and the spirit of free speech and the
glorious constitution that you have / had in America, but I'm sorry, you've
just lost me. I'm like a lover you just beat up for the first time. I've lost
that sparkle of first love. I'm crying inside. I'm scared to show you that
emotion, because I'm afraid you'll use it against me.

You're a bully and there is no teacher to get you back in line. You scare me.

I know this will get downvoted to hell, but I just had to splurge my mind.

~~~
derefr
> 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.

~~~
junto
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 rights and torture have been ripped
up by the last two US administrations. It is pertinent to note that the US
does it's brutality outside the US and generally away from the eyes of its own
citizens. Other brutal regimes tend to fall quickly because they do that to
their own.

As I see it from the outside, your country has been stolen from you without
your knowledge. It is organisations like Wikileaks and people like Edward
Snowden that have started to tell us all the truth. This is why they are so
important, and so very very dangerous to the powers behind the throne.

Ok, tin foil hat time:

    
    
      Imagine for a minute that Obama and Bush both entered
      into power without nefarious aims. Imagine that you sit 
      in the Oval Office on day one of your presidency when 
      some guy in a black suit gets shown in. 
    
      He says "Good morning Mr President" and presents you 
      with a little black folder. You open the folder and flick 
      through the pages and pages of documents, reading it slowly. 
    
      You look up and say to the man, "Who are you? What do you want?". 
    
      The man gives you a cell phone and says, "You keep this phone 
      with you at all times. You do not question the person at the 
      other end. You do not speak about this to anyone else. You'll have 
      some wins as president if you play ball, but otherwise we own you".
    

"I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from
you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the President, if I had a
personal e-mail,"

That kind of power makes sure that politicians do their bidding. Whoever
"they" are.

Ok, tin-foil hat back in the drawer...

~~~
JonSkeptic
I do love a good conspiracy theory.

~~~
junto
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)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Cards_\(UK_TV_series\))

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

------
spodek
"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 law against
resistance.

Is it not obvious to everyone the unwanted side-effects of this kind of power?
Is it not obvious how much this flies in the face of the intent of the people
who wrote the Constitution. Or more relevantly the Declaration of
Independence? Obama is a _lawyer_! He's intelligent. What can he be thinking?
Did he forget the purpose and spirit of the Bill of Rights as he and advisors
schemed to get around its letters?

Those revolutionaries would have all been labeled terrorists today. With the
King in England, any colonist would have been an enemy combatant, stripped of
rights, jailed or worse arbitrarily, and who knows what else.

Whether the United States has become what we rebelled against is not the
question. If nothing changes, it's only a matter of time. This country has
gotten rid of slavery and overcome major hurdles of sexual and racial
inequality. Let's hope we have what it takes to overcome this centralization
of power and unaccountability. And that we act on it.

~~~
jvm
> 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...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/10/07/AR2010100705485.html)

~~~
jbooth
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?

~~~
bobo1357
How does this threaten an American citizen's rights? This is lawful under the
Constitution.

~~~
jbooth
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."

~~~
bobo1357
Again, this law is constitutional.

[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld)

~~~
jbooth
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.

------
eksith
Why is it that every leader in power seems to forget that they won't stay in
that position forever? Let's take his word for it and say the power won't be
abused. What of his successors?

If a power exists, it will be abused. Period. It's only a matter of time.
That's the whole premise behind checks and balances and due process. You don't
leave power in the hands of a few, but the many.

~~~
Shivetya
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.

~~~
ars
> 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.)

~~~
joshfraser
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.

------
birchtree
One important aspect of "without due process" is that it means that they don't
have to prove anyone is a terrorist. They don't even have to believe someone
is a terrorist, they only need to pretend that they do.

I'm not sure whether this applies much in the kinds of situations where this
in particular is used, but in this country people have rights such as silence
that can be circumvented because suspected terrorists are treated differently
and have fewer rights - those who don't cooperate will continue to be treated
as terrorists.

~~~
grey-area
This is why terrorists, and suspected terrorists, need to be given exactly the
same rights under the law as everyone else.

~~~
DanBC
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.

~~~
jbooth
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.

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

------
confluence
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
> acknowledgment of the host government.... The first time I proposed a
> snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting
> with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had
> seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting,
> having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the
> arguments on both sides for Gore: "Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore
> laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of
> international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist.
> Go grab his ass.'"_

Source:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition)

FTFA:

> _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_

How could this possibly not end up with someone abusing it? Without due
process, the executive branch basically has carte blanche to do whatever the
hell it wants. Political opponents. People you don't like. People in the
media. Whistleblowers. No one has any rights any more. All it would take is
for a covert agent or hacker to plant bomb making material on your computer to
detain (and torture) you until you die.

Everyone knows that this is illegal. Everyone knows that this is insanely
stupid. Everyone knows that this will be abused. Everyone knows that this is
against the constitution.

Shit still happens anyway.

The terrorists fucking won. They've destroyed America, and they didn't even
have to lift a finger to do it. We did it all on our very own.

I'm tired. So very tired.

~~~
CaveTech
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.

------
kaustubh
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.

~~~
x3c
Trickier than that is the following:

If such actions are committed on US soil, this section will not be applicable.
So this is about arresting and detaining, indefinitely, someone on foreign
land. Land where the US government has no jurisdiction. Am I missing something
here?

~~~
eksith
No, I think that's the picture. It's already happening in those "black sites"
we hear about and the sad thing is that the citizens in those countries would
be up in arms about them if they were more widely known. It's the government
complicity in each of those locations that allow these things to happen.

I.E. Not _technically_ detained _by_ the U.S. but they are detained the
request of U.S. officials. It's the most flagrant (and disgusting) use of
plausible deniability.

~~~
sdoering
> the sad thing is that the citizens in those countries would be up in arms
> about them if they were more widely known.

By the way. These sites in Europe were discussed, could be/are widely known,
but I really do not see anyone here up in arms against these sites. On the
contrary, a lot of people think of them as something good, as they are clearly
there, to get rid of some nasty terrorists. And that only. And as long, as it
is the poster-boy for democracy (the US) doing it and not say China, nearly (a
very little exaggeration) everybody just goes along.

------
Mordor
"Mr. Obama said in an accompanying signing statement that he will not abuse
these privileges"

Sure, he'll just ask someone else to do it...

------
mercurial
So, if I understand US politics right, you have the choice between the side
who will lie to you about going to war and curtail your civil liberties, and
the side who will lie to you about curtailing your civil liberties and do it
anyway? Tough choice between plague and cholera.

~~~
grandalf
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.

~~~
mercurial
I do get the impression there is something different in terms of social and
fiscal policies, at least.

~~~
venomsnake
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.

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

~~~
venomsnake
_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

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

~~~
czr80
I'm sorry - did you not see the recent election where the Republican candidate
ran on a platform of forcing 12m people to "self-deport"?

------
mtgx
Hasn'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 powers, but only temporary.

But you can imagine this will last forever, because US will never be at "more
peace" than they are right now, and it's all because how they are acting
abroad. So don't think these laws will ever change unless more people speak
out against them and hold their Congress accountable for it.

~~~
dragonwriter
> 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...](http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/2012/09/11/message-continuation-national-emergency-respect-certain-
terrorist-attack)

------
tete
One 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
understanding of why that is so fundamentally important, else he really
shouldn't be entrusted with any kind of political position in any kind of
republic.

It's something that is known since the antique and has been strengthened by
any bad government that appeared throughout history, so how is it that such a
law (or actually anti-law) is possible and not uniformly rejected in first
place?

~~~
jivatmanx
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.)

------
drraoulduke
From the President that brought you "if there is a step we can take that will
save even one child.... we should take that step."

------
mercurial
Land of the free, eh?

~~~
teeja
Don't forget, "Home of the brave".

~~~
pivnicek
At least Snowden showed that the "home of the brave" part is not entirely
false.

~~~
rfctr
He is brave because he's not home, eh.

~~~
mercurial
He is brave because he threw away his old life for something he believed in,
and he is away from home because he is not stupid.

------
jneal
More proof that the United States government is no longer considering itself
under jurisdiction of the constitution.

------
adamc
Obama has demonstrated, with this and other acts, that he does not hold civil
liberties in high regard. I'm disappointed in him, but the pattern has been
consistent enough that I am no longer surprised.

------
pivnicek
Please also notice that this "news" is reported on Russia Today. Where is the
American Reporting? They are too concerned with royal babies, ironically.

~~~
rfctr
The Russia Today was created with the goal of breaking the American media
omerta.

------
bobwaycott
Legal standing strikes again.

While on the whole, legal standing is a good doctrine and litmus test, when it
comes to laws and practices such as these, I cannot help but think we need to
advocate for change to interpreting the validity of the case and the need to
adjudicate on constitutional questions through legal standing alone.

This is off the cuff, but I find it very unhelpful when the Congress and
President can enact and execute laws that cannot be questioned in the courts
by concerned citizens unless they have been or can arguably prove legal
standing. Challenging the constitutionality of laws should not require that
one's rights and liberty be violated beforehand.

------
cpursley
But he speaks so well....

I wonder how many people would support another Obama term, despite existing
term limits and his actions. My guess is a lot.

~~~
czr80
Depends what the alternative is, I guess.

------
pivnicek
Welcome to extra-legal-land. There are no rights here except for those of the
accuser. No burden of proof or evidence required! Do you hold executive
privilege? Imprison and murder as you wish.

------
quattrofan
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...

~~~
medde
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.

~~~
quattrofan
True, "abuse" is a very different word from "violate"

------
ekianjo
I guess that's what Snowden will get if he ever lands in the US again. No
trial, just indefinitely roting in jail.

------
fatjokes
I'm guessing his Nobel Peace Prize medal is being used as a coaster in the
White House right now.

------
tankbot
_cough_ Snowden _cough_

