I'm saying that the local police in China can, on a whim, send you to a labor camp for 1-3 years, and that even after "reforms", the hearings that spring you from labor camps take longer than 1-3 years.
And I'm saying that the police in the US can't.
Equating civil liberties in the US with those of China make you, prima facie, a nutjob.
Please reread the NDAA 2012 (keyword: indefinite detention) and dispense with the ad hominem attacks. If you can't make your point without calling someone a nutjob, maybe you don't have a point to be made...
Just citing the NDAA in this context is a tell that you haven't read it. The authorization to detain persons without trial doesn't come from the NDAA, it comes from the 2003 AUMF. The NDAA narrows the detention powers available to the US; the ACLU (rightly) is upset that it doesn't narrow those powers sufficiently.
And, obviously, the detention powers available to the US under the AUMF/NDAA are nothing like those available to any local Chinese constabulary.
I have read it, and I submit the relevant text from section 1021 below.
Namely, the NDAA affirms the "authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force". A "covered person" is someone who has "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks" or who "was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces." But no trial needs to be held in order to make the aforementioned conclusions: "Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force."
So, our government can detain anybody it (who's that exactly?) deems is a "terrorist", without trial, until the end of "hostilities" (let me make a prediction: the "war on terror" isn't ending any time soon, hence "indefinite").
So, no, I am not making and will not make any comparisons between the United States and China. I am, however, backing up guelo's point that the US can legally "detain people without charges for years at a time", and very few people seem to care.
SECTION 1021
Sec. 1021. Affirmation of authority of the Armed Forces of the
United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization
for Use of Military Force.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the
President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40;
50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces
of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection
(b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section
is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported
al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged
in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,
including any person who has committed a belligerent act or
has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
forces.
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a
person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may
include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until
the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for
Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States
Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009
(title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent
tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country
of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit
or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the
Authorization for Use of Military Force.
The problem isn't the NDAA. It's Public Law 107-40, the original 2001 Al Qaeda AUMF. Here's the problematic language:
(a) IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all necessary
and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons
he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such
organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of
international terrorism again the United States by such nations,
organizations or persons
Compare to the 1991 AUMF for the first Gulf War:
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized, subject to subsection
(b), to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations
Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve
implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664,
665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677.
(b) REQUIREMENT FOR DETERMINATION THAT USE OF MILITARY FORCE IS
NECESSARY- Before exercising the authority granted in subsection (a),
the President shall make available to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his
determination--
(1) that the United States has used all appropriate diplomatic and
other peaceful means to obtain compliance by Iraq with the United
Nations Security Council resolutions cited in subsection (a); and
(2) that those efforts have not been and would not be successful in
obtaining such compliance.
Notice that the 2001 AUMF, which was written in a panic, authorizes arbitrary force with no mitigating effort required not only against nations but against "organizations" and "persons", and continues to authorize those efforts so long as they might prevent future acts of terrorism.
It is hard to get much worse than that. The NDAA doesn't make it worse; in fact, by putting pen to paper and outlining specific circumstances in which the US can use its military to detain people, it ostensibly makes it better (it is hard to imagine making the 2001 or 2003 AUMF better without repealing it and starting over, though).
The Alex Jones take on the NDAA would be that it's a huge executive overreach and a sign that the current administration favors an overt authorization of Latin American-style "disappearings" of suspected terrorists. Apart from the 2001-2003 context those febrile rants exclude, there is also the fact that the House and Senate GOP wanted the 2012 NDAA to expand the powers available to the executive to combat terrorism.
It is also possible to be disquieted by detention and due process provisions in a war powers act while simultaneously understanding the context in which a reasonable person could assert them. For example, without some provision for detaining US citizens abroad, how would you lawfully handle any armed conflict with the Taliban? There are more than 300MM Americans. Some of them will win the lottery, and others will in fact fly to Pakistan to train with militants, as has already happened repeatedly. US military forces will eventually encounter them in armed conflict. In every war, there is always going to some due process concern regarding the handling of possible US citizens taking up arms to fight alongside our opponents.
The Al Qaeda AUMF is ridiculously overbroad and needs to be fixed. But the NDAA, a utility bill that happens every year to fund the military, is not a re-ratification of that act, nor does it create a civil liberties regime in the US comparable to that of China.
Thanks for the info about the AUMF. I'll definitely have to look into that further.
Notice that the 2001 AUMF, which was written in a panic,
authorizes arbitrary force with no mitigating effort
required not only against nations but against
"organizations" and "persons", and continues to authorize
those efforts so long as they might prevent future acts of
terrorism.
It is hard to get much worse than that. The NDAA doesn't
make it worse; in fact, by putting pen to paper and
outlining specific circumstances in which the US can use
its military to detain people, it ostensibly makes it
better (it is hard to imagine making the 2001 or 2003
AUMF better without repealing it and starting over,
though).
Yea, that's definitely horrendous. That being said, the entire purpose of Section 1021 of the NDAA 2012 is to affirm those governmental powers. There's even a section which I cited which specifically states that the NDAA doesn't limit the President's powers at all: "(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force." Which basically means "everything we just said about limits and expansions means jack squat when it comes to the president; (s)he can do whatever". So yea, the AUMF started this, and it was broad and allowed everything. The NDAA is still a problem because it continues it and doesn't actually limit anything when it comes to the President.
The Alex Jones take on the NDAA would be that it's a huge
executive overreach and a sign that the current
administration favors an overt authorization of Latin
American-style "disappearings" of suspected terrorists.
Apart from the 2001-2003 context those febrile rants
exclude, there is also the fact that the House and Senate
GOP wanted the 2012 NDAA to expand the powers available
to the executive to combat terrorism.
I don't think I mentioned Alex Jones. Also "huge executive overreach and a sign that the current administration" and "the House and Senate GOP wanted the 2012 NDAA to expand the powers available to the executive". Both of those are right :) Both parties are responsible for this. This is a bi-partisan effort haha.
It is also possible to be disquieted by detention and due
process provisions in a war powers act while
simultaneously understanding the context in which a
reasonable person could assert them. For example,
without some provision for detaining US citizens abroad,
how would you lawfully handle any armed conflict with
the Taliban? There are more than 300MM Americans. Some
of them will win the lottery, and others will in fact
fly to Pakistan to train with militants, as has already
happened repeatedly. US military forces will eventually
encounter them in armed conflict. In every war, there
is always going to some due process concern regarding
the handling of possible US citizens taking up arms to
fight alongside our opponents.
If a US citizen is engaging in a firefight with US armed forces, then yes, there's your proof they are "terrorists". If you can a US citizen in the act of building a bomb, then yes, there's your proof. However, if through the grape vine you gain "intelligence" that a certain US citizen is a "terrorist", by constitutional law you must provide that citizen a fair trial by a jury of their peers (i.e. not a military trial). If overseas, bring them back to the US. The AUMF generally and NDAA more specifically do away with that requirement (which is, in my opinion, one of the most fundamental aspects of american freedom).
The Al Qaeda AUMF is ridiculously overbroad and needs to
be fixed. But the NDAA, a utility bill that happens every
year to fund the military, is not a re-ratification of
that act, nor does it create a civil liberties regime
in the US comparable to that of China.
If it's not a re-ratification, then why mention it? If the government doesn't need it, why put the language in there? I think it's important to keep in mind that few things are put into legal documentation without express purpose, especially at the level of government.
I'm the one bringing up Alex Jones, as a way of being derisive about people who equate the US and China on the auspices that "the US has made policy mistakes and China has made policy mistakes so what's the difference?". I'm sorry that I accidentally implied that you, specifically, were regurgitating Infowars points.
You ask, in effect, if the administration already had the ability under its war powers to detain people, why create a new bill that re-affirms that power? The answer is political. The conservative GOP wanted to re-affirm those war powers that benefited the CIA, and at the same time some (but not all) liberal elements of the Democratic party wanted to clarify and rein in those powers. There was a fight, and then a compromise bill, which, reading between the lines, attempts to punt the thorniest parts of the debate to the Supreme Court while creating an immediate statutory authority for CIA and DOD to continue doing what they're already doing.
Yes, this is a clusterfuck.
The problem in the US is that we were hit with one of the most damaging, best organized terrorist attacks by a non-state actor during the least competent administration of the past 50 years. Congress panicked and granted the Bush administration a wish list of military powers, and we're spending the ensuing decades gradually cleaning up after the resulting mess.
That's a problem. But it's not a sign that the US is gradually turning into a dystopian hellscape.
I don't care, except for two things. First, when people bring up the NDAA, they set off a "someone's wrong on the Internet" sensor that, as a nerd, I am unable to suppress. Second, as much as Internet psuedo-activists do not want to hear this, the "NDAA" issue is in fact a corner case in US policy. Indefinite detention of political dissidents in China is not a corner case. It is a daily fact of life, as it is elsewhere in the world.
You can make millions of dollars spinning conspiracy theories about the evils of the government and big corporations in America, and the reality is, nobody really cares. Try doing that in Russia; see how long it takes for you or your coworkers to end up dead.
I'm the one bringing up Alex Jones, as a way of being
derisive about people who equate the US and China on the
auspices that "the US has made policy mistakes and China
has made policy mistakes so what's the difference?". I'm
sorry that I accidentally implied that you, specifically,
were regurgitating Infowars points.
No problem. I just wanted to make it clear that I wasn't.
Yes, this is a clusterfuck.
That's something we definitely agree on ;)
That's a problem. But it's not a sign that the US is gradually
turning into a dystopian hellscape.
At the risk of sounding crazy myself, I've seen too many recent videos of "peace officers" dragging peaceful protestors into the streets by their hair and group beating them with batons before handcuffing and arresting them, to believe that myself. But that's my opinion. And I really do wish that was the case.
I don't care, except for two things. First, when people bring
up the NDAA, they set off a "someone's wrong on the Internet"
sensor that, as a nerd, I am unable to suppress. Second, as much
as Internet psuedo-activists do not want to hear this, the "NDAA"
issue is in fact a corner case in US policy. Indefinite detention
of political dissidents in China is not a corner case. It is a daily
fact of life, as it is elsewhere in the world.
I don't have any examples of the provisions outlined in the NDAA and documents prior being used, so I can't speak to that.
You can make millions of dollars spinning conspiracy theories
about the evils of the government and big corporations in America,
and the reality is, nobody really cares. Try doing that in Russia;
see how long it takes for you or your coworkers to end up dead.
"Try doing that in Russia; see how long it takes for you or your coworkers to end up dead." Let's be fair, you could make that same case for the death of Andrew Breitbart.
Wait what? Breitbart died of a heart attack. He had a history of heart disease. He was also beloved of roughly half the US government. Russian activists with inconvenient positions and personal beliefs appear to routinely end up shot to death.
Yea I'm not saying Breitbart was murdered lol. I'm just saying, if we're going to talk about governments murdering inconvenient people, a case could be made for it and we shouldn't put it past our own government to do so.
In any case this is tertiary to the original point that the situation is a mess, regardless of whether the NDAA has anything to do with it.
So the rhetorical options you'd like to open up with this comment are, either:
(1) A rebuttal that supports drug enforcement and mandatory minimum sentences, or
(2) An agreement that drug enforcement in the US creates a civil liberties environment comparable to that of China, where a local bureaucrat can sentence you to 3 years of forced labor for making unfavorable comments.
The sad thing is that actually reading primary sources and not buying into the Alex Jones take on any given policy question does in fact make me a turbonationalist right winger on HN. One can't even think about the issues; one must instead keep the game of conspiracy-theoretic telephone going.
Here's a clue: not believing that the evil "NDAA" bill creates a secret police force that disappears Americans off the streets doesn't make me a supporter of US counterterrorism policy.
If you don't want to hear mitigating/moderating sentiments about what the NDAA is, then don't say manifestly silly things about it, like that it creates a detention regime comparable to that of China. The 2001/2003/2012 AUMF/NDAA powers are not a good thing. Lots of things aren't good. That doesn't make them Hitler.
If this is truly a new precedent, a new lowering of the bar for freedom, than one can chart all of the legislation you list as data-points, and create a simple graph of freedom. That graph is negative. Expand that chart out, and eventually it does indeed reach Hitler.
Though perhaps it's more "Brave New World" than 1984. Color-Coded terror alerts and terrorists-as-wolves commercials seem to have gone out of style and replaced with more subtle phenomenon.
> The sad thing is that actually reading primary sources and not buying into the Alex Jones take on any given policy question does in fact make me a turbonationalist right winger on HN.
You don't have to find history insightful. You're still wrong. If you don't think there's people in gitmo with no charges, you're blinded by your fairy-tail fantasy.
