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.
"I'm like a lover you just beat up for the first time"
Surely that just demonstrates poor knowledge of history? I mean, between the unethical experimentation on its own citizens of the 20th century and before, Japanese internment camps, the Gulf of Tonkin, the overthrowing of democratic governments in Iran, Iran-Contra, drone attacks for the past 7+ years, Guantanamo, the illegal invasion of Iraq, retroactive immunity for executors of some of the aforementioned...(and that's just off the top of my rather poor memory), how could your disdain have only recently arisen?
I find that a better analogy would be an uncle who gave you nice Christmas presents, so you ignored the persistent rumours that he molested your cousins. And now you're starting to receive the same treatment.
That analogy is just fantastic - although the uncle is also the local judge, so can't be prosecuted, but he keeps sending other people who do the same as him to prison.
I just had to upvote, as you so totally found the words to express my thoughts and feelings regarding the former great idea, that was called the US of A.
> 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.
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.
I know a guy (that I obviously cannot disclose who) that once a similar thing happened, not as president though...
Someone that noone knew, a woman to be more exact, once showed up with some documents, showed some to him (without allowing him to read them all or too much), then asked: "Do you want to become mayor?"
The person I knew replied: "Yes, why not?"
The woman: "Alright. I call you later." (mind you, she never asked for his phone).
Indeed, she called, and told him that if he wanted to become mayor, to do what she told him to do, and talk with her in a certain place at a certain time.
He asked why, and tried to convince her to do it in a manner that is less weird and shady...
Then she told him: "Your call, if you want to become mayor, do as we tell you, otherwise we will choose someone else."
He gave up.
And I wonder who will win the elections next year in that town... (there are currently no obvious candidates or popular politicians, the only would that would be a automatic win is the current mayor that is already re-elected and thus cannot be a candidate at all)
Maybe I'm not on HN for years now, but about 6 months ago, I assume it wouldn't have been dead that fast. I remember some articles during this hole SOPA / PIPA thing that went along similar lines.
And this "goofy" comment was marked as "tin hat" by the author himslef, so I only took it half serious.
As the poster of the original comment, thanks for this. It was indeed supposed to be tongue-in-cheek.
The scenario was intended to be completely fictional. It doesn't necesarily need to be the US and could just have likely to be somewhere like the UK. This could be 20 years down the line.
It was intended to demonstrate an extreme, where the intimate knowledge of someone's entire personal life by the state is exploitable by a malicious entity. Snowden is an example of a whistle-blower. His ex-co-workers could just as easily be blackmailers.
You're welcome! But basically, there's no gauarantee that the data collected in advance on people, you know in case a name comes up later and you don't want to do a ton of investigations to uncover the dirty secrets, aren't used in these ways.
There is always the IRS, but of course no one in the government, let alone the IRS, would ever use their position to stifle freedom of expression. Oh wait, Congress is having hearings today on that.
They are already doing what your claiming they cannot possibly do. Its time to acknowledge that there is very little they cannot do, or worse are doing that we still haven't found out
The evidence and reports that have thus far been released and discussed regarding the IRS's actions leave very little room to suggest they used their position to stifle freedom of expression.
Alright, half is hyperbolic--but you can get a fairly-large portion of the population aping all sorts of crazy messages by putting them in the mouth of a candidate during an election. I'm guessing there'll be a whole lot of "disgust" coming from the Republicans in 2016.
Oppressive governments are notorious for killing off large percentages of their populations to eliminate dissenters and dissuade survivors from even contemplating dissent.
"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.
> "I can't conceive of what Obama has in mind with pursuing this law against resistance."
I think, logically, we're down to only a few options:
1. "he's lying": His stated opinions/positions don't reflect his beliefs at all.
2. "he's powerless": despite being President, he has no practical control over what is pursued, so his speeches and signing statements are essentially a plea for people and historians to not blame him for that which he cannot control.
3. "he's corrupt": Power has corrupted his ideals, and he truly believes he can fairly wield dangerous powers such as the drone kill list and suspension of citizenship/rights, despite their risks, and that having these tools available to him today is more necessary/important than denying them for fear of future abuse.
And none of those possibilities are particularly encouraging.
> 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.
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.
The irony is in the fact that, as today's conservatives would hate many of the founding fathers for being godless radical liberals, today's liberals would hate many of them for being anti-government Tea Party extremists.
I don't think you understand where the irony comes from. Liberals don't view the founders the way conservatives do. Most of us have great respect for the founders in general, but we don't treat them as gods.
There is no irony in disagreeing with someone you never viewed as infallible.
I do understand where that irony comes from, thank you. I was pointing out the irony that conservatives would hate half the founders for being radical liberals, while liberals would hate the other half for being radical conservatives. Honestly, if one classifies themselves as either a liberal or conservative, I don't trust their judgement because they've given into a form of modern tribalism and will nearly always begin espousing double standards to strike out at other side.
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.
I'm telling you that singling out conservatives for being hypocrites while ignoring your "side" for being hypocrites is a form of modern tribalism. In other words, you're part of the problem of gridlock because you're too busy playing a gotcha game. This comes from spending too much time on blogs and forums specific to your team. Both sides do it, and I don't understand how one could consider themselves a member of either one and pretend that they know they chose correctly.
Liberal Democrats are hypocrites because they spent eight years bashing George W. Bush for his expanding surveillance state--and Obama specifically spoke out against it during his candidacy--yet many of those same liberal Democrats spend their time in Washington defending the current administration's policies. They hated Bush's wars and detainment policies yet say nothing about Obama's continuation of them, the drone strikes, and the general warmongering. This administration has been one long series of broken promises and defensive Democrats. Watching Nancy Pelosi attempt to differentiate between Obama's security state and Bush's security state was mind-boggling.
If you're going to respond that liberals are opposed to all this and don't consider Obama a true liberal because of it, conservatives did the same regarding George W. Bush when his poll numbers went down too. Every time there's a problem, the person in office suddenly doesn't represent you anymore, and you distance yourselves.
Bloating the spectrum of government power refers to desensitization to the growing power the government has to collect information on citizens for its own purposes, from the healthcare database to monitoring phone calls.
I can tell which "side" you're on just from the seething way you talk about the other team. If you took a step back and looked objectively, you'd see that you both come off the same way to independents and have the same transgressions and hypocrisies.
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.
By labeling that citizen a "terrorist" without due process of law. The entire purpose of "due process" is to force the accuser to produce the all the necessary evidence to prove the accusation and that he (the accuser) isn't simply trying to destroy someone he doesn't like.
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."
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.
This is only constitutional because our government has said "it's legal".
Your right to free speech as an American citizen is only a right so far as the US government continues to respect that right. The Executive branch could come out tomorrow and start detaining anyone they cared to while stating that any criticism of the US Government is now a detainable offense, and it would be legal if the Judicial branch waved it's hands and said "We'll allow it."
Our rights may be "god given", but god cannot protect us from the tyranny of men.
In the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case, the SCOTUS ruled that US citizens have the right to due process. So that ruling actually sets a precedent for this law being unconstitutional.
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.
Taking over a colony to appropriate its land and other resources != being principally against British colonialism.
The whole distinction between one element of a set and a whole set seems to be incomprehensible to modern liberals. E.g. the recent example of shooting an attacking black thug had been made an example of racism. Because, obviously, somebody who shoots a black person to protect his life is principally against the entire black race.
"The whole distinction between one element of a set and a whole set seems to be incomprehensible to modern liberals."
Because obviously, one person with a certain ideological bent speaks for every person with that same ideology.
By the way, you should have spoken up if you knew unequivocally that the black thug was the attacker, especially when there was absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever, besides the testimony of accused. You could have really helped your guy's case.
I've only brought up the recent events to show that it's not a singular case. The whole liberal community is engaging in this.
PS. As for your suggestion for me to speak up - luckily prosecution brought a witness who testified that TM had been attacking GZ, so no need for me to do the same.
There are people of all sorts of political leanings that realize that the state's case was extremely weak because of the lack of hard evidence. Maybe that's because it isn't a political issue. I mean, how would you frame the question, if you wanted to glean a person's political affiliation from the single issue of Zimmerman killing Martin?
This square peg of a criminal case was jammed into the round hole of a political issue when Obama made his statement about if Trayvon was his son. Since there are millions of people in this country whose stances on various issues consist singularly of the opposing view of whatever Obama's view on the issue is, George Zimmerman became a conservative hero.
So to paint overreaction and the abandonment of logic and reason as a tenet of liberalism is downright ludicrous.
The United States has become empire. We have the trappings of a democratic republic, but it's obvious that the law of the land is broken for those in power. No one should be surprised by this, it's evolution in action and the writing's been on the wall for years.
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.
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.
Yeah, your characterization of it as an acceleration is more accurate. Some of the folks around during 9/11, Rumsfeld and Cheney, were long-time cold warriors and projects like Main Core precede 9/11.
What's worrying is that it always strikes me as the Roman Empire in the last days of the Republic. Vast sums being spent to buy elections, a powerful few getting very rich off wars and the government grinding to a halt, unable to deal with the problems facing the nation.
Just before Caesar came along and get into a fight with the Senate. Congress' approval ratings are so low it really wouldn't take much for a powerful populist movement to challenge the constitutional makeup.
The other scary thing is how the Roman Empire ended... IIUC (and that's a capital I, btw), a group of Visigoths penetrated the capital, killed a bunch of powerful rulers and left... the rest of the country couldn't handle itself and it led to the Dark Ages for centuries... The scary thing is how close the events of 9/11/2001 are to those very circumstances...
...Although a part of me fantasizes about the freedom which existed in Dark Ages....
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.
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.
However, what you refer to as unwanted side-effects, are the entire point. Those side-effects, aren't side-effects, they're the goal. Obama is aggressively pursuing these powers, just as Bush did before him. It's not ignorance at work, or misplaced faith in the system; everybody at the top of the food chain understands exactly what this means.
You want to know what he's thinking? He's thinking the same thing every despot in history has thought. If this were 20 or 30 years into the future, with the way things are going, Obama would be a truly frightening monster. The next three or four presidents that come after Obama, are the ones to be afraid of; they'll start off right out of the gate with the kind of power the founding fathers would have understood to be the domain of kings and tyrants.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Principle is difficult, short-cuts are easy. And it's so much easier to "get things done" yourself if you break all the rules, but of course once you've destroyed all the rules they no longer apply to anyone, not just yourself.
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.
By that line of reasoning wouldn't presidents continue to perceive their final term -- in that case, also their first -- as the unaccountable one? I'm afraid the problems are much more deeply seated within political culture and won't be fixed by such simple (if still completely unattainable) measures.
Things that come to mind are the absolute restriction to a two party system and the concentration on a leader figure, ie. the identification of the government with one person. But from my limited point of view both of those things are at the core of the US political identity, utterly entrenched.
If a president could only serve one six year term then wouldn't you get the unaccountable second term crap for the whole of that six year term? Surely one thing that keeps a politician accountable to the electorate is the prospect of having to fight an election at some point in the future.
It's too bad you guys don't have a hair-trigger for Motions of No Confidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_of_no_confidence) like we do in Canada. We have elections every five years at the most--but it rarely ever gets to be that long, because some issue or another inevitably comes along that causes the rest of the House to be upset with the party in power, and it's very easy to throw down the "well, if you think you have the citizens' consent, just get them to vote you in again" gauntlet.
> 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.
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?
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 without doing either, then you don't belong in that position. As idealistic as that may be, society is far more organic than mere algorithms and functions; thus capable of being reformulated as necessary.
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.
For listeners of "patriot radio", there are radio hosts that said, pre-Obama, that Bush was putting into place mechanisms of control and it was the next president's role to put them to use. In this sense, it's not about staying in office but rather getting certain deeds done or mechanisms in place.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.'"
> 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.
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.
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.
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?
It is said that the enemies of the USA hate the USA for its freedom. Well, what you describe is American freedom, freedom for Americans to abuse non Americans on non American soil, with the backing of American law and power.
I have to be honest here, I too hate those freedoms.
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.
> 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.
Obama does it again. He tries to play down the domestic upheaval by telling its citizens that they are not the primary subject; foreigners are. He did the same thing with Prism, and I don't know why the rest of the world just accepts it. (By the way, note that most of the EU doesn't care about Prism, and that the EU only became agitated when it became apparent that it's officials/embassies are being wiretapped.)
Furthermore, Obama promises that he will not abuse the right, but he can't vouch for his successors; having such laws in place is just an accident waiting to happen.
What gave you the idea that the US government give a shit about foreigners? Even most Americans don't, let alone the US government. It's appalling.
When I was young, America was a model country. At least that's what I though at the time with my limited knowledge. I always wanted to go there and maybe live there. Now I don't think I'd go there even if I was offered money. I had met many Americans and they were all very nice, smart people. It's such a shame that they have to put up to this. But I always believed people get what they deserve in democracies. If American people really are sick of this stuff, they should act instead of sitting in front of their computers and whine about how Obama has changed.
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.
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.
That's a smokescreen. It's much better for the masses to be arguing over gay marriage than coming together and figuring out that maybe tax cuts for the wealthy were a bad idea after all.
There is no difference anywhere. Even in the old communist countries you support one kind of corruption or another. World wide, in democracies, there is a distinct lack of an honest option.
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.
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.
I could well be 100% wrong, but I dont think the US gov do recognize the international court of human rights as having any jurisdiction over Americans.
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?
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.)
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.
Please also notice that this "news" is reported on Russia Today. Where is the American Reporting? They are too concerned with royal babies, ironically.
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.
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.
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.
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.