|
Thanks for posting this.
I immediately have a couple thoughts. Please correct me if I have misunderstood something.
With respect to section (b) pertaining to covered persons, are these people who are suspected as said persons or that have been proven as said persons. If it's the latter, then there's really no need for this to be instituted, since it went before a court, and this could already be punished (harshly unless I'm mistaken). If it's the former, then I do have a problem with it, particularly in conjunction with article (c) section (1) (indefinite detention without trial).
The problem I have is that these two tenets in conjunction appear to allow the US government to detain innocent suspects (innocent until proven guilty) indefinitely without a trial. This sounds kinda contrary to what our system of justice is all about.
|
Motmob 2012.
Solving our problems before they exist.
|
Thanks for the explanation, Motbob! Now I won't have to sh*t the bed when FOX covers this sometime tomorrow on "Freedom Watch" or whatever they call it.
|
Yeah, detaining people without charge is pretty undemocratic... Hopefully that BS bill doesn't go through, it's insane.
On November 30 2011 23:19 white_horse wrote:
nice write-up OP. People crying big brother over this is the same as all those hippies complaining about america killing the terrorist al-alwaki because he was an american citizen. get fucking real. american or not if your trying to kill american people you deserve to die
I love the paradox :D
Anyway, not sure why wanting to kill american people makes you more deserving of death than wanting to kill afghans. There's motive on both sides as there's bad people on both sides.
|
On December 01 2011 10:30 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 23:24 Hypertension wrote:On November 30 2011 23:19 white_horse wrote:
nice write-up OP. People crying big brother over this is the same as all those hippies complaining about america killing the terrorist al-alwaki because he was an american citizen. get fucking real. american or not if your trying to kill american people you deserve to die So basically we should get rid of the criminal justice system in favor of death squads who hunt down murderers and terrorist sympathizers? Interesting theory. You can't join a group the United States is at war with and think you can run around immune from attack because you were\are an American citizen  It wouldn't work if you had joined the Viet Cong or the Wehrmacht, and it won't work with Al-Qaeda.
So suspicion of being associated with a terrorist group is enough to warrant being shot? Regardless of citizenship everyone deserves a trial. Its because of people with attitudes like yours that america really is half-way to becoming a police state.
|
Hopefully Obama will veto this BS. That's our only chance.
Can't believe 44 of our Republicans voted FOR this violation of the U.S. Constitution.
|
so wait. This bill specifically prevents any1 imprisoned on suspicion of terrorism from due process. And your answer to this is what ? The Supreme Court ? sin't that part of the due process ? yes it is.
If you are denied a trial, what any court says is irrelevant. Isn't that the all f'in point?
|
lol silly motbob... Trying to be "reasonable" and provide actual "facts" in your arguments. This is the internet, we want rabble rabble rabble!
But seriously though, great OP and well written. It's a shame that the people who need to read it most will skim it and jump to the same conclusions they already held.
|
I think this site should be added to the OP: www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/does-the-ndaa-authorize-detention-of-us-citizens/
I don't think it is as simple as the OP implies, because the definition of enemy combatant is so vague. I posted this on Facebook: Essentially, the entire definition rests on the idea of an "enemy of the United States", which means if you're downloading torrents, or you kill someone, or you rob a convenience store, or mug a New Yorker, you will be fine (as in subject to the normal proceedings in a court of law). But if you self-identify as a Juggalo or Anonymous or any type of gang, and those groups are deemed to be enemies of the United States, you can be held without trial basically indefinitely.
Regardless of that though, even if you assume the U.S. citizens are safe, why is okay that non U.S. citizens be held without trial? That sounds counter to justice in my mind. I don't like it.
|
On December 04 2011 12:08 flowSthead wrote:I think this site should be added to the OP: www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/does-the-ndaa-authorize-detention-of-us-citizens/I don't think it is as simple as the OP implies, because the definition of enemy combatant is so vague. I posted this on Facebook: Essentially, the entire definition rests on the idea of an "enemy of the United States", which means if you're downloading torrents, or you kill someone, or you rob a convenience store, or mug a New Yorker, you will be fine (as in subject to the normal proceedings in a court of law). But if you self-identify as a Juggalo or Anonymous or any type of gang, and those groups are deemed to be enemies of the United States, you can be held without trial basically indefinitely. Regardless of that though, even if you assume the U.S. citizens are safe, why is okay that non U.S. citizens be held without trial? That sounds counter to justice in my mind. I don't like it.
Would anyone really be opposed to the indefinite detainment of juggalos?
|
On December 02 2011 22:29 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Hopefully Obama will veto this BS. That's our only chance.
Can't believe 44 of our Republicans voted FOR this violation of the U.S. Constitution.
It's like no one actually reads the OP.
|
On December 04 2011 12:26 InvalidID wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 12:08 flowSthead wrote:I think this site should be added to the OP: www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/does-the-ndaa-authorize-detention-of-us-citizens/I don't think it is as simple as the OP implies, because the definition of enemy combatant is so vague. I posted this on Facebook: Essentially, the entire definition rests on the idea of an "enemy of the United States", which means if you're downloading torrents, or you kill someone, or you rob a convenience store, or mug a New Yorker, you will be fine (as in subject to the normal proceedings in a court of law). But if you self-identify as a Juggalo or Anonymous or any type of gang, and those groups are deemed to be enemies of the United States, you can be held without trial basically indefinitely. Regardless of that though, even if you assume the U.S. citizens are safe, why is okay that non U.S. citizens be held without trial? That sounds counter to justice in my mind. I don't like it. Would anyone really be opposed to the indefinite detainment of juggalos?
It's the principle of the matter. Juggalos are people too, very, very disturbed people.
|
I really wonder if people understand what the 3 different branches of US Government are there for. The idea is that each branch executes their power to the fullest, and the other 2 will complete their tasks to make sure what is done is both in the interest of the people and legal in regards to the Constitution. In essence, it doesn't matter what is passed in Congress or what the President does, if it's against the Constitution, it will be struck down.
|
On December 04 2011 12:44 aksfjh wrote:
I really wonder if people understand what the 3 different branches of US Government are there for. The idea is that each branch executes their power to the fullest, and the other 2 will complete their tasks to make sure what is done is both in the interest of the people and legal in regards to the Constitution. In essence, it doesn't matter what is passed in Congress or what the President does, if it's against the Constitution, it will be struck down.
By that logic the American state is infallible.
|
On December 04 2011 13:11 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 12:44 aksfjh wrote:
I really wonder if people understand what the 3 different branches of US Government are there for. The idea is that each branch executes their power to the fullest, and the other 2 will complete their tasks to make sure what is done is both in the interest of the people and legal in regards to the Constitution. In essence, it doesn't matter what is passed in Congress or what the President does, if it's against the Constitution, it will be struck down. By that logic the American state is infallible.
That was the idea in the beginning, yes. Clearly it's not true, but theoretically, it is.
|
On November 30 2011 23:31 Days wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 23:19 white_horse wrote:
nice write-up OP. People crying big brother over this is the same as all those hippies complaining about america killing the terrorist al-alwaki because he was an american citizen. get fucking real. american or not if your trying to kill american people you deserve to die Oh America, America! How perfect your people is...
Do you understand that you completely missed his point?
|
Well, Robert Chesney doesn't seem to agree with you, motbob. I certainly hope you're correct, but I think Americans stand to lose a whole lot more from being too permissive over this kind of legislation than too suspicious. I there should be absolutely no ambiguity in legislation regarding such basic rights, regardless of judicial precedent.
And, of course, I don't think the US should be able to hold anyone indefinitely without trial in the first place. In the very best case scenario, this is a continuation of bad policy.
|
i was waiting for somebody to post a thread about it, but it looks like motbob beat pretty much everybody to the punch...
|
I find it cynical how Americans draw a distinction between US citizens and non-citizens.
|
On December 04 2011 16:56 hypercube wrote:
I find it cynical how Americans draw a distinction between US citizens and non-citizens.
I think that's a poorly thought out comment. You draw a distinction between US citizens and non-citizens, you can tell because you used the word "American". Perhaps you dislike that US citizens have rights in the US that non-citizens don't, that that's a fact of life in any state. You can disagree with it, but then you are disagreeing with the very notion of the nation state. We could argue about that, hell I might well agree that the very notion of statehood is an idea that is past it's sell by date... or not... but I think it's a discussion for a different thread.
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/11/29/battlefield_america_us_citizens_face_indefinite
This is an interesting, if biased, discussion about this provision. The aspect which they focus on is the argument that the provision "would effectively extend the definition of what’s considered the U.S. military’s battlefield to anywhere in the world, even the United States.". I think if you couple this broadening of the battlefield with the idea that the U.S. can declare war on groups or individuals rather than nation states and you have a conceptualization of "war" which has exceeded traditional bounds by so much that the very word is rendered meaningless.
You end up with an army that has given itself Carte Blanche, it can declare war on anyone, anywhere. You could be walking along the street in a U.S. city and a group of armed U.S. soldiers could grab someone walking by you on the street, put them in an army vehicle and drive them to a secure location for indefinite detention and torture (another provision buried in the bill rescinds the executive order banning torture) because they are suspected of associating with enemies of the state. This is not business as usual as suggested in the O.P. because while the U.S. military can currently do this (minus the torture) in Afghanistan, they can't do it on U.S. soil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
