|
On December 05 2011 02:04 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I could have gone into details but the point is that while some rights naturally only apply to citizens (like access to diplomatic services abroad) others should apply to everyone. The right for due process shouldn't depend on citizenship and I believe and, at least in theory, it doesn't in EU countries. Although in practice it's much more likely that a non-citizen would be transfered to a country that doesn't respect human rights, so it's not absolute.
|
(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.
Uh doesn't this sorta mean that this entire section is pointless? I mean the entire point of the section seems to be to detail the authority of the president and Authorization for Use of Military Force?
Edit: as said before, much of the powers given in this section already exist.
|
I disagree with the premise here. Just because they've already scrounged a bunch of these powers in from other ambiguous laws doesn't mean they should have ever had them to begin with. Saying that 'they already do it anyway' is nothing more then a strawman to the real issue of whether this law is something the US needs and whether their previous actions were lawful. I refuse to believe that military trials for us citizens was something that needed to be codified. We should be protecting the rights of US citizens, not encouraging the executive branch to trounce on them.
|
On December 05 2011 13:38 patrick321 wrote:
I disagree with the premise here. Just because they've already scrounged a bunch of these powers in from other ambiguous laws doesn't mean they should have ever had them to begin with. Saying that 'they already do it anyway' is nothing more then a strawman to the real issue of whether this law is something the US needs and whether their previous actions were lawful. I refuse to believe that military trials for us citizens was something that needed to be codified. We should be protecting the rights of US citizens, not encouraging the executive branch to trounce on them.
We (the people) encourage the executive and legislative branches to do whatever they can to "fix" society. It is up to the courts to decide if the solution they came up with is constitutional.
|
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.
It has to do with the idea of being in a "state of war" ie you don't give enemy soldiers a trial, you shoot at them, unless they surrender, and then you hold them until the war is over.
Now you have a problem when
1. the "soldiers" do not have uniforms
2. the "war" is not against a state with territory and relatively clear leadership, but a group with no territory, and potentially unclear leadership.
While you could use purely criminal methods for this (because its not a "state"), it gets complicated when the criminal organization is operating across national borders, and when you don't have full cooperation with the local "state". (the local "state" may be militia if the official "state" is too weak)
This probably indicates that some revision is needed, in designing a system so the executive branch doesn't have the power to hold people indefinitely without some type of individual trial. (with allowances made for more time if the inital 'detention' was in foreign territory)
|
|
|
On December 05 2011 12:29 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 02:04 Dapper_Cad wrote: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. I could have gone into details but the point is that while some rights naturally only apply to citizens (like access to diplomatic services abroad) others should apply to everyone. The right for due process shouldn't depend on citizenship and I believe and, at least in theory, it doesn't in EU countries. Although in practice it's much more likely that a non-citizen would be transfered to a country that doesn't respect human rights, so it's not absolute.
Absolutely this. I am completely disgusted that anyone would think otherwise.
There are obvious reasons for having differences in how you operate some rights - it's simply not feasible for country X to provide free health care for all seven billion people on the planet, or pensions, or disability allowance, or whatever else. However, the right to freedom? The right to life? The nationality of someone has absolutely nothing to do with whether a government should respect these. If there is not enough reason to justify denying these rights to someone of one nationality, there is not enough reason to justify denying them to someone of any nationality whatsoever. I honestly don't see how this can be argued.
I am truly amazed that some people actually seem to feel differently. It's honestly very sad.
|
On December 08 2011 20:08 FuzzyJAM wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 12:29 hypercube wrote:On December 05 2011 02:04 Dapper_Cad wrote: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. I could have gone into details but the point is that while some rights naturally only apply to citizens (like access to diplomatic services abroad) others should apply to everyone. The right for due process shouldn't depend on citizenship and I believe and, at least in theory, it doesn't in EU countries. Although in practice it's much more likely that a non-citizen would be transfered to a country that doesn't respect human rights, so it's not absolute. Absolutely this. I am completely disgusted that anyone would think otherwise. There are obvious reasons for having differences in how you operate some rights - it's simply not feasible for country X to provide free health care for all seven billion people on the planet, or pensions, or disability allowance, or whatever else. However, the right to freedom? The right to life? The nationality of someone has absolutely nothing to do with whether a government should respect these. If there is not enough reason to justify denying these rights to someone of one nationality, there is not enough reason to justify denying them to someone of any nationality whatsoever. I honestly don't see how this can be argued. I am truly amazed that some people actually seem to feel differently. It's honestly very sad.
Agreed, of course. Keep in mind though that Obama was supposed to close Gitmo and end extradition- all with popular support. I don't see Americans as being hypocritical on the issue in general, although the right wing stance may well be.
|
On December 06 2011 07:03 Krikkitone 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. It has to do with the idea of being in a "state of war" ie you don't give enemy soldiers a trial, you shoot at them, unless they surrender, and then you hold them until the war is over. Now you have a problem when 1. the "soldiers" do not have uniforms 2. the "war" is not against a state with territory and relatively clear leadership, but a group with no territory, and potentially unclear leadership. While you could use purely criminal methods for this (because its not a "state"), it gets complicated when the criminal organization is operating across national borders, and when you don't have full cooperation with the local "state". (the local "state" may be militia if the official "state" is too weak) This probably indicates that some revision is needed, in designing a system so the executive branch doesn't have the power to hold people indefinitely without some type of individual trial. (with allowances made for more time if the inital 'detention' was in foreign territory)
Oh I understand why it is done. When I asked why it is okay, it was more a rhetorical question about why people would think it is just to be able to do it. I agree with everything you've written in so far as a reason for the way it is, I just don't see it as a valid justification for the language of the law.
|
What I hate about law: it's really complicated
I really have to thank the TLers here, I would not have understood what this meant otherwise. When you have cases in which people have been detained over long periods of time without evidence, I really don't know how you argue that this is good. I understand that the war on terror is important, but this is taking it a bit too far.
|
Basically, Miranda Rights, Bill of Rights, and any other laws that protect you from unjust abuse of governmental power - all gone. What the fuck are you people smoking to encourage and support this? First the E-PARASITE Act and now this. WHAT IS OUR GOVERNMENT DOING? Not working to FIX stuff but fuck up our system even more. Only 7 of our "representatives" vetoed this bill that would basically infringe all of our given rights in the Constitution. SEVEN. Jesus Christ, Congress, how far have you fallen.
|
This is absolutely crazy
It is like McCarthyism, but with terrorism instead of communism
The government can detain anyone for an indefinite period of time without trial or anything - if government even suspects them of terrorist type activity.
|
Complete and utter BS. Slippery slopes are slippery, especially when you have profits at stake.. Presidents declaring war without congress approval, private organizations in control of our money supply.. Where have the checks and balances gone? (to the highest bidder)
http://newsstream.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/06/occupy-london-terror-threat/
Any responsible person would oppose this bill..
|
nonono this is good! since pretty much everyone released from places like guantanamo bay end up going back to their terrorist roots...this is why its being made i think
|
On November 30 2011 22:29 motbob wrote:
The U.S. military has been detaining persons under the "Enemy Combatant" rule for the last ten years, so this law is basically business as usual.
But what about the possibility of the U.S. Army detaining a U.S. Citizen? Doesn't that violate due process?
The Supreme Court agrees with you 100%! In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Court ruled that the Executive Branch of the United States doesn't have the right to hold U.S. Citizens indefinitely without following due process. This court ruling led directly to the release of a U.S. Citizen who was being labeled an enemy combatant.
So, essentially, the bill doesn't need a provision excluding U.S. citizens from the bill's scope. The Supreme Court's ruling has already excluded them.
I know this is tl;dr, and the only reason I'm posting it is so that whenever someone posts a dumb over-simplified thread saying that the U.S. Army now has the right to imprison the entirety of OWS I can just close it and link to this thread instead.
So, if this is business as usual, why is this bill even necessary? Also, why has Obama threatened to veto the bill, and why have top military brass gone on the public record as saying that they don't want this power?
It's a slippery slope, and the architects of the bill know that it's a slippery slope, hence the bill, and the critics of the bill know that its a slippery slope, hence the criticism. This is definitely more nefarious than the OP makes it out to be because its an incremental erosion. It is definitely less clear-cut than the OP makes it out to be, hence the pages of discussion.
You might think people are being paranoid and dumb in saying that this allows the US military to imprison OWS without trial, and in a way you are right, it is a fairly large leap and this bill does not authorize that. But this bill does bring that possibility closer, and its not difficult to envision the intermediary steps from this point on that need to be taken to do so.
Besides, in policy briefings protest and civil unrest are already classified as low level terrorism, the dots are not as far apart as one would think. The fear isn't of people in OWS being rounded up in January, the concern is 5 or 10 years down the road. Nazi Germany didn't happen over a weekend.
@couple posts above poster, yes, McCarthyism except with terrorism rather than communism.
@travis below re: secret meetings. OH that's just business as usual, nothing controversial there... bills which fundamentally counteract the constitution itself are simply not worthy of being discussed-- waste of time really, should be held behind closed doors so we can focus on things like the economy and prevent needless distractions. That's all.
|
On December 09 2011 08:26 urSa wrote:
nonono this is good! since pretty much everyone released from places like guantanamo bay end up going back to their terrorist roots...this is why its being made i think
LOL. We don't release people from guantanamo bay, we don't even give them a trail.. Not a single one. Your logic is flawed, try again..
|
|
|
*too slow*
*edit 2* I better not say it after all.
|
|
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
I wonder if discussion of any bill related to national security has ever not not been open to the public.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
