Obama, Congress Back Legalization of a Police State

[NorthCarolina]

The US Senate's approval Thursday of legislation allowing the indefinite military detention of US citizens without charges or trials marks a new stage in a decade of uninterrupted assault on the most fundamental democratic and constitutional rights.

The Senate's 86-to-13 vote in favor of the legislation followed its approval in the House of Representatives Wednesday. It also came after the announcement by the White House that President Barack Obama would not exercise his power to veto the measure, which is included in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a $662 billion package to fund Washington's war machine.

The bill mandates that anyone accused of being a terrorist be "detained without trial until the end of hostilities" in a military prison. While it requires such treatment for non-citizens, it authorizes it for citizens arrested on US soil, if the president decides they merit this extra-constitutional punishment.

This piece of legislation enshrines in law the worst of the crimes carried out under the Bush administration and provides legal sanction for an American military-police state. The sweeping bipartisan support it received in both houses of Congress has provided definitive proof that there exists no constituency for the defense of democratic rights within the American political establishment and its two big business parties.

<snip>

Link: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Obama-Congress-Back-Legal-by-Bill-van-Auken-111216-801.html

[JoePhilly]

1. They forgot that Obama also kicks puppies competitively for distance ...

and accuracy ... this one went almost 30 feet ... it did a flip, and then landed in a small glass of water!!!!!

[StarsInHerHair]

2. .!.

[NorthCarolina]

4. To somehow find humor in the passage of this legislation is quite repulsive.

I cannot fathom the character of the individual who would do so.

[StarsInHerHair]

5. you realize what that bird meant, it is NOT humorous, I am disgusted at the 'humor' of 1st reply

[NorthCarolina]

6. So am I.

I was responding to you in regard to the first post, not in reference to your post. Sorry for the confusion.

[JoePhilly]

11. Let me help you ...

Here is a very nice fainting couch ....

[StarsInHerHair]

18. I have a cactus you can use as a couch

[JoePhilly]

29. That would have been funnier if you included a picture .... like this ...

[Webster Green]

22. Very nice touch, Joe.

Accept fascism, or you must need a fainting couch, because there is obviously something wrong with you.

This is the exactly the kind of crap that will be driving progressives from the Fascist-Cheerleader Underground in droves.

Thanks for providing a splendid example of a particular attitude that is destroying this board.

Are you this condescending and mean-spirited in 3D, or just on the Internets?

I'm guessing snide references to pearl-clutching is another weapon in your arsenal against us dirty fucking hippie liberals.

[JoePhilly]

28. Nice language you used there. You talk like that in real life or only on the internet?

Me ... yes, I'm a smart ass in real life and on the internet.

That said ... the endless freak out about the language in the NDAA, and what that language actually means, its scope and so forth, has been endless around here for the last week or so .... what 10 or 20 OPs now, at least ... in which, if one is not freaking out, clearly they must be secret fascists.

The thing I find amazing is the amount of time some folks on a democratic discussion board spend trashing democratic representatives. That's what might kill this board.

Or apparently the Tea Party is correct ... Obama is a Commie, and Socialist, and a Fascist ... all rolled into one.

[justiceischeap]

30. Just like to point out the obvious Joe, you complain about the 10-20 OP's now

yet here you are participating in another of the OPs about the subject you seem to be complaining is getting the wrong kind of attention.

I'll state the following for the record: "I am a life-long Democrat. As a life-long Democrat, I think it is reprehensible that ANY politician, Democrat or Republican, would vote to take away anyone's right to due process. I don't care if said person has been labelled a terrorist, because let's face it, labels aren't always the truth. Everyone should have the right to a public trial. Everyone should have transparency in our justice system, because in my opinion, that is the Democratic thing to do."

If that makes me someone on a democratic discussion board who trashes my democratic representatives and kills said board, then so be it. Just because we are Democrats and we support the Democratic party doesn't mean we have to agree with every single vote our representatives make--because, let's face it, people, even within our own party, can be wrong.

[JoePhilly]

31. Your first sentence explains my first post. eom.

[Webster Green]

33. Really? The "F" word offends you? I guess you might put your couch to good use yourself.

This isn't about "freaking out over language". It is about people being dense enough to have no problem regressing back to the dark ages, before the Magna Carta recognized that certain things were unfair and unacceptable, regardless of one's nationality, or anything else. Anyone accused of any crime, deserves to face their accusers and their charges at a trial. Simply declaring them to be "terrorist" isn't enough to deny justice and lock someone away forever.

[JoePhilly]

37. Actually, the F word does not offend me at all ... here ...

FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK!!!!!

I just found it funny that as you chided me on my sarcastic posts, you needed to use the FUCK word.

But given that ... uggggh ... oh no ... oh CRAP .... I have to go ... the police just arrived and told me that we are back in the dark ages, and that I have to go work in a FEMA camp ...

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/glenn-beck-who-me-spread-baseless-fe

Geeze, get one of these

...

[Webster Green]

38. WTF?!

You brought FEMA camps into the discussion.

I don't know if you are posting drunk, or what, but that was weird.

Have a good one, Joe.

[treestar]

24. Beautiful - thank you!

I would need it if there really was a possibility of a police state.

[Webster Green]

26. Right. Police states are an impossibility.

I'll try to remember that as I watch pigs stomping protesters.

"Learn from history, or....." Ah fuck it. Why bother?

You are right, Suzie Creamcheez. It can't happen here.

[FarLeftFist]

17. The humor is in the fact that it is NOT true. American citizens are exempt from indefinite detention

And it's clear as day in the writing. Don't know why this is so hard for people to understand.

[neverforget]

20. Well as long as it's just foreigners getting thrown in jail without due process

it makes it all cool then.

[A Simple Game]

39. Well that clears it all up.

Better let these people know too, they seem to think otherwise.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/NDAA

If you don't want to bother, no big deal, it's not like they know what they are talking about anyway.

[postulater]

3. Link please

I haven't seen that reported anywhere else. You might want to check your sources.

[JoePhilly]

8. I think it is pretty obvious ... that the puppy ...

is clearly a professional, long distance kick dog ... just look at his form ... he's got his legs extended to maintain distance, and any second he will drop his head, curl into a ball, complete the flip, and then land in the glass of water.

Sadly, for security reasons, the secret service will not allow us to show President Obama's impressive soccer style kicking motion. Fox would use it to claim he was a European Socialist.

[ProSense]

7. Actually,

"the net is swarming with hysterical headline"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100227687

[rhett o rick]

12. The President could easily end this confusion by insisting that the bill's wording be made clear.

He could assure us that no law allows the arrest and indefinite detention of American citizens. When he fails to do that, then consternation by those that value the Constitution is understandable.

To blindly trust any politician is not healthy. Even if he has a (D) after his name.

[FarLeftFist]

16. Honestly, it says it plain and clear, it's not worded that difficult. Do you want me to show you?

[ProSense]

19. No

"The President could easily end this confusion by insisting that the bill's wording be made clear. "

...he can't, at least not for the people who were determined to spin his statement of policy.

"To blindly trust any politician is not healthy. Even if he has a (D) after his name. "

To thrive on cliches and hyperbole is not healthy.

[rhett o rick]

34. All I am asking is for him to tell the American people that it is not legal to arrest

and indefinitely detain American citizens. How is that hyperbolic? Why do you want to stifle debate on such an important issue?

[treestar]

25. And if he would just produce his birth certificate, he could lay that one to rest, too

If only the POTUS had more time. He could refute each and every ridiculous claim.

maybe even the one about the puppy-kicking

[bhikkhu]

9. Of course you know it does nothing of the sort

...as it states - it doesn't apply to citizens or legal residents, and it neither increases nor decreases the abilities of the president. It doesn't actually change anything, but it does restate what has been the policy for 3 years now in the War on Terror.

A plan to end the war would be the best thing, and the lack of a plan to end the war is the biggest problem - while the recent bill is just more of the same.

[rhett o rick]

13. Which means it is authorized for the President to arrest and detain w/o due process

American citizens that he deems as "enemy combatants". Bush did this and the courts have not overruled his actions. This bill may not extend that power but it certainly codifies it.

[FarLeftFist]

15. NO, not "enemy combatants", those WORKING FOR AL-QAEDA. And it has to be proven to a judge.

You have to basically be guilty of planning or carrying out an attack on the United States or guilty of working for Al-Qaeda. And first you are seen by an impartial judge, and you are ALSO protected by the Constitution.

[NorthCarolina]

27. An "impartial judge"? What about an impartial jury of your peers? nt

[rhett o rick]

35. Bush did it with Jose Padilla and the last I heard, the courts said the he had the authority to do

and as far as I know, they didnt stipulate that he had to prove anything. The Constitution is worthless unless it is backed up by the courts. Bush said the Constitution authorized him to arrest Padilla and so far the courts agree.

[Justice wanted]

10. I still can't believe I am seeing this country turn into some sort of Orwellian nightmare.

[FarLeftFist]

14. The Bill DOES NOT extend to U.S. citizens UNLESS you are found guilty by a judge on counts of

Working for Al-Qaeda.

[rhett o rick]

36. Where did you get that? nm

[AZ Progressive]

21. Section 1031 states....

" (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. "

This should nullify what could be construed to give expanded powers as previously stated in Section 1031, as it does nothing but codify what was previous understanding as to the powers of the President.

In Section 1032, the requirement for the military to detain suspects clearly leaves out U.S. citizens and resident aliens.

[Major Nikon]

23. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the bill

First of all, what you're quoting on 1031 is actually in paragraph (e), so I assume you're referencing a previous version. The language is the same.

Next, 1031(e), AKA the Feinstein amendment is meaningless as to whether US citizens can be indefinitely detained without trial, as is section 1032.

What people need to understand is there simply is no exemptions for the indefinite detention of US citizens in this bill. If you think there is, you've been led down the primrose path.

The wiki article adds a lot of good information on the subject as does the ACLU and several other sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012

[Laelth]

32. +1 n/t

-Laelth