Asa Phelps: cman: We "anarchist" Libertarians have been saying for years that this shiat was coming. But, go ahead, demand that the Government take care of you from cradle to grave. Its not like the Government does anything bad to its citizens.

Technically all they did was remove the military's ban on sodomy and bestiality.

I'm guessing you missed the part about being able to indefinitely detain anyone in the US w/o charging them and w/o giving them due process in the courts right?

Humean_Nature: If this does pass, it will be immediately challenged and eventually end up in SCOTUS. What those guys will decide is anyone's guess.

Uh, technical question: If the people arrested under this law can't get lawyers, how does a case ever get into the court system?

Humean_Nature: ...it passed the Senate 93-7...

Which, to me, is the truly scary part.

I wonder if Bush Lite will veto this? Oh, who am I kidding...

Fish in a Barrel: Humean_Nature: ...it passed the Senate 93-7...

Which, to me, is the truly scary part.

Indeed.

So that means RCW 16.52.205 is gone and I can go to Enumclaw for my next 'vacation'?

Sweet!

Crunch61: I wonder if Bush Lite will veto this? Oh, who am I kidding...

Is he even really that lite?

RAND PAUL!

Humean_Nature: That's what bothers me about this and the support for torture and such. They're like, "These terrorists will get what's coming to them! They're terrorists, they deserve it!" Even if you can make a compelling argument that "terrorists" deserve torture and indefinite detention, these people are operating in a fantasy land where everyone arrested for terrorism is automatically guilty of it. There's a reason we have trials. There's a reason we have judges and juries. In the eyes of the law, we don't actually know that people are working with terrorists until they've had a trial.

Technically even then, we don't know unless they confess or there's some sort of evidence that could not have been fabricated / modified / manipulated.

It's deemed guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond a shadow of a doubt. Hence why there are wrongful convictions that get overturned. Even those deemed guilty by a trial are not necessarily guilty.

kbronsito: What if someone were to frame Lindsey Graham as a supporter of terrorism?

you keep using that word...

How long until they declare elections a national security risk?

Humean_Nature: I assume at least a couple of the attorneys general will challenge the law as unconstitutional as they've been doing with the ACA for the last couple of years. It would be easy to get pissed at the Republicans for this silliness, but it passed the Senate 93-7, so every one of those farkers is culpable.

God, I hope so. Who were the holdouts? I saw mentioned Rand Paul and I would assume Mark Udall, but who were the other "no" votes?

/really hoping one of them was McCaskill
//not holding my breath

Seth'n'Spectrum: Humean_Nature: If this does pass, it will be immediately challenged and eventually end up in SCOTUS. What those guys will decide is anyone's guess.

Uh, technical question: If the people arrested under this law can't get lawyers, how does a case ever get into the court system?

My guess is that if anyone ever gets released from custody, they can sue for damages. And courts tend not to like "courts aren't allowed in this bill, they have cooties" clauses in laws, so any clause like that would probably be ignored.

Humean_Nature: but it passed the Senate 93-7, so every one of those farkers is culpable.

Indeed.

20 to 1, we'll eventually hear people defending the Democrats by claiming they had to do it or be branded soft on crime/terror OR that they couldn't vote against this in an election year, etc.

It only codifies what's already been happening in the U.S. for the past few years. So you've been living under these conditions for a while now, but look-you're still not in jail.

So it's like when they legalized bribed and corruption. So long as their ass is covered, anything goes.

Elandriel: I don't think it will survive veto though. I actually don't. 93-7 is one thing, as a "bipartisan" whatever, but if the President were to veto it I bet you would see a lot of (D) turncoats vote against overriding said veto. Think of the precedent it would set for these senators, to override an executive-level veto on a bill that allows for the indefinite detention of American citizens.

Their first and primary concern is always re-election. That overrides silly things like morality and ethics.

Wasn't Bush III only going to veto it if it claimed Congressional oversight of his disappearing powers?

phyrkrakr: God, I hope so. Who were the holdouts? I saw mentioned Rand Paul and I would assume Mark Udall, but who were the other "no" votes?

/really hoping one of them was McCaskill
//not holding my breath

McCaskill, LOL. She's about as useful to the Democratic caucus as Ben Nelson - a vote for Harry Reid as majority leader, then count her out.

Humean_Nature: kbronsito: What if someone were to frame Lindsey Graham as a supporter of terrorism?

That's what bothers me about this and the support for torture and such. They're like, "These terrorists will get what's coming to them! They're terrorists, they deserve it!" Even if you can make a compelling argument that "terrorists" deserve torture and indefinite detention, these people are operating in a fantasy land where everyone arrested for terrorism is automatically guilty of it. There's a reason we have trials. There's a reason we have judges and juries. In the eyes of the law, we don't actually know that people are working with terrorists until they've had a trial.

I honestly don't get these people at all. Are they truly clueless? Sociopaths? I mean, a huge percentage of them are lawyers, and they don't seem to understand the most fundamental facts of how our entire legal system operates as well as its philosophical foundations. I mean, hell, you can just watch a season of law and order and come to understand why we shouldn't just throw suspects into prison on the whim of the government.

/Lindsey Graham really is one of the most loathsome senators.

birchman: How long until they declare elections a national security risk?

Why would they bother? Authoritarian corporatists already dominate all elected offices. Elections are already largely a sham when it comes to core issues of the economy and national security state. They only really matter for social issues.

When this eventually gets to SCOTUS, you'll know your future. If they take a pass on this, or affirm it, it will tell you everything you need to know about your future.

cman: We "anarchist" Libertarians have been saying for years that this shiat was coming. But, go ahead, demand that the Government take care of you from cradle to grave. Its not like the Government does anything bad to its citizens.

A social safety net does not come hand in hand with a police state (look at scandanavia or even canada). They are different things and have different results. One benefits the citizens of the country and the other oppresses them. You're right to be wary of the government, just make sure you are wary of the right things.

EWreckedSean 2011-12-06 11:33:54 AM Crunch61: I wonder if Bush Lite will veto this? Oh, who am I kidding... Is he even really that lite?
============================================================

Not really. He's George Bush 2.0. The only difference is all the republicans have gone even further to the right.

Then, then again, this passed 93-7. Apparently almost everyone is George Bush 2.0. It's the new reality.

Obama will probably veto it not because it is an evil bill and deserves to be killed, but because if he signs it then all terrorists will be considered "enemy combatants" and have to be treated as the Geneva Conventions require.

The GC doesn't allow torturing enemy POW's, you know.

Never fear everyone! As any military recruiter will tell you, the job of the troops is to protect our freedom!*

*offer void 1942-1945

"He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:"

Applying to the US Congress today as much as it did to George III in the day.
When will we have an uprising? We've got the Tea Party and they're doing just as derpy things as the original one did. What we need is the Army to take control of a US city (or, you know, part of it) where people are angry and protesting. Wait for them to open fire on the US citizens and then we'll have our larger uprising.

Could the writer be more obvious? "All but thee Repubs". Um, a higher percentage of Repubs voted against it than Dems. Which does not excuse anyone, don't get me wrong. Its just the bashing on one side or the other is stupid when both are equally culpable.

If your senetor voted yea, and they probably did, don't vote for them ever again. Simple.

serial_crusher: Hahaha,

The United States Senate (including most Republicans and both Texas Republican Senators) has just passed a bill (the National Defense Authorization Act) which strips away the military ban on Sodomy and Bestiality
...
Article 125 of the UCMJ makes it illegal to engage in both sodomy with humans and sex with animals.
It states: "(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

How did they not repeal that along with DADT?

I'm guessing that just because you're gay doesn't mean you're getting laid.

/contrary to what you may have thought, if you "decide" to be gay one day, men won't automatically start knocking on your door looking for sex.

The only thing that astounds me more than the fact that this bill not only passed, but passed with virtually NO opposition whatsoever, is the resounding silence from the media about it. I wouldn't even know it had happened if not for Fark. The "fourth estate" should be shouting this from the mountain tops, but they're just ignoring it. I suppose they don't want to end up imprisoned and waterboarded for the rest of their lives.