DarnoKonrad: Amos Quito:

Then the redo can mean only one of two things:

A) That Congress and the President are so stupid that they shouldn't be allowed near pointy objects, or;
B) That something has changed, and they believe it will stand scrutiny


Problem is, they're not that stupid.


False dichotomy.

C) Politicians are scared shiatless of being labeled "soft on terrorism" which allows authoritarian wackjobs introduce and pass all kinds of stupid shiat.


Yes, but the problem is that much of the stupid shiat passed by these "authoritarian wackjobs" winds up sticking - either the Supreme Court declines to hear cases, or they allow it to "slide" under the flimsy and unsubstantiated pretexts - such as the "Commerce Clause", the General Welfare" clause, etc.

The pathway to hell...

whidbey: I would agree that they abandoned much of their neocon nationbuilding ideology by 2004, yes

its actually later by a few years.

whidbey: The economic aspects of said "paradigm" as you put it, not so much.

Well, the economic aspects of neo-liberalism have been a staple since, well, Greenspan replaced Volcker? Perhaps earlier.
Not sure where you are going about economic aspects of neoconservatism, though.

FredaDeStilleto: DarnoKonrad: Amos Quito: So are YOU the moment that Obama (or some future president) SUSPECTS that you are.

Nope. The 5th Amendment trumps the NDAA.

Absolutely with one exception. Wartime. And the US has been declared a battlefield in the War on Terror.

Which is really the core of the problem. In a traditional war, like WWII, the idea of detaining prisoners of war without trial until the end of hostilities isn't a bizarre concept. You simply hold them, not charging them with anything, and release them at the end of the war. But because we're fighting an asymmetrical war against an idea, rather than a nation, we cannot define an end of war as clearly as against a nation-state. The assumption made by the administration (and the Bush administration before them) is simply that we are holding them under such war powers until the AUMF is rescinded and the war 'won'. It makes sense, on the surface.

But we blurred the line between criminal and military act by the terrorists; if they suicide bomb a military base, is that a criminal act or a military act? We treat it as a military act for purposes of retaliation and prosecution (we bomb the people responsible or send SEAL teams in), yet we treat the detainees with danger inherent in criminal actors, with all the abrogations of personal rights that come with such a danger. A mob boss's letters are screened based on a criminal threat.

It's totally farking bass-ackwards, and the scariest thing about it is that this justification can be argued - and is argued - by the President. He has authority to detain civilians indefinitely under the 9/11 AUMF already because they are held under war powers. He's just amicably choosing not to. For now.

Xaneidolon: What makes you think that the state secrets privilege won't be invoked if anyone files a suit? SCOTUS won't save us because no one will be allowed to have standing.

Seriously, if you don't think the courts are and will be circumvented for shiat like this, you're naive or haven't been paying attention. Part of the point of this legislation was to suspend (eradicate?) the rule of law.


This argument is equally valid if there was no NDAA. You're only making a distinction between totalitarianism (legal) and authoritarianism (extra-legal). If you're convinced the goverment is going unjustly lock you up, who cares if it's according to the law or not?

Party Boy: DarnoKonrad: .

It seems like the powerful, generally, like to increase their power.

Its not like King John willingly bent over on the Magna Carta.

Considering how the presidency ages people, I've wondered how addictive power is considering the feverish rush to keep it as it seems to kill them.




Power is precious.

whidbey: Party Boy: Perhaps you should be open to some research on that subject?

Perhaps you might want to address the actual points instead of handwaving them?

I'll post them again:

"a tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms
low tolerance for diplomacy
readiness to use military force
emphasis on US unilateral action
disdain for multilateral organizations
focus on the Middle East
an us-versus-them mentality".

Does this describe the Bush Administration? Yes or no.

And I'm sure you are aware that neoliberalism pretty much equates to neolconservatism.

It also describes the Obama administration really well. What is your point?

Amos Quito: much of the stupid shiat passed by these "authoritarian wackjobs" winds up sticking

I disagree. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act 1986 being a notable exception which violates some 4th Amendment protections like meeting your accuser. I don't see "much" sticking

You need to be more specific with your criticisms, or I don't really know what you're talking about.

Xaneidolon: What makes you think that the state secrets privilege won't be invoked if anyone files a suit? SCOTUS won't save us because no one will be allowed to have standing.

Seriously, if you don't think the courts are and will be circumvented for shiat like this, you're naive or haven't been paying attention. Part of the point of this legislation was to suspend (eradicate?) the rule of law.


Amended for accuracy.

sprawl15: It's totally farking bass-ackwards, and the scariest thing about it is that this justification can be argued - and is argued - by the President. He has authority to detain civilians indefinitely under the 9/11 AUMF already because they are held under war powers. He's just amicably choosing not to. For now.

They tied to argue that unsuccessfully Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

whidbey: Because there's very little difference between the two terms "neoliberal" and "neoconservative." They are two complementary parts of the whole, and often the foreign policies and economic policies are intertwined.

There are.

Perhaps you would like some reading.
American Nightmare
Neoliberalism, Neoconservatism, and De-Democratization
Neoliberalism and neoconservatism are two distinct political rationalities in the contemporary United States. They have few overlapping formal characteristics, and even appear contradictory in many respects. Yet they converge not only in the current presidential administration but also in their de-democratizing effects. Their respective devaluation of political liberty, equality, substantive citizenship, and the rule of law in favor of governance according to market criteria on the one side, and valorization of state power for putatively moral ends on the other, undermines both the culture and institutions of constitutional democracy. Above all, the two rationalities work symbiotically to produce a subject relatively indifferent to veracity and accountability in government and to political freedom and equality among the citizenry.

2007-10-20 09:07:14 AM

excerpts

What are the salient features of neoliberal political rationality?8 First, in contrast with classical economic liberalism (and, it is important to remind American readers, the "liberalism" of neoliberalism refers to economic rather than political liberalism), neoliberalism is not confined to an expressly economic sphere, nor does it cast the market as natural and self regulating even in the economic sphere. Part of what makes neoliberalism "neo" is that it depicts free markets, free trade, and entrepreneurial rationality as achieved and normative, as promulgated through law and through social and economic policy-not simply as occurring by dint of nature. Second, neoliberalism casts the political and social spheres both as appropriately dominated by market concerns and as themselves organized by market rationality. That is, more than simply facilitating the economy, the state itself must construct and construe itself in market terms, as well as develop policies and promulgate a political culture that figures citizens exhaustively as rational economic actors in every sphere of life.

and compare with what is a neocon (CS monitor link is now old)

Its important to highlight these goofy incongruities as we proceed with Neoliberal ideals of reducing national borders here in the US, while promoting hyper nationalism in Iraq's separate states (neocon) or rearticulating and policing their borders -- while moving towards a universalized market rationality here in the US.

whidbey: Thanks. I'll give it a go. :)

No problem. Have a excellent day. Like your posts, btw.

DarnoKonrad: This argument is equally valid if there was no NDAA. You're only making a distinction between totalitarianism (legal) and authoritarianism (extra-legal). If you're convinced the goverment is going unjustly lock you up, who cares if it's according to the law or not?

For the sake of this conversation, let's say that I buy the idea that I'm "only making a distinction between totalitarianism and authoritarianism" and I buy your prens-ed definitions of each. To that, I respond that making/keeping indefinite detention (and worse, if you look at the bill - for example, shuttling people off to Bagrams and Gitmos and who knows what other, possibly blacker sites) legal means something. In our society, there are far too many who do not and will not question an action if it's termed legal. That's part of the zeitgeist in the US. Further, there's cover for bad behavior that's legal--there are no consequences (unless at the ballot box which is a dubious notion at best). Finally, to strengthen the executive at the expense of the judiciary (as I assert) is an important issue itself and provisions of the NDAA take us further in that direction.

So to assert equivalence (who cares if...?) is to conflate the notions and overlook the separate outcomes of each. It also assumes that each would exist in a vacuum (precedent and trends be damned).

One last point: if you're interested (which was really the heart of my post that you quoted), have a look at how state secrets privilege has been invoked (and abused) recently. Sibel Edmond's blog is a good place to start. It's sickening, really, and significant, too.

So the next president can detain Obama without charge, indefinitely, right?
The President thought of that before signing, and he's all cool with it?

2012: The year of global revolution.

OWS and the Arab Spring were the opening skirmishes. The real thing is coming this year.

Foundling: So the next president can detain Obama without charge, indefinitely, right?
The President thought of that before signing, and he's all cool with it?


Stop. Think about that for a moment.

You think there's going to be a "next" president?


;-)

apeiron242: 2012: The year of global revolution.

OWS and the Arab Spring were the opening skirmishes. The real thing is coming this year.


To a theater near you.

Xaneidolon: DarnoKonrad: This argument is equally valid if there was no NDAA. You're only making a distinction between totalitarianism (legal) and authoritarianism (extra-legal). If you're convinced the goverment is going unjustly lock you up, who cares if it's according to the law or not?

For the sake of this conversation, let's say that I buy the idea that I'm "only making a distinction between totalitarianism and authoritarianism" and I buy your prens-ed definitions of each. To that, I respond that making/keeping indefinite detention (and worse, if you look at the bill - for example, shuttling people off to Bagrams and Gitmos and who knows what other, possibly blacker sites) legal means something. In our society, there are far too many who do not and will not question an action if it's termed legal. That's part of the zeitgeist in the US. Further, there's cover for bad behavior that's legal--there are no consequences (unless at the ballot box which is a dubious notion at best). Finally, to strengthen the executive at the expense of the judiciary (as I assert) is an important issue itself and provisions of the NDAA take us further in that direction.

So to assert equivalence (who cares if...?) is to conflate the notions and overlook the separate outcomes of each. It also assumes that each would exist in a vacuum (precedent and trends be damned).

One last point: if you're interested (which was really the heart of my post that you quoted), have a look at how state secrets privilege has been invoked (and abused) recently. Sibel Edmond's blog is a good place to start. It's sickening, really, and significant, too.

The 5th Amendment is the 5th Amendment. As far as I'm concerned the NDAA is legally DOA. If things in this nation have gotten so bad we're locking people up indefinitely, it really doesn't matter if the 5th was revoked by a legitimate act of a Totalitarian congress or the illegitimate act of an Authoritarian President.

See what I'm saying? It's an academic distinction. One is not preferable to me over the other.

DarnoKonrad: sprawl15: It's totally farking bass-ackwards, and the scariest thing about it is that this justification can be argued - and is argued - by the President. He has authority to detain civilians indefinitely under the 9/11 AUMF already because they are held under war powers. He's just amicably choosing not to. For now.

They tied to argue that unsuccessfully Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld only states that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction if citizen detainees want to challenge their own status. If you are blackbagged, Hamdi guarantees your right to petition the courts to say that you are not a terrorist if you are a citizen. Bush wanted to say that it was up to the Executive branch to hear and rule on such petitions.

whidbey: Oh wait. It's 25 bucks. Never mind...

Shoot me an email.
(opens up trench coat)

I got what you need.

sprawl15: DarnoKonrad: sprawl15: It's totally farking bass-ackwards, and the scariest thing about it is that this justification can be argued - and is argued - by the President. He has authority to detain civilians indefinitely under the 9/11 AUMF already because they are held under war powers. He's just amicably choosing not to. For now.

They tied to argue that unsuccessfully Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld only states that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction if citizen detainees want to challenge their own status. If you are blackbagged, Hamdi guarantees your right to petition the courts to say that you are not a terrorist if you are a citizen. Bush wanted to say that it was up to the Executive branch to hear and rule on such petitions.

Well that's not a minor point. That's what the 4th and 5th are all about. Having access to courts to contest your arrest.

DarnoKonrad: See what I'm saying? It's an academic distinction. One is not preferable to me over the other.

You and I agree that the NDAA is illegal. No hairs to split there. However, others may be more likely to react to detention by executive fiat vs. detention by totalitarian laws. What they think matters, too. If we're ever to right this ship, it will take more than just you and me to do it.

---

thamike: Kevin72: Oh yeah.

Just like the seat belt law will only be used when pulled over for another offense. The law will never say that you can be pulled over just for not wearing a seatbelt.

Oh yeah.

Just like the national 55 mph speed limit will only be in place during the 1973 gasoline shortage.

WTF are you talking about?

The point might have been better made if the Patriot Act were used as an example. Recall that when it was passed, we were assured repeatedly that it wouldn't be used against US citizens. Then have a look at articles from the EFF, ACLU, and countless others and realize that the overwhelming majority of the time that provisions of it are invoked, it targets US citizens---and has nothing to do with terrorism. I think Kevin72's point may have been that we'd do well to view such promises with a jaundiced eye.

Party Boy: whidbey: Oh wait. It's 25 bucks. Never mind...

Shoot me an email.
(opens up trench coat)

I got what you need.





Mind your cornhole, whidbey.

/Just kidding!

;-)

Because he's never broken his word.

DarnoKonrad: sprawl15: DarnoKonrad: sprawl15: It's totally farking bass-ackwards, and the scariest thing about it is that this justification can be argued - and is argued - by the President. He has authority to detain civilians indefinitely under the 9/11 AUMF already because they are held under war powers. He's just amicably choosing not to. For now.

They tied to argue that unsuccessfully Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld only states that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction if citizen detainees want to challenge their own status. If you are blackbagged, Hamdi guarantees your right to petition the courts to say that you are not a terrorist if you are a citizen. Bush wanted to say that it was up to the Executive branch to hear and rule on such petitions.

Well that's not a minor point. That's what the 4th and 5th are all about. Having access to courts to contest your arrest.

I never said it was minor, just that it was irrelevant. You can still be blackbagged to be held indefinitely on a whim. That you are allowed the chance to contest your status after the fact in no way mitigates the ridiculous nature of the government act nor the extent of government authority it implies.

Hamdi in no way forces the government to follow the 4th or 5th until a post-arrest protest...and it only forces the government to respect those rights if you are a citizen, an abomination of an idea in its own rights.

Everyone who voted for/signed this bill is a farking traitor.

sprawl15: I never said it was minor, just that it was irrelevant. You can still be blackbagged to be held indefinitely on a whim. That you are allowed the chance to contest your status after the fact in no way mitigates the ridiculous nature of the government act nor the extent of government authority it implies.

All arrests are contested after the fact. What are you trying to say? And, no, they can't be held indefinitely on a whim, detention is subject to judicial review. That's not a whim.

FredaDeStilleto: It's been a pretty quick slide into the fascist state we have become.

"All bad precedents begin as reasonable compromises"

Xaneidolon: DarnoKonrad: See what I'm saying? It's an academic distinction. One is not preferable to me over the other.

You and I agree that the NDAA is illegal. No hairs to split there. However, others may be more likely to react to detention by executive fiat vs. detention by totalitarian laws. What they think matters, too. If we're ever to right this ship, it will take more than just you and me to do it.

See, the problem isn't that the NDAA is legal or not legal. The government is taking the position that these powers already exist and are inherent in the 9/11 AUMF. The language put in meant to soften it actually strengthens it. By saying all these provisions aren't changes to policy, it means that they have been extant for a decade. That's the real danger of the language in the NDAA, and it can't be directly attacked. If you have a lawsuit concerning civilian indefinite detention, that's a gripe against the scope of the 9/11 AUMF, not the NDAA.

I hereby propose that we fit all politicians with shock collars, controlled remotely by individual members of their constituency.

Any politician receiving less than a 50% "shock vote" would receive no shock at all.

51% would produce a very mild but noticeable current - hinting that the politician is not acting in the perceive best interests of those (s)he represents.

Exceed 95% in "shock vote", and we have something similar to Edison demonstrating the destructive power of Tesla's Alternating Current.


/A properly trained dog is a happy dog

DarnoKonrad: sprawl15: I never said it was minor, just that it was irrelevant. You can still be blackbagged to be held indefinitely on a whim. That you are allowed the chance to contest your status after the fact in no way mitigates the ridiculous nature of the government act nor the extent of government authority it implies.

All arrests are contested after the fact. What are you trying to say?

Uh...that arresting people based on executive whim is a violation of the 4th and 5th. If the government decides the 9/11 AUMF gives them authority to fark your wife if they don't like your taste in music, and they go ahead and fark her, that you can contest it later isn't a protection of your 4th and 5th. Proper protection would be preventing the violation of your (or your wife's) rights in the first place, which Hamdi in no way does. Which is why I said it was irrelevant.

DarnoKonrad: And, no, they can't be held indefinitely on a whim, detention is subject to judicial review.

Absolutely not. There is no requirement whatsoever that you are subject to judicial review if you are captured under the 9/11 AUMF. You are held under war powers, not powers of criminal prosecution, and the judiciary only has jurisdiction if you wish to contest your status or if the executive decides to prosecute you for criminal acts. They have nothing to do with you up to that point, because it's purely executive action. If you actually are a US citizen turned terrorist, there would be no reason for them not to hold you indefinitely. You'd petition under Hamdi, they'd look and go "YUP U TURRIST" and you get thrown back in your oubliette.

Amos Quito: I hereby propose that we fit all politicians with shock collars, controlled remotely by individual members of their constituency.

Any politician receiving less than a 50% "shock vote" would receive no shock at all.

51% would produce a very mild but noticeable current - hinting that the politician is not acting in the perceive best interests of those (s)he represents.

Exceed 95% in "shock vote", and we have something similar to Edison demonstrating the destructive power of Tesla's Alternating Current.


/A properly trained dog is a happy dog

C-span would become interesting to watch.

sprawl15: If you actually are a US citizen turned terrorist, there would be no reason for them not to hold you indefinitely.

That's the whole point of being able to challenge your status. Which goes for citizens and non-citizens alike. Yes, they can hold you indefinitely, *if* they can establish you're a combatant -- which is based on things like the Geneva Convention. Not the whims of the President.

DarnoKonrad: sprawl15: If you actually are a US citizen turned terrorist, there would be no reason for them not to hold you indefinitely.

That's the whole point of being able to challenge your status. Which goes for citizens and non-citizens alike. Yes, they can hold you indefinitely, *if* they can establish you're a combatant -- which is based on things like the Geneva Convention. Not the whims of the President.

lol

DarnoKonrad: sprawl15: If you actually are a US citizen turned terrorist, there would be no reason for them not to hold you indefinitely.

That's the whole point of being able to challenge your status. Which goes for citizens and non-citizens alike. Yes, they can hold you indefinitely, *if* they can establish you're a combatant -- which is based on things like the Geneva Convention. Not the whims of the President.

9/11 AUMF:

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

It's war powers. They don't need a warrant, they don't need judicial review to determine you're a combatant. Review processes are entirely internal and voluntary. Strictly speaking, the President can determine that the person that cut him off in traffic is a terrorist and tell the secret service agents in the car to shoot to kill.