If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Cracked)   Which horrible fact is scarier? 1) The NDAA will fundamentally alter American life. 2) Apparently we all have to read about it in a Cracked article because nobody else is talking about it   (cracked.com) divider line 112
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

8308 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Oct 2012 at 6:07 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



112 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-09 05:56:56 PM  
none of the candidates or pundits are talking about the one issue that's at the heart of the role of government and our rights as citizens. Why?

Not for any of your pet reasons Gladstone, you chucklefark. Let me try to explain it to you though. I'll stick to small words.

Fundamentally, The NDAA is not nearly as unpopular as you think it is. Why? because your average person has no clue what the NDAA is. Most people can't name a Supreme Court Justice or their own state senator, you think theyknow what the NDAA is?

You hang out on the internet, where a lot of people care deeply about politics and civil liberties. That's great, really. But even the people who can identify the NDAA don't care that much at the end of the day. About politics, about civil liberties, about any of it. They want to feel safe. It's why support for torture is rising, it's why the anger at the TSA is primarily an internet thing on par with Snakes on a Plane, it's why RON PAUL and GARY JOHNSON are not ever going to be president, and it's why all your bad faith motives in your shiatty article are just your own projection.

And even if you find some people who don't enjoy talking politics on the internet AND who hate the NDAA? Roughly half of them will only hate it because it's a cudgel to beat the Obama administration with. They'll talk about how much it encroaches on freedom in one breath and curse the ACLU with the next one.

Not to mention there was a reason that these provisions were tucked into the NDAA in the first place. That reason? So if Obama hesitated he could be accused of playing games with the troops pay and generally being weak on defense.

So you don't like the concept of indefinite detention? Cool. Neither do I. Now your job is to convince your friends and family and co-workers of the same thing. I don't mean the ones who pay attention to politics and can name most senators. I mean the ones who won't watch news because it's unpleasant. Or who live in farking Lima, OH and consider terror attacks to be a major threat to them personaly. Or the ones who think of politics the way Britney Spears did when she said she trusted the president to keep us safe, as though he is some sort of national daddy.

In the meantime wipe the smug off your face, ya dickbag.
 
2012-10-09 05:59:15 PM  
It seems that the only bills that truly get bipartisan support are those that limit an individual's liberties and freedoms or those bills that give corporations more liberties and freedoms.
I'm pretty sure our governement is broken.
 
2012-10-09 06:05:35 PM  
I think the scariest of those is 3) which [Redacted]
 
2012-10-09 06:09:21 PM  
Oh, boy! We haven't had a full-blown NDAA thread in a while.
 
2012-10-09 06:10:10 PM  
The good news is it won't matter once the United States collapses completely in a couple of decades or so.
 
2012-10-09 06:11:31 PM  
Most people don't even care any more. I rarely bother to bring it up; the subject is changed to the football game, or the weather, or ZOMG FARTBONGO SOSHULIZM.

The single best deflater of the "small government" crowd is the fact that nearly all of them are enthusiastically, I might say orgiastically, on board with this kind of thing. They think it applies only to "the bad people."
 
2012-10-09 06:13:03 PM  
BSABSVR got all the sensible discussion points out of the way, now we can settle down to some good conspiracy theories and blaming Obama.
 
2012-10-09 06:15:55 PM  
I already knew about that. It was one of the big reasons I am not voting for Obama.
 
2012-10-09 06:16:14 PM  
done in one, next.
 
2012-10-09 06:17:50 PM  
Not sure how the NDAA will fundamentally alter American life, it is just the National Defense Authorization Act, a bill that is routinely signed to keep our armed forces running. OH WAIT! You are referring to that piece of shiat amendment that was put into the bill by house Republicans to try to make the Obama administration look bad in an election year, my bad...
 
2012-10-09 06:17:53 PM  
If it truly voids due process, then the first time law enforcement tries this it will be tossed out of court faster than a fart in a fan factory.
 
2012-10-09 06:17:57 PM  

minoridiot: It seems that the only bills that truly get bipartisan support are those that limit an individual's liberties and freedoms or those bills that give corporations more liberties and freedoms.
I'm pretty sure our governement is broken.



We have always been at war with East Asia.
 
2012-10-09 06:17:58 PM  

BSABSVR: none of the candidates or pundits are talking about the one issue that's at the heart of the role of government and our rights as citizens. Why?

Not for any of your pet reasons Gladstone, you chucklefark. Let me try to explain it to you though. I'll stick to small words.

Fundamentally, The NDAA is not nearly as unpopular as you think it is. Why? because your average person has no clue what the NDAA is. Most people can't name a Supreme Court Justice or their own state senator, you think theyknow what the NDAA is?

You hang out on the internet, where a lot of people care deeply about politics and civil liberties. That's great, really. But even the people who can identify the NDAA don't care that much at the end of the day. About politics, about civil liberties, about any of it. They want to feel safe. It's why support for torture is rising, it's why the anger at the TSA is primarily an internet thing on par with Snakes on a Plane, it's why RON PAUL and GARY JOHNSON are not ever going to be president, and it's why all your bad faith motives in your shiatty article are just your own projection.

And even if you find some people who don't enjoy talking politics on the internet AND who hate the NDAA? Roughly half of them will only hate it because it's a cudgel to beat the Obama administration with. They'll talk about how much it encroaches on freedom in one breath and curse the ACLU with the next one.

Not to mention there was a reason that these provisions were tucked into the NDAA in the first place. That reason? So if Obama hesitated he could be accused of playing games with the troops pay and generally being weak on defense.

So you don't like the concept of indefinite detention? Cool. Neither do I. Now your job is to convince your friends and family and co-workers of the same thing. I don't mean the ones who pay attention to politics and can name most senators. I mean the ones who won't watch news because it's unpleasant. Or who live in farking Lima, OH an ...


This, this, and this again.

If you really want to address the issues of NDAA, the first step is to prevent bill riders that allow provisions to be tacked onto unrelated bills so that Presidents have to sign bad bills because good provisions are attached to them, or sign good bills with bad provisions amended onto the backs. Otherwise, you're just spitting into the teeth of hurricane Andrew.
 
2012-10-09 06:18:01 PM  
Oh, take it over to "Reason.com" or Infowars, they love hyperventilating paranoid screeds.

And write your congressman, they're the only ones who can do anything about it.
 
2012-10-09 06:18:32 PM  

bsharitt: I already knew about that. It was one of the big reasons I am not voting for Obama.


The Republican Congress who wrote it thanks you for falling into their trap.
 
2012-10-09 06:18:47 PM  

BSABSVR: none of the candidates or pundits are talking about the one issue that's at the heart of the role of government and our rights as citizens. Why?

Not for any of your pet reasons Gladstone, you chucklefark. Let me try to explain it to you though. I'll stick to small words.

Fundamentally, The NDAA is not nearly as unpopular as you think it is. Why? because your average person has no clue what the NDAA is. Most people can't name a Supreme Court Justice or their own state senator, you think theyknow what the NDAA is?

You hang out on the internet, where a lot of people care deeply about politics and civil liberties. That's great, really. But even the people who can identify the NDAA don't care that much at the end of the day. About politics, about civil liberties, about any of it. They want to feel safe. It's why support for torture is rising, it's why the anger at the TSA is primarily an internet thing on par with Snakes on a Plane, it's why RON PAUL and GARY JOHNSON are not ever going to be president, and it's why all your bad faith motives in your shiatty article are just your own projection.

And even if you find some people who don't enjoy talking politics on the internet AND who hate the NDAA? Roughly half of them will only hate it because it's a cudgel to beat the Obama administration with. They'll talk about how much it encroaches on freedom in one breath and curse the ACLU with the next one.

Not to mention there was a reason that these provisions were tucked into the NDAA in the first place. That reason? So if Obama hesitated he could be accused of playing games with the troops pay and generally being weak on defense.

So you don't like the concept of indefinite detention? Cool. Neither do I. Now your job is to convince your friends and family and co-workers of the same thing. I don't mean the ones who pay attention to politics and can name most senators. I mean the ones who won't watch news because it's unpleasant. Or who live in farking Lima, OH an ...


^^^ And this ^^^
/thread.
 
2012-10-09 06:20:37 PM  

qorkfiend: bsharitt: I already knew about that. It was one of the big reasons I am not voting for Obama.

The Republican Congress who wrote it thanks you for falling into their trap.


Don't worry, I'm sure getting rid of NDAA is one of Mitt's top priorities.
 
2012-10-09 06:22:38 PM  
Obama said he wouldn't use the detention powers, so it's OK. Right?


reneging on campaign promises to shut down Gitmo

That was pure congressional obstructionism. They were all so afraid to have Superpowered Muslim Master Criminals in their prisons.
 
2012-10-09 06:24:17 PM  
I'll leave this hear:

In his Signing Statement, President Obama explained: "I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed . . . I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists." [37]

Obviously worlds worst monster. He had to sign it because its defense spending. he got it watered down as much as he could.
 
2012-10-09 06:24:42 PM  

BSABSVR: none of the candidates or pundits are talking about the one issue that's at the heart of the role of government and our rights as citizens. Why?

Not for any of your pet reasons Gladstone, you chucklefark. Let me try to explain it to you though. I'll stick to small words.

Fundamentally, The NDAA is not nearly as unpopular as you think it is. Why? because your average person has no clue what the NDAA is. Most people can't name a Supreme Court Justice or their own state senator, you think theyknow what the NDAA is?

You hang out on the internet, where a lot of people care deeply about politics and civil liberties. That's great, really. But even the people who can identify the NDAA don't care that much at the end of the day. About politics, about civil liberties, about any of it. They want to feel safe. It's why support for torture is rising, it's why the anger at the TSA is primarily an internet thing on par with Snakes on a Plane, it's why RON PAUL and GARY JOHNSON are not ever going to be president, and it's why all your bad faith motives in your shiatty article are just your own projection.

And even if you find some people who don't enjoy talking politics on the internet AND who hate the NDAA? Roughly half of them will only hate it because it's a cudgel to beat the Obama administration with. They'll talk about how much it encroaches on freedom in one breath and curse the ACLU with the next one.

Not to mention there was a reason that these provisions were tucked into the NDAA in the first place. That reason? So if Obama hesitated he could be accused of playing games with the troops pay and generally being weak on defense.

So you don't like the concept of indefinite detention? Cool. Neither do I. Now your job is to convince your friends and family and co-workers of the same thing. I don't mean the ones who pay attention to politics and can name most senators. I mean the ones who won't watch news because it's unpleasant. Or who live in farking Lima, OH an ...


Weren't these points actually talked about in the article?
 
2012-10-09 06:24:48 PM  

BSABSVR: none of the candidates or pundits are talking about the one issue that's at the heart of the role of government and our rights as citizens. Why?

Not for any of your pet reasons Gladstone, you chucklefark. Let me try to explain it to you though. I'll stick to small words.


You're right, but came off just as smug as the guy you were criticizing. It is incredibly sad that aside from a small cadre of people no one knows/cares about wtf it is. This one truly is a both sides are bad (except like 6 elected representatives) situation. It is also incredibly sad that Cracked is one of the few places that is providing analysis. The last news story when I type Hedges v Obama into google news is from Sep 22nd.

/Hedges v Obama is a group of journalists suing the administration claiming the NDAA has a chilling effect on freedom of speech. They have all spoken to/reported on Al Qaeda, and could be construed to have "provided material support" to the enemy. The Obama admin refused in court to say they wouldn't use the offending sections of the NDAA to imprison them indefinitely. An Obama appointed judge issued an injunction blocking the admin from using it, but that was recently overturned by another judge.
//longform slashie
 
2012-10-09 06:24:52 PM  
It's not THE NDAA it's just the most recent one, it's a recurring thing, and only the last one has drawn any ire.
 
2012-10-09 06:25:35 PM  

fusillade762: Obama said he wouldn't use the detention powers, so it's OK. Right?


reneging on campaign promises to shut down Gitmo

That was pure congressional obstructionism. They were all so afraid to have Superpowered Muslim Master Criminals in their prisons.


What's funny is, they're getting them anyway. I think the first batch is turning up in US prisons this week.
 
2012-10-09 06:25:44 PM  

St_Francis_P: Don't worry, I'm sure getting rid of NDAA is one of Mitt's top priorities.


Well given the NDAA covers funding for military salaries and such, can't exactly get rid of it.
 
2012-10-09 06:26:34 PM  

Corvus: I'll leave this hearhere:


Sorry I wouldn't be wasting post space but the typo nazi's spazz out if you don't
 
2012-10-09 06:26:58 PM  

Corvus: I'll leave this hear:

In his Signing Statement, President Obama explained: "I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed . . . I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists." [37]

Obviously worlds worst monster. He had to sign it because its defense spending. he got it watered down as much as he could.


I find that line of reasoning specious simply because they are fighting tooth and nail in court to keep section 1021 valid. He could have just done what he did with DOMA and refused to defend it in court.
 
2012-10-09 06:29:08 PM  

WhyteRaven74: It's not THE NDAA it's just the most recent one, it's a recurring thing, and only the last one has drawn any ire.


It's because as was pointed out upthread republicans inserted language regarding the due process-less indefinite detention of all people who have "provided material support" to al qaeda, including american citizens.
 
2012-10-09 06:30:20 PM  

Communist_Manifesto: Corvus: I'll leave this hear:

In his Signing Statement, President Obama explained: "I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed . . . I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists." [37]

Obviously worlds worst monster. He had to sign it because its defense spending. he got it watered down as much as he could.

I find that line of reasoning specious simply because they are fighting tooth and nail in court to keep section 1021 valid. He could have just done what he did with DOMA and refused to defend it in court.


The NDAA didn't grant him any new power to do anything, it only mandated something that he already had the power to do.
 
2012-10-09 06:30:25 PM  
Partisans, LOL!

We're farked, 'Merica.

Was a nice ride while it lasted.
 
2012-10-09 06:32:55 PM  

Sargun: The NDAA didn't grant him any new power to do anything, it only mandated something that he already had the power to do.



And what would that be?
 
2012-10-09 06:33:11 PM  

Sargun: The NDAA didn't grant him any new power to do anything, it only mandated something that he already had the power to do.


Could you elaborate on that a little? It codifies indefinite detention without legal recourse. I'm not okay with Obama, Romney or anyone having that power.
 
2012-10-09 06:36:31 PM  

BSABSVR:


Not to mention there was a reason that these provisions were tucked into the NDAA in the first place. That reason? So if Obama hesitated he could be accused of playing games with the troops pay and generally being weak on defense.



Did you not know that, after the indefinite detention provision was overturned, Obama's justice department challenged it? As in, fought to retain the "right" to indefinitely detain American citizens? Or did you know it, and are a lying, partisan, piece of shiat? I'm guessing the latter.
 
2012-10-09 06:44:21 PM  

danwinkler: BSABSVR:


Not to mention there was a reason that these provisions were tucked into the NDAA in the first place. That reason? So if Obama hesitated he could be accused of playing games with the troops pay and generally being weak on defense.



Did you not know that, after the indefinite detention provision was overturned, Obama's justice department challenged it? As in, fought to retain the "right" to indefinitely detain American citizens? Or did you know it, and are a lying, partisan, piece of shiat? I'm guessing the latter.



I'd like a cite for that, if you'd be so kind.

/TIA
 
2012-10-09 06:46:57 PM  

Amos Quito: danwinkler: BSABSVR:


Not to mention there was a reason that these provisions were tucked into the NDAA in the first place. That reason? So if Obama hesitated he could be accused of playing games with the troops pay and generally being weak on defense.



Did you not know that, after the indefinite detention provision was overturned, Obama's justice department challenged it? As in, fought to retain the "right" to indefinitely detain American citizens? Or did you know it, and are a lying, partisan, piece of shiat? I'm guessing the latter.


I'd like a cite for that, if you'd be so kind.

/TIA

Article by Chris Hedges, one of the people suing the Obama admin. Link
 
2012-10-09 06:47:00 PM  
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/ndaa-case-indefinite-dententi on_n_1885204.html

I don't know what you'd find to be an "unbiased" source - plenty of other articles out there, but I assumed you're a bit liberal-leaning, so hopefully this will suffice. There's countless hits, just google it if you need more info.
 
2012-10-09 06:47:35 PM  

Rev. Skarekroe: The good news is it won't matter once the United States collapses completely in a couple of decades or so.


only if you're too cynical or lazy to do something about it now.
 
2012-10-09 06:47:50 PM  

leviosaurus: If it truly voids due process, then the first time law enforcement tries this it will be tossed out of court faster than a fart in a fan factory.


Good luck getting it strick down when you can't even call a lawyer
 
2012-10-09 06:47:55 PM  
Has anyone been detained yet?

Sure, they could grab a few people without being noticed, but there are lots of other people who would be missed if they were taken by MiB in the night.

These notable missing people would be commented on, looked for. Does anyone know anybody who has gotten detained?
 
2012-10-09 06:49:46 PM  

tinyarena: Has anyone been detained yet?

Sure, they could grab a few people without being noticed, but there are lots of other people who would be missed if they were taken by MiB in the night.

These notable missing people would be commented on, looked for. Does anyone know anybody who has gotten detained?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/21/brandon-j-raub-marine-detain e d_n_1817484.html

Anti-government facebook postings got Brandon Raub detained, with no charges. It took a judge issuing an order to get him released.
 
2012-10-09 06:49:57 PM  

danwinkler: Did you not know that, after the indefinite detention provision was overturned, Obama's justice department challenged it? As in, fought to retain the "right" to indefinitely detain American citizens? Or did you know it, and are a lying, partisan, piece of shiat? I'm guessing the latter.


I knew it. And I disagree with it. A lot. But I was writing a fark comment, not an op ed. I'd go on about why I dislike it, but you're not really interested in that are ya? In fact, I doubt you're particularly interested in the nastier NDAA provions at all, given that your definition of non-partisan seems to be "believes like fark commenter danwinkler"

And don't talk to me online in a way you wouldn't talk to me IRL, It's unseemly at best. Pretend tough at worst. Pointless either way.
 
2012-10-09 06:52:57 PM  

BSABSVR: danwinkler: Did you not know that, after the indefinite detention provision was overturned, Obama's justice department challenged it? As in, fought to retain the "right" to indefinitely detain American citizens? Or did you know it, and are a lying, partisan, piece of shiat? I'm guessing the latter.

I knew it. And I disagree with it. A lot. But I was writing a fark comment, not an op ed. I'd go on about why I dislike it, but you're not really interested in that are ya? In fact, I doubt you're particularly interested in the nastier NDAA provions at all, given that your definition of non-partisan seems to be "believes like fark commenter danwinkler"

And don't talk to me online in a way you wouldn't talk to me IRL, It's unseemly at best. Pretend tough at worst. Pointless either way.


I've talked to people in worse ways, in real life, over NDAA. Not meant to sound tough, pretend or otherwise. But when people think it's OK to detain someone (someday, that person might be me or someone I love) for any reason or no reason, I tend to get pissy. And I said you were partisan because you tried to blame it on Republicans - as if a Democrat would never be for it - when Obama later went to bat defending THAT PARTICULAR PROVISION of the bill. He can't have been tricked into signing it and totally against indefinite detention, then later defend that provision and that provision alone. Can't have it both ways.
 
2012-10-09 06:57:29 PM  
FTA: However, the NDAA also contains counterterrorism provisions in sections 1021 and 1022 that allow the federal government to imprison any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaida, the Taliban or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners" until "the end of the hostilities."

Yeah, imprisoning citizens who take up arms against the US government is totally without precedent:

www.civilwaracademy.com

That said, it is worrying is that there is no clear end to the War on Terror, so End of Hostilities is hard to define. Plus, I just know that as we make a slow slide into seemingly becoming a fascist nation, this is going to come back and bite us in the ass big time one day.
 
2012-10-09 07:00:46 PM  

danwinkler: Anti-government facebook postings got Brandon Raub detained, with no charges. It took a judge issuing an order to get him released.


Thanks, but that's not the same thing. It says the local government gave him a psych eval and 72 hours.

FTFA: Col. Thierry Dupuis, the county police chief, said Raub was taken into custody upon the recommendation of mental health crisis intervention workers. He said the action was taken under the state's emergency custody statute, which allows a magistrate to order the civil detention and psychiatric evaluation of a person who is considered potentially dangerous.

I taking about NDAA detention.
 
2012-10-09 07:01:41 PM  
RE: "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

That Franklin quote should not be in quotation marks because it is not what he said. It is a paraphrase. It is what he would have said were he not a very smart man, because it removes all the qualifiers necessary to make it a valid argument. Civilization itself consists of people banding together to give up some of their individual liberty in order to achieve common security. Before civilization, freedom is absolute. Jealous because the guy in the next cave has a prettier mate? No problem. You have the freedom to kill him and take her. No Columbo will investigate the deed, and the High Sheriffs of Cavetown will not come to arrest you if you succeed. You get to keep her. Any civilized society requires individuals to surrender that kind of freedom so that everyone can have a little more security, including and especially the mate. Franklin was certainly smart enough to understand that.

What B-Frank actually said was, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." That one is in quotation marks because it is a quotation. I suppose that's how those popular little curlicues got their name.

The words Gladstone placed within quotation marks are not only inaccurately cited, but because of the inaccuracy, also untrue. We do occasionally have to sacrifice some freedom for security. What Franklin ACTUALLY said, however, is not inaccurate, nor old-fashioned. It is indisputable. It continues to be as relevant as in his day, and will always be true in any society. Or so I believe.

By the way, the "correct" quote may not be a legitimate Franklin quote at all. Franklin did write those words in 1775, but he himself placed them inside of quotation marks. There's a very long story behind that, and it's not worth relating in this forum because it ends in ambiguity rather than resolution.
 
2012-10-09 07:02:58 PM  

danwinkler: BSABSVR: danwinkler: Did you not know that, after the indefinite detention provision was overturned, Obama's justice department challenged it? As in, fought to retain the "right" to indefinitely detain American citizens? Or did you know it, and are a lying, partisan, piece of shiat? I'm guessing the latter.

I knew it. And I disagree with it. A lot. But I was writing a fark comment, not an op ed. I'd go on about why I dislike it, but you're not really interested in that are ya? In fact, I doubt you're particularly interested in the nastier NDAA provions at all, given that your definition of non-partisan seems to be "believes like fark commenter danwinkler"

And don't talk to me online in a way you wouldn't talk to me IRL, It's unseemly at best. Pretend tough at worst. Pointless either way.

I've talked to people in worse ways, in real life, over NDAA. Not meant to sound tough, pretend or otherwise. But when people think it's OK to detain someone (someday, that person might be me or someone I love) for any reason or no reason, I tend to get pissy. And I said you were partisan because you tried to blame it on Republicans - as if a Democrat would never be for it - when Obama later went to bat defending THAT PARTICULAR PROVISION of the bill. He can't have been tricked into signing it and totally against indefinite detention, then later defend that provision and that provision alone. Can't have it both ways.



I did not "try to blame it on Republicans". The provisions were tucked into the defense authorization for a reason. That's the truth. That reason was to use the troops as a cudgel. And half of the Dems voted for it. I have no idea whether it was because they agree with indefinite detention, felt like it would be a vulnerability, or because they didn't read the bill. And that's immaterial, because regardless of the reasons, it's bad law. No. Matter. Who. Came. Up. With. It.

Read what I say. Not what you think I say. Jesus Christ
 
2012-10-09 07:03:09 PM  

Mad_Radhu: FTA: However, the NDAA also contains counterterrorism provisions in sections 1021 and 1022 that allow the federal government to imprison any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaida, the Taliban or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners" until "the end of the hostilities."

Yeah, imprisoning citizens who take up arms against the US government is totally without precedent:

[www.civilwaracademy.com image 564x480]

That said, it is worrying is that there is no clear end to the War on Terror, so End of Hostilities is hard to define. Plus, I just know that as we make a slow slide into seemingly becoming a fascist nation, this is going to come back and bite us in the ass big time one day.


Read what you quoted again. It doesn't require the person "take up arms". It features vague language about "substantially supporting" (what exactly does that entail?), and "associated forces engaged in hostilities". Something tells me a government lawyer could make damn near anyone fit that bill. Like the article mentions, many members of the press. Also, how many times has government stuck to the limitations of laws? Honestly. When has a government power stayed within it's bounds and never expanded? Are you really OK with that?
 
2012-10-09 07:06:39 PM  

Communist_Manifesto: Amos Quito: danwinkler: BSABSVR:


Not to mention there was a reason that these provisions were tucked into the NDAA in the first place. That reason? So if Obama hesitated he could be accused of playing games with the troops pay and generally being weak on defense.



Did you not know that, after the indefinite detention provision was overturned, Obama's justice department challenged it? As in, fought to retain the "right" to indefinitely detain American citizens? Or did you know it, and are a lying, partisan, piece of shiat? I'm guessing the latter.


I'd like a cite for that, if you'd be so kind.

/TIA
Article by Chris Hedges, one of the people suing the Obama admin. Link



Thank you VERY much, Communist_Manifesto.

From your link:

QUOTES

[...]

Last week, round one in the battle to strike down the onerous provision, one that saw me joined by six other plaintiffs including Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg, ended in an unqualified victory for the public. U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest, who accepted every one of our challenges to the law, made her temporary injunction of the section permanent. In short, she declared the law unconstitutional.

Almost immediately after Judge Forrest ruled, the Obama administration challenged the decision. Government prosecutors called the opinion "unprecedented" and said that "the government has compelling arguments that it should be reversed." The government added that it was an "extraordinary injunction of worldwide scope." Government lawyers asked late Friday for an immediate stay of Forrest's ban on the use of the military in domestic policing and on the empowering of the government to strip U.S. citizens of due process. The request for a stay was an attempt by the government to get the judge, pending appeal to a higher court, to grant it the right to continue to use the law. Forrest swiftly rejected the stay, setting in motion a fast-paced appeal to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and possibly, if her ruling is upheld there, to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Justice Department sent a letter to Forrest and the 2nd Circuit late Friday night informing them that at 9 a.m. Monday the Obama administration would ask the 2nd Circuit for an emergency stay that would lift Forrest's injunction. This would allow Obama to continue to operate with indefinite detention authority until a formal appeal was heard. The government's decision has triggered a constitutional showdown between the president and the judiciary.

END QUOTES

There's more, much more.

BSABSVR: And even if you find some people who don't enjoy talking politics on the internet AND who hate the NDAA? Roughly half of them will only hate it because it's a cudgel to beat the Obama administration with. They'll talk about how much it encroaches on freedom in one breath and curse the ACLU with the next one.

Not to mention there was a reason that these provisions were tucked into the NDAA in the first place. That reason? So if Obama hesitated he could be accused of playing games with the troops pay and generally being weak on defense.



Given the above, are you still going to claim that Obama was tricked into this, BSABSVR?


i1121.photobucket.com


Both sides are bad, so VOTE!
 
2012-10-09 07:06:50 PM  

BSABSVR: danwinkler: BSABSVR: danwinkler: Did you not know that, after the indefinite detention provision was overturned, Obama's justice department challenged it? As in, fought to retain the "right" to indefinitely detain American citizens? Or did you know it, and are a lying, partisan, piece of shiat? I'm guessing the latter.

I knew it. And I disagree with it. A lot. But I was writing a fark comment, not an op ed. I'd go on about why I dislike it, but you're not really interested in that are ya? In fact, I doubt you're particularly interested in the nastier NDAA provions at all, given that your definition of non-partisan seems to be "believes like fark commenter danwinkler"

And don't talk to me online in a way you wouldn't talk to me IRL, It's unseemly at best. Pretend tough at worst. Pointless either way.

I've talked to people in worse ways, in real life, over NDAA. Not meant to sound tough, pretend or otherwise. But when people think it's OK to detain someone (someday, that person might be me or someone I love) for any reason or no reason, I tend to get pissy. And I said you were partisan because you tried to blame it on Republicans - as if a Democrat would never be for it - when Obama later went to bat defending THAT PARTICULAR PROVISION of the bill. He can't have been tricked into signing it and totally against indefinite detention, then later defend that provision and that provision alone. Can't have it both ways.


I did not "try to blame it on Republicans". The provisions were tucked into the defense authorization for a reason. That's the truth. That reason was to use the troops as a cudgel. And half of the Dems voted for it. I have no idea whether it was because they agree with indefinite detention, felt like it would be a vulnerability, or because they didn't read the bill. And that's immaterial, because regardless of the reasons, it's bad law. No. Matter. Who. Came. Up. With. It.

Read what I say. Not what you think I say. Jesus Christ


I read what you said. And I totally get what you're saying - 2 months ago, I was cursing Republicans for using the troops like that. Still, I'd have told you Obama should have made a stand. Now, things are different. Obama has fought to uphold indefinite detention. The "using the troops as a cudgel" argument is out of the picture, because he has shown that he desires to have the power to indefinitely detain people. As far as I'm concerned, if he's willing to fight to uphold that sole provision, he would have been willing to sign the bill if all that was in it was indefinite detention.
 
2012-10-09 07:13:11 PM  

danwinkler: tinyarena: Has anyone been detained yet?

Sure, they could grab a few people without being noticed, but there are lots of other people who would be missed if they were taken by MiB in the night.

These notable missing people would be commented on, looked for. Does anyone know anybody who has gotten detained?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/21/brandon-j-raub-marine-detain e d_n_1817484.html

Anti-government facebook postings got Brandon Raub detained, with no charges. It took a judge issuing an order to get him released.


Your FA: Police - acting under a state law that allows emergency, temporary psychiatric commitments upon the recommendation of a mental health professional - took Raub to the John Randolph Medical Center in Hopewell.

You'se trollin'!
 
2012-10-09 07:18:26 PM  

BuckTurgidson: danwinkler: tinyarena: Has anyone been detained yet?

Sure, they could grab a few people without being noticed, but there are lots of other people who would be missed if they were taken by MiB in the night.

These notable missing people would be commented on, looked for. Does anyone know anybody who has gotten detained?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/21/brandon-j-raub-marine-detain e d_n_1817484.html

Anti-government facebook postings got Brandon Raub detained, with no charges. It took a judge issuing an order to get him released.

Your FA: Police - acting under a state law that allows emergency, temporary psychiatric commitments upon the recommendation of a mental health professional - took Raub to the John Randolph Medical Center in Hopewell.

You'se trollin'!


Really? You're going to accuse me of trolling? Perhaps my example was a little off-topic (since it wasn't authorized by NDAA), but you will notice the question didn't ask for someone who had been detained under NDAA, but simply detained. Raub is an example of what happens when we allow our rights to be taken away (in his case, on a state level). I'd rather not have the federal government doing that sort of stuff, as well. Indefinite detention isn't as uncommon as we'd like to think (gitmo, anyone?), so why would we want to further it's practice and give more legal precedence to support it?
 
Displayed 50 of 112 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report