Senate Authorizes Indefinite Detention of United States Citizens

[Cutlass]

So basically, if I understand this, it's simply saying that someone who wages war against the United States (including terrorist acts), citizen or no, can be detained without trial. Like...hmm...lesse... Confederate soldiers during the Civil War, as an example.

Not seeing the concern here, to be quite honest.

If they were treated as prisoners of war, and not criminal defendants, you would have a point. But as soon as you make them criminal defendants and intend to put them on trial, the POW status is out the window, and they have a right to the same rights and protections as other criminal defendants.

 

[GamezRule]

You could be put on trial for treason, I suppose.

 

[Ayatollah So]

I'm hoping for an Obama veto, but would not be surpised if he caved.

Obama, cave? That NEVER happens ...

 

[kochman]

1. hahahaha

3. Prominent theorists generally agree that Hitler was well-liked for his charisma and invigorating message of nationalism and pride.

4. Wait, so it took way longer than 8 years to wreck the economy (so the Republicans can't possibly be to blame), but Obama is expected to fix it in 2? Nevermind the fact that you didn't even name a single issue that he failed at outside of that (unless you count repealing DADT and killing Osama bin Laden to be failures), that's just plain inconsistent.

3) But we can never get an accurate read on this, for the reasons I talked about previously.
4) Both parties were to blame, but just because something took longer than 8 years to break, doesn't mean it should take that long to get fixed.

Other Obama failures:
*Transparency, a major campaign promise, doesn't exist
*Afghanistan... still there, no end in sight
*No "Manhattan Project for alternative fuel"
*Failure to be bipartisan (a two way street of course)
*Continuation of Bush policies (specifically the bail outs)
I could go on and on, but I really don't feel like it at this time. I've got work to do.

 

[JollyRoger]

So basically, if I understand this, it's simply saying that someone who wages war against the United States (including terrorist acts), citizen or no, can be detained without trial. Like...hmm...lesse... Confederate soldiers during the Civil War, as an example.

Not seeing the concern here, to be quite honest.

Someone that someone in the Federal government "accuses" of "waging war" with the United States is given no way to show otherwise except to appeal to another executive branch panel that has the incentive to have as many "war wagers" as possible to keep the war-on-whatever-concept going. Yep no problem at all.

 

[W|M]

3) But we can never get an accurate read on this, for the reasons I talked about previously.
4) Both parties were to blame, but just because something took longer than 8 years to break, doesn't mean it should take that long to get fixed.

Other Obama failures:
*Transparency, a major campaign promise, doesn't exist
*Afghanistan... still there, no end in sight
*No "Manhattan Project for alternative fuel"
*Failure to be bipartisan (a two way street of course)
*Continuation of Bush policies (specifically the bail outs)
I could go on and on, but I really don't feel like it at this time. I've got work to do.

It's a lot harder to fix an economy than to destroy one.

Some of Obama's policies have been a lot harder to implement than he may have realized when he made those promises - Republicans hate absolutely everything that he does, and Democrats are in a disorganized mess.

Obama has in fact tried to be bipartisan, but the Tea Party isn't exactly helping him.

 

[Arakhor]

The other issue of course is that no one really knows how bad a country's finances are until you are in charge and now being blamed for not instantly fixing the ongoing problems.

 

[uppi]

Someone that someone in the Federal government "accuses" of "waging war" with the United States is given no way to show otherwise except to appeal to another executive branch panel that has the incentive to have as many "war wagers" as possible to keep the war-on-whatever-concept going. Yep no problem at all.

How is "war" defined in this context anyway? Does the war on Christmas count?

 

[Incodcito]

I think people who focus on the "U.S. citizen" part(or lack thereof) are really missing the point. Nobody should be subjected to this kind of nonsense.

Gotta go one step at a time. Americans have a very "us and them" attitude, and in times like these, libertarian minded people should go for the lower hanging fruit.

 

[JollyRoger]

How is "war" defined in this context anyway? Does the war on Christmas count?

Since al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces has not wished us a "Merry Christmas", then those saying "Happy Holidays" can be detained. Since al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces has not wished us "Happy Holidays", then those saying "Merry Christmas" can be detained.

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

 

[choxorn]

Clearly, the only way to proceed is to wish everyone a Happy Hanukkah.

 

[Disgustipated]

3) But we can never get an accurate read on this, for the reasons I talked about previously.
4) Both parties were to blame, but just because something took longer than 8 years to break, doesn't mean it should take that long to get fixed.

Other Obama failures:
*Transparency, a major campaign promise, doesn't exist
*Afghanistan... still there, no end in sight
*No "Manhattan Project for alternative fuel"
*Failure to be bipartisan (a two way street of course)
*Continuation of Bush policies (specifically the bail outs)
I could go on and on, but I really don't feel like it at this time. I've got work to do.

I'm not saying you are a racist, but it seems to me most people who do not like Obama are racists. The only reason we have a Tea party today is because the president is black. Notice we never had the tea party during the Clinton years (and they too tried the universal health care policy).

Obama = good guy, republican = bad guys. Yes one reason I do support Obama is because I don't want to be labeled as a racist. He's not a very good president, but he's miles above G.W. I'd rate him as average.

 

[cybrxkhan]

I think people who focus on the "U.S. citizen" part(or lack thereof) are really missing the point. Nobody should be subjected to this kind of nonsense.

Agreed.


Well, here we go again. I guess there's really never change I could believe in. (I didn't support either McCain or Obama last time, in case anyone wonders. Still, I hope Obama does uphold his promise to veto this bill.)

 

[Disgustipated]

I do think Obama will veto this bill. I would think the far left would come down hard on him if he didn't. He'd lose a lot of support in the next election. I know I won't vote for him if he approves this.

 

[Elta]

So basically, if I understand this, it's simply saying that someone who wages war against the United States (including terrorist acts), citizen or no, can be detained without trial. Like...hmm...lesse... Confederate soldiers during the Civil War, as an example.

Not seeing the concern here, to be quite honest.

Why would a democratic nation need detention without trial?

Do you really find that to be acceptable in any circumstance?

Spoiler :

Yes I am fully aware and disgusted by Guantanamo

 

[Yeekim]

Crop dusting protesters with pepper spray, no real good person to win the presidency, economy flatlining, Europe stretching at the seams, and now a blatant police state being erected in our own backyard...

Looks like next year, I won't be surprised if the Mayans were right...

Not to mention I have to agree with civver_764.

I think people who focus on the "U.S. citizen" part(or lack thereof) are really missing the point. Nobody should be subjected to this kind of nonsense.

Yeah... Mayans sound more and more convincing...

 

[GoodGame]

Is the President going to veto this? If not, shouldn't SCOTUS strike it down immediately? I mean, doesn't indefinite detention contradict a fair and speedy trial? How does slavery fit into this equation?

Heriza Kwanzaa!

 

[PlutonianEmpire]

My gut is telling me he will approve the bill....

 

[NBAfan]

This law is crazy bad. You can not set a precedent in allowing the President to suspend your rights and detain you using the guise of "terror". That is allowing way to much power.

 

[Ajidica]

Since this appears to be one of the few times we are all in agreement, if this passes and isn't vetoed, perhaps we should all write a letter to Obama and the leaders of congress complaining about this?