The National Defense Authorization Act Bill

LobsterMobster wrote:
93_confirmed wrote:

Now Obama and his goons agree with the bill. WTF happened to the threat of veto? Can this situation get any more outrageous??

Maybe he doesn't want to veto it if there's a chance the veto might actually work? The ideal sequence of events for Obama would be that he vetoes it, the veto is overturned, and he "reluctantly" accepts the new power that's been foisted upon him.

Remember that Edwin mentioned earlier there was talk the veto would only happen because he thought the powers it basically unconstitutionally grants the executive branch weren't "vague" enough.

LobsterMobster wrote:
93_confirmed wrote:

Now Obama and his goons agree with the bill. WTF happened to the threat of veto? Can this situation get any more outrageous??

Maybe he doesn't want to veto it if there's a chance the veto might actually work? The ideal sequence of events for Obama would be that he vetoes it, the veto is overturned, and he "reluctantly" accepts the new power that's been foisted upon him.

Yeah. I'm still shocked that the right wing is not more agitated about this. This is the same party that freaked out about Ruby Ridge and Waco and talks about UN detention centers setup in the desert waiting to round up civilian agitators. And yet here's legislation that allows our president to do basically this.

Also Democrats should be enraged that rather than winding down the war Obama has calcified it into a forever war.

Emmanuel Goldstein from 1984 wrote:

"The social atmosphere is that of a besieged city.. And at the same time the consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival."

"It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist."

DSGamer wrote:

Also Democrats should be enraged that rather than winding down the war Obama has calcified it into a forever war.

Well, see, Obama has learned from the entertainment industry that all good things come in trilogies, and he wanted to be the one to write the final chapter in our trilogy of forever wars against intangible concepts (War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Terror).

I'm really not inclined to visit the US again while such a law is in place.

A military authority prepared to define you as an enemy combatant by fiat and hold you indefinitely? Yeah. Welcome to the list of military dictatorships I cross off my holiday list.

Terrifying. Absolutely terrifying.

Maq wrote:

I'm really not inclined to visit the US again while such a law is in place.

A military authority prepared to define you as an enemy combatant by fiat and hold you indefinitely? Yeah. Welcome to the list of military dictatorships I cross off my holiday list.

Terrifying. Absolutely terrifying.

How do you think I feel? I just moved here in April this year. If it wasn't for the fact that my wife has to share custody of her two little daughters with her ex, we'd be long gone and back in Ireland.

Maq wrote:

I'm really not inclined to visit the US again while such a law is in place.

A military authority prepared to define you as an enemy combatant by fiat and hold you indefinitely? Yeah. Welcome to the list of military dictatorships I cross off my holiday list.

Terrifying. Absolutely terrifying.

Sometimes I really hate being right.

DSGamer wrote:

Yeah. I'm still shocked that the right wing is not more agitated about this. This is the same party that freaked out about Ruby Ridge and Waco and talks about UN detention centers setup in the desert waiting to round up civilian agitators. And yet here's legislation that allows our president to do basically this.

I think the Right has finally learned that when a Democratic administration gets a new toy, they get to play with it after the next election. Obama inheriting all of Bush's new powers may have driven that home.

Expect to hear a hell of a lot less from Greenpeace come 2013.

Yes, but can this law really survive a test against the courts? It's a directly violation of the 4th Amendment! Even Scalia can't really justify upholding it.

Nevin73 wrote:

Yes, but can this law really survive a test against the courts? It's a directly violation of the 4th Amendment! Even Scalia can't really justify upholding it.

That really depends on who is president when Scalia hears the case.

Nevin73 wrote:

Yes, but can this law really survive a test against the courts? It's a directly violation of the 4th Amendment! Even Scalia can't really justify upholding it.

I would've said the same thing before we assassinated a US citizen without trial. The fact that he was in Yemen at the time doesn't mean much to me.

LobsterMobster wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

Yes, but can this law really survive a test against the courts? It's a directly violation of the 4th Amendment! Even Scalia can't really justify upholding it.

I would've said the same thing before we assassinated a US citizen without trial. The fact that he was in Yemen at the time doesn't mean much to me.

To me, there is a big difference between a military operation targeting enemy combatants in which an American is killed who was hanging with said enemy and actually napping American citizens off of the streets in the US.

Nevin73 wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

Yes, but can this law really survive a test against the courts? It's a directly violation of the 4th Amendment! Even Scalia can't really justify upholding it.

I would've said the same thing before we assassinated a US citizen without trial. The fact that he was in Yemen at the time doesn't mean much to me.

To me, there is a big difference between a military operation targeting enemy combatants in which an American is killed who was hanging with said enemy and actually napping American citizens off of the streets in the US.

Is there? Not to rehash this again, but he wasn't in an operational role as far as we know. He wasn't found on a field of combat. Geography is all that really matters? In that sense this bill makes complete sense. Suspend Posse Comitatus forever because borders are now arbitrary.

93_confirmed wrote:

Obama lawyers: Citizens targeted if at war with US

The government lawyers — CIA counsel Stephen Preston and Pentagon counsel Jeh Johnson — did not directly address the al-Alwaki case. But they said U.S. citizens don't have immunity when they're at war with the United States.

Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, are equipped to make decisions about who qualifies as an enemy.

Now Obama and his goons agree with the bill. WTF happened to the threat of veto? Can this situation get any more outrageous??

Yeah, from what I am reading, the threatened veto is not really over anyone's rights being taken away, it is over who gets to take those rights away. This bill says it will be the military, while the administration would prefer it was the DoJ, FBI, and so forth who get to have fun.

DSGamer wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

Yes, but can this law really survive a test against the courts? It's a directly violation of the 4th Amendment! Even Scalia can't really justify upholding it.

I would've said the same thing before we assassinated a US citizen without trial. The fact that he was in Yemen at the time doesn't mean much to me.

To me, there is a big difference between a military operation targeting enemy combatants in which an American is killed who was hanging with said enemy and actually napping American citizens off of the streets in the US.

Is there? Not to rehash this again, but he wasn't in an operational role as far as we know. He wasn't found on a field of combat. Geography is all that really matters? In that sense this bill makes complete sense. Suspend Posse Comitatus forever because borders are now arbitrary.

It also wasn't that they killed a group of baddies and one happened to be an American. They targeted that guy, specifically. They even discussed whether or not they could justify it before they went after him.

And aside from all that, it doesn't matter what they thought he was doing because they never charged him and he never got the chance to defend himself. It doesn't matter how scary the charges are unless they can be proven and they never were. Even if the evidence was damning and even if the trial would have taken all of an hour, the evidence was never shown and he never got his trial.

It's funny, but this is like the opposite of shutting down Gitmo. This is turning the whole country into a potential Gitmo. This goes beyond broken promises.

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/01/congress_endorsing_military_detention_a_new_aumf/singleton/

As always Glenn Greenwald has much to say on this, but this is the part that caught my eye. Emphasis mine.

If someone had said before September 11 that the Congress would be on the verge of enacting a bill to authorize military detention inside the U.S., it would be hard to believe. If someone had said after September 11 (or even after the 2006 and 2008 elections) that a Democratic-led Senate — more than ten years later, and without another successful attack on U.S. soil — would be mandating the indefinite continuation of Guantanamo and implementing an expanded AUMF, that, too, would have been hard to believe. But that’s exactly what Congress, with the active participation of both parties, is doing. And the most amazing part of it all is that it won’t change much, because that is more or less what Washington, without any statutory authorization, has already done. That’s how degraded our political culture is: what was once unthinkable now barely prompts any rational alarm — not because it’s not alarming, but because it’s become so normalized.

I'll repeat my assertion: the Constitution died with Al-Alwaki. This is just the body twitching.

"An individual, no matter who they are, if they pose a threat to the security of the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue that threat,” said McCain. ” We need to take every stop necessary to prevent that from happening, that’s for the safety and security of the men and women who are out there risking their lives….in our armed services."

Hmm, so that means we can go after the Wall Street collusionists and the Koch family and other anarchists? Is this a silver lining?

fangblackbone wrote:
"An individual, no matter who they are, if they pose a threat to the security of the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue that threat,” said McCain. ” We need to take every stop necessary to prevent that from happening, that’s for the safety and security of the men and women who are out there risking their lives….in our armed services."

Hmm, so that means we can go after the Wall Street collusionists and the Koch family and other anarchists? Is this a silver lining?

That would be a refreshing twist to this story.

They could. We can't.

LobsterMobster wrote:

They could. We can't.

Precisely.

Also, assuming this will pass (seems a safe assumption, sadly), how long until we see an Occupy protester simply... disappear?

Malor wrote:

I'll repeat my assertion: the Constitution died with Al-Alwaki. This is just the body twitching.

I'd disagree and say it's on the last phase of life support. There's still time to save it but the window is small and will require a revolution not just peaceful protests. OWS (and the rest of the inactive 99%) needs to redirect all of it's resources to DC immediately and fight these bills. I also think the US military would need to ultimately revolt against Washington, which isn't as unlikely as it may seem at first glance. Ron Paul has more individual military contributions combined than all the other Republicans and I think this shows to a degree that our troops understand just how perilous this situation is. They may need to choose sides sooner than later and I wouldn't be surprised if they are kept overseas long term for this reason alone.

The Senate passed this bill with a vote of 93-7. *facepalm*

I'm still confused on whether American citizens are exempt.

The bill would require military custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of al-Qaida or its affiliates and involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States. American citizens would be exempt. The bill does allow the executive branch to waive the authority based on national security and hold a suspect in civilian custody.

But later it says:

"Since the bill puts military detention authority on steroids and makes it permanent, American citizens and others are at greater risk of being locked away by the military without charge or trial if this bill becomes law," said Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.

I think the key is in the term "military custody." They can't keep American citizens in custody but they may still be able to detain them indefinitely. I don't know what the technical difference is between detention and custody. That is likely by design. Maybe detention is like being in the back of a police car and custody is like being in lock-up?

Im usually very anti-Fox News but this opinion piece by Judge Anthony Napolitano is spot on in regards to our Constitutional rights being hijacked.

93_confirmed wrote:

Im usually very anti-Fox News but this opinion piece by Judge Anthony Napolitano is spot on in regards to our Constitutional rights being hijacked.

His show (from which the clip was taken) is on Fox Business, along with Stossel and a few other liberty-minded folk. Definitely a different feel than the conservative-but-still-statist feel of the parent channel.

Great clip, by the way.

Crossover from the OWS thread.

Edwin wrote:

Fox News host Todd Starnes calls #OWS members "domestic terrorists". Examiner

This is the exact f'ing reason why every American should be furious with the new bill. The term "terrorist" is being thrown about at will and appied to whichever group is convenient. People might be quick to overlook this as a one-off instance but the more the term gets used in this context, the more comfortable the majority of Americans will be when protestors and dissenters start disappearing.

Imagine this scenario, tens of thousands of protestors attempt to march into DC and are given an ultimatum by the local government to leave or face arrest. They refuse and march onward so the Executive branch deems them as a threat to the safety of the United States thereby giving them the new found power to arrest and hold these "terrorists" indefinitely. Oh but wait, the Executive branch also decides that these "terrorists" appear to have given up their citizenship (sound familiar) since they are intent on interfering with the safety of the country. Executive calls in the national guard or military to elevate the threat.

America is now safe again....yay! I feel much better, how about you guys?

93_confirmed wrote:

Imagine this scenario, tens of thousands of protestors attempt to march into DC and are given an ultimatum by the local government to leave or face arrest. They refuse and march onward so the Executive branch deems them as a threat to the safety of the United States thereby giving them the new found power to arrest and hold these "terrorists" indefinitely. Oh but wait, the Executive branch also decides that these "terrorists" appear to have given up their citizenship (sound familiar) since they are intent on interfering with the safety of the country. Executive calls in the national guard or military to elevate the threat.

America is now safe again....yay! I feel much better, how about you guys?

Is then when we get the show Running Man? 'Cause I'd watch it.

Nevin73 wrote:
93_confirmed wrote:

Imagine this scenario, tens of thousands of protestors attempt to march into DC and are given an ultimatum by the local government to leave or face arrest. They refuse and march onward so the Executive branch deems them as a threat to the safety of the United States thereby giving them the new found power to arrest and hold these "terrorists" indefinitely. Oh but wait, the Executive branch also decides that these "terrorists" appear to have given up their citizenship (sound familiar) since they are intent on interfering with the safety of the country. Executive calls in the national guard or military to elevate the threat.

America is now safe again....yay! I feel much better, how about you guys?

Is then when we get the show Running Man? 'Cause I'd watch it.

"Zey just vant some breaad for godz zake!"

93_confirmed wrote:

Crossover from the OWS thread.

Edwin wrote:

Fox News host Todd Starnes calls #OWS members "domestic terrorists". Examiner

This is the exact f'ing reason why every American should be furious with the new bill. The term "terrorist" is being thrown about at will and appied to whichever group is convenient. People might be quick to overlook this as a one-off instance but the more the term gets used in this context, the more comfortable the majority of Americans will be when protestors and dissenters start disappearing.

Imagine this scenario, tens of thousands of protestors attempt to march into DC and are given an ultimatum by the local government to leave or face arrest. They refuse and march onward so the Executive branch deems them as a threat to the safety of the United States thereby giving them the new found power to arrest and hold these "terrorists" indefinitely. Oh but wait, the Executive branch also decides that these "terrorists" appear to have given up their citizenship (sound familiar) since they are intent on interfering with the safety of the country. Executive calls in the national guard or military to elevate the threat.

America is now safe again....yay! I feel much better, how about you guys?

This should be cross posted in the Police State thread as well.