Obama to approve NDAA

[Iniquitous]

Obama to approve National Defense Authorization Act

So, first he said he would veto it ... and now he is going to pass it. Welcome to the United Police State of America?

[RubySlippers]

Wouldn't this violate more than few other amendments such as the right to due process, trial by jury and a quick and speedy trial if your talking about native born Americans and here legally at least?

And people wonder why I don't trust the government at the Federal level very much.  :-\

[Iniquitous]

Which is why people should be paying attention to this.

In essence, this says if the gov’t suspects and accuses a US citizen of being a terrorist then they can legally detain indefinitely said US citizen. No Miranda Right, no due process, no right to an attorney. Just a ticket to Cuba… or one of the FEMA camps set up in the US.

This will kill our Constitutional Rights and you have to wonder how much longer we’ll have such things as the right to bear arms.

[RubySlippers]

If I paid any taxes now ,besides sales taxs, I would become a tax evader to not fund this government.

We still have the courts we can just hope they do whats right and toss this law onto the garbage pile at some point especially regarding US citizens and people here legally in our nation.

[MercyfulFate]

Obama has been just as bad, if not worse than Bush on civil liberties. It's depressing really that the only reversal to this trend lies in Ron Paul, who's other ideas will keep him from ever being elected sadly.

[Phoenixrisen]

Well... Remember how the US started... Maybe it's time for something drastic to happen. Certainly seems like it's going in the way of something drastic needing to happen. Don't get me wrong. I love this country and what it's supposed to stand for. It's my home and I realize how lucky I was comparatively to grow up here. What I don't like, and haven't liked since I started paying even the remotest attention to it, is the government that's running all of this. As it is, it's nothing like it was originally intended to be, and I'm not talking about the rights of women, and people of anything other than pure Anglo-Saxon descent. Those things would have come along with social awareness.

If we're in a country in which we can charge someone with no ties to our country with TREASON, which was defined in the Constitution, (I relooked it up when that foreign kid was tried for treason a few years back. I don't remember the names, but it was all over the news.) and have it stick, when the definition required ties to the country for it to be treason, then do you really think they care about what's Constitutional or not? It's all about fear, and the control that they can create through causing fear in the masses. With that fear, and a "promise" to keep us "safe" they can get the less informed/intelligent masses to gladly put up with whatever they'd like to make them put up with. It's not clean, it's not pretty, and morally, it's pretty bankrupt, but they're politicians, what do you expect?

Hopefully that made some amount of sense, I have to walk out the door in a bit, but if I remember to, I'll look up the foreign student (I think he was a student) thing when I get a chance... In my opinion this country has been on a downward slope since the whole "War on Terror" started.

[DarklingAlice]

Hopefully the Judiciary will quash it. Honestly not surprised by this. Governments are made of people. People get scared/greedy/'patriotic' or otherwise irrational and as a result do stupid and terrible things.

Moreover, I hate it when people talk about the good old days and the "founding fathers'" intent. Nostalgia in America is just as guilty as other factors of skewing our political discourse and informing horrible policy. This sort of thing has happened before and will happen again. Repeatedly. Talking about it like we are in some new dark era of the violation of civil liberty in America is naive. Remember that it was only 22 years after the Declaration of Independence and 11 years after the Constitution was adopted that we passed the Alien and Sedition acts. Which makes it less than 9 years from when we adopted the Bill of Rights to when the government was actively impinging the rights of the individual due to vague fears of anti-government sentiment being inspired by a violent revolution overseas. Seems like we are pretty much following in the footsteps of our forebears.

[RubySlippers]

If he signs this monstosity - the Terrorists win!

Face it they caused us to spend a needless huge sum of money on homeland security for a relatively low level threat to our nation as a whole, we are removing key Constitutional safeguards now from even citizens just accused of Terrorism and it could get worse.

And whats worse we didn't need to do this after 9/11 airlines were immediately safer since who here if they take out guns will do what hostage takers say on an aircraft, I would likely not and aircraft have clear pilots do not open the armored door policies. We have more coorperation from other nations on the policing of terrorists and more importantly of lettting them get a nuke or serious biological agent that could be deployed. And we refocused our formidable intellignece services to the task. More money was really not needed to the degree we spent it IMHO some of course but not that. Now this!

I happen to feel this bill if he signs it will be a huge blow to the people and our allies that we will sacrifice our essential liberty out of unjustified fear of some terrorist attack.

[Vekseid]

Obama to approve National Defense Authorization Act

So, first he said he would veto it ... and now he is going to pass it. Welcome to the United Police State of America?

He wasn't going to veto it because it was blatantly unconstitutional. He was going to veto it because he didn't want to acknowledge that he needed congressional approval for such powers.

Here's a list of senators who specifically betrayed us. Note that -not- voting for this nonsense doesn't really absolve people, see 'villain rotation'. But if there's one vote that ought to go down in history as unforgivable, people could do worse than pick this one.

Glenn Greenwald also has a ...rant, on it.

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

...

Second, consider how typically bipartisan this all is. The Senate just voted 37-61 against an amendment, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Mark Udall, that would have stripped the Levin/McCain section from the bill: in other words, Levin/McCain garnered one more vote than the 60 needed to stave off a filibuster. Every GOP Senator (except Rand Paul and Mark Kirk) voted against the Udall amendment, while just enough Democrats – 16 in total — joined the GOP to ensure passage of Levin/McCain. That includes such progressive stalwarts as Debbie Stabenow, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeanne Shaheen and its lead sponsor, Carl Levin.

I’ve described this little scam before as “Villain Rotation”: “They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it.” This has happened with countless votes that are supposed manifestations of right-wing radicalism but that pass because an always-changing roster of Democrats ensure they have the support needed. So here is the Democratic Party — led by its senior progressive National Security expert, Carl Levin, and joined by just enough of its members — joining the GOP to ensure that this bill passes, and that the U.S. Government remains vested with War on Terror powers and even expands that war in some critical respects.

...

UPDATE II: Any doubt about whether this bill permits the military detention of U.S. citizens was dispelled entirely today when an amendment offered by Dianne Feinstein — to bar the military detention of U.S. citizens — failed by a vote of 45-55. Only three Republicans voted in favor of Feinstein’s amendment (Paul, Kirk and Lee), while 10 Senate Democrats voted against it, i.e. voted to empower the President to militarily detain American citizens without charges (Levin, Stabenow, Casey, Pryor, Ben Nelson, Manchin, McCaskill, Begich and Lieberman). Remember: the GOP — all of whom except 3 voted today to empower the President to militarily detain citizens without charges — distrusts federal power and are strong believes in restrained government. Meanwhile, even The American Spectator has a more developed appreciation of due process than these Senate Democrats and the White House.

I'm not sure if Greenwald coined the term, I'd heard about the phenomenon in the 90's.

And we have Rand Paul, of all people, to thank for the bill not being worse:

http://www.campaignforliberty.org/profile/7786/blog/2011/12/02/press-release-c4l-stands-rand

SPRINGFIELD, Virginia – On Thursday night, Senator Rand Paul blocked passage of an amendment that would have allowed the government to indefinitely detain American citizens until Congress declares the War on Terror to be over.  These Americans would be detained even if they were tried and found not guilty.
An attempt was made to pass Amendment No. 1274 to the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1867) by voice vote, but Senator Paul’s objection and request for a roll call vote ultimately led to the bill’s defeat by a final vote of 41-59.

That's right. 41 senators voted for indefinite detainment even of those who were found innocent.

You can check that list of villains here.

The specific text of which is:

   SA 1274. Mr. SESSIONS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1867, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; as follows:

    On page 360, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:

    (5) Notwithstanding disposition under paragraph (2) or (3), further detention under the law of war until the end of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

[Callie Del Noire]

I'm tired of writing my congressman and senators. Tired of Calling them. This year has been one betrayal after another of oaths, promises and now the hijacking of the country. This is a betrayal of the people and it outrages me. I'm a vet, I know LOTS of serviceman that hate being made into brown shirts and bad guys. It's not what we are trained for. It's a betrayal of our oaths of service in the highest order.

I am especially saddened that men like Senator McCain who swore that same oath are now betraying it.

[MercyfulFate]

The sad part is I find members of the military tend to know how corrupt the government is.

Police forces? Nope, they love it. They can be extremely xenophobic, hard right wing cheerleaders of authority.

[Callie Del Noire]

The sad part is I find members of the military tend to know how corrupt the government is.

Police forces? Nope, they love it. They can be extremely xenophobic, hard right wing cheerleaders of authority.

Actually my friends in law enforcement hate it too. The director of the FBI has stated worries about military involvement interfering with investigator ability to conduct investigations and members of other agencies have said similar things.  It is constitutionally reprehensible and procedurally stupid, and yeah our elected officials march lockstep down the aisle to destroying the priciples our country worked on for centuries.

[Anjasa]

He wasn't going to veto it because it was blatantly unconstitutional. He was going to veto it because he didn't want to acknowledge that he needed congressional approval for such powers.

I was just about to point this out.

Hearing what Obama has done over the past four years has frightened me.

[Callie Del Noire]

I was just about to point this out.

Hearing what Obama has done over the past four years has frightened me.

I think he's done a mix of good and bad. He started strong with policies to keep white house staff from joining the washington lobbyist crowd at the end of their time working for him. Then he tried to talk to the other party leadership. Not always successfully but at least he was willing to cross the aisle.

He's no more good or evil than any other president. He's a man and he has feet of clay just like everyone else. I saw a LOT of folks who seemed to expect him to pull out a wand after he was sworn in and wave it and all the problems of the last 10 years would POOF and vanish.

I am, having said that, very disappointed with the way he has handled the NDAA. Particularly given his history as a constitutional historian.

[MercyfulFate]

Actually my friends in law enforcement hate it too. The director of the FBI has stated worries about military involvement interfering with investigator ability to conduct investigations and members of other agencies have said similar things.  It is constitutionally reprehensible and procedurally stupid, and yeah our elected officials march lockstep down the aisle to destroying the priciples our country worked on for centuries.

I've found most police tend to fall to the right pretty hard, I can point you to quite a few websites and forums full of them where their anonymous rantings are regularly applauded. I have one guy on my facebook that loves when OWS protesters are assaulted for example, and him and others will ignore any police brutality story, or defend it. You see it with every police brutality case "The force was justified" is always what the Chief says, because they all back each other up.

I'm not saying normal cops don't exist, my best friend is one and he does it as a job and doesn't even like it. I'm more talking about the lifers and authority lovers who taser everyone, and just thoroughly abuse their power whenever they can. There are quite a few of them.

[Callie Del Noire]

I've found most police tend to fall to the right pretty hard, I can point you to quite a few websites and forums full of them where their anonymous rantings are regularly applauded. I have one guy on my facebook that loves when OWS protesters are assaulted for example, and him and others will ignore any police brutality story, or defend it. You see it with every police brutality case "The force was justified" is always what the Chief says, because they all back each other up.

I'm not saying normal cops don't exist, my best friend is one and he does it as a job and doesn't even like it. I'm more talking about the lifers and authority lovers who taser everyone, and just thoroughly abuse their power whenever they can. There are quite a few of them.

Most of the ones I've heard seem to dislike it for the interference with their cases it will cause.  Cause if you think just gulaging someone will make things easier, I think it will make his friends a LOT more likely to run and gun when they see the next badge.

[Callie Del Noire]

Below is the response I got from one of my Senators, Marco Rubio R-Fl. The only part I left out was my name and the initial salutation.

Thank you for writing me in regard to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA).  I understand some provisions in this bill are contentious and I appreciate the opportunity to respond. 
 
As you may know, every year the Senate Armed Services Committee presents the NDAA, which authorizes appropriations for the corresponding fiscal year, to the full Senate for consideration.  The Senate passed this year's Defense Authorization Act on December 1, 2011, and following a conference committee with the House, the final version of the NDAA was passed by the Senate on December 15, 2011, by a vote 86 to 13. 
 
I am aware this bill contains some controversial provisions related to terrorist detainees, and whether they should be held in military or civilian law enforcement custody.  In particular, I am referring to Sections 1031, 1032 and 1033 of the Senate version of the NDAA.   This legislation reiterates that in times of war the Armed Forces have the authority to detain terrorists in the United States if they are members of Al Qaeda or a group affiliated with Al Qaeda and/or assisted in the planning and execution of the September 11th terror attacks.   During the Senate debate on the NDAA, Senator Mark Udall (CO) introduced an amendment which would have struck this language from the bill. 
 
I voted against the Udall amendment and in favor of compromise language which states that the President already has the authority to detain individuals associated with Al Qaeda or other terror groups regardless of their citizenship. The Udall amendment failed by a vote of 37 to 61, however, the compromise language passed 99 to 1 and is contained in the final NDAA which does not change current law with regard to U.S. citizen's rights.  To be clear, this NDAA does not change the Posse Comitatus Act, nor does it take away an individual's habeas corpus rights.  Additionally, the language in the NDAA does not take away an individual's rights to equal protection under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, nor does it take away one's due process rights afforded under the 5th or 14th Amendments.  If this bill did such a thing, I would strongly oppose it.
 
I believe an act of terror against the United States is an act of war, and I believe those who commit such acts of terror should be treated as enemy combatants not as common criminals.  When enemy combatants who wish to harm United States citizens are captured, the rights of these detainees are restricted to basic human rights.  All detainees held by the United States are treated with dignity and respect, despite the heinous crimes they have been accused of committing against our nation.  I will continue to support a detention policy that protects the United States, as well as the rights of our law abiding citizens.
 
It is an honor and a privilege to serve you as your United States Senator. Thank you for sharing your views with me. If I can be of any help to you with regard to this issue or any other concerns of yours, please do not hesitate to contact me.

[RubySlippers]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin

Enough said that covers my position pretty well tyrants often use fear to take away liberty until liberty is gone and replaced by tyranny, he knew that and so do most rational people.

[Tamhansen]

This NDAA seems eerily Orwellian to me.

I mean essentially it's a matter of definition. Will it lead to another house committee on un-American Activities. Sure it does not change the rights of citizens unless they are "part of or substantially support Al Qaeda, the taliban or associated forces." What exactly are associated forces, and what is substantially support.

[Callie Del Noire]

This NDAA seems eerily Orwellian to me.

I mean essentially it's a matter of definition. Will it lead to another house committee on un-American Activities. Sure it does not change the rights of citizens unless they are "part of or substantially support Al Qaeda, the taliban or associated forces." What exactly are associated forces, and what is substantially support.

Well what happens when someone pulls a Tim mcveigh and blow up a federal building? They expand the rules to cover another group then someone does something else and the definition expands again. Are you giving support by supporting an ecology group against animal testing after some fringe Eco group burns down a lab and leaves bombs for first responders?

[ZK]

Mmm, in all honesty. Weird as this sounds, this is all turning into a new dark age; almost a mirror image of the fictional Warhammer 40K Imperium of Man. If it keeps going through, soon we'll be arrested for thought crimes.

So far, the majority of those in power need to go, their long years of service without fluctuation has caused them to become jaded and far more monstrous then the ones they're trying to protect the citizens from.

When one focuses solely after one particular group for so long, one begins to become just as them.

[Oniya]

When one focuses solely after one particular group for so long, one begins to become just as them.

Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
    Friedrich Nietzsche

[Michael Corvus]

Well, my fellow Americans, you can forget Article 4 of the Bill of Rights, it's out the window now. It would seem that "due process" is rubbish. Our congress ( those non-representing representatives) has basically just anointed Obama the first KING of The United Police States of America. How quickly people forget how Castro brought down the Cuban government and brought in communism. At least he had to fire his weapon to do so, The American People Just pretty much just handed it over to Obama.

You can probably forget Article 1 of the Bill of Rights too. Freedom of speech? Bah! You'd better watch what you say and who you say it to or our government, in it's infinite wisdom and righteousness, may decide that you're a terrorist and lock you away in some military camp with no trial or attorney until the war on terror ends. And when does THAT happen? When King Obama says it's over, that's when.

This is a brave new world. Watch what you say. Be mindful of who you associate with. You may criticize your government within the privacy of your own home, amongst close family or friends, but do not post negative comments online. Do not assemble. Do not protest. Do not agitate. Do not give "comfort" to the "enemy."

We have met the enemy and he is us. This is a sad day for all of us. All of our military spending, all of our defenses, safeguards, and securities, and it turns out democracy was attacked from within, the historians will write someday. We didn't even see it coming.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he declares martial law, abolishes further presidential elections and declares himself "Fuhrer." December 21, 2012... not seeming like such a long shot for "end of an age" anymore. God help us all.



4th Amendment to our Bill Of Rights 

http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/4th-amendment.html 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment   

REPORT # 1

WASHINGTON -- Indefinite military detention of Americans became the law of the land Saturday, as President Barack Obama signed a defense bill that codified that authority, even as he said he would not use it.

The National Defense Authorization Act states how the military is to be funded, but also includes a number of controversial provisions on arresting and holding suspected terrorists, which at first drove Obama to threaten a veto.

He retreated from that threat after Congress added provisions that took the ultimate authority to detain suspects from the military's hands and gave it to the president. Congress also clarified that civilian law enforcement agencies -- such as the FBI -- would still have authority to investigate terrorism and added a provision that asserts nothing in the detention measures changes current law regarding U.S. citizens.

Still, the signing on New Year's Eve as few people were paying attention angered civil liberties advocates, who argue that the law for the first time spells out certain measures that have not actually been tested all the way to the Supreme Court, including the possibility of detaining citizens in military custody without trial for as long as there is a war on terror.

"President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/31/obama-defense-bill_n_1177836.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk2%26pLid%3D124161



REPORT # 2
OBAMA SIGNS NDAA voiding Bill of Rights

UPDATE: OBAMA SIGNS NDAA, voiding provisions of Bill of Rights
December 31, 2011

On the eve of 2012, President Obama has, with the stroke of a pen, ended America as we know it.
With the National Defense Authorization Act now signed into law, American citizens can and possibly will be indefinitely detained by the military if they have been “accused” of any terrorist related activity.

In a press release published today, the ACLU further outlined their opposition to this unconstitutional law and highlighted the fact that Obama will now be known as the president who signed  indefinite detention of Americans, far from any battlefield, into law.

http://theintelhub.com/2012/01/01/the-end-of-america-as-we-know-it-obama-signs-ndaa-indefinite-detention-bill



"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts -- not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
Abraham Lincoln


"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.
But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.

For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men.

He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague."

Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.) Roman Statesman, Philosopher and Orator
Source: Attributed. 58 BC, Speech in the Roman Senate

[Callie Del Noire]

I am saddened that the man who supposedly EARNED the peace prize for his work could do such an action.

Even more that despite this, the Democratic party will form up behind him and with media support the people of the US will forget about this and line up to vote for him again.

The part that really keeps coming back is that I keep thinking 'Constitution Scholar? Ha!'.

[Iniquitous]

He said he would do it - we were doomed before we had a chance. And the sad thing is, leaving the country for somewhere else won't even keep us safe.

[RubySlippers]

Like I states this monstrosity will never survive a court challenge long you cannot strip Americans of their core rights, with an Amendment allowing it at least, this law violates due process procedures and the right to humane punishment as well as eliminates trial by jury of those accused of crimes.

They had courts in the Department of Justice to oversee sensitive cases such as terrorism if needed and who could allow broader rights, with judges that respected this awesome power for years doing honorable work this horrific law was not needed.

[Phoenixrisen]

Seriously, what the hell. What I wonder would be considered aiding the enemy... Would rallying to promote awareness that this happened be considered such? How long before it is?

In my opinion, no one person should ever have that much power over the people. Certainly not in what's supposed to be some form of democracy. Since when are we stooping to the level of those "enemies" that we have? Lock me up for saying it, go ahead, but for the first time in my life, I'm truly ashamed of being an American. What the hell have we let happen to this country?

[RubySlippers]

We let the Terrorists beat us soundly, a few airplanes and operatives and the odd low cost to do threat and we sold out our freedom and gave into fear, plus spent a fortune on mostly unneeded security measures. That is what happened.

I didn't even like them doing the detention to foriegn nationals if they are POW's then they deserve Geneva Convention protections and if not they deserve our full Constitutional protections or to be tried and dealt with in The Hague.

I just hope this gets to a Federal court fast and gets tossed out as the horrific law it is soundly, in the first test case.

[Phoenixrisen]

I just hope this gets to a Federal court fast and gets tossed out as the horrific law it is soundly, in the first test case.

+1

[Trieste]

I have to say that I find it a little ironic that it was Abraham Lincoln that was chosen for a quote for this thread, considering he did nearly the same thing during his presidency. During the Civil War (in 1861), Lincoln declared a state of martial law and suspended habeas corpus. Then Bush did it again in 2006. Those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

Do I like it? No. Do I think it's cause to panic, and the beginning of the end for the US? Hardly.

[Phoenixrisen]

I have to say that I find it a little ironic that it was Abraham Lincoln that was chosen for a quote for this thread, considering he did nearly the same thing during his presidency. During the Civil War (in 1861), Lincoln declared a state of martial law and suspended habeas corpus. Then Bush did it again in 2006. Those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

Do I like it? No. Do I think it's cause to panic, and the beginning of the end for the US? Hardly.

It's not so much this in and of itself that has me concerned, as the precedent it could set if it doesn't get repealed. History has shown time and again that the best way to take liberty from a people without fuss is slowly and subversively. It's also not just a comic book theme that more power often leads to more corruption.

While I don't like it under any circumstances, there's a difference between suspending things for a finite situation, (a war that will have an obvious end) and a less definite one. There are a lot of different kinds of terrorism out there, and it wouldn't be outside of the norm for a definition of what that is, for the sake of these laws, to change.

It's been voiced before, what's next? Will GreenPeace or another group that's not outside of using extreme tactics overstep and broaden that definition? If that happens, when and where does this end? How much freedom are we ultimately going to have to give up in the name of "safety"? Right now, even with the definition of who is considered a terrorist, for the sake of this bill, being rather ambiguous as far as I can tell, it's troubling by the fact that it exists, but not so bad really. Only how long before it becomes more than it already is? This is after all this is more or less a broadening of some of the things that Bush did, isn't it?

[Trieste]

While I don't like it under any circumstances, there's a difference between suspending things for a finite situation, (a war that will have an obvious end) and a less definite one. There are a lot of different kinds of terrorism out there, and it wouldn't be outside of the norm for a definition of what that is, for the sake of these laws, to change.

That's true, but Bush's suspension in 2006 was with regard to enemy combatants in the war on terror. As you can see, that hasn't exactly ended. :/

[Phoenixrisen]

That's true, but Bush's suspension in 2006 was with regard to enemy combatants in the war on terror. As you can see, that hasn't exactly ended. :/

Thus the nod to the fact that this is a broadening and continuation of that more than anything else...

[Iniquitous]

The war on terror will never end.

Point blank. Simple fact. Why? Because they will always find a new terror to be fought. Between our economy and the government  stripping away citizen rights, we are circling the drain. Oh and hey, they are trying to take control of the internet as well.

It's when you look at the everything, the whole picture, that you start to see how it seems they are pushing us to shut up, work, pay taxes. Fall in line or else.

[Michael Corvus]

I have to say that I find it a little ironic that it was Abraham Lincoln that was chosen for a quote for this thread, considering he did nearly the same thing during his presidency. During the Civil War (in 1861), Lincoln declared a state of martial law and suspended habeas corpus. Then Bush did it again in 2006. Those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

Do I like it? No. Do I think it's cause to panic, and the beginning of the end for the US? Hardly.

It's true that Lincoln did temporarily suspend Habeas Corpus during a time of civil war. Do I agree with it, no. Does that make Lincoln's words any less true? Hardly.

What we have to remember is that the ultimate authority to detain "terrorists" rests with the president alone. No oversight committee, no council, no jury of your peers. The president alone. And when they come to take away your freedom, they won't have to have any evidence, warrants, or anything. It's like the patriot act on super steroids. They could just say, "Oh, well we suspect you of terrorism," and that's it. No explanation, no proof.. nothing. And you won't even get to tell your side of the story.

This is not the beginning of the end of the US as we have known it. This is just a bigger step towards the end in an ongoing, subversive process.  Call me a conspiracy theorist if you'd like. I'm just genuinely concerned and... pissed off about what our government is doing to this country and its people. The Constitution is NOT fundamentally flawed. The politicians who took an oath to uphold and protect it... ARE.

The President took the Oath of Office when he was swore in:

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I wonder if he actually meant to "perverse, attack and deform" the Constitution of the United States? Seems like.

Our congressmen and Senators must also swear an oath:

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

No wonder we can't believe anything else they say...


"

...How much freedom are we ultimately going to have to give up in the name of "safety"? ....

Here's another quote:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin

[Callie Del Noire]

The language is sufficiently murky to allow for a LOT of expansion without due process and even public disclosure. All a president would have to do is declare some group of activists as 'combatants' and suddenly they lose due process.

Consider this, what would have happened with the civil rights movement if something like this had been on the books back then.

Then be really and truly scared.

[Serephino]

The perfect tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-inflicted by its victims.

[Iniquitous]

It's Started

While screaming inside a building would not be my idea of how to get the word out, two or three of the protesters were arrested while speaking out against NDAA.

[Callie Del Noire]

I hate to say it.. but I'm waiting for someone to get shot in one of these protests.

[Iniquitous]

I suspect it will happen sooner rather than later. And when it does, this mess is gonna explode.

[Callie Del Noire]

I suspect it will happen sooner rather than later. And when it does, this mess is gonna explode.

Eveyrtime I see some videos like this.. I keep thinking.. kent state kent state.

[Question Mark]

It's Started

While screaming inside a building would not be my idea of how to get the word out, two or three of the protesters were arrested while speaking out against NDAA.

This is what pisses me off:
- The police will probably use a false pretense for the arrest such as "provoking an officer" or "disturbing the peace", allowing it to be easily glazed over.
- The protestors were not stating opinions or positions, just the facts.  I guess we should arrest Anderson Cooper as well right?
- The police were out there en masse, 5-15 officers (hard to get an accurate count on this shitty phone) that could be dealing with actual crime were instead arresting harmless protestors.

And the part that pisses me off the most is that the mainstream media (CNN, Fox, etc.) will not even mention it, probably doing another segment on Romney, or discussing who's screwing who in Hollywood.  The vast majority of Americans will wake up today none the wiser, unaware of these pointless and frightening arrests.  And if they do hear about them, maybe via a wayward Facebook post, they'll probably dismiss it as another incident of self-entitled twenty-somethings looking for attention, since that's how the MSM has been spinning OWS.

I cannot convey the sheer frustration and helplessness I'm currently feeling in black and white text.  I am fucking pissed... and I can't do anything about it.  Everyone is set in their ways, and the only people who'll listen already agree with me.  All I can do is sit here and talk about it.  Damn my responsibilities and damn my obligations, those invisible chains that keep me from getting out there and at least trying to make change happen.

[Trieste]

It's Started

While screaming inside a building would not be my idea of how to get the word out, two or three of the protesters were arrested while speaking out against NDAA.

They were making use of OWS's human mic. It's the way that OWS gets messages out across the large groups of people: one person starts saying "Mic check, mic check" and the people nearest them who are paying attention repeat "Mic check" until there are enough people paying attention. Then the original "mic check" person starts saying their message, and the people around them repeat it.

Human amplification.

So the arresting officers were not seeing anything they haven't seen before, if they live in an Occupy city.

[Iniquitous]

It's certainly effective to make sure they are heard. Depressing to see them arrested for practicing their right as a US citizen.

[Trieste]

Yes, it is. However, it has been happening to OWS activists for months, since well before the NDAA was signed. It has little to do with the NDAA and more to do with the fact that the Occupy movement is apparently very scary for the poor widdle police officers. :P

[Phoenixrisen]

I would love to say it's just the potential for disaster that creating a mob mentality can cause, but I don't think I've ever seen police react like this to a flash mob so... Who knows.

[Callie Del Noire]

They were making use of OWS's human mic. It's the way that OWS gets messages out across the large groups of people: one person starts saying "Mic check, mic check" and the people nearest them who are paying attention repeat "Mic check" until there are enough people paying attention. Then the original "mic check" person starts saying their message, and the people around them repeat it.

Human amplification.

So the arresting officers were not seeing anything they haven't seen before, if they live in an Occupy city.

I think the 'human mic' came out of the fact that in many jurisdictions it requires a permit (which they can't get) to use a bullhorn these days.

[Oniya]

Possibly, but it's an ingenious replacement.

[Callie Del Noire]

Possibly, but it's an ingenious replacement.

True true.. but look at the police response. It's going to be hard for a while. I think that till there are bodies in the street it (the Occupy movement) will be largely ignored or mocked. The moment the police go too far and kill someone.. hard telling questions will be asked and the media will jump in for their 'market share' of the attention.

[DarklingAlice]

I still really don't see why this surprises people.

We have the alien & sedition acts. We have Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus that Trie brought up. We have the camps for women during WWI. We have the Japanese/Italian/German internment in WWII. We have the initial Patriot act, and now we have this (and probably more than one or two that I left out).

The American government has never shied away from suspending the rights of its citizens when it gets scared. It has happened so many times throughout our history that it is really becoming commonplace.

[Callie Del Noire]

I still really don't see why this surprises people.

We have the alien & sedition acts. We have Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus that Trie brought up. We have the camps for women during WWI. We have the Japanese/Italian/German internment in WWII. We have the initial Patriot act, and now we have this (and probably more than one or two that I left out).

The American government has never shied away from suspending the rights of its citizens when it gets scared. It has happened so many times throughout our history that it is really becoming commonplace.

True, and you left out acts like the Trail of Tears (which some of my ancestors walked on). But we've also have a process in place to prevent it. If we, as a people, speak out against it it WILL be changed.  Public pressure is the ONLY way it will.

Most folks are still reeling from the events of 9/11 and are letting their fears (yes, even 10 years later) rule them. If we let things like this stand, we destroy our country as surely as Al Qaeda would have

[Oniya]

I'd rather see people feeling shocked about this than feeling it was 'commonplace'.  That's only an eyelash away from accepting it, in my views.

[Callie Del Noire]

I'd rather see people feeling shocked about this than feeling it was 'commonplace'.  That's only an eyelash away from accepting it, in my views.

It's all in the media spin..and there has been nearly NONE given the scope of it. The only thing I have seen less media coverage of late is the fact that Rupert Murdoch and his Newscorp groups here in the US very likely did the same thing they did in the UK and that it merits MASSIVE investigations (the feds ARE investigating but coveage is nearly non-existant on this side of the pond given the scale of it)

[DarklingAlice]

True, and you left out acts like the Trail of Tears (which some of my ancestors walked on). But we've also have a process in place to prevent it. If we, as a people, speak out against it it WILL be changed.  Public pressure is the ONLY way it will.

Most folks are still reeling from the events of 9/11 and are letting their fears (yes, even 10 years later) rule them. If we let things like this stand, we destroy our country as surely as Al Qaeda would have

Yeah, maybe it is my Cherokee blood that makes me cynical about the American government. And I mostly agree with you (although speaking as a medical researcher I can't understand how people put so much attention and money towards terrorism when it is, at most, a minor threat). But I really can't see how continuing to act in the same way that America has acted in the past 'destroys our country'. As far as I can tell, everyone just has a poor knowledge of history and an overinflated sense of nationalism. I am not saying that things like this are acceptable, just that they are far from novel. It may destroy many people's ideal of America the just, virtuous, and good; but then that was a fantasy to begin with. We CAN change our country, and I work as hard as I can to do that, but I doubt that the majority of America is with us on that. As DeTocqueville pointed out America will always be run by the tyranny of the majority, and the majority is inept and ignorant.

By no means do we have to accept that, but if we deny it then we have a skewed view of the conflict and the stakes.

[Oniya]

It's like running a bath that's too hot.  If you turn on the hot tap and try stepping in after the tub has filled, you realize it's too hot and jerk your foot out.  If you get in the tub and fill it while you're in there, using progressively hotter water, you can come out as red as a boiled lobster.  The damage is still occurring, but since it's happening at a slower, more gradual pace, you don't react to it until more damage has been done.

[Callie Del Noire]

Yeah, maybe it is my Cherokee blood that makes me cynical about the American government. And I mostly agree with you (although speaking as a medical researcher I can't understand how people put so much attention and money towards terrorism when it is, at most, a minor threat). But I really can't see how continuing to act in the same way that America has acted in the past 'destroys our country'. As far as I can tell, everyone just has a poor knowledge of history and an overinflated sense of nationalism. I am not saying that things like this are acceptable, just that they are far from novel. It may destroy many people's ideal of America the just, virtuous, and good; but then that was a fantasy to begin with. We CAN change our country, and I work as hard as I can to do that, but I doubt that the majority of America is with us on that. As DeTocqueville pointed out America will always be run by the tyranny of the majority, and the majority is inept and ignorant.

By no means do we have to accept that, but if we deny it then we have a skewed view of the conflict and the stakes.

I can relate, like I said I have some Cherokee blood as well. It's hard for me to accept that the same man who broke the back of the Bank of the United States did such a heinous crime against people. Andy Jackson did a great evil in what he did to my ancestors, and we (as the people) let fear rule us before.

The internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII.
The sheer evil of HUAC, and while I despise Richard Nixon for his part in the process, it was the people in the end that enabled it.
The patriot act (I was called a 'Pinko' by my shop chief because I said it was dangerous)
The NDAA is just the last in letting the people's fear rule the country. 

[Serephino]

I'm not shocked over it, but I am angry.  I'm sick and tired of politicians trying to scare me into compliance.  Fear is how Bush got elected a second time.  Terrorism was his main campaign focus.  He basically insinuated that if he wasn't re-elected we'd all get murdered in our beds because since John Kerry wanted to pull out of Iraq they'd smell weakness and go on a rampage.  That wasn't what he outright said, but that's the meaning I got.

Fear is a powerful thing.  We Americans thought we were untouchable, and then got a very rude awakening.  Something nobody ever thought would happen did, and instead of wising up and simply learning from mistakes, we have this, and anyone who travels by plane gets to be molested at the airport.

[adifferenceinsize]

It's not so much this in and of itself that has me concerned, as the precedent it could set if it doesn't get repealed. History has shown time and again that the best way to take liberty from a people without fuss is slowly and subversively. It's also not just a comic book theme that more power often leads to more corruption.

Good news, bad news on that. With the addition of the confounding clause that the bill which negates normal rights for US citizens will not infringe on their rights and the overall sheer flagrant nature of its violations of several sections of the Constitution mean it will likely fall apart the first time it's used and subsequently challenged in court. However, that still means you have a non-zero-percent chance of being the person (or one of the people) that has to fester in military confinement for the next 3 - 20 years to get it stricken. And if you're a minority? Well, you might not actually get it overturned. Sorry, but dark-skinned people are totally scary and seem to have randomly-accessible rights when criminal cases come up. So, try not to be black, Middle Eastern, or Hispanic for a while.

And the dumbest part of all of that law? Given how people on the far right talk about Obama now, there's a good chance if a Republican of the deep conservative vein gets in that he'd well end up on receiving end of his own bill.

[Oniya]

http://www.gocomics.com/tomthedancingbug/2011/12/23

[DarklingAlice]

http://www.gocomics.com/tomthedancingbug/2011/12/23

That's kind of awesome and horrible at the same time.

[Callie Del Noire]

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/10/dangers-classifying-news

While this is a LITTLE off topic, I brought this up rather than start a whole new thread. A friend of mine pointed out that the president was 'open' as he claimed to be and pointed me towards the EFF post.

While I don't think that this is an entire indictment on the president I do find the number of people being charged by for whistling blowers. I mean MORE than ALL the presidents since Nixon? That's a LOT. At the same time that high level sources leak 'strategic' points.

There is a trend towards classifying everything that is scary. Anwar al-Awlaki's evidence against him AND the memo okaying his place on the kill list were both classified Top Secret. That makes it hard to defend yourself when the very charges and evidence isn't visible to you because of 'need to know'.

I've held a TS (and additional specific clearances) and I know that if I write anything about ANYTHING I'm cleared for that I'm liable to go to jail. At the same time I signed the paperwork acknowledging that some tool in the White House outed a NOC Agent of the CIA and to this day I think that 'Scooter Libby' wasn't the leak or the one that set it in motion. Too much lying and obfuscation was put forth to cover the people who did it.

And many people forget that part of what came out of that leak was that someone that Valerie Plame talked to was quite likely taken down into some dank little dungeon for a short but very eventful conclusion of their life before being shot and buried without concern.

My case is.. classification is a needed thing and things like this make it hard to do that.

[Oniya]

Not quite necro-ing this thread, but I've recently found out that NDAA is being fought on the state level.  Several state and local governments are introducing bills (it's passed the House in Virginia) that basically prevent state agencies to take part in enforcing it.  Sample verbage from Arizona:

SB1182, if signed into law, “Prohibits this state and agencies of this state from participating in the implementation of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012. Classifies the act of attempting to enforce or enforcing these sections as a class 1 misdemeanor.”

[Callie Del Noire]

Not quite necro-ing this thread, but I've recently found out that NDAA is being fought on the state level.  Several state and local governments are introducing bills (it's passed the House in Virginia) that basically prevent state agencies to take part in enforcing it.  Sample verbage from Arizona:

SB1182, if signed into law, “Prohibits this state and agencies of this state from participating in the implementation of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012. Classifies the act of attempting to enforce or enforcing these sections as a class 1 misdemeanor.”

Nice.  I hope a lot more states do that. Its a terrible idea that should have never been passed.

[Oniya]

Today is the Bay Area Day of Remembrance - 70 years after the signing of Executive Order 9066.

For those who say 'It can't happen here':

[FantasyKitten]

I think the basic problem with things like this is the ever expanding definition of words like 'terrorist' and 'enemy combatant.' How long before that merely describes the party that is not in power? Im not saying were close to that, but thats what were moving towards. And with congress trying to pass bills like SOPA, its looking more and more like they don't give a damn about us. The only effort they put towards upholding the ideals of america is lip service. My question to them is this: What makes america so special? And if you don't care, then GTFO.

Frankly, I am skeptical that anyone can or will do anything about it. Last time there was a major protest they all got arrested or harassed until they left. The point is not whether or not you agree with this protest.

At this point, the best thing we can do is protect the internet. Unfortunately, the SOPA backlash only showed us to be a formidable enemy. Now they know they will have to be a little more insidious with their Big Brother legislation.

[Iniquitous]

This thread isn't concerning SOPA/PIPA legislation - it's about the NDAA that has clauses that allows the government to indefinitely detain US citizens that they (they being the government) say are terrorists or have helped terrorists. No right to a lawyer, no right to a trial. Just detention/torture till the end of the war on terror.

[FantasyKitten]

I believe I expressed my outrage about that topic, and then made a connection to SOPA.

Elected officials' support of both of those things stems from the same lack of respect for what America should stand for.

[Chris Brady]

Posted this before, but I think the sentiment remains, and I think should some up what we are all wanting to do.  And I am a Canadian!

[FantasyKitten]

Posted this before, but I think the sentiment remains, and I think should some up what we are all wanting to do.  And I am a Canadian!

I enjoyed that. Thanks for the link! ^_^

[Iniquitous]

And yet we have states working to make it so that the clauses in NDAA do not affect US citizens. Which is what Oniya had posted about most recently.

And SOPA is no longer an issue. It's been tabled.

[Trieste]

There's no reason not to draw parallels between the types of legislation that our elected officials have tried to pass, IO, even if that legislation has since been tabled. :)

[TheGlyphstone]

Especially since you know, like a comic book supervillain, it'll be back next issuesession in a new disguise.

[Oniya]

It's important - especially with all the crap that has recently been shoved down the pike - to remember that the government is supposed to work in our best interests.  We as citizens have a duty to remind them of that, and to remember the times that has failed.  Seventy years ago today, FDR pulled something like the NDAA - the major difference is that WWII had a definable end even when he signed it.  The 'War on Terror' doesn't, and I would challenge any politician to give me a definition on when the 'War on Terror' could possibly be declared over.

It was horrible when it was done to the Japanese-Americans.  It's just as horrible now.