Obama to approve NDAA

[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.

[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.