11 ms·

Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA

292 points by areski 13y ago

mercurial 13y ago
Land of the free, eh?
- teeja 13y ago
  Don't forget, "Home of the brave".
  - pivnicek 13y ago
    At least Snowden showed that the "home of the brave" part is not entirely false.
    - mercurial 13y ago
      Fully agreed.
    - rfctr 13y ago
      He is brave because he's not home, eh.
      - mercurial 13y ago
        He is brave because he threw away his old life for something he believed in, and he is away from home because he is not stupid.
    - GotAnyMegadeth 13y ago
      It's not his home anymore...
kaustubh 13y ago
So Obama has right to detain Americans and, please note, foreigners indefinitely, but he says he will not use these privileges to keep Americans (only?) imprisoned indefinitely. So does it mean foreigners have no rights in America? I guess its time governments all over the world start adding US to the list of rogue countries.
- x3c 13y ago
  Trickier than that is the following: If such actions are committed on US soil, this section will not be applicable. So this is about arresting and detaining, indefinitely, someone on foreign land. Land where the US government has no jurisdiction. Am I missing something here?
  - eksith 13y ago
    No, I think that's the picture. It's already happening in those "black sites" we hear about and the sad thing is that the citizens in those countries would be up in arms about them if they were more widely known. It's the government complicity in each of those locations that allow these things to happen. I.E. Not technically detained by the U.S. but they are detained the request of U.S. officials. It's the most flagrant (and disgusting) use of plausible deniability.
    - sdoering 13y ago
      > the sad thing is that the citizens in those countries would be up in arms about them if they were more widely known. By the way. These sites in Europe were discussed, could be/are widely known, but I really do not see anyone here up in arms against these sites. On the contrary, a lot of people think of them as something good, as they are clearly there, to get rid of some nasty terrorists. And that only. And as long, as it is the poster-boy for democracy (the US) doing it and not say China, nearly (a very little exaggeration) everybody just goes along.
    - igravious 13y ago
      Wikipedia has a whole page on "black sites" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_site
  - alan_cx 13y ago
    Your comment has made me realize something. It is said that the enemies of the USA hate the USA for its freedom. Well, what you describe is American freedom, freedom for Americans to abuse non Americans on non American soil, with the backing of American law and power. I have to be honest here, I too hate those freedoms.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Mordor 13y ago
"Mr. Obama said in an accompanying signing statement that he will not abuse these privileges" Sure, he'll just ask someone else to do it...
eksith 13y ago
Why is it that every leader in power seems to forget that they won't stay in that position forever? Let's take his word for it and say the power won't be abused. What of his successors? If a power exists, it will be abused. Period. It's only a matter of time. That's the whole premise behind checks and balances and due process. You don't leave power in the hands of a few, but the many.
- Shivetya 13y ago
  Why should he care? He cannot run again. It would be so much better if Presidents only could serve one term, make it six years if you must, but it must be only one term. This way we don't get the unaccountable second term crap we see a lot of.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - chris_j 13y ago
    If a president could only serve one six year term then wouldn't you get the unaccountable second term crap for the whole of that six year term? Surely one thing that keeps a politician accountable to the electorate is the prospect of having to fight an election at some point in the future.
    - derefr 13y ago
      It's too bad you guys don't have a hair-trigger for Motions of No Confidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_of_no_confidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_of_no_confidence) like we do in Canada. We have elections every five years at the most--but it rarely ever gets to be that long, because some issue or another inevitably comes along that causes the rest of the House to be upset with the party in power, and it's very easy to throw down the "well, if you think you have the citizens' consent, just get them to vote you in again" gauntlet.
  - notimetorelax 13y ago
    That's a hard problem to solve, how can you be sure that the first and the only term will not be abused?
birchtree 13y ago
One important aspect of "without due process" is that it means that they don't have to prove anyone is a terrorist. They don't even have to believe someone is a terrorist, they only need to pretend that they do. I'm not sure whether this applies much in the kinds of situations where this in particular is used, but in this country people have rights such as silence that can be circumvented because suspected terrorists are treated differently and have fewer rights - those who don't cooperate will continue to be treated as terrorists.
- grey-area 13y ago
  This is why terrorists, and suspected terrorists, need to be given exactly the same rights under the law as everyone else.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    Suspected terrorist talking to a lawyer before facing trial and being found not guilty / guilty is much worse TV[1] than Kiefer Sutherland torturing the terrorist to prevent the bomb killing lots of people. [1] Some people think it's worse.
    - jbooth 13y ago
      The concepts aren't even opposed. If, hypothetically, there actually is a ticking bomb somewhere (this has never happened that we know of), just break the law. You'll sort it out later. If you were right, there will be a pardon, if you were wrong, you'll go to jail. In every other possible scenario, the law should protect rights of the accused.
      - canvia 13y ago
        There was a pretty good movie that made you think about that type of situation, "Unthinkable" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0914863/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0914863/ It's like the question in Swordfish, would you be willing to sacrifice the life of an innocent to save 10,000 people's lives? How about 2 innocents? What about 500? Once you start to consider making those kinds of trade offs it's a very slippery slope. It seems to me the only correct answer is 0. There is no acceptable trade off to try and counter irrational actions.
junto 13y ago
This disgusts me. Sooner or later, my public announcement of this disgust is going to place me on a list of people that are seen as dissenters, since all of our electronic communication is now being logged for posterity. That list will at some point be renamed "terrorists". At some point in the future (as a non-American), the United States would find it legally acceptable that I can be targeted by a drone and blown up into little pieces. Should wife, my children (one a toddler and the other a baby) happen to be present, then they will be considered "collateral damage". I love the idea of the American dream and the spirit of free speech and the glorious constitution that you have / had in America, but I'm sorry, you've just lost me. I'm like a lover you just beat up for the first time. I've lost that sparkle of first love. I'm crying inside. I'm scared to show you that emotion, because I'm afraid you'll use it against me. You're a bully and there is no teacher to get you back in line. You scare me. I know this will get downvoted to hell, but I just had to splurge my mind.
- sdoering 13y ago
  I just had to upvote, as you so totally found the words to express my thoughts and feelings regarding the former great idea, that was called the US of A.
- derefr 13y ago
  > Sooner or later, my public announcement of this disgust is going to place me on a list of people that are seen as dissenters Are you sure? If half of the US citizenship also expresses public disgust at the same thing, there's not much use in making a list; that list may as well be the phone book.
  - randallsquared 13y ago
    Do you think that half the US citizenship will ever express an opinion on any specific topic at all? Or even one tenth?
    - derefr 13y ago
      Alright, half is hyperbolic--but you can get a fairly-large portion of the population aping all sorts of crazy messages by putting them in the mouth of a candidate during an election. I'm guessing there'll be a whole lot of "disgust" coming from the Republicans in 2016.
mercurial 13y ago
So, if I understand US politics right, you have the choice between the side who will lie to you about going to war and curtail your civil liberties, and the side who will lie to you about curtailing your civil liberties and do it anyway? Tough choice between plague and cholera.
- grandalf 13y ago
  They are both the same side. The few small areas of conflict between the two parties are amplified in order to create the illusion that the outcome will be different.
  - mercurial 13y ago
    I do get the impression there is something different in terms of social and fiscal policies, at least.
    - venomsnake 13y ago
      If you live in continental Europe - Democrats are on the right part of the isle and Republicans are on the right of Le Pen. Rough approximation.
      - gadders 13y ago
        And completely wrong. It's just that boring old "HAR HAR HAR RIGHT WING EQUALS FASCIST" trope put out by lazy lefties.
        venomsnake 13y ago
        Le Pen focuses on immigration to France, the European Union, traditional culture, law and order and France's high rate of unemployment. He advocates immigration restrictions, the death penalty, raising incentives for homemakers,[1] and euroscepticism. He strongly opposes same-sex marriage, euthanasia, and abortion. As boilerplate modern republican as they come
spodek 13y ago
"Congress granted the president the authority to arrest and hold individuals accused of terrorism without due process under the NDAA, but Mr. Obama said in an accompanying signing statement that he will not abuse these privileges to keep American citizens imprisoned indefinitely" If you want to influence someone, it helps to understand their motivations. I can't conceive of what Obama has in mind with pursuing this law against resistance. Is it not obvious to everyone the unwanted side-effects of this kind of power? Is it not obvious how much this flies in the face of the intent of the people who wrote the Constitution. Or more relevantly the Declaration of Independence? Obama is a lawyer! He's intelligent. What can he be thinking? Did he forget the purpose and spirit of the Bill of Rights as he and advisors schemed to get around its letters? Those revolutionaries would have all been labeled terrorists today. With the King in England, any colonist would have been an enemy combatant, stripped of rights, jailed or worse arbitrarily, and who knows what else. Whether the United States has become what we rebelled against is not the question. If nothing changes, it's only a matter of time. This country has gotten rid of slavery and overcome major hurdles of sexual and racial inequality. Let's hope we have what it takes to overcome this centralization of power and unaccountability. And that we act on it.
- xradionut 13y ago
  The United States has become empire. We have the trappings of a democratic republic, but it's obvious that the law of the land is broken for those in power. No one should be surprised by this, it's evolution in action and the writing's been on the wall for years.
- Systemic33 13y ago
  US is really the Roman Empire of our time. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.
  - madaxe 13y ago
    The empire never ended.
    - cpursley 13y ago
tete 13y ago
One of the first things we learned in history and politics in school is that the worst thing you can do is the separation of power and NEVER EVER combining any of Executive, Legislature or Judiciary, because that's what distinguishes authoritarian from democratic systems. It is something so basic and fundamental that every person here has to learn it and what it means as a child. Every politician hast to have a deep understanding of why that is so fundamentally important, else he really shouldn't be entrusted with any kind of political position in any kind of republic. It's something that is known since the antique and has been strengthened by any bad government that appeared throughout history, so how is it that such a law (or actually anti-law) is possible and not uniformly rejected in first place?
- jivatmanx 13y ago
  The idea of separation of power has, I believe, a flaw. Instead of considering the branches co-equal, it should be considered that the primary job of both the Legislative and Judicial is to limit the power of the Executive. It should be obvious, but there was never any danger of the Judicial or Legislative to have too much power for itself. At the moment, the Supreme Court/Judiciary is being usurped by by the use of secret FISA court as a sort of rival supreme court. The Legislature is essentially viewed with contempt and lied to with impunity by by the executive(Clapper, Alexander, etc.)
mtgx 13y ago
Hasn't that NY Court heard of the Constitution? Human rights? Or do American Courts usually not take into account international laws for human rights? Either way, what's scary about this it's that it's happening under normal conditions. At least if they could declare an emergency state, or officially declare the war against those "enemy combatants", because then you'd know that they may get some extra-judicial powers, but only temporary. But you can imagine this will last forever, because US will never be at "more peace" than they are right now, and it's all because how they are acting abroad. So don't think these laws will ever change unless more people speak out against them and hold their Congress accountable for it.
- alan_cx 13y ago
  I could well be 100% wrong, but I dont think the US gov do recognize the international court of human rights as having any jurisdiction over Americans.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Hasn't that NY Court heard of the Constitution? Its not a NY Court, it is the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. (Its seat is in New York, but that's hardly relevant to anything.) And, yes, they've heard of the Constitution. They apparently read it differently than you do. If you want to criticize the decision, feel free. > Either way, what's scary about this it's that it's happening under normal conditions. At least if they could declare an emergency state You mean like the one declared on September 14, 2001, that has been repeatedly extended since? http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/11/message-continuation-national-emergency-respect-certain-terrorist-attack http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/11/messag...
jneal 13y ago
More proof that the United States government is no longer considering itself under jurisdiction of the constitution.
confluence 13y ago
This "I won't abuse my extraordinary privilege" mindset that people in power appear to have is naive beyond all comprehension. It reminds me of an exchange that occurred during a Clinton administration meeting on the legality of extraordinary rendition back in 1993: > 'extraordinary renditions', were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgment of the host government.... The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: "Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'" Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition FTFA: > Congress granted the president the authority to arrest and hold individuals accused of terrorism without due process under the NDAA, but Mr. Obama said in an accompanying signing statement that he will not abuse these privileges to keep American citizens imprisoned indefinitely How could this possibly not end up with someone abusing it? Without due process, the executive branch basically has carte blanche to do whatever the hell it wants. Political opponents. People you don't like. People in the media. Whistleblowers. No one has any rights any more. All it would take is for a covert agent or hacker to plant bomb making material on your computer to detain (and torture) you until you die. Everyone knows that this is illegal. Everyone knows that this is insanely stupid. Everyone knows that this will be abused. Everyone knows that this is against the constitution. Shit still happens anyway. The terrorists fucking won. They've destroyed America, and they didn't even have to lift a finger to do it. We did it all on our very own. I'm tired. So very tired.
- CaveTech 13y ago
  Terrorists didn't destroy America. American politicians capitalized on the naivety of American citizens and are now exploiting you to the fullest. If anything, terrorists gave America the means of destroying itself, and the vast majority of the people are too indifferent to do anything about it.
pivnicek 13y ago
Welcome to extra-legal-land. There are no rights here except for those of the accuser. No burden of proof or evidence required! Do you hold executive privilege? Imprison and murder as you wish.
ekianjo 13y ago
I guess that's what Snowden will get if he ever lands in the US again. No trial, just indefinitely roting in jail.
drraoulduke 13y ago
From the President that brought you "if there is a step we can take that will save even one child.... we should take that step."
pivnicek 13y ago
Please also notice that this "news" is reported on Russia Today. Where is the American Reporting? They are too concerned with royal babies, ironically.
- rfctr 13y ago
  The Russia Today was created with the goal of breaking the American media omerta.
adamc 13y ago
Obama has demonstrated, with this and other acts, that he does not hold civil liberties in high regard. I'm disappointed in him, but the pattern has been consistent enough that I am no longer surprised.
cpursley 13y ago
But he speaks so well.... I wonder how many people would support another Obama term, despite existing term limits and his actions. My guess is a lot.
- czr80 13y ago
  Depends what the alternative is, I guess.
quattrofan 13y ago
So Obama says he wont "abuse" it, but what about his successor, and the successor after that? I assume this law does not expire once he leaves office...
- medde 13y ago
  Also, Obama said that he won't abuse it but he didn't say when... maybe he won't abuse it yesterday. And I bet that his description of abuse is very different then ours.
  - quattrofan 13y ago
    True, "abuse" is a very different word from "violate"
tankbot 13y ago
cough Snowden cough
fatjokes 13y ago
I'm guessing his Nobel Peace Prize medal is being used as a coaster in the White House right now.
bobwaycott 13y ago
Legal standing strikes again. While on the whole, legal standing is a good doctrine and litmus test, when it comes to laws and practices such as these, I cannot help but think we need to advocate for change to interpreting the validity of the case and the need to adjudicate on constitutional questions through legal standing alone. This is off the cuff, but I find it very unhelpful when the Congress and President can enact and execute laws that cannot be questioned in the courts by concerned citizens unless they have been or can arguably prove legal standing. Challenging the constitutionality of laws should not require that one's rights and liberty be violated beforehand.

292 points by areski 13y ago

mercurial 13y ago

Land of the free, eh?

teeja 13y ago
Don't forget, "Home of the brave".
- pivnicek 13y ago
  At least Snowden showed that the "home of the brave" part is not entirely false.
  - mercurial 13y ago
    Fully agreed.
  - rfctr 13y ago
    He is brave because he's not home, eh.
    - mercurial 13y ago
      He is brave because he threw away his old life for something he believed in, and he is away from home because he is not stupid.
  - GotAnyMegadeth 13y ago
    It's not his home anymore...

kaustubh 13y ago

So Obama has right to detain Americans and, please note, foreigners indefinitely, but he says he will not use these privileges to keep Americans (only?) imprisoned indefinitely. So does it mean foreigners have no rights in America? I guess its time governments all over the world start adding US to the list of rogue countries.

x3c 13y ago
Trickier than that is the following: If such actions are committed on US soil, this section will not be applicable. So this is about arresting and detaining, indefinitely, someone on foreign land. Land where the US government has no jurisdiction. Am I missing something here?
- eksith 13y ago
  No, I think that's the picture. It's already happening in those "black sites" we hear about and the sad thing is that the citizens in those countries would be up in arms about them if they were more widely known. It's the government complicity in each of those locations that allow these things to happen. I.E. Not technically detained by the U.S. but they are detained the request of U.S. officials. It's the most flagrant (and disgusting) use of plausible deniability.
  - sdoering 13y ago
    > the sad thing is that the citizens in those countries would be up in arms about them if they were more widely known. By the way. These sites in Europe were discussed, could be/are widely known, but I really do not see anyone here up in arms against these sites. On the contrary, a lot of people think of them as something good, as they are clearly there, to get rid of some nasty terrorists. And that only. And as long, as it is the poster-boy for democracy (the US) doing it and not say China, nearly (a very little exaggeration) everybody just goes along.
  - igravious 13y ago
    Wikipedia has a whole page on "black sites" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_site
- alan_cx 13y ago
  Your comment has made me realize something. It is said that the enemies of the USA hate the USA for its freedom. Well, what you describe is American freedom, freedom for Americans to abuse non Americans on non American soil, with the backing of American law and power. I have to be honest here, I too hate those freedoms.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

Mordor 13y ago

"Mr. Obama said in an accompanying signing statement that he will not abuse these privileges" Sure, he'll just ask someone else to do it...

eksith 13y ago

Why is it that every leader in power seems to forget that they won't stay in that position forever? Let's take his word for it and say the power won't be abused. What of his successors? If a power exists, it will be abused. Period. It's only a matter of time. That's the whole premise behind checks and balances and due process. You don't leave power in the hands of a few, but the many.

Shivetya 13y ago
Why should he care? He cannot run again. It would be so much better if Presidents only could serve one term, make it six years if you must, but it must be only one term. This way we don't get the unaccountable second term crap we see a lot of.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- chris_j 13y ago
  If a president could only serve one six year term then wouldn't you get the unaccountable second term crap for the whole of that six year term? Surely one thing that keeps a politician accountable to the electorate is the prospect of having to fight an election at some point in the future.
  - derefr 13y ago
    It's too bad you guys don't have a hair-trigger for Motions of No Confidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_of_no_confidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_of_no_confidence) like we do in Canada. We have elections every five years at the most--but it rarely ever gets to be that long, because some issue or another inevitably comes along that causes the rest of the House to be upset with the party in power, and it's very easy to throw down the "well, if you think you have the citizens' consent, just get them to vote you in again" gauntlet.
- notimetorelax 13y ago
  That's a hard problem to solve, how can you be sure that the first and the only term will not be abused?

birchtree 13y ago

One important aspect of "without due process" is that it means that they don't have to prove anyone is a terrorist. They don't even have to believe someone is a terrorist, they only need to pretend that they do. I'm not sure whether this applies much in the kinds of situations where this in particular is used, but in this country people have rights such as silence that can be circumvented because suspected terrorists are treated differently and have fewer rights - those who don't cooperate will continue to be treated as terrorists.

grey-area 13y ago
This is why terrorists, and suspected terrorists, need to be given exactly the same rights under the law as everyone else.
- DanBC 13y ago
  Suspected terrorist talking to a lawyer before facing trial and being found not guilty / guilty is much worse TV[1] than Kiefer Sutherland torturing the terrorist to prevent the bomb killing lots of people. [1] Some people think it's worse.
  - jbooth 13y ago
    The concepts aren't even opposed. If, hypothetically, there actually is a ticking bomb somewhere (this has never happened that we know of), just break the law. You'll sort it out later. If you were right, there will be a pardon, if you were wrong, you'll go to jail. In every other possible scenario, the law should protect rights of the accused.
    - canvia 13y ago
      There was a pretty good movie that made you think about that type of situation, "Unthinkable" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0914863/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0914863/ It's like the question in Swordfish, would you be willing to sacrifice the life of an innocent to save 10,000 people's lives? How about 2 innocents? What about 500? Once you start to consider making those kinds of trade offs it's a very slippery slope. It seems to me the only correct answer is 0. There is no acceptable trade off to try and counter irrational actions.

junto 13y ago

This disgusts me. Sooner or later, my public announcement of this disgust is going to place me on a list of people that are seen as dissenters, since all of our electronic communication is now being logged for posterity. That list will at some point be renamed "terrorists". At some point in the future (as a non-American), the United States would find it legally acceptable that I can be targeted by a drone and blown up into little pieces. Should wife, my children (one a toddler and the other a baby) happen to be present, then they will be considered "collateral damage". I love the idea of the American dream and the spirit of free speech and the glorious constitution that you have / had in America, but I'm sorry, you've just lost me. I'm like a lover you just beat up for the first time. I've lost that sparkle of first love. I'm crying inside. I'm scared to show you that emotion, because I'm afraid you'll use it against me. You're a bully and there is no teacher to get you back in line. You scare me. I know this will get downvoted to hell, but I just had to splurge my mind.

sdoering 13y ago
I just had to upvote, as you so totally found the words to express my thoughts and feelings regarding the former great idea, that was called the US of A.
derefr 13y ago
> Sooner or later, my public announcement of this disgust is going to place me on a list of people that are seen as dissenters Are you sure? If half of the US citizenship also expresses public disgust at the same thing, there's not much use in making a list; that list may as well be the phone book.
- randallsquared 13y ago
  Do you think that half the US citizenship will ever express an opinion on any specific topic at all? Or even one tenth?
  - derefr 13y ago
    Alright, half is hyperbolic--but you can get a fairly-large portion of the population aping all sorts of crazy messages by putting them in the mouth of a candidate during an election. I'm guessing there'll be a whole lot of "disgust" coming from the Republicans in 2016.

mercurial 13y ago

So, if I understand US politics right, you have the choice between the side who will lie to you about going to war and curtail your civil liberties, and the side who will lie to you about curtailing your civil liberties and do it anyway? Tough choice between plague and cholera.

grandalf 13y ago
They are both the same side. The few small areas of conflict between the two parties are amplified in order to create the illusion that the outcome will be different.
- mercurial 13y ago
  I do get the impression there is something different in terms of social and fiscal policies, at least.
  - venomsnake 13y ago
    If you live in continental Europe - Democrats are on the right part of the isle and Republicans are on the right of Le Pen. Rough approximation.
    - gadders 13y ago
      And completely wrong. It's just that boring old "HAR HAR HAR RIGHT WING EQUALS FASCIST" trope put out by lazy lefties.
      - venomsnake 13y ago
        Le Pen focuses on immigration to France, the European Union, traditional culture, law and order and France's high rate of unemployment. He advocates immigration restrictions, the death penalty, raising incentives for homemakers,[1] and euroscepticism. He strongly opposes same-sex marriage, euthanasia, and abortion. As boilerplate modern republican as they come

spodek 13y ago

"Congress granted the president the authority to arrest and hold individuals accused of terrorism without due process under the NDAA, but Mr. Obama said in an accompanying signing statement that he will not abuse these privileges to keep American citizens imprisoned indefinitely" If you want to influence someone, it helps to understand their motivations. I can't conceive of what Obama has in mind with pursuing this law against resistance. Is it not obvious to everyone the unwanted side-effects of this kind of power? Is it not obvious how much this flies in the face of the intent of the people who wrote the Constitution. Or more relevantly the Declaration of Independence? Obama is a lawyer! He's intelligent. What can he be thinking? Did he forget the purpose and spirit of the Bill of Rights as he and advisors schemed to get around its letters? Those revolutionaries would have all been labeled terrorists today. With the King in England, any colonist would have been an enemy combatant, stripped of rights, jailed or worse arbitrarily, and who knows what else. Whether the United States has become what we rebelled against is not the question. If nothing changes, it's only a matter of time. This country has gotten rid of slavery and overcome major hurdles of sexual and racial inequality. Let's hope we have what it takes to overcome this centralization of power and unaccountability. And that we act on it.

xradionut 13y ago
The United States has become empire. We have the trappings of a democratic republic, but it's obvious that the law of the land is broken for those in power. No one should be surprised by this, it's evolution in action and the writing's been on the wall for years.
Systemic33 13y ago
US is really the Roman Empire of our time. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.
- madaxe 13y ago
  The empire never ended.
  - cpursley 13y ago

tete 13y ago

One of the first things we learned in history and politics in school is that the worst thing you can do is the separation of power and NEVER EVER combining any of Executive, Legislature or Judiciary, because that's what distinguishes authoritarian from democratic systems. It is something so basic and fundamental that every person here has to learn it and what it means as a child. Every politician hast to have a deep understanding of why that is so fundamentally important, else he really shouldn't be entrusted with any kind of political position in any kind of republic. It's something that is known since the antique and has been strengthened by any bad government that appeared throughout history, so how is it that such a law (or actually anti-law) is possible and not uniformly rejected in first place?

jivatmanx 13y ago
The idea of separation of power has, I believe, a flaw. Instead of considering the branches co-equal, it should be considered that the primary job of both the Legislative and Judicial is to limit the power of the Executive. It should be obvious, but there was never any danger of the Judicial or Legislative to have too much power for itself. At the moment, the Supreme Court/Judiciary is being usurped by by the use of secret FISA court as a sort of rival supreme court. The Legislature is essentially viewed with contempt and lied to with impunity by by the executive(Clapper, Alexander, etc.)

mtgx 13y ago

Hasn't that NY Court heard of the Constitution? Human rights? Or do American Courts usually not take into account international laws for human rights? Either way, what's scary about this it's that it's happening under normal conditions. At least if they could declare an emergency state, or officially declare the war against those "enemy combatants", because then you'd know that they may get some extra-judicial powers, but only temporary. But you can imagine this will last forever, because US will never be at "more peace" than they are right now, and it's all because how they are acting abroad. So don't think these laws will ever change unless more people speak out against them and hold their Congress accountable for it.

alan_cx 13y ago
I could well be 100% wrong, but I dont think the US gov do recognize the international court of human rights as having any jurisdiction over Americans.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> Hasn't that NY Court heard of the Constitution? Its not a NY Court, it is the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. (Its seat is in New York, but that's hardly relevant to anything.) And, yes, they've heard of the Constitution. They apparently read it differently than you do. If you want to criticize the decision, feel free. > Either way, what's scary about this it's that it's happening under normal conditions. At least if they could declare an emergency state You mean like the one declared on September 14, 2001, that has been repeatedly extended since? http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/11/message-continuation-national-emergency-respect-certain-terrorist-attack http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/11/messag...

jneal 13y ago

More proof that the United States government is no longer considering itself under jurisdiction of the constitution.

confluence 13y ago

This "I won't abuse my extraordinary privilege" mindset that people in power appear to have is naive beyond all comprehension. It reminds me of an exchange that occurred during a Clinton administration meeting on the legality of extraordinary rendition back in 1993: > 'extraordinary renditions', were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgment of the host government.... The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: "Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'" Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition FTFA: > Congress granted the president the authority to arrest and hold individuals accused of terrorism without due process under the NDAA, but Mr. Obama said in an accompanying signing statement that he will not abuse these privileges to keep American citizens imprisoned indefinitely How could this possibly not end up with someone abusing it? Without due process, the executive branch basically has carte blanche to do whatever the hell it wants. Political opponents. People you don't like. People in the media. Whistleblowers. No one has any rights any more. All it would take is for a covert agent or hacker to plant bomb making material on your computer to detain (and torture) you until you die. Everyone knows that this is illegal. Everyone knows that this is insanely stupid. Everyone knows that this will be abused. Everyone knows that this is against the constitution. Shit still happens anyway. The terrorists fucking won. They've destroyed America, and they didn't even have to lift a finger to do it. We did it all on our very own. I'm tired. So very tired.

CaveTech 13y ago
Terrorists didn't destroy America. American politicians capitalized on the naivety of American citizens and are now exploiting you to the fullest. If anything, terrorists gave America the means of destroying itself, and the vast majority of the people are too indifferent to do anything about it.

pivnicek 13y ago

Welcome to extra-legal-land. There are no rights here except for those of the accuser. No burden of proof or evidence required! Do you hold executive privilege? Imprison and murder as you wish.

ekianjo 13y ago

I guess that's what Snowden will get if he ever lands in the US again. No trial, just indefinitely roting in jail.

drraoulduke 13y ago

From the President that brought you "if there is a step we can take that will save even one child.... we should take that step."

pivnicek 13y ago

Please also notice that this "news" is reported on Russia Today. Where is the American Reporting? They are too concerned with royal babies, ironically.

rfctr 13y ago
The Russia Today was created with the goal of breaking the American media omerta.

adamc 13y ago

Obama has demonstrated, with this and other acts, that he does not hold civil liberties in high regard. I'm disappointed in him, but the pattern has been consistent enough that I am no longer surprised.

cpursley 13y ago

But he speaks so well.... I wonder how many people would support another Obama term, despite existing term limits and his actions. My guess is a lot.

czr80 13y ago
Depends what the alternative is, I guess.

quattrofan 13y ago

So Obama says he wont "abuse" it, but what about his successor, and the successor after that? I assume this law does not expire once he leaves office...

medde 13y ago
Also, Obama said that he won't abuse it but he didn't say when... maybe he won't abuse it yesterday. And I bet that his description of abuse is very different then ours.
- quattrofan 13y ago
  True, "abuse" is a very different word from "violate"

tankbot 13y ago

cough Snowden cough

fatjokes 13y ago

I'm guessing his Nobel Peace Prize medal is being used as a coaster in the White House right now.

bobwaycott 13y ago

Legal standing strikes again. While on the whole, legal standing is a good doctrine and litmus test, when it comes to laws and practices such as these, I cannot help but think we need to advocate for change to interpreting the validity of the case and the need to adjudicate on constitutional questions through legal standing alone. This is off the cuff, but I find it very unhelpful when the Congress and President can enact and execute laws that cannot be questioned in the courts by concerned citizens unless they have been or can arguably prove legal standing. Challenging the constitutionality of laws should not require that one's rights and liberty be violated beforehand.