4 ms·

Not to mention that they've yelled tyranny! at every minor administrative tweak, regulatory change or appointment for the last 6 years... And then, when someth

• bobo1357 13y ago
  How does this threaten an American citizen's rights? This is lawful under the Constitution.
  • jbooth 13y ago
    Is that a serious question? First line of the article: "The Obama administration has won the latest battle in their fight to indefinitely detain US citizens and foreigners suspected of being affiliated with terrorists under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012."
    • bobo1357 13y ago
      Again, this law is constitutional. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld
      • jbooth 13y ago
        Original link: "Congress granted the president the authority to arrest and hold individuals accused of terrorism without due process under the NDAA," Your link: "...enemy combatants, including U.S. citizens, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the rights of due process," We've got 2 issues there, 'enemy combatants' requires a bit more proof than 'suspected of terrorism', although things can be fudged like in the Bradley Manning case. Then we have the whole due process. The 5th amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The parts about the armed forces apply to military justice for troops, when wartime discipline is invoked. It's not saying that "when you're at war it all goes out the window for ordinary citizens". Indefinitely detaining someone based on suspicion, without a requirement of due process or a way to appeal, is quite clearly unconstitutional although I hold little hope for the current Supreme Court to overturn it.
      • uxp 13y ago
        This is only constitutional because our government has said "it's legal". Your right to free speech as an American citizen is only a right so far as the US government continues to respect that right. The Executive branch could come out tomorrow and start detaining anyone they cared to while stating that any criticism of the US Government is now a detainable offense, and it would be legal if the Judicial branch waved it's hands and said "We'll allow it." Our rights may be "god given", but god cannot protect us from the tyranny of men.
      • flumbaps 13y ago
        In the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case, the SCOTUS ruled that US citizens have the right to due process. So that ruling actually sets a precedent for this law being unconstitutional.
      • anon808 13y ago
        Men give us laws, 'God' gives us rights. History is pretty clear that what's legal is not always what's right.
      • madaxe 13y ago
        But I'm guessing you'd say in the same breath that Wade v. Roe is unconstitutional, because it disagres with your politics?
  • delinka 13y ago
    By labeling that citizen a "terrorist" without due process of law. The entire purpose of "due process" is to force the accuser to produce the all the necessary evidence to prove the accusation and that he (the accuser) isn't simply trying to destroy someone he doesn't like.
  • andrewaylett 13y ago
    Just because it's lawful under the Constitution doesn't mean that it's not threatening rights: the US Constitution isn't perfectly complete, nor indeed even perfect in what it does cover. The term 'rights' is also a vague one, and can be split fairly easily into those which should be considered universal and those which only apply locally -- for example, I have the right to walk across the road even where there's no designated crossing point, while in the US that would be jaywalking. That's not a universal right and certainly not a constitutionally protected one, but it's a right that's been removed from US citizens (and for good reason too, in some places). On the other hand, I would say that the right to life should be universal. The US is still largely happy with the death penalty and (per an earlier story on HN) the US Government seems to think that extra-judicial killings are fine too. They are apparently lawful under the constitution, and also threaten American citizen's rights.
• dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Not to mention that they've yelled tyranny! at every minor administrative tweak, regulatory change or appointment for the last 6 years... More like 4.5 than 6, but also for an 8 year period starting about 8 years before that, too.
• vor_ 13y ago
  I don't understand singling out conservatives here. Liberals have been at least as complicit in bloating the spectrum of government power. Even worse, the majority of the media expressed practically no skeptical interest until they found out the government was spying on them.
  • jbooth 13y ago
    I'm singling out conservatives because they're hypocrites. Liberals don't trust police/military, and are ok with the welfare state. They're generally pretty consistent on this, Obama's signed off on this program, but it's been opposed by many more liberals than conservatives. Conservatives are the opposite, as evidenced by the reaction to this. When you combine their rhetoric about "Obama's Tyranny" when it comes to marginal tax rates or healthcare reform with their complete silence about things that are actually threatening, it's pathetic. You're even doing it yourself. 'Bloating the spectrum of government power' is obfuscatory BS. Social workers and teachers don't carry guns or listen to phone calls, yet you're trying to conflate them with the security state.
    • vor_ 13y ago
      I'm telling you that singling out conservatives for being hypocrites while ignoring your "side" for being hypocrites is a form of modern tribalism. In other words, you're part of the problem of gridlock because you're too busy playing a gotcha game. This comes from spending too much time on blogs and forums specific to your team. Both sides do it, and I don't understand how one could consider themselves a member of either one and pretend that they know they chose correctly. Liberal Democrats are hypocrites because they spent eight years bashing George W. Bush for his expanding surveillance state--and Obama specifically spoke out against it during his candidacy--yet many of those same liberal Democrats spend their time in Washington defending the current administration's policies. They hated Bush's wars and detainment policies yet say nothing about Obama's continuation of them, the drone strikes, and the general warmongering. This administration has been one long series of broken promises and defensive Democrats. Watching Nancy Pelosi attempt to differentiate between Obama's security state and Bush's security state was mind-boggling. If you're going to respond that liberals are opposed to all this and don't consider Obama a true liberal because of it, conservatives did the same regarding George W. Bush when his poll numbers went down too. Every time there's a problem, the person in office suddenly doesn't represent you anymore, and you distance yourselves. Bloating the spectrum of government power refers to desensitization to the growing power the government has to collect information on citizens for its own purposes, from the healthcare database to monitoring phone calls. I can tell which "side" you're on just from the seething way you talk about the other team. If you took a step back and looked objectively, you'd see that you both come off the same way to independents and have the same transgressions and hypocrisies.