3 ms·

You don't think today he would be thrown in Guantanamo or some other military prison indefinitely at this point? No, I don't, because Kevin Mitnick wasn't a me

You don't think today he would be thrown in Guantanamo or some other military prison indefinitely at this point? No, I don't, because Kevin Mitnick wasn't a member of the U.S. military like Manning, and it would be manifestly unconstitutional to transfer a U.S. citizen from U.S. soil into the prison at Guantanamo Bay. The habeas petition to the Supreme Court would take about nine seconds. If you think the Obama administration no longer feels bound at all by the Constitution even in the face of an explicit ruling from SCOTUS, then, as I said, debating about it on hn will accomplish essentially nothing: We're already way too far down the slope. You apparently think that's the case, but that should be a fringe position in any community I'd like to participate in. Sadly it seems it's not.

kjackson2012 13y ago
Oh you mean unconstitutional, like executing an American citizen without due process, like Obama has already done? Being a member of the US military is completely irrelevant, you really have no education on this topic. I suggest you read up on the NDAA, and the other crimes against the Constitution that have been committed by Bush and Obama. Whether or not they transfer citizens to Guantanamo is irrelevant, they could send him to some military prison indefinitely, which is the real crime. If you don't feel like participating in this discussion, and spreading your "hypobolic" poison, then feel free to completely drop out. And unlike you, I don't have a defeatist attitude. Even though people such as yourself refuse to be educated, I think there is a real chance, especially after the anti-NDA vote, that people will get their message across to the politicians. My hope is that politicians that actual believe in things, like Rand Paul, will get voted to lead this country, as opposed to phonies and shysters that want a fat pension.
whiddershins 13y ago
I think people are getting personal here and the substance might be getting obscured. I will express my concerns differently: although you are probably right, technically and specifically, about relocating a prisoner to Guantanamo, I think the details are obscuring the gist. The US government acts with impunity, and really always has, against declared threats. Of course there is always a "reason" and a legal mechanism, and people who are concerned often articulate the details of the mechanism incorrectly, this doesn't change the substance of the concern. Look at Waco, the MOVE bombing, consider that US officials have been unwilling to go on record against the legality of drone strike assassinations against US citizens on US soil, I don't think much hampers the executive branch from acting. Regardless of the label or legal doctrine they use to explain it. Afterwards, there is always a narrative in the media that describes the people on the receiving end of these acts as crazy, weird, threatening, etc. This makes it appear only natural that the government acted with overwhelming force against its citizens ... but that just means we've fallen for the "rights are only for people like me" fallacy which underscores every system of oppression and exploitation.
- whiddershins 13y ago
  Ok, who down voted my laboriously typed (on an iPad!) and thoughtful comment. Really?

kjackson2012 13y ago

Oh you mean unconstitutional, like executing an American citizen without due process, like Obama has already done? Being a member of the US military is completely irrelevant, you really have no education on this topic. I suggest you read up on the NDAA, and the other crimes against the Constitution that have been committed by Bush and Obama. Whether or not they transfer citizens to Guantanamo is irrelevant, they could send him to some military prison indefinitely, which is the real crime. If you don't feel like participating in this discussion, and spreading your "hypobolic" poison, then feel free to completely drop out. And unlike you, I don't have a defeatist attitude. Even though people such as yourself refuse to be educated, I think there is a real chance, especially after the anti-NDA vote, that people will get their message across to the politicians. My hope is that politicians that actual believe in things, like Rand Paul, will get voted to lead this country, as opposed to phonies and shysters that want a fat pension.

whiddershins 13y ago

I think people are getting personal here and the substance might be getting obscured. I will express my concerns differently: although you are probably right, technically and specifically, about relocating a prisoner to Guantanamo, I think the details are obscuring the gist. The US government acts with impunity, and really always has, against declared threats. Of course there is always a "reason" and a legal mechanism, and people who are concerned often articulate the details of the mechanism incorrectly, this doesn't change the substance of the concern. Look at Waco, the MOVE bombing, consider that US officials have been unwilling to go on record against the legality of drone strike assassinations against US citizens on US soil, I don't think much hampers the executive branch from acting. Regardless of the label or legal doctrine they use to explain it. Afterwards, there is always a narrative in the media that describes the people on the receiving end of these acts as crazy, weird, threatening, etc. This makes it appear only natural that the government acted with overwhelming force against its citizens ... but that just means we've fallen for the "rights are only for people like me" fallacy which underscores every system of oppression and exploitation.

whiddershins 13y ago
Ok, who down voted my laboriously typed (on an iPad!) and thoughtful comment. Really?