Categories
Indefinite detention of US citizens without charge or trial is now a reality
Obama signed this little thing called the National Defense Authorization Act
The National Defense Authorization Act greatly expands the power and scope of the federal government to fight the War on Terror, including codifying into law the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects without trial. Under the new law the US military has the power to carry out domestic anti-terrorism operations on US soil.
“The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it,” the president said in a statement. “I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”
Worse, the NDAA authorizes the military to detain even US citizens under the broad new anti-terrorism provisions provided in the bill, once again without trial.
There is some controversy on this point, in part because the law as written is entirely too vague. But whether or not the law will be used to indefinitely detain US citizens domestically, it is written to allow the detention of US citizens abroad as well as foreigners without trial.
“Obama’s signing statement seems to suggest he already believe he has the authority to indefinitely detain Americans—he just never intends to use it,” Adam Serwer writes at Mother Jones. “Left unsaid, perhaps deliberately, is the distinction that has dominated the debate over the defense bill: the difference between detaining an American captured domestically or abroad. This is why ACLU Director Anthony Romero released a statement shortly after Obama’s arguing the authority in the defense bill could “be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.”
The NDAA Makes the Status Quo Worse
Glenn Greenwald makes a compelling case that the law gives the government truly frightening powers. He notes that section 1022 exempts US citizens from the requirement of military detention but still leaves the option open to the state.
“The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the“requirement” of military detention,” Greenwald writes. “For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.”
police state here we come
The National Defense Authorization Act greatly expands the power and scope of the federal government to fight the War on Terror, including codifying into law the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects without trial. Under the new law the US military has the power to carry out domestic anti-terrorism operations on US soil.
“The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it,” the president said in a statement. “I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”
Worse, the NDAA authorizes the military to detain even US citizens under the broad new anti-terrorism provisions provided in the bill, once again without trial.
There is some controversy on this point, in part because the law as written is entirely too vague. But whether or not the law will be used to indefinitely detain US citizens domestically, it is written to allow the detention of US citizens abroad as well as foreigners without trial.
“Obama’s signing statement seems to suggest he already believe he has the authority to indefinitely detain Americans—he just never intends to use it,” Adam Serwer writes at Mother Jones. “Left unsaid, perhaps deliberately, is the distinction that has dominated the debate over the defense bill: the difference between detaining an American captured domestically or abroad. This is why ACLU Director Anthony Romero released a statement shortly after Obama’s arguing the authority in the defense bill could “be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.”
The NDAA Makes the Status Quo Worse
Glenn Greenwald makes a compelling case that the law gives the government truly frightening powers. He notes that section 1022 exempts US citizens from the requirement of military detention but still leaves the option open to the state.
“The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the“requirement” of military detention,” Greenwald writes. “For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.”
police state here we come
Comments
I also don't understand why all of these fucking republicans are up and arms about this shit though. Doing anything to stop terrorism is on their agenda, and they love to control people any way they can. This is exactly the kind of shit they advocate but once a democrat does something they agree with they still have to bitch about it.
If Obama told everyone that we need to keep our circulatory systems in our bodies I wonder how many republicans would die.
Did you know that Lincoln did not care about ending slavery. What he cared about was keeping the union together even though the states had the constitutional right to succeed from the union if they wanted too. Slavery was a "hot" debate item at the time and he used it to rile people up and support his war against the southern states. His Emancipation proclamation did not free one single slave because it they were already free where it had jurisdiction.
But to answer your question, and this is only my opinion..... the anti Slavery movement already had a huge following, and society was damning anyone who owned slaves. It was the southern states that were dragging their feet because they needed the free labor for their cotton fields. Only thing is, the Cotton industry was about to tank because the industrial revolution was starting to pick up steam. It was the industrial revolution that made America the super power it is..... Had Lincoln let the south succeed from the union, within a decade their only main industry would have flat lined. the need for slaves, and the societies backlash would have caused even the south to abolish slavery. The south would be begging to get back in the union, which the president at the time might not have been willing to do because they have almost nothing to offer. So yeah... I think Slavery is done even if Lincoln didnt invade the south. Not only that I think the south would have been more like the north had this alternate reality happened because instead of having absolution forced upon you, you would have seen (like the north did) that slavery was wrong and hurtful for their society. I personally believe there would not be as much racial tension had things gone this route instead of what Lincoln did. fuck him.
The American democrats and republicans are VASTLY different from each other. I have never really seen any democrats get upset and oppose a republican that is in favor of something that is on a democrat's agenda. I mean look at Bush and his immigration policies. He was in favor of making them citizens quicker, assimilating them into American society, and helping them out. I did not hear a peep out of any democrats of disapproval. It was all positive and they were happy that he did SOMETHING right.
But I'm glad that you realize how ridiculous it is when people pull that bullshit.
You want to say it is bullshit that all the Republicans are saying how awful this is when this is the very sort of bill they typically support? Fine Then explain to me why it is rational and logical for Obama who is a democrat, to support and sign this bill that supports the Republican agenda?