Isn't the first anything usually a major change?Do you remember the major change that occurred when we elected our first Irish man to POTUS?
No? Me neither. Must not have been a major change.
You have just demonstrated the arrow of causality is pointing in the other direction.
It was the previous major change that allowed an Irish man to be electable in the first place.
.
Hurray for Public School.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
never mind. He signed it. But at least he had "reservations" while doing so.But on the bright side, according to this report, there were last minute changes to the bill that mean U.S. citizens wont' be carted off to Guantanamo for being suspected terrorists.
The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents.
"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."
That's great that his adminstration promised not to authorise indefinite detention. They also promised to shut down Gitmo, not to get us into anymore un-necessary foreign wars, etc. etc. Why sign it and allow future administrations to abuse it then?
|
Isn't the first anything usually a major change?Do you remember the major change that occurred when we elected our first Irish man to POTUS?
No? Me neither. Must not have been a major change.
I'm still waiting for the major change that happened after we elected our first half black president.
Nope, looks like business as usual. Carry on.
|
|
You have just demonstrated the arrow of causality is pointing in the other direction.
It was the previous major change that allowed an Irish man to be electable in the first place.
.
Hurray for Public School.
That doesn't give Public School much to praise.
There is another option - that there was no major social change before or after Andrew Jackson's election.
Again, what's this "major social change" you speak of?
And why did you quote that dirtbag Farrakhan? He had the real thinking man of that movement murdered.
Why sign it and allow future administrations to abuse it then?
Especially in light of the fact that erosion of civil liberties tends to be a rachet -- you almost never regain them once they're lost, short of starting over -- it seems to me that a wise people would be very, very hesitant to pass any such legislation, and would intentionally limit it (temporally and authority-wise) as much as possible. Apparently, we are not a wise people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why sign it and allow future administrations to abuse it then?Especially in light of the fact that erosion of civil liberties tends to be a rachet -- you almost never regain them once they're lost, short of starting over -- it seems to me that a wise people would be very, very hesitant to pass any such legislation, and would intentionally limit it (temporally and authority-wise) as much as possible. Apparently, we are not a wise people.
I see this as the symptom of the us/them mentality. We're fine with this sort of legislation as long as we can see a group of people we don't identify with as being the target. That sort of thinking leaves a huge blind spot, leaving people unable to see that said legislation is universally applied. It only takes a change in mindset for it to apply to those in favor of it. The illusion that we are not all "us" is an easy one to believe.
|
|
Ain't going to happen. Obama isn't the Messiah, he's a typical Chicago Machine politician. Something I was saying before he was elected. He has lived up to my expectations to a tee, actually.
Keep waiting, but don't hold your breath. I like arguing with you here, and if you were knocked out from asphyxia that would make it problematic.
Right on. I just trip when I see Farrakhan quoted.
Don't tell me that you understand until you hear the man!
Who was that, anyway?Wikipedia indicates it was Andrew Jackson.
And 150 years from now people will be asking "who was the first black President?" because when he leaves office thing will be pretty much the same as when he entered office. What splits the American people isn't race, its class. What people will remember isn't who the first black President was but who the first poor President was, now THAT (assuming it ever happened) would be major change.
just for this, I am going to look into methusalization to see if you are correct. I'm thinking you won't be, but we'll see.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The one thing that kept public enemy from continuing to lead the rap music revolution and keeping gangsta rap small potatoes was Chuck Ds love for this idiot.
Right on. I just trip when I see Farrakhan quoted.Don't tell me that you understand until you hear the man!Don't make me come up there.
:P
The one thing that kept public enemy from continuing to lead the rap music revolution and keeping gangsta rap small potatoes was Chuck Ds love for this idiot.
Huh. And all this time I thought it was Flava Flav's fault.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see this as the symptom of the us/them mentality. We're fine with this sort of legislation as long as we can see a group of people we don't identify with as being the target. That sort of thinking leaves a huge blind spot, leaving people unable to see that said legislation is universally applied. It only takes a change in mindset for it to apply to those in favor of it. The illusion that we are not all "us" is an easy one to believe.
True, but the us is the citizenry and them are the Government.
In theory, for a democracy, we are meant to be one and the same.
Hasn't quite worked out that way.
An a non-American, this saddens me.
The US use to be a shining light for democracy, flawed and imperfect to be sure, but now not so much.
The biggest unanswered question is why it passed so easily?
You'd think this would the sort of thing the opposition parties would feed on.
I'm sticking to the "Preparing for the Alien Invasion" theory.
The one thing that kept public enemy from continuing to lead the rap music revolution and keeping gangsta rap small potatoes was Chuck Ds love for this idiot.
Oooh, more musical arguments in political threads!
Anyway, I highly doubt this is true. Not that I have any love for Farrakhan, but none of the other NY acts were able to stop the gangsta juggernaut, either.
When was this? The brief shining moment between Jim Crow/Vietnam and Ronald Reagan?Don't let the propaganda fool you. America's never lived up to it's "shining light for democracy" legend.
Don't get me wrong. There are far worse countries out there and damn few I'd want to see with super-power status the US holds, but that doesn't make me blind to what this country is.
Well, I did qualify it with "flawed and imperfect to be sure"
But at least the country talked the talk (for US citizens at least, for the rest of us unwashed it was gun boat diplomacy), even if the walk was a bit wobbly a lot of the time.
But the US isn't even pretending any more, and that's both sad and scary.
We have a general populace that wants to think they are moral and are guided by moral principles. But they turn a blind eye to the sorts of s&!! that the government, honestly, HAS TO DO to maintain the way of life we are accustomed to.
All comes down to oil in the end. Our dependence and indeed HUNGER for that black poison will be our end.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not that I have any love for Farrakhan, but none of the other NY acts were able to stop the gangsta juggernaut, either.
Yo, I'm Eazy-E, I got b%+&#es galore / You may gotta lotta b*~!!es, but I got much more!
How could anyone possibly keep that from catching on big?
Not that I have any love for Farrakhan, but none of the other NY acts were able to stop the gangsta juggernaut, either.Yo, I'm Eazy-E, I got b!~~!es galore / You may gotta lotta b~%+#es, but I got much more!How could anyone possibly keep that from catching on big?
Yeah, right?
Hee hee!
*facepalm*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Although, to be fair, I think N.W.A.'s success had much more to do with Dre and Cube. Eazy-E was to N.W.A. what Flavor Flav was to PE. Imho. Annnnnnd--I'm done with the hip hop derail (until somebody brings it up again).
|
|
Not that I have any love for Farrakhan, but none of the other NY acts were able to stop the gangsta juggernaut, either.Yo, I'm Eazy-E, I got b@*%@es galore / You may gotta lotta b!*!!es, but I got much more!How could anyone possibly keep that from catching on big?
~~I'm the dope man yo boy wear corduroy, got money up to here but I'm unemployed~~
Sings to me, it does. *sniff*
Yeah, I didn't see this thread earlier and started my own that got locked.
This is a very sad day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This comes from Captain Hexen's locked thread, just really wanted to comment on it:
For half a second there, you almost had me worried. Then I read the article you linked, and googled for more objective sources. Could you possibly find a more biased source?
First of all, it's a defense spending bill. This is the main source of military funding for the coming year. Calling it the "American Detention Bill" to focus on a tiny part of a massive spending bill that you disagree with is misleading, at best.
Second of all, I haven't read the bill myself, but according to less biased sources, the part you disagree with is nowhere to be found in the actual bill. USA Today says the military custody section of the bill doesn't apply to US citizens:
Here's a couple of other less biased sources:
Washington Post story
CNN storyNow, I'm not saying that I agree with all of this Patriot Act junk, or that Obama's doing a perfect job as president. But let's at least try to be objective when looking at it, and realize that the sky isn't actually falling. Contrary to the extremist right wing propaganda sites that want to make Obama seem like the anti-Christ, this bill is nothing like the stuff that Germany passed into law in 1933.
Funny you should say that. I think the links you provided are biased too, just in the other direction. Objectivity is not particularly strong in them - they just use less exclamation(!) marks.
I don't think it is okay because it doesn't apply to US citizens. It is still abhorrent. No trial? Indefinite "detention" (which also allows torture)? But, more to the point, the bill doesn't provide a firm and hard disclaimer that US citizens are safe - the only certainty is that President Obama asserts that he will not make use of this power to detain US citizens. In other words he limits himself and his administration. The bill itself doesn't limit him. Of course, once it is signed into law, the actions of any particular future president aren't limited by the self-imposed limits of the Obama administration.
The Enabling Act of Hitler in Germany, 1933, is definitely a step up in severity; but at least it is honest and clear - in less words than are allowed in submitting a wondrous item for RPG Superstar it gets the job done; no legal split hairs. Everybody knows exactly what is going on.
But back then is a bygone era, social awareness on human rights issues has grown, the point of the Enabling Act was to ultimately give one man (Hitler) all the power; that kind of thing isn't interesting to the powers that be now - they need lasting control that extends beyond any given face man. Thus bills like the NDAA are purposefully obfuscated. Worrying is the right thing to do. You should be worried. Very worried.
This comes from Captain Hexen's locked thread, just really wanted to comment on it:
For half a second there, you almost had me worried. Then I read the article you linked, and googled for more objective sources. Could you possibly find a more biased source?
First of all, it's a defense spending bill. This is the main source of military funding for the coming year. Calling it the "American Detention Bill" to focus on a tiny part of a massive spending bill that you disagree with is misleading, at best.
Second of all, I haven't read the bill myself, but according to less biased sources, the part you disagree with is nowhere to be found in the actual bill. USA Today says the military custody section of the bill doesn't apply to US citizens:
Here's a couple of other less biased sources:
Washington Post story
CNN storyNow, I'm not saying that I agree with all of this Patriot Act junk, or that Obama's doing a perfect job as president. But let's at least try to be objective when looking at it, and realize that the sky isn't actually falling. Contrary to the extremist right wing propaganda sites that want to make Obama seem like the anti-Christ, this bill is nothing like the stuff that Germany passed into law in 1933.
Funny you should say that. I think the links you provided are biased too, just in the other direction. Objectivity is not particularly strong in them - they just use less exclamation(!) marks.
I don't think it is okay because it doesn't apply to US citizens. It is still abhorrent. No trial? Indefinite "detention" (which also...
Well said.
For those still researching this, the language of the bill still applies to American Citizens. However, the administration is not required to hold American Citizens.
Somehow, we managed to get the word 'allowed' replaced.
Not that I disbelieve you but do you have citation?
Personally I blame the republicans for making this happen (tongue in cheek!).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it is okay because it doesn't apply to US citizens. It is still abhorrent. No trial? Indefinite "detention" (which also allows torture)? But, more to the point, the bill doesn't provide a firm and hard disclaimer that US citizens are safe - the only certainty is that President Obama asserts that he will not make use of this power to detain US citizens. In other words he limits himself and his administration. The bill itself doesn't limit him. Of course, once it is signed into law, the actions of any particular future president aren't limited by the self-imposed limits of the Obama administration.
So of course we're going to be safe, because Obama won't act on this part of the law...and we all know he'll be President forever.
For another year maybe...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those still researching this, the language of the bill still applies to American Citizens. However, the administration is not required to hold American Citizens.
Somehow, we managed to get the word 'allowed' replaced.
Not that I disbelieve you but do you have citation?
Personally I blame the republicans for making this happen (tongue in cheek!).
Umm. Hold on, yes. Its on page 300-something in the bill. I'll have to find it again. I was doing research on it because so many people told me it does not apply to american citizens. :P
Just a sec. I'll be back.
EDIT: Page 266 or around there.
Subtitle D. Sections 1021 and 1022.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They had to pass it so we could see what was in it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So of course we're going to be safe, because Obama won't act on this part of the law...and we all know he'll be President forever.
Correction: he said he wouldn't act on it. Just like he said he'd close Guantanamo Bay.
At this point, if Obama assures us he won't do something, I now take that as a pretty good indication that that's exactly what he is planning to do.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So of course we're going to be safe, because Obama won't act on this part of the law...and we all know he'll be President forever.Correction: he said he wouldn't act on it. Just like he said he'd close Guantanamo Bay.
At this point, if Obama assures us he won't do something, I now take that as a pretty good indication that that's exactly what he is planning to do.
Going to call a bit of a foul here -- everything he's gone to do something the republicans have specifically and explicitly moved to block him.
It's not like he didn't continue to develop plans to do what he said he would do and have them blocked every time by congress.
Now did he succeed? No. However that isn't quite the same as never trying or starting.
Did closing Guantanamo take an act of Congress, or could it have been done with an executive order?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those darn Republicans, blocking him from NOT participating in another illegal war that had nothing to do with National Security. /sarcasm
Did closing Guantanamo take an act of Congress, or could it have been done with an executive order?
I think it could be done with an executive order -- but he didn't simply say, "I will close Guantanamo regardless of the consequences", he has to close it in such a way as to keep the USA safe, his plan was to bring the people in Guantanamo into the USA and have them tried/whatever here. Congress moved and specifically blocked that plan when they learned of it. SO instead he's had to go about it the slow way figuring out how to handle the mess of each case at Guantanamo and figure out exactly what he can do with the dangerous ones since we can't hold them on USA soil apparently (which I think is a bit illegal in and of itself).
Those darn Republicans, blocking him from NOT participating in another illegal war that had nothing to do with National Security. /sarcasm
You talking about the Libyan action? I think its funny how badly he played the republicans there, and how much he exposed their hypocrisy.
|
|
So of course we're going to be safe, because Obama won't act on this part of the law...and we all know he'll be President forever.Correction: he said he wouldn't act on it. Just like he said he'd close Guantanamo Bay.
At this point, if Obama assures us he won't do something, I now take that as a pretty good indication that that's exactly what he is planning to do.
Sarcasm meter broken today? ;-)
|
|
So of course we're going to be safe, because Obama won't act on this part of the law...and we all know he'll be President forever.Correction: he said he wouldn't act on it. Just like he said he'd close Guantanamo Bay.
At this point, if Obama assures us he won't do something, I now take that as a pretty good indication that that's exactly what he is planning to do.Going to call a bit of a foul here -- everything he's gone to do something the republicans have specifically and explicitly moved to block him.
It's not like he didn't continue to develop plans to do what he said he would do and have them blocked every time by congress.
Now did he succeed? No. However that isn't quite the same as never trying or starting.
Now I'm calling foul. He had two relatively unobstructed years, and a nice, juicy lame duck session to do all kinds of things. And he dropped the ball. Dude is lame, just like his predecessor, get over it.
Much Thanks Stardust.
Now I'm calling foul. He had two relatively unobstructed years, and a nice, juicy lame duck session to do all kinds of things. And he dropped the ball. Dude is lame, just like his predecessor, get over it.
Was watching an old Mission: Impossible rerun the other day -- gang lord double-crosses his goons, who run away, their plan foiled. Then the camera zooms in on the gang lord, as he pulls off his rubber mask and it's actually Rollin Hand, the IMF agent, grinning like a madman. I think Obama gets in his room at night, checks for cameras, pulls off his rubber mask, and snorts his nightcap as Dubya.
Um...
So I'm going to quote the thing simply so we have the relevant part here to discuss... seems easier to me:
SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF
THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS
PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY
FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the
President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40;
50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces
of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection
(b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section
is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported
al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged
in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,
including any person who has committed a belligerent act or
has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
forces.
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a
person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may
include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until
the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for
Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States
Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009
(title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent
tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country
of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit
or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the
Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of
United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States,
or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United
States.
(f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—The Secretary
of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application
of the authority described in this section, including the organizations,
entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’
for purposes of subsection (b)(2).
](a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), the
Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described
in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities
authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force
(Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition
under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in paragraph (1)
shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under
section 1021 who is determined—
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an
associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant
to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or
carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the
United States or its coalition partners.
(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—For purposes of this
subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war
has the meaning given in section 1021(c), except that no
transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section
shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section
1028.
(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The President may
waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits
to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is
in the national security interests of the United States.
(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL
RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis
of conduct taking place within the United States, except to
the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
(c) IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and
submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.
(2) ELEMENTS.—The procedures for implementing this section
shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:
(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to
make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the
process by which such determinations are to be made.
(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military
custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the
interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering
with regard to persons not already in the custody
or control of the United States.
(C) Procedures providing that a determination under
subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until
after the conclusion of an interrogation which is ongoing
at the time the determination is made and does not require
the interruption of any such ongoing interrogation.
I highlighted some parts that seemed important to me.
|
|
I think, its one of those things where the devil is in the details.
There's a huge berth between "The requirement does not extend." and "Neither the President nor Congress may" One is saying that the enforcement of this law is not required. The other says that the particular enforcement of the law in respect to American Citizens is not allowed.
Of course, I'm sure there are those who disagree with me. Feel free to help me see differently. :)