Obama signs the NDAA into law

wester

I'm not sure if there's a thread about this but i have to get this out. I cannot believe what's going on here. I thought the police brutality on the OWS movement was shocking and up hauling enough. But then our government turns around and SIGNS THE NDAA (creates the indefinite detention, interrogation, and assassination of anyone SUSPECTED of terrorism, this includes US citizens) into LAW!!



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IeuE16LLDY"]Obama Signs NDAA, ACLU Disgusted - YouTube[/ame]

slipsius

I dont live in the states, but I thought this happened like right after 9/11 happened?

wester

Nope. We've never been able to without trial indefinitely hold someone in prison, or assassinate them upon simple suspicion of terrorism.

The reason this is so shocking is because protestors (OWS) are considered low level terrorists.

Sean VanGorder

Meh, probably gonna get some flak for this, but I don't see the big deal. It's the same way I felt about the whole tapping phone lines thing. If you have nothing to hide, then what's the problem if it has the potential to catch the bad guys. In this case, just don't act like a terrorist and I'm assuming you'll be fine.

wester

But that's the scary part. What will the government declare as a "terroristic" act....how far will they take it? WIll it go as far as facebook posts about how congress is trying to rip the constitution from us, occupy wallstreet protestors.....it's already such a blurry line and the government is using the term "terrorist" as their vessel towards creating a more controlled country.

You're assuming that the government never wrongfully suspects. These actions can be taken upon suspicion alone! A cop can see you protesting something on the street, pull you aside, detain you, interrogate you, and even kill you with suspicion that you are anti american.

AND......we are supposed to be a land of innocent until proven guilty. Not guilty upon suspicion.

Andreas

wester wrote: »

Nope. We've never been able to without trial indefinitely hold someone in prison, or assassinate them upon simple suspicion of terrorism.

lol Americans trying to be Middle Eastern.

Autocon

Sean VanGorder wrote: »

Meh, probably gonna get some flak for this, but I don't see the big deal. It's the same way I felt about the whole tapping phone lines thing. If you have nothing to hide, then what's the problem if it has the potential to catch the bad guys. In this case, just don't act like a terrorist and I'm assuming you'll be fine.

Because there is no one in jail that is innocent and wrongfully accused? And even then they at least had a trail. Now as long as the government accuses you of being a suspected terrorist for any reason they choose you will be held indefinatly.

wester

Exactly, what you're saying Sean is that our government acts on suspicion flawlessly. That there have never been wrongfully accused.

wester

Double wammy.......now if you are suspected of directly or indirectly supporting terrorism you will be stripped of your citizenship.....if you aren't killed first of course.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Hzpr7bL1Iw4

Bigjohn

I've been saying this for a long time, and in many different aspects of our lives, but this is one more step in the way of changing from Innocent Until Proven Guilty, to the opposite, to Guilty Until Proven Innocent.

You're seeing it all over the place, across all sorts of industries and sectors.

greevar

Sean VanGorder wrote: »

Meh, probably gonna get some flak for this, but I don't see the big deal. It's the same way I felt about the whole tapping phone lines thing. If you have nothing to hide, then what's the problem if it has the potential to catch the bad guys. In this case, just don't act like a terrorist and I'm assuming you'll be fine.

"If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about" is a huge logical fallacy. We have the right to not be harassed by the authorities. My guilt or innocence of a crime is irrelevant. The police don't get to stick their nose into my private life because they think I "might" be a terrorist. Do you think you would enjoy being subjected to a search or arrest for being accused mere because they think you are up to something? They don't need evidence, just mere suspicion.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." - The Fourth Amendment of the US constitution

We have the right to refuse unwarranted search and seizure. It doesn't matter if I'm a criminal or not. They had better have very strong probable cause or a fucking warrant signed by a judge before any authority can search or detain me. With the NDAA, this all goes out the window. They can so much as accuse you of wrong-doing and they can take you to jail, without trial or due process. Even if you're perfectly innocent, they can do this and don't think they won't. This clearly is a move to bust the OWS protests by labeling them as terrorists and arresting them without due process. This is the very face of tyranny.

Mark Dygert

Sean VanGorder wrote: »

Meh, probably gonna get some flak for this, but I don't see the big deal. It's the same way I felt about the whole tapping phone lines thing. If you have nothing to hide, then what's the problem if it has the potential to catch the bad guys. In this case, just don't act like a terrorist and I'm assuming you'll be fine.

That is assuming they are doing their job and only going after the actual bad guys. It also assumes that they will use it as intended and not use it to lock up anyone they don't agree with.

It's really getting hard to support "captain cave in". But on the flip side he never said he was against it, he just said he didn't like the legal messes it created and asked that they be cleared up before he signed it. So yea its not like he's spineless, he's just either stupid, ruthless, or terribly misguided. It's not like things would have been any different under a republican...

greevar

And this is how freedom dies...

flaagan

All I have to say on the matter...

Wesley

I still don't understand why/how The Supreme Court won't/can't just strike this down as unconstitutional.

Bigjohn

Nice little summary from The Young Turks:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gstBozWfhQ"]NDAA & Obama: Defenders Are Wrong - Here's Why - YouTube[/ame]

glynnsmith

The Patriot Act. The NDAA. SOPA. PIPA.

Land of the free. Home of the brave. With liberty and justice for all.

McGreed

Sean VanGorder wrote: »

Meh, probably gonna get some flak for this, but I don't see the big deal. It's the same way I felt about the whole tapping phone lines thing. If you have nothing to hide, then what's the problem if it has the potential to catch the bad guys. In this case, just don't act like a terrorist and I'm assuming you'll be fine.

Yes, you are right, you will get flak for this, because that's the stupidest attitude to have. So lets just take the war on drugs, you won't mind getting random cavity searches on the street, would you, its all for good of the people, War On Drugs! Never mind your civil rights. Just don't act like a druggie...or human.

Sean VanGorder

Geez, talk about slippery slope. How many of you have been randomly detained or cavity searched? Seriously. I'm not saying I completely agree with it. I don't think government should have complete control. I just think people are blowing it way out of proportion. And yes, my opinion is under the assumption that it will be enforced appropriately.

And let's be honest. If the government REALLY wanted to detain somebody, they would do it, bill or not.

MadnessImport

If crap like this can get past does that mean Sopa's signing is in the bag?

Andreas

flaagan wrote: »

All I have to say on the matter...

RACIST!!

Two Listen

At first I was outraged.

But I got to thinking on it, and I realized I actually don't mind this bill.

konstruct

Did anyone notice how fucked up the captioning was in the first video?

Noodle!

Sean VanGorder wrote: »

Geez, talk about slippery slope. How many of you have been randomly detained or cavity searched? Seriously. I'm not saying I completely agree with it. I don't think government should have complete control. I just think people are blowing it way out of proportion. And yes, my opinion is under the assumption that it will be enforced appropriately.

And let's be honest. If the government REALLY wanted to detain somebody, they would do it, bill or not.

There is no more dangerous thinking than this. You gradually have your freedoms taken away.

They can silence any dissenting voice, no questions asked.

Your rights are there to protect you in case the goverment does go bad. It happens, it's happened countless times through history, and rights are there to help you stop it.

Corruption exists, corporate fingers in politics exist. Imagine you going into indefinite custody because you've got a great new idea that would stop all wars and the gun manufacturing industry didn't like it.
Add corrupt politics.
Terrorist. Goodbye.

If that seems like a completely outlandish scenario to you, then it must be nice to live in a rose tinted world.

Sean VanGorder

Noodle! wrote: »

Corruption exists, corporate fingers in politics exist. Imagine you going into indefinite custody because you've got a great new idea that would stop all wars and the gun manufacturing industry didn't like it.
Add corrupt politics.
Terrorist. Goodbye.

Oh I agree, and that's what I meant by "If the government REALLY wanted to detain somebody, they would do it, bill or not."

I'll be the first to distrust anything formed by a group of humans.

What my point is, and I guess I should have mentioned this before, is that until the majority of the population unites and does something about it, the government can and will do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, bill or not. This bill doesn't change a whole lot. For example, internment camps during WW2.


Now I remember why I don't post in these threads, mostly cause I'm not educated enough on the subject matter.

konstruct

flaagan wrote: »

All I have to say on the matter...

I know voting is supposed to be the best tool the people have to help shape the future of the country. But I cant help at feel that billboard is merely extending the "right vs. left" dialogue that big business and lobbyists want everyone to be having.

I wouldn`t consider a single candidate that is up for office, better for the country than Obama. Not because I bias to the left- but because the other options available are a complete muppet show. I feel this has to be done by design.


Vote with your dollar, not a politician.

greevar

konstruct wrote: »

I know voting is supposed to be the best tool the people have to help shape the future of the country. but I cant help at feel that billboard is merely extending the right vs. left diologue that big business and the lobbyists want everyone to be having. Vote with your dollar, not a politician.

Vote with your dollar? That's a completely ineffectual tactic. Who has the most dollars? The .01%, they have more than all the rest of us combined. That means they have the most votes. Voting with your dollar is a waste of time.

Justin Meisse

Congress shouldn't be able to roll bullshit stuff like this into package bills - the conservatives fought to keep a poison pill inside a military budget bill. My inner conspiracy theorist says it's part of the right's "get Obama fired at all costs" policy.

I may be mistaken but I believe Rand Paul was the only Tea Partier to side with the Democrats who wanted to block the indefinite detention

Alberto Rdrgz

this is the fall of the republic, Goldman Sachs conquers america, where are the jedis?

shit is going to hit the fan, i think this is preparation for a big big Unrest in the United states. 2012 is either going to bring financial collapse or war or people on the streets or all of the above.

im just gonna keep 3d modelling till then.

konstruct

@ greevar

Lol fair enough. - but thats why the .01% are the true leaders of the country. If you want the shape the country- you have to appeal to them.

YAY CAPITALISM!

wester

@ alberto: That's exactly what i've been thinking. But i honestly dont think it's going to bring a civil war. As much as it pains me to say it i dont think we have what it takes to speak up. We've been bred into a society that uses fear as a control tactic and it works. We have low employment so those of us with jobs are too scared to stand up, and those without jobs are now scared with the passing of this law. It's quite terrifying to be honest.

This law has single handedly created a clamp on our country making it so that the employed and unemployed are both scared to do anything about it.

I think if a war is going to break out...it's going to be a war against america from the countries WE'VE been terrorizing. We are down, another war would destroy us in everyway.

I hope i'm wrong.

So yeah.....anyone hiring in other countries

ZacD

TL;DR The President's opponents played the electorate like a fiddle and will get away with it because people don't seem to realize they've been tricked into being angry at the wrong person.
He signed it because if he didn't, defense spending including benefits to veterans and their families would not have been authorized. The sections of NDAA that many people here seem to have a problem with are sections that were added into the document by primarily Republican legislators and which the President adamantly opposes but was powerless to stop. I'll repeat that: the parts of this bill that many people here hate were included against the President's wishes and in a way that he is powerless to stop. The only way he could have stopped these sections from being included would have been to try to veto the bill in its entirety, a move that would have been both political suicide as well as being futile, as Congress would simply have overridden him. He is explicit in his opposition to exactly the parts of the bill everyone here hates, going so far as to detail exactly which sections he opposes and why.
You'll notice that the bill also restricts his ability to close Guantanamo Bay; this isn't coincidence. These sections are openly hostile to the President's stated mandate - they are effectively a giant 'fuck you' to the President, as well as a nasty way of eroding the President's support with his own base. Observe:
Draft legislation that is almost guaranteed to piss of the President but more importantly piss of his base.
Attach said legislation to another piece of larger, more important legislation like, say, the Defense Spending budget for the entire year so that any attempt to dislodge the offensive legislation will result in a political shitstorm, as well as place the larger legislation in jeopardy.
Once attached, begin a PR campaign that highlights the offending legislation and brings it to the attention of as many media outlets as possible - not just the traditional media, but alternative media outlets as well (Fox news, MSNBC, Media Matters, Huff-Po, Infowars, etc.)
Here's where it gets tricky: Simultaneously, speak to both your party's base and the opposition's. To your base, argue that the legislation is necessary to 'Keep America safe' and that the President, by opposing it, is clearly soft of terrorism and endangering the military by trying to strip the legislation out. At the same time, sit back and watch your opponent's liberal supporters tear into the offending legislation as being dangerous, anti-democratic, and a threat to civil liberties. You know they will; that's what they care about most. You've designed legislation that will make them froth at the mouth. You don't even have to keep flogging the message; one look at the legislation will be enough to convince most people that it is anathema to everything they hold dear. Because it is.
Pass the 'parent' legislation. Doing so forces the President to sign it or attempt to veto it. Since the legislation in question just so happens to be the military's operating budget, a veto is out of the question. The President must sign the bill, you get the legislation you wanted, but you also practically guarantee that your opponent's base will be furious at him for passing a bill they see as evil. Even if he tries to explain in detail why he had to sign it and what he hates about it, it won't matter; ignorance of the American political process, coupled with an almost militant indifference to subtle explanations will almost ensure that most people will only remember that the President passed a bill they hate.
Profit. you get the legislation you want, while the President has to contend with a furious base that feels he betrayed them - even though he agrees with their position but simply lacked the legislative tools to stop this from happening. It's a classic piece of misdirection that needs only two things to work: A lack of principles (or a partisan ideology that is willing to say anything - do anything - to win), and an electorate that is easy to fool.
This is pretty basic political maneuvering and the biggest problem is that it almost always works because most people either don't know or don't care how their political system actually functions. The President was saddled with a lose-lose situation where he either seriously harmed American defense policy (political suicide), or passed offensive legislation knowing that it would cost him political capital. To all of you here lamenting that you ever voted for this 'corporate shill', congratulations: you are the result the Republicans were hoping for. They get the law they want, they get the weakened Presidential candidate they want. And many of you just don't seem to see that. You don't have to like your country's two-party system, but it pays to be able to understand it so that you can recognize when it's being used like this.
EDIT: typos
EDIT2: There are some other great observations made by other posters downthread. This makes me happy. Of particular interest is the discussion about potential SCOTUS challenges to parts of the bill - specifically parts of the bill that Obama highlighted in his signing statement. Court challenges are a messy, but effective way of limiting the power of any branch of government, and in this case, such a challenge should be demanded.
EDIT3: Off to make Baklava before my wife becomes disappointed in me :P I'll try to be on again later to answer any questions or comments that I feel are worth my time responding to. THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH for such a stimulating discussion! I don't care who you vote for (although I have my preferences), but please, take this passion and use it to get involved in your nation's politics. The single most important obligation that any person has to their society is to be educated about its mechanisms and to be active in them. Don't let your anger dissuade you from becoming involved. Political change is incremental and measured in electoral cycles. Be passionate, but PLEASE be patient.
FINAL EDIT: Well, the comments have turned into insults and whining as I more or less expected them to. To all of you who assert (without knowledge) that I'm an 'apologist', a shill, or in the pocket of 'the establishment', I'll let you in on a couple of secrets. I'm not an American. I don't live in America. I don't care who you elect to lead you - although I have my own preferences. I agree that your political system is in need of an overhaul. I think a third party or even a fourth would be awesome. I think it's hilarious the way some of you condemn support for Obama whilst placing your own candidate of choice on a pedestal, as though he or she is any different. I'm not making normative claims here; I'm not telling you how things ought to be. I'm simply explaining what I see. If you don't agree, fine, I'm glad you have an opinion on the matter. Dissenting views are great. What is not great however is the way in which some of you try to intimidate others for holding different views - or use your downvotes to censor views that you don't wish others to see. Some of you rage about Orwellian doublespeak or doublethink or how 'those in power' want to impose a police state where free speech and civil liberties are censored. I don't know why you bother condemning it, since you're essentially doing the same thing yourselves.
Have a happy New Years everyone. Go out and register, then go out and vote.

He was pretty much cornered into signing it. Don't blame the President, blame the Republican House and Senate, politics, and the political system.

Alberto Rdrgz

Yeah, i agree with most of what you said. I think Iran and the strait of hormouz is getting super dangerous, that alone could spark a serious situation. But, if you look back in history this is what happens at the end of empires or right before world wars.

The US is cracking, i think it's bankers that (like Goldman Sachs took over the E.U., 'cleptocrats') now run Washington, and they're scared of whats coming.

EDIT:

He was pretty much cornered into signing it. Don't blame the President, blame the Republican House and Senate, politics, and the political system.

if he didn't veto it, he didn't do his job in Securing and safe guarding the constitution. They're ALL to blame. that excuse is a joke.

wester

Then don't be president. There is absolutely no excuse for signing over our rights.

It's as much his fault that NDAA is law, as our fault that it's come this far.

Bigjohn

There's a little thing called The Truth. Shocking, I know. But they tried cornering him into signing it? How about he vetoes it, then does one of his TV speeches that he loves so much, and tell us the truth about why he vetoed it? Just flat out call them out on it.

greevar

Bigjohn wrote: »

There's a little thing called The Truth. Shocking, I know. But they tried cornering him into signing it? How about he vetoes it, then does one of his TV speeches that he loves so much, and tell us the truth about why he vetoed it? Just flat out call them out on it.

Someone would probably call a hit on him for that. That would just paint a bulls-eye on his head. If someone managed to do it, we'd have Biden. *shudder*

pior

Revolting, sad and freaky ...

Isaiah Sherman

2012 here we come.

oXYnary

Sean VanGorder wrote: »

Meh, probably gonna get some flak for this, but I don't see the big deal. It's the same way I felt about the whole tapping phone lines thing. If you have nothing to hide, then what's the problem if it has the potential to catch the bad guys. In this case, just don't act like a terrorist and I'm assuming you'll be fine.

Define a terrorist. Define who chooses whom is a terrorist.

Then, you will see your logic is flawed.


http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/ndaa_reversal/?akid=1110.1667079.IAWB5Y&rd=1&t=3

Kwramm

China and the US become more alike every day at least you guys still have somewhat decent internet...

Sean VanGorder

Ganemi wrote: »

...

holy shit, i thought that kind of an argument was just a straw man people used to call others stupid

Edit: man that really amazes me. i dunno how else to reply to that post

I fail to see what is so mind-blowingly absurd about that. Honestly. Did you read my other posts?

The majority of people I know who are reacting to this are doing so because they assume that they will be walking down the street someday only to be thrown into the back of a black SUV, never to be seen again. So I made a general comment which meant that this bill doesn't mean random citizens will be plucked off the streets and thrown into prison for no reason.

I don't necessarily agree with the bill, I was just saying I don't see it as a big of a deal as others are making it seem. This will be forgotten about in a few months time at the most, and people will find another aspect of the government to rage about. That's never going to change.

Also, if all you really have to say is an insinuation that I'm stupid, then you don't really have to reply at all.

greevar

Sean VanGorder wrote: »

I fail to see what is so mind-blowingly absurd about that. Honestly. Did you read my other posts?

The majority of people I know who are reacting to this are doing so because they assume that they will be walking down the street someday only to be thrown into the back of a black SUV, never to be seen again. So I made a general comment which meant that this bill doesn't mean random citizens will be plucked off the streets and thrown into prison for no reason.

I don't necessarily agree with the bill, I was just saying I don't see it as a big of a deal as others are making it seem. This will be forgotten about in a few months time at the most, and people will find another aspect of the government to rage about. That's never going to change.

Also, if all you really have to say is an insinuation that I'm stupid, then you don't really have to reply at all.

First they came for the terrorists and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a terrorist.

Then they came for the protesters and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a protestor.

Then they came for the dissenters, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a dissenter.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Sean VanGorder

Alright, that's enough slippery slope for me.

adam

Sup guys.

NuZero

Sean you're wrong, and you want to know why you're wrong...

pior

Sean, I don't think anyone think you are stupid. I think it is more of a question of, how to read a law and see its possible uses, which is why everyone is allowed to do to fully know ones rights.

I agree than *in theory*, someone not doing anything bad shouldn't have to worry about being imprisoned. But recently, even mere protesters (citizen, and even, non-citizen using one of their most basic rights) are being seen as "low level terrorists". Things are sliding in an odd direction ... There are quite a few enlightening camera phone videos around youtube showing excessive force used for benign things already... like, cops slamming down tourists on the ground for dancing (!) in a public space. (instead of escorting people outside like they are supposed to do, at the very worse).

The fact alone that Obama is considering that soooo many points are inappropriate should be an indicator that something is wrong. The Young Turks got it right : if something is passed as a law, it's the law. The fact that the current president chooses to not use it to its maximum potential (that is to say, imprisoning people indefinitely based on suspicion alone, Minority Report style) does not prevent the next administration to use the law in its most powerful, police state form ...

Odd times ...

Bigjohn

So how about that piracy? Oh, and religion, what's cracking with that?

Sean VanGorder

I think my original comment came off wrong. It was mainly a reaction to the all the shallow responses I'm seeing all over places such as facebook, the people who think they will be randomly snatched off the street. I posted that without any deep thought into the bill as a whole and future repercussions of it. I agree that the bill could be a huge problem if it were abused, and it could be a sign that things are going in a bad direction.

I will be the first to admit that I know next to nothing about any of this, and I really don't like getting into political discussions for that reason. It was just a knee jerk reaction, which was then misconstrued.

So on that note, I'm just gonna back out of here and let the adults keep talking, haha.

HUGS FOR EVERYONE!

Kwramm

Sean VanGorder wrote: »

So I made a general comment which meant that this bill doesn't mean random citizens will be plucked off the streets and thrown into prison for no reason.

Happened to a guy in Germany. He was a random guy for everyone else, except for the US special agents who brought him to Gitmo after they plucked him off the street in former Yugoslavia. Turned out he was innocent, the US authorities admitted as much. And it doesn't help if you feel you're just a random person. Your feelings are totally irrelevant. What matters is what your government thinks you are.

It's funny that people fight so hard against the government deciding who gets what sort of healthcare. Yet it seems pretty much ok if the government decides who's a terrorist and who's not without any transparency in the decision process or chance of appeal (try appealing your assassination).

But I guess if you agree with this bill, you won't mind being arrested accidentally, however small the chance is. After all, you're helping to make America safer (remember that if you're unlucky enough to be wrongly accused)! But you're probably right.
The chance you're a victim of this is very small, yet you're basically giving up rights to a fair process should you every be wrongfully (or even rightfully) be arrested.

greevar

Sean VanGorder wrote: »

HUGS FOR EVERYONE!

Sorry, no hugs! Purity ring!

pior

Well, I think it's a very healthy discussion to have, regardless of ones level of involvement/knowledge in politics or law.