Same old, same old

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

The Senate passes a bill that allows the government to detain an American citizen indefinitely without a trial.

...And a video:


"We're not a country which runs prisons which locks people away without ever telling them why they're there or what they're charged with".
...
"We're not a nation that locks people without charging them".
-- Sen. Barack Obama, on his campaign trail

Jon Stewart addendum: "BUT I'M GONNA WORK TO CHANGE THAT!"

"As president, Barack Obama will close the detention facility at Guantanamo." [source]


You, Mr President, are just adorable. >:-O
You, Senators, too. Really? A 5-minute objection from... Rand Paul, out of all? That was it?

And the guy who made the strongest case in favor of indefinite detention (plus, we all already know what happens in Gitmo after you've been detained) - that guy was... McCain? The guy who was tortured by the Viet Cong? The same "Torture did not lead to Osama" John McCain!? What the fuck is going on here?

This is starting to reek very much of China. It's a widely used practice there, the CCP is extensively using it to shut out any potential dissent under the guise of their own version of a "war on terror".

People disappearing. With no explanation, no known reason, nothing. No right to meet a lawyer, no trial, no end of their stay in sight. "Until the hostilities end", that's the vague definition. Really, how long does the "War on Terror" last? Does it have an end, ever?

Anyone who thinks this bill would only be applied to real terrorists should keep in mind that the way it is formulated, it would allow just anybody to be accused of being a terrorist (or a terrorist "sympathizer", whatever that means), and be kept in jail without trial. No proof would be required that they're an actual terrorist. None. You can virtually imprison anyone you don't like. If this passes into law, congrats. 1984 has come one step closer.

Next up: the Mind Police will be given power to look into the stuff you say online. Because - be afraid, be very afraid - cyber warfare is now the new terrorizmuz!

Comments

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

well that will certainly fix things

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

I'm hoping Americans will finally start voting in third party candidates.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

More importantly, it's these people in the House and Senate drafting and voting on these bills, with such a clear majority that even a Presidential veto wouldn't do anything.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

Maybe save some breath for when it actually becomes law. On the other hand, indeed, it getting almost no opposition in the Senate is a pretty crappy signal really.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Sure, because sparing most of the breath for when our own rulers here would get some brains and quit their step-dance upon the corpse of freedom of speech, has worked just fine (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1242662.html), amirite?

[terminator44.livejournal.com]

Well, we know at least some Senators actually believe this shit is necessary to avoid being destroyed by the terrorists which haven't made a successful attack on the U.S. since 9/11 (a fact many of the same Senators crow about often when talking about the War on Terror). Most of the rest are spineless opportunists who were too scared of being called out on for voting against a defense appropriations bill ("Why do you hate our troops so much?") to take a fucking stand. I can count the number of people in that place who are worth a damn on one hand.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

This Lindsey Graham dude... OMG, teh terrists R here at mah door OMGZ. Dude, WTF.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Hope and change indeed.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Funny how the two parties mimick some "stark ideological differences" and "irreconcilable disagreements", and then in the same Senate session go ahead and almost unanimously vote to approve a bill that would practically render the 4th amendment moot. This overwhelming consensus almost reminds me of the way Bush pushed his war on Iraq through. "But, but, Saddam has WMDs... certainly... probably... maybe..."

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

And the way democrats and republicans keep renewing the Patriot Act, despite the way it violates the Bill of Rights.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

As far as Guantanamo goes, you can lay that blame right on the laps on Congress because in another of their rare displays of bipartisanship, they voted together to deny any funding for those prisoners on U.S. soil so the prison couldn't be closed unless Obama just wanted to release them all.

So, no charges, no trials, nothing. Just another temporary abridgment of rights that will only last as long as our perpetual war on an abstract concept.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Such steps are signs of an empire seriously freaking out, and/or its leaders losing their heads into their own self-delusion of grandeur.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I'm sure glad the USA works so hard to secure freedom and liberty and to defeat totalitarianism and repression.

[lions-wings.livejournal.com]

But work is scary. :(

[weswilson]

According to The Daily Show, he'll only veto it because it puts restraint on Executive power.. lol.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-december-7-2011-ralph-fiennes

But hey, read the president's stance and make your own mind up.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saps1867s_20111117.pdf

[thies.livejournal.com]

good god, Obama really is Hitler and the death panels are real!

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

the way it is formulated, it would allow just anybody to be accused of being a terrorist

Please demonstrate how.

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

*singing*

"Come and knock on my dooorrr...."

[kayjayuu.livejournal.com]

Okay, careful. Or you'll start sounding like the right-wing wackos of the 90's.

There has GOT to be some kind of corporate influence here, got to be. Keep digging!

[terminator44.livejournal.com]

What corporation would benefit from this? Unless they take the detainees to private prisons.

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

Man alive, I feel safer already!

*sigh* Merely more proof that both major parties are full oh crap.

[terminator44.livejournal.com]

I've long feared this day would come. It's the Alien and Sedition Acts all over again.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

The good news is we that as we survived those we will survive these.

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

I live a short drive from the border of a communist dictatorship. Excuse me if I don't freak out over this.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Yup. You live 10,000 miles away from the US. You're excused.

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

While the level of crazy that has infested the senate (both parties equally) is both suspicious and worrisome, I think it needs to be said that this bill has been criticized from early on by White House spokespeople and the prez himself. So before we continue with some routine Obama-bashing, I feel inclined to say that I'm pretty certain a presidential Veto will stop this bill.
This type of veto is carried out when the bill has gone through all the usual motions and is passing for a law, and then, bam, veto.

I may be wrong, but I don't think so.

I've scrutinized the bill and the vote on it. In case anyone lacks details, 7 senators voted against the bill, 3 Democrats, 3 Republicans and one independent. All the rest said yay, all across party lines. I don't like this at all, and all my conspiracy theories are set into motions by this type of thing, but I realize it may be irrational.

In any case, here is the link to the list of voting of the senators and their votes, in case anyone is interested, and also, clicking around on that page, will give a more thorough presentation of the actual bill.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00218

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

I may be wrong, but I don't think so.

*hums the "Monk" theme music*

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Anyone who thinks this bill would only be applied to real terrorists should keep in mind that the way it is formulated, it would allow just anybody to be accused of being a terrorist (or a terrorist "sympathizer", whatever that means), and be kept in jail without trial. No proof would be required that they're an actual terrorist. None. You can virtually imprison anyone you don't like.

This is simply false. Let's walk through the bill and discuss how it specifically bars any application to US citizens or legal residents, and anyone captured within the US. Then we'll talk about how, in a tiny way, this is a good thing.

Let's start with the text: the offensive text itself (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:5:./temp/~c112GRe2NZ:e578060:) allows the detention of anyone 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." (H.R. 1540 Title X Subchapter D sec. 1031(a)). Now, we already do that - see Gitmo. Even for those detained in this way, under Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, they would likely have a habeas action against the US to assert Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment rights designed to secure either a trial or release. At the very least this would put some burden of proof on the government to show that the individuals involved were actually a part of or a supporter of the groups listed. So I think the likelihood of this going without any judicial oversight is slim, given the current scope of the constitutional protections afforded to detainees.

Further, the bill gives specific instructions on how it is to be handled by the courts, stating that "[n]othing 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." (sec. 1301(e)). So, it doesn't apply in the territorial US. Citizens and legal aliens are specifically exempted again, regardless of where they are captured, in sec. 1302(b).

We already detain captured, suspected-but-not-proven terrorists indefinitely without trial. It's fucking terrible, but the key to note is that there is nothing new in this bill. At least now, though, the process has undergone Congressional approval. This means that it can be repealed, which would raise a plausible claim that the continued practice, which once had Congress's mere silence, now has its affirmative disapproval. That's something, I suppose (though probably not enough to defeat the political question dodge).

The detainment of American citizens clearly is not contemplated by this bill, nor is it even, by all appearances, possible under its provisions. So this vision of people "you don't like" being "disappeared" under the auspices of the bill is clearly ridiculous, at least within the territorial US or when a US citizen or legal resident is targeted.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

In fact, I'd argue that the involvement of the legislature in setting detention policy (expanded from its previous involvement, which was pretty much limited to the refusal to allow the closure of Gitmo) is a good thing, and that's why Obama is seeking to veto it. Note that the administration's stated position (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saps1867s_20111117.pdf) agrees with me, that "Section 1031 attempts to expressly codify the detention authority that exists under the
Authorization for Use of Military Force." The administration position continues: "After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole new series of legal questions that will distract from our efforts to protect the country. While the current language minimizes many of those risks, future legislative action must ensure that the codification in statute of express military detention authority does not carry unintended consequences that could compromise our ability to protect the American people." In my last comment, I said that "it can be repealed, which would raise a plausible claim that the continued practice, which once had Congress's mere silence, now has its affirmative disapproval." That's exactly what Obama is hoping to avoid by vetoing this law.

We all complained when detention policy had no Congressional oversight. Now, it does, and we're complaining because of some bogeymen we made up to make us think this was something new and scary, rather than something old and scary.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

“It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help Al Qaeda to kill us all and hold them as long as it takes to find intelligence about what may be coming next,”

“And when they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.’” - Sen. Graham.

I never liked Graham, but his comments here are so openly and obnoxiously offensive towards the Bill of Rights that I find myself in the rare state of open awe at the sheer magnitude of the foolishness.

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

After Reading the section a_new_machine posted I think I agree with him.

Overall, the bill in itself handles mostly military budget and a bunch of other pretty regular stuff, until those sections in question. This may be part of the reason for so many senators voting yes, because basically a lot of it is routine.

I still think the president is likely to order a re-writing on the particular section discussed.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Read my thread with meus_ovatio - I still think the law changes very little for American citizens, but it could have big implications for military operations, and it does hint at some sinister dealings that Congress apparently already believes are legal.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

I don't get why USA prefers to introduce, debate and pass such large bulky omnibus bills.

It's like the complete unabridged works of William Shakespeare and the final Twilight episode together in one anthology.

It should seem obvious that they're trying to sneak something in.

It would seem much more dutiful to break into small components and simply vote on one book at a time. Othello, yea or nea? Midsummer night's dream, yea or nea? Etc.

Then when they get to the part that's really objectionable, they can toss it.

Omnibus bills are there for efficiency. But it's not efficient. It's just speedy. And when they sneak shit like this in, it's just messy.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

why USA prefers to introduce, debate and pass such large bulky omnibus bills

So that some tiny but nasty provisions could sneak in along with the rest of it?

[madjacktech.livejournal.com]

Since this whole thing came to light, I've seen a number of independent Constitutionalists, posting from Facebook to /. to many other boards in between worrying about what this bill can do to anyone deemed 'a threat'.
A threat to what, is the question.
Question: Anyone here from Albany area heard of a (relatively) new on the scene political activist who goes by the name of Spyder? He's been vocal since last year's elections & has managed to get himself elected (locally) as a committeman, so he has a voice in who actually gets on the ballot (for all the difference it makes among the higher-office candidates). He's been quite vocal about this issue. I've known him from a tech support community website for several years, and while sometimes many of us there who don't heavily incline towards the left or right sometimes think he can be a bit of a conspiracy theorist at times, he & the other 'stricter' Constitutionalists out there are actually right to be concerned.
Truth is, it's not that hard to see how little distance there is from the state things are in now to the kind of repression some of those on the far wings are concerned about.

[madjacktech.livejournal.com]

As allhatnocattle said above, "It benefits Wall St to have anyone protesting them (or attempting to organize a protest against them) suddenly disappear. If 1000 OWS protesters suddenly vanish, over night or over succession of nights, would-be protesters will think twice about joining the movement."
Take a good look at what's been going on with the different "Occupations" around the country, from Wall Street to San Diego & everywhere in between.
Take a good look at the actions of some of the local cops, especially in the cities where Occupy has gained enough notoriety to gain national headlines, such as Oakland, and San Diego, as well. They start with little bs stuff about needing permits, health codes, etc; any little excuse, any piddling local law to deal with the problem, no matter what's being done to them can be easily viewed as a violation of the protesters' First Amendment rights to peaceably assemble for redress of grievances.
Here in San Diego, they took up space in Center City Plaza, right outside City Hall, and a block away from the local HQs of Bank of America & Wells Fargo. Before October was over, they were marching up & down past those two banks. After that, and especially after "Bank Transfer Day", what happened?
You can bet that what the public didn't see was the Banksters getting on the horn to the mayors & complaining about how their business was being disrupted. And hence comes the local constabulary to deal with the problem in the most miniscule ways possible, to try & deal w/ the problem w/o it becoming a larger issue & maybe avoid those 1st Amendment lawsuits.
It grows, and next thing you know, there's threats, violence, & mobs, & large numbers of arrests, mace & pepper spary, accusations of police brutality, etc.
And now...
Now, we have Occupy Capitol Hill.
http://www.google.com/search?q=occupy+capitol+hill&hl=en&source=hp&gbv=2&gs_sm=c&gs_upl=1328l2735l0l4251l7l6l0l0l0l0l344l1063l0.3.1.1l5l0&oq=occupy+cap&aq=0&aqi=g10&aql=

The politicians are feeling threatened, b/c the 99% are now getting right up in their faces, haunting the halls of power to in an effort get their congress-critters to actually see & hear their constituents.
Considering what's already happened, just how big a leap is it, really, from where we are now to using the absence of habeus corpus to sweep the protesters away b/c the congress-critters' corporate masters demand it?
How many of us haven't heard the phrase "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"?
There's still plenty of room for abuse if this gets enacted this time around.
Sure, the USA's survived it (at least) twice before, during the Civil War & WWII. Maybe we're overreacting. But, to do nothing is to allow things to progress further towards where we as Americans have no legal rights left.
When will they come for 'us', just because they can, for whatever reason someone on high dreamed up, or over some mis-construed comment on Facebook, or some other false accusation?
The President has said he'll veto the bill, yes.
That doesn't mean that the Congress-critters won't override it with a 2/3 majority vote.
If we want to STOP this while we still can, there's only one thing to do.
As I told Spyder,
"Alright, it's time for a new online campaign/meme/whathaveyou.

We ALL here in the USA ALL write ALL our senators & congresspeople.

"If you vote for/have voted for these bills to suspend habeus corpus,
then WE YOUR VOTING CONSTITUENTS WILL VOTE YOU OUT NEXT NOVEMBER.

That goes double if you vote to override a Presidential Veto on it.

We The People are speaking. Do you hear us NOW?"