|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ineverlie&I'malwaysri
Joined: 09 Aug 2011
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 11:51 am Post subject: Should US military detain citizens without trial? |
 |
|
Apaprently your Congress overwhelmingly thinks so.
Must we permit the US military to detain Americans without trial?
The National Defense Authorisation Act before Congress threatens further erosion of US citizens' civil liberties
| Quote: |
| Kentucky Senator Rand Paul asked on the Senate floor: '� would it be possible that an American citizen then could be declared an enemy combatant and sent to Guant�namo Bay and detained indefinitely?' Sen John McCain affirmed so. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ineverlie&I'malwaysri
Joined: 09 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
It passed the house yesterday 283-136, and BO has now said he will sign it. It turns out that his objection was that the bill was not strong enough when the provisions to detain Americans on American soil without charge nor trial nor lawyers were stripped out. Thus they were put back in, and now is likely to become law.
I can understand this not being covered in the MSM (well, not really), but not even a comment here on Dave's? The military will now be required to detain anyone the president deems a terrorist threat. Such "threats" in the past have included environmental activists, anti-war demonstrators, people against GMOs, animal rights supporters, anti-nuke activists, etc.
The National Defense Authorisation Act makes the PATRIOT Act look like child's play. Here is the commentary from Human Rights Watch:
US: Refusal to Veto Detainee Bill A Historic Tragedy for Rights
President Decides to Sign Ill-Conceived National Defense Authorization Act
DECEMBER 14, 2011
| Quote: |
| (Washington, DC) � US President Barack Obama�s apparent decision to not veto a defense spending bill that codifies indefinite detention without trial into US law and expands the military�s role in holding terrorism suspects does enormous damage to the rule of law both in the US and abroad, Human Rights Watch said today. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Floating World
Joined: 01 Oct 2011
Location: Here
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Scary.
Last edited by The Floating World on Thu Dec 15, 2011 5:24 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote: |
I can understand this not being covered in the MSM (well, not really), but not even a comment here on Dave's? |
It has been commented on: http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?t=214394
Your Dave's field and the MSM, I imagine, are generally left leaning. This one's a hard pill for them to swallow. That's my theory on it anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ineverlie&I'malwaysri
Joined: 09 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
^ Can't say I blame you. I am not anxious to return either.
This commentary from a Zero Hedge reader is pertinent:
This bill (National Defense Authorization Act) is a declaration of war against the people of America by their own government. All U.S citizens will immediately have the right to take up arms to reclaim their country if this law passes. None will be terrorists. All will be freedom fighters, fighting for a just society against an odious government, legal and financial system. If this law passes, America will no longer be a country governed by the rule of law, as it undermines the very basis of law itself, as a structure for maintaining civilization. When law is usurped for the purpose of tyranny, all bets are off.
The rule of law will die in America, if this law passes as it is. Full scale civil war, will only be a matter of time. Abduction, torture and murder is the cursed trinity at the heart of all odious systems of government. The passing of this bill will qualify the American government as a fully odious regime, with no remaining basis in morality. All of humanity and every American citizen, will be fully justified in opposing the U.S government and it�s enforcers, to bring about it�s downfall.
Every senator who votes this into law, is in reality committing the crime of treason against the nation and citizens of America and a heinous crime against all humanity, for which they can and should be tried and sentenced to life-imprisonment or death. Because together with torture and murder, this law puts in place the final element of the legal framework for the genocide of American citizens. �Legalized� Abduction, torture and murder, means that Satanic government is here. Therefore genocide is not far behind. No human being is obliged to obey the laws, of any odious regime.
WITH THE PASSING OF THIS LAW THE U.S GOVERNMENT HEREBY FORFEITS ALL AUTHORITY OVER THE CITIZENS AND STATES OF AMERICA. The passing of this law, will be looked back on as the day when the citizens and states of America became legally and morally free to fully oppose and ignore the authority of the government of the United States of America. Unless the ability to abduct American citizens is removed from this bill, the day that this bill is signed into law, will be the day when the rule of law ends in the United States.
Obama, you have been warned. When genuine (as opposed to odious) government is restored you will be tried in a court of law, along with the Senators who supported it, if this bill is allowed to pass, as it is. For it -along with the laws put in place by recent U.S governments � is treasonous and genocidal. Therefore, for all law makers who have supported abduction, torture and murder (thus creating the conditions for genocide) the day is not far away, when the sentence for your actions, will be life imprisonment or death... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kingplaya4
Joined: 14 May 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 3:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
^^^
Since you seem to like posting so much, I hope you're spreading the word about this bill across the net, since on dave's you're generally preaching to the informed.
The excuse for the sheep will be it only applies to those aiding the Taliban or Al Qaeda, but the reality is that when you have indefinite, probably secret detention, it could end up including anyone who the state doesn't like.
Get the word out everywhere and Obama will be toast. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ineverlie&I'malwaysri
Joined: 09 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 3:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
How are you going to blame this on BO? It passed 93-7 in the Senate, and BO threatened to veto it for not being strong enough after Sen. Levin took out the offensive provisions regarding detention of Americans!  
Anyway, some lawmakers are not done with it yet:
Lawmakers Submit Letter Opposing NDAA's Indefinite Detention Provisions
WRITTEN BY RAVEN CLABOUGH
WEDNESDAY, 14 DECEMBER 2011 14:28
Forty members of Congress have sent a letter urging the House and Senate Armed Services Committee leaders to protest provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act that would legalize the indefinite detention of American citizens. The NDAA first passed in the House of Representatives weeks ago but endured strong opposition from a handful of lawmakers in the U.S. Senate last Thursday, where the bill was passed but with the addition of an amendment that forced the measure to be reconciled and revised for a final vote. The revised version of the NDAA was finalized on Tuesday, and a vote on it is set to take place this week.
The letter states,
| Quote: |
| The Senate-passed version of the NDAA, S. 1867, contains Section 1031, which authorizes indefinite military detention of suspected terrorists without protecting U.S. citizens� right to trial. We are deeply concerned that this provision could undermine the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth amendment rights of U.S. citizens who might be subjects of detention or prosecution by the military. |
cont'd at link
Last edited by Ineverlie&I'malwaysri on Tue Dec 20, 2011 11:04 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kingplaya4
Joined: 14 May 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 4:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Your first sentence sounds contradictory. but anyway, as Truman said, "The buck stops with the President." He could at least veto it and tell the American people why, and let's see if Congress would have the balls to override the veto. If Obama signs this, I'll hate him more than I ever hated Bush. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kingplaya4 wrote: |
| Your first sentence sounds contradictory. but anyway, as Truman said, "The buck stops with the President." He could at least veto it and tell the American people why, and let's see if Congress would have the balls to override the veto. If Obama signs this, I'll hate him more than I ever hated Bush. |
That's a silly rationale, as Bush set the precedent for this and was already doing everything that is allowed in the bill. Not saying that this isn't a good reason to dislike Obama, but the more than Bush thing is a bit misguided. Bush made this sort of thing normal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ineverlie&I'malwaysri
Joined: 09 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| kingplaya4 wrote: |
| Your first sentence sounds contradictory. but anyway, as Truman said, "The buck stops with the President." He could at least veto it and tell the American people why, and let's see if Congress would have the balls to override the veto. If Obama signs this, I'll hate him more than I ever hated Bush. |
That's a silly rationale, as Bush set the precedent for this and was already doing everything that is allowed in the bill. Not saying that this isn't a good reason to dislike Obama, but the more than Bush thing is a bit misguided. Bush made this sort of thing normal. |
No, Bush did not have the military detain indefinitely American citizens on their home soil without charge, trial, or representation. This new law is MUCH worse than what has been up to now, and it has already been bad enough. I didn't think it could get much worse than Bush, but it has. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Floating World
Joined: 01 Oct 2011
Location: Here
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If this passes, Americans officially begin to live in Orwell's 1984.
I hope it fails for the peace and safety of all American citizens and their famillies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 2:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Floating World wrote: |
If this passes, Americans officially begin to live in Orwell's 1984.
I hope it fails for the peace and safety of all American citizens and their famillies. |
Got news for ya.. The Patriots Act and previous legisations and actions (such as monitoring electronic communication) has already made it official. This is just one more thing in a long linfe of things.
Again, its Americans own fault. We collectively act like we have nothing to do with it. We ARE our government. We have voted inY the people who do such things. You eventually get the government you deserve. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ineverlie&I'malwaysri
Joined: 09 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
| The Floating World wrote: |
If this passes, Americans officially begin to live in Orwell's 1984.
I hope it fails for the peace and safety of all American citizens and their famillies. |
Got news for ya.. The Patriots Act and previous legisations and actions (such as monitoring electronic communication) has already made it official. This is just one more thing in a long linfe of things. |
Sorry, but no. The PATRIOT Act, which merely allowed government to eavesdrop on our phone calls without a warrant, read our emails and faxes, and look at what books we were taking out of the library, among other egregious provisions, and all without our knowledge, was child's play compared to this National Defense Authorization Act which allows for indefinite detention of American citizens on American soil with neither charge nor trial nor attorney. Say goodbye, Fifth and Sixth Amendments! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NohopeSeriously
Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Location: The Christian Right-Wing Educational Republic of Korea
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote: |
| compared to this National Defense Authorization Act which allows for indefinite detention of American citizens on American soil with neither charge nor trial nor attorney. Say goodbye, Fifth and Sixth Amendments![/b][/size] |
I need to call my relatives in Chicago about this. Good thing that they're planning to move to Canada next year. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Obama's failed human rights moment
| Quote: |
The NDAA contains a number of highly problematic detention provisions that undermine the US' traditions, commitment to human rights and security. Those provisions solidify indefinite detention, militarise US criminal justice and counter-terrorism policy, and entrench Guantanamo, making it more difficult to close the prison. The legislation paradoxically goes much further on these issues than anything Congress did during the Bush administration. More than a decade after 9/11, lawmakers appear intent on institutionalising and expanding the "War on Terror", rather than scaling it back.
The NDAA, for the first time, legislates indefinite military detention. Under the bill, any person who is "part of" or who "substantially supports" al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or an "associated" group may be imprisoned without being charged with a crime.
Lower courts, to be sure, have construed an existing statute, the 2001 Authorisation for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to provide a similar detention power. But the NDAA for the first time expressly codifies indefinite detention, making this power more difficult to challenge and more easy to wield aggressively. |
The good news is that the NDAA probably won't apply to US citizens. Probably won't.
| Quote: |
Much debate has focused on whether the NDAA applies to individuals arrested in the US, including US citizens. (US citizens are excluded from mandatory detention, but not from the NDAA's general military detention provisions).
On this point, the NDAA is ambiguous and purports not to alter existing law. The courts, however, have never conclusively determined whether existing law (i.e., the AUMF) allows domestic military detention. The Bush administration used the AUMF to militarily detain only two terrorism suspects who had been arrested in the US - one a US citizen, Jose Padilla; and the other a legal resident alien, Ali al-Marri, whom I represented. Both cases ultimately reached the Supreme Court, but never resulted in a decision because the government transferred the men to civilian custody to avoid a ruling.
The courts will thus again be forced to resolve whether Congress has in fact authorised domestic military detention and, if so, whether it violates the Constitution. The danger, however, is that the NDAA will embolden those who wish to argue that the next terrorism suspected arrested in the US can be locked away in a military jail without charge or trial. |
I very much doubt SCOTUS will construe any interpretation of ambiguous language to allow the indefinite detention of American citizens. The four liberals won't go for it, and its safe to scratch off half of the conservatives as well. But its nevertheless depressing that both Congress and the President don't understand the Constitution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
