Provision authorizing indefinite detention of accused citizens could pass this week

I find this pending law utterly horrifying.

'Global Battlefield' Provision Allowing Indefinite Detention of Cit...

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012has ignited a firestorm among civil libertarians because of provisions buried deep within the bill that would expand the military’s authority to indefinitely detain accused terrorists, including American citizens, while also effectively extending the War on Terror.

... the Senate provisions ... will strip people of their rights and perpetuate endless war...

... “make permanent the power to indefinitely detain,” meaning “not just this president, but future presidents would be able to make use of this authority.”

... it requires the military to indefinitely jail any and all accused terrorists — the keyword being "accused," not convicted ... [emphasis mine]


A Joe McCarthy wet dream, and good bye pretense of democracy.

Tags: civil liberty

Views: 276

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I agree.  This is a McCarthyite wet dream.  Why are so few people upset about this?  Time to dust off that old DVD of the movie Brazil.  

Yeah McCarthy came to my mind too.

Not to be a crazy wildhaired guy shouting "the end is coming" on the street but I actually find it troubling that "Libertarianism and Socialism" has 816 comments and is never off the sidebar, while this real-life ongoing attempt to revoke constitutional protections is interesting enough for only 13 views.  And while I know the topic of gender is important, that has 1712 views, compared to 13.  

Again, I don't mean to downplay other topics (well, I don't actually care about hypothetical libertarianism) but only 13 views?  Jesus save me!

OK, maybe the only reason I can't be that wildhaired guy is I have no hair.

Gee thanks.  Now it's 15 views (including my re-reading this again, plus the other 3 times I looked)

As someone who has participated a few times in that discussion, the answer is yeah Nerd, it is contentious.  I seem to find those kinds of discussions far more compelling than most people. Maybe I should have that checked out. But this topic is kinda nuts too. I'm interested in hearing the answer to your first question - have they eliminated the "non-combatant" classification? I don't think so. Actually that would be a good thing. I would be more worried if this law effectively eliminates the classification "citizen". it certainly seems to impinge on that, turning us all into potential combatants in the .05%'s war against terror.

An X-mas gift to America: Totalitarianism.

I think the lack of interest is why measures like this will pass.  No one gives a flying fuck.

Repeating, and slightly re-formatting the o.p. quoted info, the bill's provision will:

*expand the military’s authority to indefinitely detain accused terrorists, including American citizens

*while also effectively extending the War on Terror.

*strip people of their rights and perpetuate endless war

*make permanent the power to indefinitely detain

*requires the military to indefinitely jail any and all accused terrorists


OK, lets go talk about libertarians and socialists.  Or better yet, since there is probably no such thing as a true libertarian or true socialist, lets argue about the more important and real Ferengis and Vulcans.  While the gov'ment is deciding that they can lock up citizens on the accusation or being unAmerican.  I mean terrorist.

I dont see how anyone can read the whole bill - it's  over a thousand pages long.  That's like reading the bible.  http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1540/show

SB, you seem to be implying that those of us who are discussing the philosophical differences between libertarian and socialist political philosophies are somehow off the mark as to where our focus should be. I disagree. Regardless of what the specific policies are or would be of any individual anywhere across the political spectrum, one can make some pretty compelling arguments as to which "side" has a greater hold on the truth, or which side might be responsible for exactly these kinds of bills. I happen to think that it is pretty clear that these sorts of policies do not arise from leftists. I also think that it is not libertarians per se who would get behind such policies either, but that they arise from the more fascist elements of the right, but that there is a definite relation between those two elements on the right which allow the motivations behind such bills to prosper. Now, you may think this is all useless hypothesizing, but I happen to think that each side has a moral and intellectual responsibility to lay out their arguments and attempt to influence others through rational argumentation. Perhaps that's not your bag, but it hardly seems like dismissing the efforts of those of us who do care about reasoning with others is doing anyone any good.

My frustration lies in the lack of interest in this topic, which is in the "now".  I compared to what others find far more interesting.  I could have listed the circumcision thread as another example of a high level of interest, far exceeding interest in maintaining civil rights.

I know that they are not mutually exclusive topics.  I understand, say, 10-fold greater interest in utopian views, even 100-fold, but I feel frustrated at the almost total lack of interest in a bill which removes constitutional civil rights without wide discussion in the media.  While I gave those as examples, again in this thread the discussion moved to the other topic.  Which does dismay me.

One thing that a person can do, in real time, is send email to their senator using this link.  According to the link, my representative voted FOR it (she's a tea party Republican), and my senators (both democrats) have not yet voted on it.

I apologize for comparing this to other topics.  It should stand on it's own.

Oh, no need to apologize. I think you have a point, it was just that the choice of comparison you made struck me as doubly unfortunate, since 1. it happened to be a subject that I am very interested in, and 2. it also happens to be very relevant to this topic. If you had chosen from among the many other very trivial discussions which go on around here (and not to keep poking at your choices but i think the circumcision topic is also quite a good one, though i don't participate in that one), I would have said "amen brother".

My Rep also voted for the bill and is also a Tea Partier.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

MJ

Latest Activity

Joan Denoo replied to Gene Sokolowski's discussion Great New Book: Taking Liberties: Why Religious Freedom Doesn't Give You the Right to Tell Other People What to Do
17 minutes ago
Joan Denoo replied to Gene Sokolowski's discussion Great New Book: Taking Liberties: Why Religious Freedom Doesn't Give You the Right to Tell Other People What to Do
17 minutes ago
Joan Denoo replied to Gene Sokolowski's discussion Great New Book: Taking Liberties: Why Religious Freedom Doesn't Give You the Right to Tell Other People What to Do
22 minutes ago
Joan Denoo liked Gene Sokolowski's discussion Great New Book: Taking Liberties: Why Religious Freedom Doesn't Give You the Right to Tell Other People What to Do
23 minutes ago
Joan Denoo replied to Gene Sokolowski's discussion ALL Politicians Should Be Made to Read: "Homosexuality, atheism etc: What's it to you?"
31 minutes ago
Mike Mitchell commented on Mike Mitchell's blog post Why You Shouldn’t Announce Your Atheism
33 minutes ago
Tom Sarbeck posted a discussion
35 minutes ago
Joan Denoo replied to matthew greenberg's discussion Kansas "Religious Liberty" bill
46 minutes ago
Napoleon Bonaparte posted videos
54 minutes ago
Richard C Brown replied to Luara's discussion Meet Brother Richard
1 hour ago
Richard C Brown replied to Luara's discussion Meet Brother Richard
1 hour ago
Napoleon Bonaparte commented on Napoleon Bonaparte's video
1 hour ago

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service