Skip to main content

View Diary: How does the NDAA involve detention of American citizens? (70 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I have a lot of respect for you as a poster (3+ / 0-)

    but I don't understand this particular post.

    as I've said before, yeah, that's great, til the party who doesn't care about the legalities of anything they do and defies the Supreme Court, this country's laws and international laws gets back in office.

    I agree that the scenario you posit is chilling (and all too familiar), but it would be chilling with or without the NDAA. Given that the NDAA specifically excludes American citizens or legal residents from these provisions, such a lawless administration would have to break the law to affect them. Obviously, I'm not saying this couldn't happen. Bush/Cheney shat all over our laws. But although the Patriot Act was already a bridge too far towards tyranny, how does anything in the actual language of this act help such an administration in regards to depriving US citizens of their rights to a trial?

    I want to make it clear that I am an apologist for indefinite detention of foreign nationals without due process. I think that is abhorrent, no matter who does it and who it's done to. But that isn't what most people are talking about in regards to this legislation.

    My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.
    --Carl Schurz, remarks in the Senate, February 29, 1872

    by leftist vegetarian patriot on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 04:25:21 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  [facepalm] NOT an apologist for indefinite (2+ / 0-)

      detention. I so wish we could edit after posting

      My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.
      --Carl Schurz, remarks in the Senate, February 29, 1872

      by leftist vegetarian patriot on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 04:30:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It helps them because (2+ / 0-)

      it makes it easier for the courts to find these things constitutional and acceptable.

      I get what you're saying of course. If an administration is already opposed to following laws and precedents then it doesn't matter what a law or precedent says.

      But I am just thinking in terms of how the government (all three branches) works together. The Supreme Court (hardly a place of liberal vision) even ruled against the Bush administration a number of times on issues like this, and now it will be easier for them to rule for the administration's policy (the Obama admin probably wouldn't assert in the parts it disagrees with in court, but other administrations wouldn't be in disagreements so they're free to assert them as a basis for deeming it constitutional), and then it'll be seen as just fine for them to use, which is bad in itself. But that would also set a precedent for future administrations to build on.

      I just feel like the courts are really the last remaining branch to actually disagree with the continuing attempts of reckless administrations to do crazy shit, even when they're filled with people who would probably like to uphold things, policy-wise. I feel like this sets unfortunate precedents and gives all three branches of government ammo to keep doing this shit, but I feel like most of all it could make the courts turn in the wrong direction.

      Read my stuff at burn after writing and The Huffington Post @indiemcemopants on Twitter

      by indiemcemopants on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 04:35:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Even Obama Could Reverse This (2+ / 0-)

        By issuing an Executive Order or secret memo was Bush did with the torture authorizations.

        A signing statement is a thin reed on which to rest the right to be free of arbitrary imprisonment by your government.

        And the next President after Obama (whenever and whomever that might be) may have an significantly different interpretation.  

        To put that kind of power into one person's hands is dangerous - no matter who that person is - because it erodes some vital assumptions about how our Country works and denigrates what once was a right down to the status of a gift to be issued or withheld at the whim of the soveriegn.  

        Someone in a very expensive suit is at the front door and says he wants to foreclose on our democracy. Where should I tell him he can put his robosigning pen?

        by Into The Woods on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 07:14:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (143)
  • Community (70)
  • Memorial Day (28)
  • Elections (26)
  • Environment (26)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Culture (25)
  • Media (25)
  • Law (24)
  • Science (23)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (22)
  • Labor (21)
  • Economy (20)
  • Rescued (20)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Marriage Equality (18)
  • Ireland (17)
  • Education (17)
  • Republicans (17)
  • Climate Change (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site