levgre posted:

---

While I agree that such powers need to be limited and put in check, I'm unsure what law exactly people want on the books instead.

This has already been carried out in practice since 2001, the President is neither gaining nor losing powers here, and this law still only applies to people associated with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban through the duration of the war (what signals the end of the war is a sticky point for sure).

The writing down of law that people have accepted for 10 years now already shouldn't be particularly disturbing.

---

Dr Ron Paul posted:

---

The NDAA Repeals More Rights

Little by little, in the name of fighting terrorism, our Bill of Rights is being repealed. The 4th amendment has been rendered toothless by the PATRIOT Act. No more can we truly feel secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects when now there is an exception that fits nearly any excuse for our government to search and seize our property. Of course, the vast majority of Americans may say “I’m not a terrorist, so I have no reason to worry.” However, innocent people are wrongly accused all the time. The Bill of Rights is there precisely because the founders wanted to set a very high bar for the government to overcome in order to deprive an individual of life or liberty. To lower that bar is to endanger everyone. When the bar is low enough to include political enemies, our descent into totalitarianism is virtually assured.

The PATRIOT Act, as bad is its violation of the 4th Amendment, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) continues that slip toward tyranny and in fact accelerates it significantly. The main section of concern, Section 1021 of the NDAA Conference Report, does to the 5th Amendment what the PATRIOT Act does to the 4th. The 5th Amendment is about much more than the right to remain silent in the face of government questioning. It contains very basic and very critical stipulations about due process of law. The government cannot imprison a person for no reason and with no evidence presented or access to legal counsel.

The dangers in the NDAA are its alarmingly vague, undefined criteria for who can be indefinitely detained by the US government without trial. It is now no longer limited to members of al Qaeda or the Taliban, but anyone accused of “substantially supporting” such groups or “associated forces.” How closely associated? And what constitutes "substantial" support? What if it was discovered that someone who committed a terrorist act was once involved with a charity? Or supported a political candidate? Are all donors of that charity or supporters of that candidate now suspect, and subject to indefinite detainment? Is that charity now an associated force?

Additionally, this legislation codifies in law for the first time authority to detain Americans that has to this point only been claimed by President Obama. According to subsection (e) of section 1021,

“[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.”

This means the president’s widely expanded view of his own authority to detain Americans indefinitely even on American soil is for the first time in this legislation codified in law. That should chill all of us to our cores.

The Bill of Rights has no exemptions for "really bad people" or terrorists or even non-citizens. It is a key check on government power against any person. That is not a weakness in our legal system; it is the very strength of our legal system. The NDAA attempts to justify abridging the bill of rights on the theory that rights are suspended in a time of war, and the entire Unites States is a battlefield in the War on Terror. This is a very dangerous development indeed. Beware.

---

suntzukali2 posted:

---

is it really because of terrorism ? We are still passing all these crazy laws on terrorism. Is it still the issue it was after 9/11.

---

Jezza_Belle posted:

---

suntzukali2 posted:

---

is it really because of terrorism ? We are still passing all these crazy laws on terrorism. Is it still the issue it was after 9/11.

---

no, Terrorism is just the excuse they put out there to keep the people in line and following the rules.

---

Jezza_Belle posted:

---

the distinct difference is that the previous law did not apply to US Citizens on US soil. The law doesn't just apply to people associated with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban unless they changed that part of it in recent days, it applies to anyone suspected of "Terror", which can mean ANYONE, by some of the ways they determine someone could be a threat.

---

levgre posted:

---

Jezza_Belle posted:

---

the distinct difference is that the previous law did not apply to US Citizens on US soil. The law doesn't just apply to people associated with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban unless they changed that part of it in recent days, it applies to anyone suspected of "Terror", which can mean ANYONE, by some of the ways they determine someone could be a threat.

---

What previous law said that, exactly? I do not think such an exemption would hurt the intentions of this law, so I would approve. But I have a strong doubt that such a law was in the books.

---

Axispipe posted:

---

"they hate us because of our freesom" huh? i thought it was our foreign policy to exploit the poor, and buy off vast resources on the cheap, among other things. O_o

---

Aerlinthian posted:

---

No, it really isn't over reacting when you have not only the torn constitution to shreds but also the Magna Carter.

http://youtu.be/YEr9oxGVAwo

---

levgre posted:

---

Why exactly are we using a mostly antiquated English law document to analyze United States legal issues?

---

-Mithan- posted:

---

Until the government outlaws Xbox's, nothing will happen.

---