Americans have just lost the right to a fair trial

[Saffire]

Are we watching the same video? Or did you link the wrong video? ....because she just reiterated everything that I've already stated.

 

She's saying something vastly different from what you're saying. She's agreeing with me that this bill is potentially a massive infringement on Americans' civil liberties, while you're saying it's nothing new.

 

In your previous posts, you've said that I'm "overstating the facts", and Reilly accused me of fear-mongering. But I don't think either of these are fair accusations, because a lot of legal experts take my side in this. I'll try to explain why later in this post.

 

At the 2:24 mark, she talks about the military's poor record of trying these cases. And here's what I said about the matter:

 

No, I oppose the bill because ironically, it would actually jeopardize national security by restricting flexibility in our fight against Al Qaeda.

 

Well you have to be clear what you're talking about. When you say "poor record of trying cases", and "jeopardize national security by restricting flexibility in our fight against Al Qaeda", you don't really get your point across well (at least not in my opinion).

 

Earlier in the post you referenced, you said this:

 

The reason I oppose the bill is not because I believe it will prevent Americans losing the right to a fair trial.

 

So clearly your concerns aren't with civil liberties, but with the efficacy of the government. Government efficacy isn't what we're debating here. My point of contention is the civil liberties aspect, and it's also the ACLU's point of contention. So I'm not alone in this. Please don't act like your view on this bill is the only valid view, because that would be misleading.

 

And I know it's not your intent to mislead the readers of this forum, is it Parrotdies?

 

Now I imagine you're going to point out the 1:11 mark where she says "The terms in the bill are so vague that it can really be applied to anyone the U.S. deems is an enemy." And once again, here's the post where I quoted Senator Graham:

 

Okay, so you quote Graham in an effort to show that this (indefinite detention without a trial) was somehow already the law. Which means (oddly enough) this whole part of the NDAA we're debating was redundant, but nevermind that point.

 

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/05/politifact_and_the_scam_of_neutral_expertise/singleton/

 

PolitiFact seems unaware of the fact that the Executive Branch doesn’t determine what the law means. Just because Obama lawyers argue that the 2001 AUMF should be read to vest powers beyond the express language of the 2001 AUMF doesn’t mean that’s actually what the law permits (just as the fact that Bush lawyers claimed torture and warrantless eavesdropping were legal didn’t mean it really was). And while some courts have accepted this broad interpretation, the question is by no means settled; having Congress codify a broader definition would certainly bolster that interpretation — otherwise they wouldn’t do it.

 

Rather obviously, what Paul (and many other critics of this bill) are saying is that the new, explicit expansion of the AUMF by Congress is dangerous — even if Obama lawyers have already adopted it — because the definition in this new bill is both so broad and vague as to entail very few limits on the President’s ability to detain or use force against whomever he wants. And that is completely true; at the very least, it’s a viable opinion, shared by numerous actual experts...

 

You see, Parrotdies, there is a very important clarification of the law that's happening with the passage of this bill. This is what you're overlooking.

[Matter-Eater Lad]

1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.... The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals said an American citizen can be held by our military as an enemy combatant even if they're caught here in the United States because once you join the enemy forces, then you present a military threat and your citizenship is not a soft of a get-out-of-jail-free card. That the law of the land is an American citizen can be held as an enemy combatant. That went to the Fourth Circuit and that, as I speak, is the law of the land"

 

Under how the law is now, it is much more difficult for them to justify detaining an American on our soil as an enemy combatant. You may be able to argue that it is possible now, but they would have one hell of a legal fight. This new bill would make it much more easy and give them the ability to stop any civil protest on behalf of the civilian arrested.

 

When it comes down to it, this bill is suspending some of the most important rights in our nation. To a fair trial in front of your peers. Government will always take what it can get and push further against the rights of its citizens. Give them this inch and they'll push for a mile and eventually get it. It's not just about this but standing up to the whole mentality of Washington trampling on our freedoms and rights. These things snowball as we are seeing now since 911.

[para-para-parrotdies]

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/05/politifact_and_the_scam_of_neutral_expertise/singleton/

 

I read this article yesterday and I'm glad you posted it. Mainly for this portion:

 

And why are the pronouncements of Robert Chesney that this AUMF language is not dangerously permissive more authoritative than the views on the same topic of ACLU lawyers or Professor Hafetz, who say exactly the opposite? Both Wittes and Chesney are perfectly well-versed in these issues, but so are countless others who have expressed Paul’s exact views.

 

I think the statement above reflects what's going on. Just like I can quote + link to a ton of experts who say the effects of the bill are overstated, you can quote + link to a bunch of experts who say that's not the case. I certainly don't think you and I are being misleading with our posts, nor do I think that's our intention.

 

The only consensus among experts (and my reason for opposing the bill) is that Section 1032, the detention mandate, would be needlessly detrimental in counterterrorism efforts - it eliminates the flexibility often required for these matters.

 

In the long-run, do I think this bill will matter? No, because all the signs on the Hill points to President Obama vetoing the bill for being too restrictive.

[Saffire]

I think the statement above reflects what's going on. Just like I can quote + link to a ton of experts who say the effects of the bill are overstated, you can quote + link to a bunch of experts who say that's not the case.

 

Actually I don't ever recall you quoting and linking to "a ton of experts who say the effects of this bill are overstated".

 

Whereas I quoted and linked to a former Reagan administration official, the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, Rand Paul AND John McCain (co sponsor of the bill), and many reputable journalists.

 

What you keep talking about (some vague thing about the executive branch losing power to the military) has nothing to do with the purpose of this thread or my dissatisfaction with the bill.

 

So no, I don't think we're on equal footing on this.

 

Parrotdies, first you said I was "overstating the facts". Then you ignored my numerous requests that you address the McCain/Paul exchange, which I think is very important to understanding the content of the bill - after all, it's a senator speaking about the bill he wrote! And now you appear to be backtracking, saying we've both got a solid case.

 

So which is it? Am I a fearmonger who's overstating the facts (along with all those other people I quoted)? Or is my position a reasonable one?

 

When it comes down to it, this bill is suspending some of the most important rights in our nation. To a fair trial in front of your peers. Government will always take what it can get and push further against the rights of its citizens. Give them this inch and they'll push for a mile and eventually get it.

 

Thanks for pointing this out, MrLick. History shows this is certainly the case.

[para-para-parrotdies]

Whereas I quoted and linked to a former Reagan administration official, the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, Rand Paul AND John McCain (co sponsor of the bill), and many reputable journalists.

 

One example is the Chesney post mentioned in your Salon article (the Harvard JD, now a professor of law at UT) who works in conjunction with the Brookings Institution. Others who have spoken about the bill include Senators Levin (http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/speeches/speech/levin-floor-statement-on-detainee-provisions-of-ndaa), Graham (already mentioned), Rubio (http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/fighting-for-florida?ID=a95aa173-c008-4248-8f23-bc3723b7fc8f) and others I have not listed. I also previously linked to the Justice Department's interpretation as well as the Director of National Intelligence's personal letter. Andrew McCarthy, former Assistant United States attorney, also says Rand Paul is overstating facts and the NDAA reaffirms what the Constitution has always provided: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/284698/rand-paul-libertarian-extremist-andrew-c-mccarthy?pg=2

 

Then you ignored my numerous requests that you address the McCain/Paul exchange, which I think is very important to understanding the content of the bill - after all, it's a senator speaking about the bill he wrote!

 

The reason I haven't responded to the "McCain/Paul exchange" is I don't exactly understand what you want me to address. In your first video, Rand Paul asks McCain if it's possible an American citizen declared an enemy combatant and then be sent to Guantanamo to be held indefinitely. McCain responds that if the person presents a reasonable threat, then yes, its possible. And as I've already pointed out numerous times now, American citizens can be held as an enemy combatant. That's currently the law of the land.

 

In the second video, Paul gives his reasons why he opposes the bill. McCain then says he understands Paul is entitled to the opinion of the bill and then goes on to say 27% of released detainess again join enemy combatant forces.

 

So what exactly is it that you want me to respond to? Why McCain didn't issue a "Rand Paul, you're an idiot" or "Rand Paul, you're a liar" type of statement? How should I know? I'm not McCain and to speculate into his mindset would be pure speculation. But if you're taking the lack of direct response as proof McCain is in agreement with Paul, then you're making an "absence of evidence" logical fallacy.

 

So which is it? Am I a fearmonger who's overstating the facts (along with all those other people I quoted)? Or is my position a reasonable one?

 

I maintain you are overstating the facts. It's like Chesney says: "implying that the standard is so broad that anybody could be at risk, that the government has discretion to label people detainable, that, I think, is nonsense... There’s some overstatement here." (http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/dec/04/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-defense-department-budget-changes-de/) PolitiFact even goes on to say Ron Paul's claims are "mostly false."

[Saffire]

Just so we clarify this for the people still reading:

 

I'm worried that this bill poses a threat to Americans' civil liberties by clarifying and codifying the effective elimination of the 6th Amendment (the right to a fair trial).

 

The groups that agree with me are senators, the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, a former Reagan administration official, a judge, and many reputable journalists.

 

Parrotdies isn't worried.

 

The people that agree with him are a law professor, Senators Levin, Graham, Rubio, a writer for the National Review (a magazine that cheerleads for waterboarding and Guantanamo Bay) and the Justice Department itself.

 

Now ask yourself: who do you trust more to safeguard your civil liberties? The people on my list, or the people on Parrotdies list?

 

It's like Chesney says: "implying that the standard is so broad that anybody could be at risk, that the government has discretion to label people detainable, that, I think, is nonsense... There’s some overstatement here."

 

Chesney also says this:

 

“Paul fairly points out the lack of a definition of associated forces.”

 

Oops.

[para-para-parrotdies]

The Feinstein Amendment, which passed 99-1 (even Rand Paul voted for it), "clarifies that the controversial section of the bill (Section 1031) that suggests individuals apprehended in the U.S. who are suspected of terrorism ought to be detained by the military, would in no way pertain to U.S. citizens, lawful resident aliens or anyone captured or arrested in the U.S." (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/196719-senate-clears-detainee-compromise-clearing-way-for-passage-of-defense-authorization).

 

Section 1032(b)(1) says the requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

 

Section 1032(b)(2) says the requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

 

 

 

 

So I'm really confused.... what are you worried about?

[Saffire]

This is what I'm worried about, Parrotdies:

 

The new Feinstein amendment would get a vote as well as her original amendment, which was opposed by Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), ranking member Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

 

Those senators all said they supported the second Feinstein amendment because it does not change existing law, unlike the original amendment.

 

Levin and the Armed Services Republicans believe that the U.S. can already hold citizens indefinitely by the military, which Feinstein and others disagree with.

 

Anyway, as far as I understand it, it's still possible that American citizens can be held in military custody - the amendment just keeps it from being a requirement.

 

Either way, I'm with Glenn Greenwald and the ACLU on this - it's a dangerous clarification of a bad law. It's also intentionally vague as to who "associated forces" are.

 

But as I've said earlier, you're welcome to have faith in Carl Levin and Lindsey Graham and National Review, lol. But I don't trust my civil liberties to these people.

[Karencorpse]

I have not heard about this bill until I saw this Forum. That is how it is covered in the news in this country. I hear about lots of underground news, so I should look at this more.

[Matter-Eater Lad]

Trusting the corrupt to guard your civil liberties is foolish at best. These politicians have a long record of violating them, why would they change their future actions and protect them?

 

The bill makes it clear it is a easy way to encourage military detention of civilians without trial. It's the governments way of getting around the law. The right to a trial by your peers is one of the things that makes us great/separates us from other nations. Once that goes, it will give whoever is in charge much more controls over the public.

 

This bill will allow them to detain anyone, without proving guilt, ever. They could hold someone, possibly an innocent citizen and withold their basic right for a trial. Anyone that does not fear that supports the attack on our rights or does not understand what the bill will allow.

[Saffire]

Thanks Nick, for that very reasonable, well considered analysis.

 

Here's more:

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-horrifying-ndaa-and-jon-stewarts-save-2011-12

 

Yes, I've been writing, blogging, calling, emailing non-stop about the NDAA. It's still a horrifying bill that threatens every American, it still passed the Senate 93-7, and it still very well might become law...

 

But now I don't have to go insane or wear a tin-foil hat. Because Jon Stewart officially ended the "media blackout" surrounding the National Defense Authorization Act tonight. Not just a half-assed mention and a smirk on The Daily Show, either: he spent almost a full 10 minutes showing actual clips from the Senate floor -- and it was horrifying to hear our politicians explain why they committed treason against the United States of America, drafting a bill in secret, behind closed doors. A bill we didn't want. A bill we didn't ask for. But it protects us from the bad guys, or something. In exchange we just have to give up ALL OF OUR REMAINING CIVIL RIGHTS. Seems only fair.

 

Anyway. Sigh of relief nationwide. Jon Stewart is an American hero. The Comedy Central host and a rag-tag band of online journalists and social media users very well may have saved America from a totalitarian takeover.

 

Learn more about the NDAA:

FOX Business (TV): NDAA -- the National Defense Authorization Act -- may legalize 'murder' of American citizens on US soil by the military without due process, trial, or attorney. Link:

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1313320586001/

 

FORBES: NDAA is the 'greatest threat' to civil liberties that Americans face -- a very conservative publication not prone to sensationalism, by the way. Link:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/12/05/the-national-defense-authorization-act-is-the-greatest-threat-to-civil-liberties-americans-face/

 

NY Times blog: NDAA needs to be vetoed immediately by Pres. Obama. Link:

http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/president-obama-veto-the-defense-authorization-act/?src=tp

 

Alternet: Is Gitmo in your future? Link:

http://www.alternet.org/world/153321/battlefield_america%3A_is_gitmo_in_your_future

 

HuffPo: Former FBI special agent fears what NDAA means for Americans, calls for an Obama veto. Link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/coleen-rowley/ndaa-military-detainment_b_1126781.html

 

Gawker: The bill that 'could ruin America.' Link:

http://gawker.com/5865089/20-things-you-should-know-about-americas-most-horrifying-new-law

 

Amnesty International's analysis: Welcome to the war. Link: http://blog.amnestyusa.org/waronterror/welcome-to-the-war/

 

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-horrifying-ndaa-and-jon-stewarts-save-2011-12#ixzz1fxqUgOKz

 

This is what we're scared of, Parrotdies. And while you might be content with National Review's analysis of the bill, we're not. Because we can see this is the same National Review that was a cheerleader for countless wars, an apologist for torture, and an advocate for the PATRIOT act.

 

Here's Senator Merkley correcting Senator Graham on the floor:

 

 

Here's Jon Stewart's segment on the bill:

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-december-7-2011/arrested-development

 

And now, Parrotdies, it looks like not only do you think I'm "overstating the facts", but also several respected senators from both parties, several respected journalists (both on the left and the right), the ACLU, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and many others.

[Saffire]

Proof Obama requested this section be in the bill:

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLiKvSz_wX8]Proof Obama will sign NDAA 1031 Citizen Imprisonment Law in a few days - YouTube[/ame]

[chuck kottke]

Assuming he hasn't made up his mind yet, the proof will be if and when President Obama decides to either sign this bill or not, all probability measurements not withstanding. But after listening to Carl Levin, it looks like Obama'a administration is part of the process eroding out rights as citizens, as well as disregarding the rights of sovereign nations and the rights of citizens globally. Then the President needs to hear from all of us!

But to the point Benjamin Franklin said "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The abuse of power which led to revolt is the very abuse of power we are dealing with here today. Protections of citizens' rights were very clearly written into the Bill of Rights specifically because of past abuses of power, and as a bulwark against future abuses of the basic rights we hold as citizens. But even more to the point is the process of the erosion of human rights that has been happening all along, often by a power elite for their personal agendas, or out of their general phobias and desire to cover up their misdeeds and mistakes.

What Senator Joe McCarthy did in the 50's we see happening right now, and it's time to stop this madness.

The answer to global terrorism is correcting the policies that go along with certain corporate agendas (often with the tacit approval of the ownership) which are mistreating many around the world; remove the unfair acts of a powerful few and their corporate machines, respect the rights of all persons, wherever they may be, and guarantee economic and social equity - globally as well as regionally - then the extreme finds fewer and fewer recruits as healthier paths get taken.

What is needed then for the remainder is a matter of international law and international courts; let the rule of law, through applying laws well written with respect to human rights, provide the corrective and preventive measures necessary. For what may remain is a matter of dealing with criminal acts, not a matter of war, and to define things the way we have done is to open up a huge Pandora's box in terms of human rights violations and erosion of our essential Liberties.

[Kiame]

Haha - I love hearing self righteous leftists get hold of a new piece of possible legislation. They all sit around like parrots and gurgle out exactly what they've been told and heard from their fellow leftists and stamp down on any differing opinion like a bunch of... stampy stampy elephants.

 

These are the facts:

 

There might be a new piece of legislation coming through in the USA which would allow the US government and federal policing services to, under suspicion of a threat to national security, hold an individual without trial for indefinite amounts of time in an attempt to prevent said threats of national security from being carried out whilst legal processes try to catch up to speed.

 

This is the headline this person has gone with:

 

Americans have lost the right to a fair trial.

 

Sensationalism much? I can't help but feel that little sentence leaves out quite a lot of detail and makes things seem a little bit scarier than they really are. This is what annoys me about so many liberals I know. They hear of a piece of legislation that if enacted would only be a disadvantage to people suspected of terrorism and they turn it around so it seems like all Americans will be thrown straight in prison without trial for the next one hundred years.

 

Also, you have to love the fact that this has been going on for years and years with non-US detainees but now it looks like it could happen to US citizens everyone starts a huge riot. At least John McCain is in favour of treating everyone equally! :P

 

Think for yourselves people. It's all good having differing opinions and there is certainly more than one side of the coin to consider here - but stooping as low as sensationalism to rally fear and rally support behind you is pretty shitty. No matter who or what you think you are trying to protect.

 

edit: I'm not in favour of this bill by the way. I'm just trying to protect information without it being turned into a weapon to slam the other side of the fence.

[para-para-parrotdies]

Sensationalism much? I can't help but feel that little sentence leaves out quite a lot of detail and makes things seem a little bit scarier than they really are.

 

Kiame, while I agree with you 100%, I think Saffire poses as a libertarian.

[Kiame]

Kiame, while I agree with you 100%, I think Saffire poses as a libertarian.

 

I see - then Saffire I apologise.

 

He sounds like most of the stereotypical liberal people I know so I stupidly assumed. But it wasn't solely directed at him.

[Saffire]

Kiame, while I agree with you 100%, I think Saffire poses as a libertarian.

 

I just pointed out that you're not giving my position due respect. Why do you and Kiame have to make this personal?

 

Can we please stick to the facts here? I linked to a ton of videos and quotes, and I explained why your references to the bill are erroneous. I explained that the sources who support your interpretation of the bill have been supporters of gun-running, torture, and starting unnecessary wars. That's not very honest activity, imo.

[Saffire]

They hear of a piece of legislation that if enacted would only be a disadvantage to people suspected of terrorism

 

1. I (or anyone else you don't like) gain power.

 

2. I suspect you of "terrorism".

 

3. You don't get a trial.

[para-para-parrotdies]

Either way, I'm with Glenn Greenwald and the ACLU on this - it's a dangerous clarification of a bad law.

 

"To be perfectly honest, I just couldn’t get myself worked up over a bill that, with some exceptions, does little more than formally recognize and codify what our Government is already doing." - Glenn Greenwald

[Kiame]

That's not very honest activity, imo.

 

But making a head line "AMERICANS HAVE LOST THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL" is perfectly honest, isn't it Mr Saffire? That perfectly sums up the bill and what it would do, doesn't it?

 

This bill only deals with threats to national security. The government has been treating "threats to national security" like shit for the last twenty years and so many of you didn't seem to care before. This is mostly a whole heap of bandwagon nonsense.

1. I (or anyone else you don't like) gain power.

 

People I don't like gain power all the time. One is in power right now. Also, I don't dislike you.

 

2. I suspect you of "terrorism".

 

Here is the first mistake you make. You're being ridiculous and you're using the slippery slope fallacy. If this bill is passed it doesn't mean the US will stop thoroughly investigating people and using serious intel to make their decisions. You're acting like they are just going to point to someone on the street and throw them in a crowded dungeon somewhere, like England used to do in the 1700s.

 

3. You don't get a trial.

 

Except here's the thing - I would get a trial. If I honestly was just some innocent joe and I was carried off to Guantanamo Bay the media whiplash would be horrendous. It would be an absolute storm of public pressure and the US would lose all credibility and be scorned heavily from the international arena. They'd be the laughing stock of the whole world.

 

Be honest with yourself. This isn't going to happen. You're gravely underestimating the people. It's not that easy to deceive them and these days nothing delights them more than the chance to make a shitstorm against the government.

 

--

 

The reason I'm against this bill is a more realistic answer and a more genuine one. I don't sit around fear mongering and imply that it's going to affect all AMERICANS. Because I don't believe it will. Not even for a second. I believe only people associated with terrorism and only those who pose a threat to national security will be held. I don't think they are just going to fling some random US citizen into prison on nothing but a whim.

 

I'm against this because I agree with the rule of law. Even if someone is associated with a terror group and even if someone looks like they may be a threat to the USA - they should be detained with charges and should be met with a fair trial. Just because they are "terrorists" (which is an arbitrary, meaningless word a lot of the time) doesn't mean they don't have to go through the same process as murderers and rapists do.

 

However there is an issue here which you haven't addressed. What if there is someone out there - a US citizen who the government has serious intelligence that suggests they are working with Al Qaeda and suggests that they may be committing a terrorist attack in the next 24 hours. But the government don't have enough on them to stick any charges (much like they don't with the majority of gangsters) - so under the rule of law they can not detain them.

 

What do you think should be done then? Do you think we should stick to the rule of law and due processing, or do you think we should bend the rules in the possibility of saving hundreds of thousands of innocent people?

 

See - that's the question the bill is dealing with. It's not whatever the hell it was you were on about earlier. You're acting like it's going to be the fascist police state where all "ENEMIES OF THE STATE!" will be thrown away with the rats and roaches. It's not. It's the attempted answer to a very difficult question. "Are the rights of one man more important than the lives of hundreds?" is what they are getting at here.

[Saffire]

"To be perfectly honest, I just couldn’t get myself worked up over a bill that, with some exceptions, does little more than formally recognize and codify what our Government is already doing." - Glenn Greenwald

 

Awesome, I'm glad to see you're on my side with this. It's about time you got concerned about our civil rights! :)

[para-para-parrotdies]

Awesome, I'm glad to see you're on my side with this. It's about time you got concerned about our civil rights! :)

 

What? Glenn Greenwald is saying the bill's effects are being overstated. As I already stated a couple of times in this thread, the bill is merely affirming the powers granted by the AUMF and upheld by the courts.

 

So no, I'm not on your side.

[Saffire]

But making a head line "AMERICANS HAVE LOST THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL" is perfectly honest, isn't it Mr Saffire? That perfectly sums up the bill and what it would do, doesn't it?

 

Actually it is honest. And many legal experts agree with me.

 

This bill only deals with threats to national security. The government has been treating "threats to national security" like shit for the last twenty years and so many of you didn't seem to care before. This is mostly a whole heap of bandwagon nonsense.

 

Speak for yourself.

 

People I don't like gain power all the time. One is in power right now. Also, I don't dislike you.

 

And you're okay with giving them more power? Strange.

 

Here is the first mistake you make. You're being ridiculous and you're using the slippery slope fallacy.

 

I guess you're right. We should just have a king. Anybody who disagrees that a king might abuse his power is using the "slippery slope fallacy".

 

If this bill is passed it doesn't mean the US will stop thoroughly investigating people and using serious intel to make their decisions. You're acting like they are just going to point to someone on the street and throw them in a crowded dungeon somewhere, like England used to do in the 1700s.

 

Actually, they've got FEMA camps for that. Also the US currently has the higest per-capita prison population of any country in the world.

 

What incentive does the government have to restrict its own power?

 

Except here's the thing - I would get a trial. If I honestly was just some innocent joe and I was carried off to Guantanamo Bay the media whiplash would be horrendous. It would be an absolute storm of public pressure and the US would lose all credibility and be scorned heavily from the international arena. They'd be the laughing stock of the whole world.

 

Let me tell you a little tale.

 

Once there was a president named Obama. He and his military made an unsubstantiated, baseless claim without physical evidence. They claimed they killed a bad guy named Osama. No pictures were released, no body was produced, and the details of how they pulled off this feat changed at least 3 times. Only a few insiders were involved in the operation, or so they said.

 

Everybody was overjoyed. They believed everything they were told. Everything.

 

Moral of the story: If I'm president, I'll lie. And the people will believe me over you, any day of the week.

 

Be honest with yourself. This isn't going to happen. You're gravely underestimating the people. It's not that easy to deceive them and these days nothing delights them more than the chance to make a shitstorm against the government.

 

Oh you're right. That poor, abused government. Always on the receiving end of "shitstorms".

 

No offense, but your language resembles that of a fat, balding man in his late 50's, not a woman. Why don't you spare us the profanity.

 

I believe only people associated with terrorism and only those who pose a threat to national security will be held.

 

I believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

 

Your point?

 

I don't think they are just going to fling some random US citizen into prison on nothing but a whim.

 

Not random people. People who disagree with what the government is doing.

 

I'm sure you'll be the last person they'll send to prison, since you seem like quite a good little toady.

 

I'm against this because I agree with the rule of law. Even if someone is associated with a terror group and even if someone looks like they may be a threat to the USA - they should be detained with charges and should be met with a fair trial. Just because they are "terrorists" (which is an arbitrary, meaningless word a lot of the time) doesn't mean they don't have to go through the same process as murderers and rapists do.

 

Then you and I have agreed this whole time.

 

However there is an issue here which you haven't addressed. What if there is someone out there - a US citizen who the government has serious intelligence that suggests they are working with Al Qaeda and suggests that they may be committing a terrorist attack in the next 24 hours. But the government don't have enough on them to stick any charges (much like they don't with the majority of gangsters) - so under the rule of law they can not detain them.

 

Keep an eye on them?

 

Sorry, but I'm just not that scared of Al Qaeda. I'm more afraid of bears or drowning.

 

What do you think should be done then? Do you think we should stick to the rule of law and due processing, or do you think we should bend the rules in the possibility of saving hundreds of thousands of innocent people?

 

I think the hundreds of thousands of innocent people can defend themselves with handguns if they need to.

 

Look, people die. It's just a fact of life. There are evil people out there who want to kill innocent people. But that doesn't entitle you or anyone else to go around like Rambo King of the World and spend a trillion dollars (of stolen money) per year on idiotic Middle East adventures.

 

It's not whatever the hell it was you were on about earlier.

 

If you can't even clearly restate my thesis, and you claim to agree with me that everyone (whether accused of terrorism or not) deserves a fair trial, then I'm not sure why you're even posting in this thread.

[Saffire]

What? Glenn Greenwald is saying the bill's effects are being overstated. As I already stated a couple of times in this thread, the bill is merely affirming the powers granted by the AUMF and upheld by the courts.

 

So no, I'm not on your side.

 

You sound a bit like you're overstating the facts here. ;)

 

You seem to be ignoring everything else Glenn Greenwald is saying (about the dangers of clarification of a law, and the dangers of not defining terms within the law), and using an out-of-context quote to make it look like Glenn Greenwald isn't concerned about Americans losing their right to a fair trial.

 

That's misleading. And I know you don't want to mislead us, do you Parrotdies? :)

[Saffire]

It's so funny to me how Parrotdies and his friends can't even bring themselves to admit that this might be a valid concern. Pitiful.