http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/196943-paul-calls-senates-bluff-kills-terrorist-detainee-amendment-

After passing the National Defense Authorizations Act this week, which provided for indefinite military detentions, even for citizens, the senate took up this amendment which would have "clarified" that:

Quote :

"enemy combatants acquitted of crimes in a court can still be held in military detention until they are no longer deemed a threat"

READ THAT SHIT AGAIN

Quote :

"enemy combatants acquitted of crimes in a court can still be held in military detention until they are no longer deemed a threat"

Can someone explain this to me? Were they just trying to make this abhorrent fact clear by reading it aloud? Was there some benefit to civil liberties or future court challenges to have this explicitly stated?

In any case, Rand Paul called for a recorded yay/nay vote on it instead of a voice vote and the amendment was resoundingly defeated.

Quote :

"Both McCain and Levin, who indicated moments before that they would agree to passage of the measure by unanimous consent, voted against it in that roll-call vote. A Republican aid close to the process told The Hill on Friday that Democratic leaders including Levin had agreed to allow passage of the amendment, which they opposed, to dodge the roll-call vote, and that they had been assured by at least one high-powered Republican in the Senate Armed Services Committee that in the end it would be stripped from the final conference report."

Watch it for yourself here, already queued up:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/appearance/600910664

12/4/2011 10:24:00 AM

1. All caps? Really?
2. It's "yea", not "yay".
3. I never thought I'd say this, but, in this instance, thank god for Rand Paul.

12/4/2011 10:26:44 AM

yup, with that and his stance on PIPA it sounds like this guy is the Real Deal™

12/4/2011 10:47:21 AM

Thank God or Allah or Buddha (normal) or Reason or whatever worked to move Rand Paul's hand on this.

Thank you Rand Paul, +1 credibility.

[Edited on December 4, 2011 at 11:14 AM. Reason : Mixed up the deity and the prophet, whoops.]

12/4/2011 11:11:53 AM

Washington has already "passed fascism" on several occasions. As for indefinite detention of those who are acquitted that of course is absolute insanity. What is the point even holding a trial if they will always be in prison regardless of the outcome? If Obama has any hint of a backbone (which he hasn't shown much of) he will veto this POS bill.

12/4/2011 1:48:08 PM

He's said he'll veto this bill.

Not for the right reasons, but hopefully for enough reasons that he won't puss out.

12/4/2011 6:13:18 PM

http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/2447-Indefinite-military-detention-for-U-S-citizens-now-in-the-hands-of-a-secretive-conference-committee-

Quote :

"With the House having voted 406-17 to “close” portions of the meetings and avoid public scrutiny, members from both chambers and both parties are meeting in a secretive conference committee to work on reconciling the differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill."

Despicable.

[Edited on December 8, 2011 at 6:59 PM. Reason : Ron Paul voted against ]

12/8/2011 6:53:16 PM

Mmmm, "Representative Democracy"

12/8/2011 7:05:21 PM

Quote :

"Thank you Rand Paul, +1 credibility."

good to know that the next time i fart too loud on an airplane, that i won't be sent to Gitmo

12/8/2011 7:14:43 PM

Lol brown people have been subject to worse shit in our airports for 10 years, yet only in the past year or two when white people have had to suffer the minor indignity of a non-invasive bodyscan do they start yelling fascism. Brown people get spirited away by DHS for a decade, only once it's made official that the government can do such a thing to any citizen do white people start caring.

First they came for the Muslims, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Muslim.

[Edited on December 9, 2011 at 9:17 AM. Reason : .]

12/9/2011 9:16:15 AM

^
What the fuck are you talking about?

[Edited on December 9, 2011 at 9:18 AM. Reason : for real dawg you're on crack this week]

12/9/2011 9:17:24 AM

I'm talking about the fact that American Muslims and other brown folk have been suffering under a practically fascist state for a fucking decade now.

12/9/2011 9:18:57 AM

No shit, and any reasonable person has been against it. Just like any reasonable person would be against this bill. Not sure why you felt the need to play the race card itt.

[Edited on December 9, 2011 at 9:24 AM. Reason : .]

12/9/2011 9:19:40 AM

Back to the OP,

Quote :

"enemy combatants acquitted of crimes in a court can still be held in military detention until they are no longer deemed a threat"

Just because they didn't commit a terrorist crime doesn't mean they weren't fighting against the US. During the Civil War, the union didn't consider all confederate soldiers "criminals", but they still held them in a detention camp near Point Lookout, Md. The difference is that someone convicted of crimes gets sent to a prison or dealt other penalties. Someone acquitted of crimes is held until the engagement is over, then goes back home.

12/9/2011 9:45:31 AM

Quote :

"No shit, and any reasonable person has been against it. Just like any reasonable person would be against this bill."

You wanna test this theory? How about we poll folks in TWW to see how many support racial profiling in airports, for instance ? Comon, I think you know as well as me what the results would look like.

Quote :

" Not sure why you felt the need to play the race card itt."

Because it's really unnerving to see all these honky libertarians pretending this shit is a recent development and not just a culmination of the various injustices we've been subjecting Muslims to for a decade.

[Edited on December 9, 2011 at 9:54 AM. Reason : .]

12/9/2011 9:53:29 AM

Quote :

"Comon, I think you know as well as me what the results would look like."

Serious question: is it racial profiling if the DHS has intel to believe a threat may exist from an organization coming out of a particular country like Saudi Arabia where the populous is by-in-large one race, so they attempt to single out individuals of that race/background in an attempt to avoid the threat?

In that situation, you have credible information that links a specific threat to a specific country that is composed of a specific people. That would be defined as 'racial profiling', but do you think it would be unwarranted?

Another scenario: police are looking for a suspect that was described as "dark male, 25 years old, no facial hair, 5'10". Are they wrong for stopping black and Hispanic males, or racially profiling them, on the street because they fit the description that includes race?

----

Not pushing a viewpoint one way or the other, but I would be interested in hearing your response, Str8Foolish.

12/9/2011 10:00:33 AM

Quote :

"" Not sure why you felt the need to play the race card itt.""

Quote :

"Because it's really unnerving to see all these honky libertarians pretending this shit is a recent development and not just a culmination of the various injustices we've been subjecting Muslims to for a decade."

SAT Survey Question: Race?

• Black American
  
• Hispanic
  
• Asian
  
• Pacific Islander
  
• Native American
  
• Honky
  
• Muslim
  

12/9/2011 10:03:28 AM

^lol

So, getting past this derail.

From the House bill:

Quote :

"SEC. 1034. AFFIRMATION OF ARMED CONFLICT WITH AL-QAEDA, THE TALIBAN, AND ASSOCIATED FORCES. Congress affirms that-- (1) the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad; (2) the President has the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note); (3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who-- (A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or (B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and 5 (4) the President’s authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities."

Can't you see a problem with the US being able to indefinitely detain "belligerents"? "Belligerent" can be applied to pretty much anyone depending on the situation. This is a blatant sidestep of the sixth amendment.

[Edited on December 9, 2011 at 10:17 AM. Reason : wrong amendment lol]

12/9/2011 10:16:20 AM

They're basically trying to declare perpetual war against anyone they want....Very alarming stuff, especially with the way its being pushed through the system.

12/9/2011 10:24:08 AM

I can totally see a problem with being able to detain anyone they want, but at the same time, you have to allow the military a way to neutralize threats without killing more people than necessary.

This legislation may not be the "magic bullet", but you have to allow the military to keep enemy combatants from going back onto the battlefield and fighting against American soldiers. I don't think they are "trying" to declare perpetual war... they're just struggling to figure out how you take radicals out of the fight short of mass genocide. They essentially tried the exact same thing in Serbia 10 years back and it didn't go over so well with the international community.

If you'de rather us just haul in there and slaughter the lot of them, I guess that's an option too, though I doubt that would do much for the whole "image around the globe" thing Obama's been working on.

12/9/2011 10:40:18 AM

it's not an all or nothing, obliterate everyone in the area vs. give them a taxi cab back to the front lines deal here.

I don't think anyone has a problem with holding enemy combatants in a bona fide war, but extending the battlefield of the war and all the things that go along with it to the homeland in a situation like this is absurd. Especially with the vaguery of the language used that can effectively put anyone under the umbrella.

you will never hear a consensus among politicians that the 'war on terror' is over, so the 'termination of hostilities' is never, which effectively declares perpetual war.

12/9/2011 10:55:14 AM

^...yeah, that's why I said this wasn't a "magic bullet". Of course there are options between the two extremes. I wasn't claiming otherwise. What I am saying, though, is that a problem does exist that needs an answer. I'm all for questioning authority, especially our authorities, but I'd love to hear what everyone's alternative plan is for this matter.

12/9/2011 11:37:38 AM

I can totally see a problem with being able to detain anyone they want, but at the same time, you have to allow the police a way to neutralize gang violence without killing more people than necessary.

12/9/2011 4:19:05 PM

Quote :

"I can totally see a problem with being able to detain anyone they want, but at the same time, you have to allow the military a way to neutralize threats without killing more people than necessary."

That's what the FBI is for. And it's also why we have due process.

12/9/2011 4:38:17 PM

letting some threats fester so that the safety of the public from the government is ensured is the cost of freedom

12/9/2011 9:38:30 PM

Apparently Obama has removed his veto threat of this.


LOL, constitutional law professor.



Obama to approve indefinite detention and torture of Americans

Quote :

"Less than a month after he threatened to veto terrifying legislation that would cease constitutional rights as we know it, Obama has revoked his warning and plans to authorize a bill allowing indefinite detention and torture of Americans. After passing in the House of Representatives earlier this year, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 went before the US Senate last week, where it was met with overwhelming approval. In the days before, the Obama administration issued a policy statement on November 17 saying explicitly that the president would veto the bill, as it would challenge “the president’s critical authorities to collect intelligence incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the nation.” Opposition from the White House seemed all but rampant until RT revealed earlier this week that Senator Carl Levin told lawmakers that the legislation was altered because “the administration asked us to remove the language which says that US citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section.” On Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that those last minute changes yielded legislation that would “not challenge the president’s ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the American people,” and therefore “the president’s senior advisers will not recommend a veto.” Originally the White House said that the administration objected to matters in the bill that applied to detainees. Under the act, Americans could be arrested and held indefinitely in military-run prisons and tortured without charges ever being brought forth, essentially making Guantanamo Bay a threat for every American citizen. Under the legislation, a literal police state will be installed over the United States. Republican Congressman Ron Paul said earlier this week that “this should be the biggest news going right now,” as the legislation would allow for “literally legalizing martial law.” “This step where they can literally arrest American citizens and put them away without trial….is arrogant and bold and dangerous,” said the congressman and potential Republican Party nominee for president. In its threat of a veto last month, the White House said it had similar sentiments, writing in an official statement from Washington that “The Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032, which would appear to mandate military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects.” “This unnecessary, untested and legally controversial restriction of the President's authority to defend the Nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals,” added the White House. “Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets.” Despite Obama’s promise from last month, a veto seemed questionable after it was revealed that the bill, which approves the budget for the Department of Defense, came at a price tag much lower than the president had asked for. It is expected to be in Obama’s hands anytime this week. "

http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-detention-veto-defense-853/

[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 11:32 PM. Reason : ]

12/14/2011 11:30:53 PM

Huffington Post running the story, too

Indefinite Detention Bill No Longer Faces Veto Threat From White House

Quote :

"WASHINGTON -- The White House on Wednesday abandoned its threat to veto a defense bill that sets in stone the commander in chief's authority to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects, including Americans, in military custody. The switch came just before the House voted 283-136 to pass the National Defense Authorization Act despite impassioned opposition that crossed party lines, with Democrats splitting on the bill and more than 40 Republicans opposing it. Numerous national security experts and civil liberties advocates had argued that the indefinite detention measure enshrines recent, questionable investigative practices that are contrary to fundamental American rights. The Senate was expected to follow suit soon. The White House had threatened to veto the bill as it stood coming from the Senate, but reversed course shortly before the House vote. The administration cited changes to the legislation made during a conference committee that worked out differences between the House and Senate versions over the weekend. Civil liberties advocates had already declared that the changes were not nearly good enough and that all they did was make it harder for law enforcers to interpret the legislation. But White House officials, who spent two full days pondering the changes before revoking the veto threat, decided they were enough. While opponents had looked to President Barack Obama to defend what they see as a fresh attack on American freedom, a statement released by White House press secretary Jay Carney addressed such issues only obliquely. "After intensive engagement by senior administration officials and the President himself, the administration has succeeded in prompting the authors of the detainee provisions to make several important changes," the statement said. "While we remain concerned about the uncertainty that this law will create for our counterterrorism professionals, the most recent changes give the President additional discretion in determining how the law will be implemented, consistent with our values and the rule of law, which are at the heart of our country's strength," it said. "We have concluded that the language does not challenge or constrain the president's ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the American people," the statement said, although it added that if the uncertainty raised by the legislation does impede investigations, the White House expects lawmakers to write a fix. One of the major changes was shifting to the White House the responsibility for determining who does not have to be detained forever by the military. In an earlier version of the bill, the Department of Defense made the call. And while the bill makes the military the default investigator for Islamic terrorism cases, new provisions assert that the FBI and other civil law enforcers still have the authority to investigate terrorism and interrogate suspects. The bill's strongest supporters, including Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), had argued that it was necessary to make plain that the military has the authority to detain Americans. Other less-fervent supporters argued that, although they were not entirely happy with the practice, the fact is that the executive branch already detains Americans -- as it did in the case of convicted terrorism suspect Jose Padilla. "If you have a problem with indefinite detention, that is a problem with current law," said Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee. "The problems that people have, and I share some of them, are with existing law, not with this bill. Defeat this bill, and that will not change a piece of that existing law that we've heard about that we should all be concerned about." Opponents of the indefinite detention provisions have argued that, although it is true Americans have been held, the Supreme Court has not ruled on the validity of those detentions. Writing those practices into law, they argue, goes further than anything the nation's founders ever would have contemplated. "We are in danger of losing out most precious heritage not because a band of thugs threatens out freedom, but because we are at risk of forgetting who we are and what makes the United States a truly great nation," said Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), whose district includes Ground Zero. "In the last 10 years, we have begun to let go of our freedoms, bit by bit, with each new executive order, court decision and, yes, act of Congress. "We have begun giving away our rights to privacy, our right to our day in court when the government harms us, and, with this legislation, we are continuing down the path of destroying the right to be free from imprisonment without due process of law," Nadler added. He also took issue with Smith's assertion that the bill just spells out what is already law. "It doesn't codify existing law. It codifies claims of power by the last two administrations that have not been confirmed by [the Supreme Court] -- rather terrifying claims of power, claims of the right to put Americans in jail indefinitely without a trial, even in the United States," Nadler said. Smith and others have pointed to a provision in the legislation that they say exempts U.S. citizens. The measure reads, "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States." But numerous legal authorities have pointed out to The Huffington Post that, even though that provision does not require the detention of Americans, it also does not say they cannot be detained. And the legislation's definition of terrorism suspects does not exclude Americans, which means the military is authorized to detain Americans. An amendment that would have barred detentions of U.S. citizens failed in the Senate. The decision on whether an American goes to the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, facility -- which must remain open to accommodate new suspects -- will lie with the White House. The final bill is also likely to pass the Senate on Wednesday or Thursday. Opponents called on President Obama to ignore his advisers and veto the bill anyway. "As people of faith, we know that the right cause is also sometimes a lonely cause," said the Rev. Richard Killmer, executive director of the National Religious Campaign Against Torture. "The president's advisers have abandoned their opposition to the bill," Killmer said. "But, as president, President Obama is still in a position to stand up for American values and stop this legislation. The decision is his, not his advisers. He can and should veto this bill. If he does, he will find that Americans of all faiths will stand with him." "If President Obama signs this bill, it will damage both his legacy and Americans' reputation for upholding the rule of law," warned Laura Murphy, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union. "The last time Congress passed indefinite detention legislation was during the McCarthy era, and President Truman had the courage to veto that bill.""

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/14/indefinite-detention-veto-threat-white-house_n_1149576.html?ref=politics

12/14/2011 11:42:09 PM

So... Would a court grant standing to challenge this law to someone who isn't currently being detained?

Because if they won't (and barring a miracle between now and Obama signing this trash) then I don't see how we're getting this off of the books.

[Edited on December 15, 2011 at 7:38 AM. Reason : .]

12/15/2011 7:37:58 AM

seriously, fuck this-

lets see the obama defending trash on this board defend this piece of shit.

barring everything else obama is done you should truly hate him now.

12/15/2011 8:47:04 AM

I voted for him knowing fully he wouldn't do shit to roll back civil liberty abuses over the years, and probably make them worse as long as that was the inertia.

That's exactly why I opposed those abuses when they were enacted, I knew nobody, regardless of party, would do anything more than talk about rolling them back. So on this issue Obama is still within my expectations.

[Edited on December 15, 2011 at 11:45 AM. Reason : .]

12/15/2011 11:44:48 AM

Quote :

"Would a court grant standing to challenge this law to someone who isn't currently being detained?"

As I understand it, no. However, lawyers for someone detained could sue; and in accordance with the law be thrown out without consideration of the merits. Of course, you can appeal being thrown out of court, all the way to the supreme court, which we hope would restore habeas corpus.

12/15/2011 11:51:26 AM

I dunno, man. I remember waking up on his first day in office, thinking, "oh, wow, we might actually turn a page here" when he signed to close Guantanamo. Then he didn't. I thought he might let the Patriot Act expire, then he didn't. I thought he'd end the Bush tax cuts, then he didn't.

He campaigned on all those things. So, if he never intended to do any of those, what's the point? At what point do you get upset with him and not blame the political momentum?

And now he wants to codify this bill into law? And he's also supporting the Online Piracy bill that will allow for massive censorship abuse?

If a Republican were doing this, more people on the left would be in a tizzy. I don't think he should get a pass at all for this.

12/15/2011 11:51:46 AM

He's done a few things that fly in the faces of the liberal agenda he came into office with, but IMHO, almost all of those counter-leftist decisions have been based on the facts of a situation and making the decision that needs to be made.

I disagree with so much of what the man does and I sure as Hell didn't vote for him before (nor will I next year), but I can respect the fact that he obviously is willing to consider issues that are against his liberal tendencies and willing to accept that the facts of a situation require a different situation.

I don't know what "facts" were presented to him for this particular peice of legislation, but it's obviously not something he would normally agree with so I can only assume that he kept an open mind about something, listened to what information was given to him, and actually made a rational decision. He's done this a few times in office (other times the issue was much better than this thing he's about to sign) and I had to at least give him props for being mature about it.

Nevermind, it looks like I was wrong in giving Obama the benefit of the doubt. Saw this on InfoWars:

Quote :

"“The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved…and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section,” said Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee."

link

So apparently this legislation was originally passed for foreign nationals which I know would still catch flak from many, but I would be most supportive of. This is just..... aweful. Could it just be the administration pulling a political move (such as forcing congress to pass something that approves of jailing American citizens so that when Democrats run in 2012, they can talk about "the GOP passed bill to jail American citizens")?

12/15/2011 11:56:52 AM

Quote :

" As I understand it, no. However, lawyers for someone detained could sue; and in accordance with the law be thrown out without consideration of the merits. Of course, you can appeal being thrown out of court, all the way to the supreme court, which we hope would restore habeas corpus."

It's disappointing that it would actually require someone being detained for several years to go through all of that in order to see any kind of justice.

Disappointing, but not surprising.

12/15/2011 12:35:27 PM

This is in the UK, but it's a good example of how the NDAA could easily be abused.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/police-include-occupy-movement-on-%E2%80%98terror%E2%80%99-list.html

Quote :

"City of London Police have sparked controversy by producing a brief in which the Occupy London movement is listed under domestic terrorism/extremism threats to City businesses."

12/15/2011 8:47:17 PM

It's amazing how transparent this all is.

SOPA trying to censor the internet
NDAA trying to detain American's and suspending due process.

And all it just so happens to be going on as OWS is gaining momentum, wealth is stratifying, and civil unrest is rearing its head with no real economic recovery in sight.

Awesome.

12/15/2011 9:51:57 PM

^^ someone pointed out elsewhere online that City of Lomdon is this weird semi-autonomous area where corporations vote in local elections (bigger the business, the more votes) because the non-residents who work there vastly outnumber the people who actually live the. They have their own police force distinct from the MET.

So if any area would consider Occupy protestrs to be terrorists, it's the area where corporations are the ones voting for officials.

/just thought I'd mention it in case someone thought that this meant the Greater London police were going after the Occupiers

12/16/2011 8:17:49 AM

I'd like to hear pryderi's opinion on this, provided he has one that doesn't include pictures.

12/16/2011 8:54:09 AM

All of those great things we talk about in America are eroding right before our eyes.

It's just a matter of time before we're a true police state.

12/16/2011 9:47:43 AM

people like mcdanger, pryderi, and str8foolish wont care as long as they cast one of the "winning votes" and can say "har" later on a messageboard.

12/16/2011 9:50:43 AM

people who think one political party is right and the other is wrong are fucking morons.

12/16/2011 9:58:35 AM

i hope the Occupy Movement makes speaking out against this bullshit a bigger part of their rhetoric

12/16/2011 12:36:56 PM

Our government has begun to turn its focus towards neutralizing the voice of the American people in anticipation of some future widespread outrage of growing inequality. Remember when we read 1984 in high school and took for granted that it was fiction? Almost like they are using it as their playbook now as all of its core presuppositions are coming true before our very eyes.

my thoughts?

1) We cannot ignore the actions of our government.
2) We must educate the populace at every opportunity.
3) We must work to defend the sanctity of the fucking internet at all costs. We lose that and we're done.

[Edited on December 16, 2011 at 1:04 PM. Reason : .]

12/16/2011 1:03:52 PM

Quote :

"i hope the Occupy Movement makes speaking out against this bullshit a bigger part of their rhetoric"

Nah, this bill will eventually be used to silence dissent.

Funny that this congress, which made such a huge display of reading the constitution in their first day in session, is shitting all over it with this one bill alone.

[Edited on December 16, 2011 at 9:13 PM. Reason : ]

12/16/2011 9:00:38 PM

Quote :

"1) We cannot ignore the actions of our government. 2) We must educate the populace at every opportunity. 3) We must work to defend the sanctity of the fucking internet at all costs. We lose that and we're done."

12/16/2011 9:20:13 PM

Obama Signs Defense Authorization Bill

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/12/31/396018/breaking-obama-signs-defense-authorization-bill/

welp

12/31/2011 6:29:24 PM

happy new year, america

12/31/2011 7:58:05 PM

[rant]

Well yeah, our elected representatives have internalized the phrase "war on terror" and the jingoistic trappings that go with it to such a degree that they seem to have forgotten we are not fighting a traditional war against some sovereign nation-state called Terror.

They seem to have forgotten that terrorism is a particular categorization of crime. As such it can no more surrender than could forgery, racketeering, or murder. To consider treating criminals and potential criminals as you would traditional prisoners of war and thinking that this sounded like a great idea would require either:

1) Someone whose entire understanding of the laws and history related to "prisoners of war" comes from reading the Wikipedia entry of the same name and stopping after "of war." I presume they had to stop reading when they couldn't figure out what that third word meant and their brain threatened to implode under the strain.

-or-

2) Someone who thinks we won the war on drugs after the Grand-Bratwurst of Drugs signed the treaty of "Take a Guess at Which Plant is the Top Cash Crop in 12 US States"

-or-

3) Someone who knew full well that a war on a criminal activity, concept, or tactic is one which can never end in a traditional victory and could be used to justify the expansion of executive and legislative authority beyond their constitutional limits as the courts often tend to allow during war (that's another rant though). This person would accomplish this by incessantly misusing the word "war" in legal context and - through subtle insistence - render its meaning vague even in the minds of legal scholars. So basically create a perpetual state of war as far as the courts are concerned by making everyone dumber until they forget what the word means.

The third option seems to suggest an evil genius, but this is not the case. No - it's about as diabolical as planting a bomb in a portable toilet stall, arming it, and then forgetting why you were there in the first place and sitting down to use the toilet with a ticking bomb 3 inches from your crotch. It's evil alright, but all you mange to do is get shit all over everything and you don't really do yourself much good in the process. Every time the US congress has effectively passed fascism they seem to think they've also won the "war on voting" and are shocked when they're eventually voted out of office. That hasn't seemed to change since the Alien and Sedition acts.

[/rant]

[Edited on January 1, 2012 at 4:28 AM. Reason : f]

1/1/2012 4:21:21 AM

What the fuck.

1/1/2012 12:54:03 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/11/jail-abuse-nick-christie-pepper-spray-florida_n_1192412.html

Official cause of death: Food poisoning

[Edited on January 17, 2012 at 5:39 PM. Reason : ]

1/17/2012 5:38:11 PM