I'm a Libertarian living in Humboldt County, CA. I've lived here in Eureka since 1973 and joined the Libertarian Party in 1992. This blog will mostly focus on local political issues, but I may stray into state and national issues as well, when I can't help myself. Please post your comments by clicking on the "comments" link at the bottom of each post. Although I do moderate comments, you need not be a registered user to post them.
Looks like Obama is going to sign the bill that allows indefinite detention of American citizens without trial. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but I did think it would be a class act on his part if he vetoed it.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 6:31 AM
6 comments
6 Comments:
It's just a continuation of Bush-era policies.
The White House lifted the threat of a veto after several distinct changes were made and thus it was sent back through Congress (and the Senate) to get re-approved. This does not give the president the absolute authority to detain anyone but if you're involved in terrorist activity, especially if you're not an US citizen, then yes you could be detained indefinitely while being tried under a different judicial system. Civilians involved in terrorist activity would more or less be directed through the traditional judicial system and this does not affect current law enforcement activities, or so they say...
Anon's comment above hits the nail on the head: This is simply the continuation of Bush-era policies. Regardless who's in office, we're all being played.
11:35 misses the point.
It's not if you are involved in terrorist activity.
It's if the military, or the president *suspects* you of being involved.
This does away with due process, checks and balances, etc.
The president can say he suspects *anyone* of being a terrorist, and simply disappear that person.
My understanding is that the reason Obama decided to support the bill was changes were made that gave the President power to decide if a person should fall under the terrorist definition and, thus, give the President the power to place the person in question under the civilian legal system should he deem it appropriate.
That's not much comfort when you think of current cases- Bradley Manning, for instance- who has been held for over a year without trial and there's no accusation of terrorism.
I can't also help but fear mission creep. It's well known that the vast majority of the cases where the government has used the PATRIOT Act to sidestep search warrant requirements and such have been been used in the War on Drugs, not terrorism.
You can't help but wonder how widely they'll start stretching the definition of "terrorism" to detain anybody they don't want to let go of?
Read this: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/
That sums up things, I hope. If anything, its food for thought.
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/
Post a Comment
<< Home