How is it that the Lowe's thread is full of people up in arms but this thread is dead? This is a despicable and terrifying thing going on.
Edit: On a less serious note, thanks for the link TD. I'm going to listen to that album on Spotify.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
Well, the Lowe's thread is mostly just people talking about their ability to distinguish between different brands of pop, to be fair.
I wish I could say that I was stunned by Obama's signing this into law, but I'm not. I hope that it gets taken to the Supreme Court and rejected as unconstitutional quickly.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Could be just too depressing. Tom, thanks for the link. I am waiting for a quiet time to listen as I expect it will push me over the edge.
I wrote to the President again to tell him that he was breaking my heart. I am not sure what else to do. I am grateful that my Congresswoman would not vote for this, nor did Sen. Durbin and I have told them that.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
It's disgusting. But people are not going to care until some poor soul is unjustly incarcerated without trial, and enough outrage is generated. Until then, people will give it about as much attention as they do ethnic cleansing in an African nation.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How are we going to know who is unjustly incarcerated when they might not have access to a trial? How did we become so fearful that we are willing to throw away the best thing about this country?
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: How is it that the Lowe's thread is full of people up in arms but this thread is dead? This is a despicable and terrifying thing going on.
Edit: On a less serious note, thanks for the link TD. I'm going to listen to that album on Spotify.
I seldom comment anyway, but I was more interested in the Lowe's thread because a) I'd heard about the Lowe's incident and was half expecting to see a thread here anyway. And b) Rabbit took the time to summarize the situation before commenting.
In this case, I seldom have time to follow links without comments and I still am not entirely sure what has boots so upset, since I still haven't read the links.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by maui babe:
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: How is it that the Lowe's thread is full of people up in arms but this thread is dead? This is a despicable and terrifying thing going on.
Edit: On a less serious note, thanks for the link TD. I'm going to listen to that album on Spotify.
I seldom comment anyway, but I was more interested in the Lowe's thread because a) I'd heard about the Lowe's incident and was half expecting to see a thread here anyway. And b) Rabbit took the time to summarize the situation before commenting.
In this case, I seldom have time to follow links without comments and I still am not entirely sure what has boots so upset, since I still haven't read the links.
ETA: okay, I just looked at the opening post in the Lowes thread, and Rabbit didn't really summarize like I remembered. I guess I was just already familiar with the Lowes story before seeing it here.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How are we going to know who is unjustly incarcerated when they might not have access to a trial? How did we become so fearful that we are willing to throw away the best thing about this country?
It could be a high profile government agitator, or somebody in the machine will blow the whistle. I'm not saying it won't be terrible or that there might not be tons of people arrested without at trial before it's stopped.
I also find it surprising that there isn't major bi-partisan support for putting a stop to it. I chalk it up to yet another sign our Congress is (when adjusted for chronology) the worst in American history, and our electoral system keeps people divorced from the process, and that is coupled with a general ignorant and apathetic disregard for politics amongst the general populace.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
There is apparently major bi-partisan support for it.
Maui babe, this is about the NDAA bill that allows the President and the military to detain citizens indefinitely without trial. We have given away the 4th and 6th Amendments.
Posted by BBegley (Member # 12638) on :
This is one of the very rare times I wish we had a Republican president.
A republican would be even more eager to sign this bill than Obama, but democrats would be all riled up about it and it would be a major story.
Neither party seems to be able to worry about "their guy". Republicans don't care when their guy is running up massive deficits, and democrats don't care when their guy is decimating civil liberties.
Obama has been terrible on this sort of thing. Unfortunately, for anyone who cares about civil liberties (not including freedom from taxation), whoever the republicans nominate will be even worse on this. Except Ron Paul, who has less chance of being nominated by the republican party than Obama does.
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It's disgusting. But people are not going to care until some poor soul is unjustly incarcerated without trial, and enough outrage is generated. Until then, people will give it about as much attention as they do ethnic cleansing in an African nation.
Substitute "even when" for "until" and I agree.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
I wondered if you thought that was what Hadestown was about.
Anais gives a fairly involved interview about its side-themes-- look up "Hadestown" in the iTunes store, and find the podcast called 'Beyond Folk.'
I don't think Anais' 'Why We Build the Wall' is necessarily connected to militarism or some such as it is about class inequality, so presenting it here is a little off, Tom.
That said: yeah. This is really terrible. The executive continues to abuse its powers with the support of the legislature. Can this even be called unconstitutional if its military tribunals doing all the trials?
This bill is proof-positive that the whole lot of both houses of Congress need to be removed and replaced. Just to start.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: There is apparently major bi-partisan support for it.
To my shame, it appears I voted for one of the representatives that voted aye.
That's a mistake I don't intend to repeat.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I wondered if you thought that was what Hadestown was about.
I don't think that's what the musical is about. The song to which I linked is pretty clearly about:
1) Class inequality 2) The actual freakin' wall we built along our southern border 3) Delusionally removing freedoms from ourselves in the name of protecting those freedoms we just stripped from ourselves -- particularly from imagined enemies. My favorite line in the whole song is the call/response "What do we have that they have not? We have a wall to look upon."
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Just.....wow. I don't understand what goes through some of our representatives minds sometimes. I agree with Republicans on many issues, but this is ridiculous.
The NYTimes article was right though. It seems that Democrats and Obama are choosing politics over principle on this issue. Democrats could have killed it in the Senate and Obama could have vetoed it, but I think they were scared that the Republicans would point out that they voted against a military spending bill and that they are <insert usual Republican insults about how Democrats hate the military or are not patriotic>.
I may not agree with a lot of you on many issues, but I do find this disgusting. I will however need to read the legislation and research it more though. Two articles isn't really enough for me to form an educated opinion of it. Right now my disgust is my knee jerk reaction. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think it's optimistic to assume that Obama is against this in principle. That he said he was, a few years ago, is apparently insufficient evidence.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Wow, I am sincerely shocked by what I have just read. I guess I should watch the news more...
Does the President actually think this is going to improve his re-election chances?
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: My favorite line in the whole song is the call/response "What do we have that they have not? We have a wall to look upon."
I think it's "We have a wall to work upon" Though I agree it's a good line, especially with the one that comes after. "We have work and they have none"
/pedant
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Cross-posted:
quote:"This is in complete contravention of international standards," said Nicholas Bequelin
quote:... an advocacy group based in New York, "One of the key principles of international human rights law is deprivation of freedom can only take place if it has been decided by the court."
quote:The ACLU said last night that the bill contains “harmful provisions that some legislators have said could authorize the U.S. military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world” and added: “if President Obama signs this bill, it will damage his legacy.” Human Rights Watch said that Obama’s decision “does enormous damage to the rule of law both in the US and abroad” and that “President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.”
I don't think you can say Obama enshrined indefinite detention. It restarted anew without so much as a blush with George W. Bush. Obama just allowed it to become precedent.
[ December 17, 2011, 08:07 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Well, the two precedents are about detention without trial actually being legalized as opposed to just going ahead and doing it.
It is a subtle distinction I suppose, but I think it's a highly symbolic threshold.
Posted by ladyday (Member # 1069) on :
quote:...as well as from vocal Obama supporters such as Andrew Sullivan, who wrote yesterday that this episode is “another sign that his campaign pledge to be vigilant about civil liberties in the war on terror was a lie.”
My husband and I were going back and forth on the idea that Obama *lied* (as opposed to 'was mistaken' or 'was delayed') during the campaign when he spoke of restoring checks and balances, closing Guantánamo, securing American freedom, transparency in his office. I defended Obama, saying that his failures were not of principles or intentions, but of inaction, ineffectiveness. No one can see the future - how can you lie about what *will* happen except by standing up and saying you believe in something that you do not actually believe? My husband flat out stated that he did not believe Obama actually wanted/intended for his promises to come to fruition. I found this statement very disturbing; while I did feel bitter and frustrated at the time, I did not think Obama's underlying principles and integrity were even in question. I genuinely believed that I had voted for an idealistic man who just couldn't get it done.
Well. Crap. Guess I will go tell my dear that I was wrong, those windmills really were dragons.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Yeah, I'm having the same thoughts as Ladyday.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Maybe if I were able to trick people into thinking that Obama is a Republican Party candidate, that would spontaneously cause at least half of america to be up in arms about this, as opposed to the 60 or 70 people left in the entire nation who can even muster a comment or an ounce of caring about this.
Wait, what were we talking about? Politics? Meh. I'm gonna go play some SWTOR.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Stand for Liberty or bow to tyranny!
Sorry about the duplicate post below, I meant to Edit and instead quoted.
Steve/bluewizard
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: Stand for Liberty or bow to tyranny!
The steps being taken by a thoroughly corrupt Congress and now a thoroughly corrupt President are the first step on the way to Fascism. This is precisely what every dictatorial government has done to establish it power and to suppress its people.
If this Bill is signed into law, it becomes the day that Liberty and Democracy died. It leaves the people with no recourse but to wage war on its own government, or bow down to the tyranny it creates. This is a sad day for Liberty and freedom.
The terrorist don't have to defeat us, they merely had to plant the seed, and now we are defeating and destroying ourselves.
Steve/bluewizard
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, this is a long way from a sign that democracy is dead. Democracy doesn't, after all, preclude this kind of thing at all-far from it.
As for waging war on the government...well.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
If this bill is passed, it becomes the day hyperbole died!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ladyday, Faust, I would suggest that you write to your congress critters to let them know how you feel about their votes and write to the President (I would suggest writing to the campaign - it may get more attention there) to let him know as well.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: If this bill is passed, it becomes the day hyperbole died!
I wish.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by maui babe: ETA: okay, I just looked at the opening post in the Lowes thread, and Rabbit didn't really summarize like I remembered. I guess I was just already familiar with the Lowes story before seeing it here.
She didn't do much summarizing, but she at least referenced it and gave some of her own thoughts on it the matter.
I personally am very unlikely to follow a link that is posted without context or explanation.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Could be just too depressing.
That's pretty much where I am on this. I'm burned out on outrage over this issue.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I love my Congresswoman. From her response to my email, thanking her for her vote against NDAA. I encourage those of you who are also concerned to write to your Representative regarding H.R. 3702.
quote: These provisions are both dangerous and unnecessary. Neither the military nor the national security establishment has sought the added detention authorities provided under this legislation. The role of the military is to fight and win wars – not to detain and try criminals. Since 9/11, military commissions have convicted only six people on terror-related charges, while over 400 have been convicted in civilian courts.
I am a cosponsor of legislation to ensure that the rights of American citizens are protected. The Due Process Guarantee Act, H.R. 3702, clarifies existing U.S. law to unequivocally state that the government cannot indefinitely detain American citizens or lawful residents without charge. I will work with the sponsor of H.R. 3702, Congressman Garamendi, and my other colleagues in Congress to pass this important legislation.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)