There go our rights

[Momz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012

[Fudd]

When is the Supreme Court going to wake up and declare this unconstitutional?

I don't care if the president did sign it, his signature doesn't make it legal. Only an amendment by congress can do that.

If this only effected "genuine terrorists," I wouldn't care.  To Hell with them anyway.  But people given (taking) this kind of power tend to abuse it.

[musclehead]

you can make an argument for it and a whole bunch of arguments against it.
(I don't support it)

there is WAY too much leeway for it to be abused, and for us to be abused by it. do we really want to give the government that much power?

[bigguy]

This is Congress:
H.R. 1540 of the One Hundred Twelfth Congress.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf

Sections 1021 and 1022 are the ones dealing with the detention of non-citizen terrorists.
This basically affirms the actions taken by the previous administration after the events of Sept 11, 2001.
It baffles me that a Democratic controlled Senate would issue it and a Democratic President would sign it. But he did, which pretty well puts the official governmental OK on the actions of Bush, Chaney, et al.

Personally I don't like it, and I didn't like it the only time it was being practiced. As far as I'm concerned, those actions were just as illegal then as so many are proclaiming they are now.

[bscrive]

This sounds familiar.

How Liberty Dies	powered by Aeva

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

Not a doubt in my mind that Nixon would have used this power to make the Watergate reporter vanish. Clinton could have used it to make Charlton Heston vanish after his "from my cold dead fingers" moment too.

There is not a doubt in the world that if this stands it will be used for political purposes. I don't see any way it could go to the supreme court if the person it happens to is never allowed to have a trial. I don't think they are even required to tell anyone they have arrested someone. As far as family, friends and work go the people they nab would just vanish. Even when China arrests a dissident the newspapers seem to know. I don't think that would be the case here when this law is used.

[tank_post142]

remember when rico was proposed, it was claimed it would never be used on anyone other than the mob. they waited 3-4 years before the started applying it to everything.

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

remember when rico was proposed, it was claimed it would never be used on anyone other than the mob. they waited 3-4 years before the started applying it to everything.

Yep. For a while around here they were busting farmers kids so they could take the property.

[x]

Really a bad law... and I do not understand how Democrats and Republicans alike supported this perversion of the American Constitution.

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

Really a bad law... and I do not understand how Democrats and Republicans alike supported this perversion of the American Constitution.

Both parties want the ability to make those they disagree with disappear it would seem. Or, perhaps both parties think it's a good idea although that's hard for me to imagine.