Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 46 of 46

Thread: indefinite imprisonment of U.S. citizens without a trail

  1. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,819
    Sounds like an interesting book.

    Another thought occurred to me -- why should we have to "guess" at "why" our leaders would choose to do this?

    If it is something that should have popular support (and, as a representative government, i believe it should), then it "should" be explained to the public as to WHY this law would be preferable to the alternative, explicit in what the alternative is (with examples of how that is both reasonable and probable alternative outcome without the law), and clear in how it would be implemented to protect our rights while simultaneously allowing for this exception/exemption.

  2. #42
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,797
    Quote Originally Posted by flowerseverywhere View Post
    Bae and jp1, great posts. I still don't understand though what was behind this law being passed? It seems so obvious to everyone that has posted that it is frightening to say the least.
    I think the answer to that question lies in the fact that the people discussing this here and the people who voted for this law are quite different from each other. Aside from the financial aspect of the prison industrial complex goading our elected officials into voting for this bill, I'd suspect there's also a lot of cowardice on their part along the lines of "if I don't vote to be tough on terrorists and then, god forbid, some bad terrorist act happens I'll lose my job becuase my opponent in the next election will say I was weak on terrorism and that's what caused the awful terrorist event. And that's much worse then saying I was weak on supporting the constitution, since no one will really care about that if nothing bad has happened."

  3. #43
    Senior Member peggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,857
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    I think the answer to that question lies in the fact that the people discussing this here and the people who voted for this law are quite different from each other. Aside from the financial aspect of the prison industrial complex goading our elected officials into voting for this bill, I'd suspect there's also a lot of cowardice on their part along the lines of "if I don't vote to be tough on terrorists and then, god forbid, some bad terrorist act happens I'll lose my job becuase my opponent in the next election will say I was weak on terrorism and that's what caused the awful terrorist event. And that's much worse then saying I was weak on supporting the constitution, since no one will really care about that if nothing bad has happened."
    I suspect this has a lot to do with it. From some earlier posts, it's apparent how quickly some are to cry traitor, and in this political climate, opponents will use anything and everything, even if they know it to not be true. I would still like an explanation. So many voted for it. That's the troubling part.

  4. #44
    Helper Gregg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Macondo (or is that my condo?)
    Posts
    4,015
    Quote Originally Posted by bae View Post
    Habeas corpus ...You don't just get to throw it out because it would make life easier.
    That's really what it boils down to, isn't it? I agree with Alan that this topic could provide a platform for an interesting and in depth discussion of the limits of civil liberties, but in viewing the legislation I can not shake the gut feeling that we've gone a step too far. The "for the good of the many..." argument is a valid filter when prioritizing how to spend the many's money, but falls into a very dark gray area when we begin to suspend the liberties of individuals for the greater good (JMO).
    Last edited by Gregg; 12-20-11 at 10:16am.

  5. #45
    Senior Member Rogar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    5,219
    I've found this issue particularly disturbing, not so much in the details, but the principal and have spent some spare time reading up on it. I think people are reading into the motives more than is there. A similar incident would be the Patriot Act slipped past the public by G W in 2001. In Michaels Moore's movie, Farenheit 9/11, he quotes congressman John Conyers, Jr. as saying, "We don't read most of the bills. Do you really know what that would entail if we read every bill that we passed?" Congressman Conyers then answers his own rhetorical question, asserting that if they did it would "slow down the legislative process".

  6. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    9,656
    The argument against this is that there were apparently many amendments proposed to the NDAA (that related precisely to these controversial provisions), that were designed to reduce the power of the NDAA, and they were mostly defeated. Mark Udall had amendments, and Rand Paul, and Feinstein - all toward weakening in various way these provisions and they were voted against:

    discusses provisions:
    http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnew...-police-state/

    This kind of makes the "we didn't know what we were passing" argument a little doubtful I think, the fact that they actually voted on all these amendments specifically pertaining to these provisions (and they voted them down )

    But honestly I don't really care if our congress people are evil or just stupid or cowardly. If they are just stupid and cowardly it will be easier to work with them to get this changed. If they are evil more pressure must be brought to bear (the pressure of public outcry of course). But the only thing that matters is this must be changed ... must or ... well they have removed all legal protections preventing a police state.

    Dear congresscritters:
    IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE ....
    FOR PASSING IT!!
    Last edited by ApatheticNoMore; 12-20-11 at 11:32pm.
    Trees don't grow on money

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •