Phew!! Glad George Bush wasn't aroud for this...

[Rudeboyelvis]

... Because certainly Captain Hope and Change would never stand for a policy that allows the government to indiscriminately round up and detain American citizens, without due process, in violation of the 5th 6th and 7th amendments to the Constitution, and sequester them at Gitmo indefinitely - right?

RIGHT???!!!

Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law that allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay.

Human rights groups accused the president of deserting his principles and disregarding the long-established principle that the military is not used in domestic policing. The legislation has also been strongly criticised by libertarians on the right angered at the stripping of individual rights for the duration of "a war that appears to have no end".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...etention-obama

[Danzig]

wow. unbelievable. i'm not just angry at obama, who won't veto it-this should never have been passed to end up at his desk to begin with!!!


"We're talking about American citizens who can be taken from the United States and sent to a camp at Guantánamo Bay and held indefinitely. It puts every single citizen American at risk," he said. "Really, what security does this indefinite detention of Americans give us? The first and flawed premise, both here and in the badly named Patriot Act, is that our pre-9/11 police powers were insufficient to stop terrorism. This is simply not borne out by the facts."

Paul was backed by Senator Dianne Feinstein.

"Congress is essentially authorising the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens, without charge," she said. "We are not a nation that locks up its citizens without charge."

Paul said there were already strong laws against support for terrorist groups. He noted that the definition of a terrorism suspect under existing legislation was so broad that millions of Americans could fall within it.

"There are laws on the books now that characterise who might be a terrorist: someone missing fingers on their hands is a suspect according to the department of justice. Someone who has guns, someone who has ammunition that is weatherproofed, someone who has more than seven days of food in their house can be considered a potential terrorist," Paul said. "If you are suspected because of these activities, do you want the government to have the ability to send you to Guantánamo Bay for indefinite detention?"

[Danzig]

Critics accused the president of caving in again to pressure from some Republicans on a counter-terrorism issue for fear of being painted in next year's election campaign as weak and of failing to defend America.
Human Rights Watch said that by signing the bill Obama would go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.



it was that sort of thinking that caused broad approval for invading afganistan and iraq! it was wrong then, it's wrong now. once again, more worry about re-election than in doing what's right.

[Antitrust32]

the supreme court HAS to overturn this, right?

and those of you who thought Obama was different than Bush... here is more proof you are wrong!

[Danzig]

does someone have to actually be detained to get the scotus wheels moving, or can someone just bring it for review? not sure. either way, i can't believe that this will be a law. unbelievable.

and yes, anti, obama is different. he's a democrat, therefore is good. now, if he was a republican signing this joke into law, we'd hear how it's bad, mmmkay. see, it's not the law-it's the party affiliation of the person signing it.

[Riot]

Wow - have tried to bring this disaster up twice before ... crickets from you guys. Nice to see the sheep finally wake up.