Create an Account
username: password:
 
  MemeStreams Logo

WSJ editors come out swinging in defense of indefinite detention of US citizens | Privacy SOS

search

Decius
Picture of Decius
Decius's Pics
My Blog
My Profile
My Audience
My Sources
Send Me a Message

sponsored links

Decius's topics
Arts
  Literature
   Sci-Fi/Fantasy Literature
  Movies
   Sci-Fi/Fantasy Films
  Music
   Electronic Music
Business
  Finance & Accounting
  Tech Industry
  Telecom Industry
  Management
  Markets & Investing
Games
Health and Wellness
Home and Garden
  Parenting
Miscellaneous
  Humor
  MemeStreams
Current Events
  War on Terrorism
Recreation
  Cars and Trucks
  Travel
Local Information
  United States
   SF Bay Area
    SF Bay Area News
Science
  Biology
  History
  Math
  Nano Tech
  Physics
Society
  Economics
  Politics and Law
   Civil Liberties
    Internet Civil Liberties
    Surveillance
   Intellectual Property
  Media
   Blogging
Sports
Technology
  Computer Security
  Macintosh
  Spam
  High Tech Developments

support us

Get MemeStreams Stuff!


 
WSJ editors come out swinging in defense of indefinite detention of US citizens | Privacy SOS
Topic: Miscellaneous 8:34 am EST, Nov 30, 2012

I'm recommending this article as an entry point into a very interesting rabbit hole regarding the NDAA. Rand Paul and Dianne Feinstein have proposed a simple amendment stating that an authorization for the use of military force by Congress does not authorize the indefinite detention of US citizens on US soil unless it is explicitly stated.

I can't say that I have a problem with such a clarification, but everybody else does.

The libertarian left doesn't like it because the Constitution prevents such detentions of both citizens and non-citizens alike. I agree with that in theory, but it clearly didn't help much in the case of Padilla and the matter was never really satisfactorily resolved, so I can't say I'm opposed to some clarification from Congress even if it is only part of what is needed.

The authoritarians don't like it because they don't like civil liberties at all. The Wall Street Journal editorial that the linked blog post skewers is a great example. Check out this zinger:

With its strict rules on surveillance, the U.S. is already something of a safe haven for people who wish to kill innocents.

Seriously?

Frankly, the time for Congress to make this clarification was in 2002, not in 2012. It means little now. Furthermore, the authoritarians have a funny way of referring to Supreme Court decisions that occurred over the past 10 years in which they got their asses handed to them as if they agreed with those positions all along. Here is the WSJ again:

This question last reached the Supreme Court in the 2004 case of Louisiana-born al Qaeda terrorist Yasser Hamdi. The Court said that Hamdi deserved a habeas corpus hearing to challenge his detention, but it reasonably declined to equate his predicament with that of a domestic criminal.

The authoritarians didn't want Hamdi to have a habeas hearing either!

In the end, although its nice to have Congress clarifying things like this, the Supreme Court is the only authority that the authoritarians respect. The message needs to come from there.

Or we need to amend the Constitution to clarify this rather than passing a bill in Congress.

WSJ editors come out swinging in defense of indefinite detention of US citizens | Privacy SOS



 
 
Powered By Industrial Memetics
RSS2.0