Well, even Bush didn't have the balls to do something like this. This piece of legislation will bite America in the butt at some point of time.
That shitfest in the Middle East Events thread or somewhere else? I've been watching the former, and boy, has it been...interesting.
Agreed. But where I trust Obama to not use the provision about the indefinite detention of citizens, I would expect someone like Bush to use it liberally. Hopefully the SC rules that piece unconstitutional before we're in a position to find out...
No kidding! The guy who robo-assassinates US citizens is apparently trusted to not use a power that has already been used to an extent - just because he wrote some mean words about it!
In regards to human and civil rights Obama has been a big disappointment, whether he made the law less draconian and say he won't use it or not. In extraordinary circumstances I could see him use that law. Someone from the political right in America would probably use it in everyday policing. Not sure what is better, actually.
Carl Levin disagrees [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHaJrnlqCgo#"]Proof Obama Will Sign NDAA 1031 Citizen Indefinite Detention Law in a Few Days - YouTube[/ame]!
Yup, that's the guy. He also said in the North Korea thread that Kim-Jong-Il is a better leader than democratically-elected ones because he wants to enact utopia.
I have a feeling this was back when I was a lawyer? Not remembering anything fitting this description...
This is a really really poor comparison and doesn't support your point at all. Manning was arrested on charges under the UCMJ of divulging classified information. He is represented by counsel and just last month, there have been pre-trial hearings and whether a court martial will proceed. You can argue that he shouldn't have been arrested, that he has a First Amendment defense, that the conditions of his incarceration have been harsh. But he's not a poster child for what's wrong (and I do think things are wrong) with the indefinite detention provisions in the NDAA.
Yoss & Ors.... Interested in your views on the following... When this was being debated in the UK in terms of 90 day detention, one of the most cogent arguments against was the ease with which detention becomes arbitrary detention. In other words, in theory the police get the extra time/leeway they need with their difficult sensitive cases - but there is no way to be sure that they won't use it in other cases as well. So the criteria to use the power becomes a bit irrelevant if you don't have judicial oversight in the 90 days. This was not a theoretical problem by any means. For instance in Malaysia where the power was for 6mths - Courts would release detainees at the end of the 6 mth period - only for them to be re-arrested on the steps of the Courthouse. This led to Courts ordering that the person was not to be re-arrested! How does the bill ensure oversight of the power? Is it simply normal Judicial Review and habeus?