Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Obama signs indefinite detention into law
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama signs indefinite detention into law - Page 2

post #51 of 59

I am kind of interested in this picture of a giant dick fellow that keeps getting so many votes in Australia. How do I join his mailing list?








Was it that fellow pushing the Penis Pills earlier today?

post #52 of 59
Originally Posted by Syd View Post

Holy shit, does that actually HAPPEN? Do people really not give a shit? You're there already, vote for SOMEONE for fuck's sake! 


Voter apathy gets my blood boiling. Already I'm hearing too many talks of "Well, Obama's gonna win ANYWAY, so why should I vote?" 


Voter apathy - in fact political apathy in general - is and always has been rife in this country. Try bringing up politics as a conversation starter at a party or social function and you'd be more popular if you walked up and dropped a turd in someones drink while your cock was hanging out. We're not like the states, average aussies are suspicious of ideals and being passionate about politics - or indeed, much of anything that isn't fucking sport. It's exasperating to live around.

post #53 of 59
post #54 of 59
post #55 of 59
Originally Posted by yt View Post

This was a trap set deliberately for the President.  If he didn't sign it, he hates the troops.  If he line-item vetoes that provision, they undoubtedly have some patsy waiting in the wings to prove he's soft on terrorism and can't keep Americans safe.
Trap or no, fucker still signed it. (Yes, Congress is plenty to blame in this, but a signature is still a signature. A veto would've been futile, but it would've at least meant something.) If he's lucky this will only cement the image they've been trying to paint of him as the Ball-less Wonder; if he's not, this is going to make the fringe elements' "Obama is secretly a socialist fascist Communist who wants to enslave the populace with his Chicago thug buddies" theory suddenly seem a good deal less nutty...
post #56 of 59

...and here's some more incredibly disconcerting news...





Two moments in the past week have confirmed what has been clear for two years or more: the administration of Barack Obama is the greatest threat to personal liberties the United States has seen for decades, and possibly ever. You have to go back to the late 18th and 19th centuries — Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus,Jackson’s forced removal of Native Americans and censorship and the Alien and Sedition acts under John Adams — for similarly draconian assaults on basic liberties.

On Wednesday last week, Obama issued an executive order that would seize the assets of anyone who “directly or indirectly threaten[s] the peace, security, or stability of Yemen”. This refers to the government of Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, the former vice-president who replaced long-time dictator and US ally Ali Abdullah Saleh in February. Hadi is nominally committed to a transition to democracy after a bizarre one-candidate election, but Saleh’s family and key supporters remain in control of crucial sectors of the régime like the security forces.

US policy has primarily aimed at ramping up its full-scale war inside Yemen against al-Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula, which Hadi has enthusiastically supported. Now, any critics of Hadi potentially face a crippling financial blockade — not very different to the one imposed by Visa and Mastercard on WikiLeaks at the behest of the administration.

Much of the war in Yemen has been conducted through via drones, the use of which the Obama Administration has dramatically ramped up in secret. Obama refused to even admit that the US was engaged in drone strikes in Pakistan until January this year, by which time, according to one estimate, between 1800 and 2800 people had been killed, nearly all of them since 2008. It was less than a month ago that the administration even acknowledged its regular use of drones to assassinate alleged terrorists.

The admission had no detail about the extent of the use of drones or the number of innocent people estimated to have been killed in the course of drone strikes. One estimate by the Brookings Institutionsuggests 10 civilians are killed for every militant killed via drone strike. But even on lowball estimates, hundreds of civilians have been killed by Obama’s drone program with no disclosure or public debate. A lawyer representing Pakistani victims of drone strikes has been denied entry to the United States.

Among those killed, significantly, have been Americans. Fundamentalist cleric and US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki was assassinated in a drone strike in Yemen in October that also killed another American citizen (admitted by US officials to have been “collateral”); three weeks later his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, born in Denver, was slaughtered in another strike. The boy was, an unnamed US official admitted, “in the wrong place at the wrong time”. The extra-judicial killing of Americans by their own government led to the revelation of a secret panel that determines drone targets.

US government agencies are now opening up US domestic airspace so that bigger drones can be used to spy on Americans, bringing the land of the free another step closer to a permanent surveillance state.

Also last week, a lawyer for Obama’s Justice Department advanceda chilling new argument in hearings over the Administration’s attempt to force New York Times journalist James Risen to give evidence against a former CIA agent charged with leaking classified material. The DoJ argued that the journalist had no privilege in relation to the leak because it was a criminal offence. If adopted, such an approach would exercise a chilling effect on all but officially sourced “leaks” by removing any legal protection for journalists.

This prosecution of Jeffrey Sterling, for revealing details of a bungled operation against Iran’s nuclear program, is part of the Administration’s war on whistleblowers, in which it has prosecuted twice as many whistleblowers for espionage as all previous administrations in US history, as well as harassing others such as Thomas Drake, the NSA employee who revealed the astonishing billion-dollar stuff-up involving SAIC. And the trial of alleged WikiLeaks whistleblower Bradley Manning only started in late 2011 after Manning had been subjected to a series of abusive detention practices by the US military.

The Obama Administration has ridden roughshod over free speech in several instances, including the case of Tarek Mehanna, an American Muslim fundamentalist who was sentenced to more than 17 years in prison for a variety of terrorism-related offences in April. But among the offences for which he was convicted was that of “providing material support to terrorists” by translating a Saudi book on jihad and sharing jihadi videos.

There is also the Administration’s ongoing war on Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, encompassing not merely an international financial blockade but a secret grand jury process aimed at the “high-tech terrorist” Assange, who by the Administration’s own admission had embarrassed but caused no material damage to US interests.

Obama also signed into law the remarkable NDAA, which purports to enable the US military to indefinitely detain anyone, either within or outside the US, who provides “substantial support” for terrorists or those associated with terrorists, without defining what substantial support equates to. Several prominent journalists have complained of having to curtail their reporting for fear of breaching the NDAA. Last week a Federal Court judge ruled that section of the NDAA unconstitutional.

All this is in addition to Obama’s continuation of warrantless surveillance, its novel interpretation of key parts of the renewedPatriot Act and the National Security Agency’s interception and storage of every piece of internet and telecommunications dataproduced by US citizens.

In each case, the Obama Administration has gone beyond, and often well beyond, the Bush Administration, which was vilified by progressives for using the War on Terror to dramatically increase government powers, hold people indefinitely and impose warrantless surveillance. Obama, however, has been able to get away with upping the tempo of US government attacks on basic rights from the level under Bush with minimal mainstream criticism, even from Republicans otherwise content to attack Obama as a socialist hell-bent on imposing government control over every aspect of American lives. Only Ron Paul among the Republican presidential field stood up in opposition to an otherwise bipartisan agenda of eroding basic rights.

This points to a key failure, and double standard, on the part of US progressives who have failed to speak up about Obama’s agenda of surveillance and censorship.

post #57 of 59

Is this the Obama Fuck-Up thread now? Because we've sorely needed one of those.

post #58 of 59

Here is what I don't understand.  Treason is the only crime outlined in the US Constitution, and one clearly labelled in your passport. Treason can result in loss of citizenship. Why don't they go to court, revoke his citizenship, then use these programs on them? From a government standpoint, why don't they sidestep the arguments about them being US Citizens if they are terrorists working against the US?

post #59 of 59

Another disturbing piece on the use of unmanned drones in the domestic US...




WASHINGTON (CBSDC) – With the use of domestic drones increasing, concern has not just come up over privacy issues, but also over the potential use of lethal force by the unmanned aircraft.


Drones have been used overseas to target and kill high-level terror leaders and are also being used along the U.S.-Mexico border in the battle against illegal immigration. But now, these drones are starting to be used domestically at an increasing rate.


The Federal Aviation Administration has allowed several police departments to use drones across the U.S. They are controlled from a remote location and use infrared sensors and high-resolution cameras.


Chief Deputy Randy McDaniel of the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office in Texas told The Daily that his department is considering using rubber bullets and tear gas on its drone.


“Those are things that law enforcement utilizes day in and day out and in certain situations it might be advantageous to have this type of system on the UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle),” McDaniel told The Daily.


The use of potential force from drones has raised the ire of the American Civil Liberties Union.


“It’s simply not appropriate to use any of force, lethal or non-lethal, on a drone,” Catherine Crump, staff attorney for the ACLU, told CBSDC.

Crump feels one of the biggest problems with the use of drones is the remote location where they are operated from.


“When the officer is on the scene, they have full access to info about what has transpired there,” Crump explained to CBSDC. “An officer at a remote location far away does not have the same level of access.”


The ACLU is also worried about potential drones malfunctioning and falling from the sky, adding that they are keeping a close eye on the use of these unmanned aircraft by police departments.


“We don’t need a situation where Americans feel there is in an invisible eye in the sky,” Jay Stanley, senior policy analyst at ACLU, told CBSDC.

Joshua Foust, fellow at the American Security Project, feels domestic drones should not be armed.


“I think from a legal perspective, there is nothing problematic about floating a drone over a city,” Foust told CBSDC. “In terms of getting armed drones, I would be very nervous about that happening right now.”


McDaniel says that his community should not be worried about the department using a drone.


“We’ve never gone into surveillance for sake of surveillance unless there is criminal activity afoot,” McDaniel told The Daily. “Just to see what you’re doing in your backyard pool — we don’t care.”


But the concern for the ACLU is just too great that an American’s constitutional rights will be trampled with the use of drones.

“The prospect of people out in public being Tased or targeted by force by flying drones where no officers is physically present on the scene,” Crump says, “raises the prospect of unconstitutional force being used on individuals.”




New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Obama signs indefinite detention into law