![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
McCain and Leiberman have proposed a bill which allows for indefinite detention of American citizens at the president's whim.
Niemöller [1] is not mocked.
The whole point of "enemy combatant" was to put people outside the law, so that the government could do whatever it pleased to them. The law isn't an absolutely reliable protection, but it's a good bit better than nothing.
It was obvious to me that there was no reason for American government lawlessness to be limited to people who aren't American citizens.
I don't take the abuse of non-Americans lightly. A good bit of the anger in this post is for the Americans who thought indefinite detention without charge could only happen to someone else.
Information about the bill from Glenn Greenwald, from an article at The Huffington Post which I found out about it because Steve Barnes was interested in the people from the French Television show who weren't willing to give big electric shocks.
I'm feeling let down by my friendslist. What happened to the glory days when every frightening thing the government was doing was urgent news? Teapartyers behaving like assholes is not a substitute.
Perhaps I'm being unfair-- I don't follow facebook or twitter, and lj's been kind of quiet lately. Has anyone else heard about this monstrous bill?
Anyway, here are the sponsors of the bill:
Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]
Scott Brown [R-MA]
Saxby Chambliss [R-GA]
James Inhofe [R-OK]
George LeMieux [R-FL]
Joseph Lieberman [I-CT]
Jefferson Sessions [R-AL]
John Thune [R-SD]
David Vitter [R-LA]
Roger Wicker [R-MS]
More, more, more. Did Obama really authorize INTERPOL to operate independently in the US, without regard for the bill of rights.
[1] First they came for the..... and when they finally came for me, there was no one to speak up.
Niemöller [1] is not mocked.
The whole point of "enemy combatant" was to put people outside the law, so that the government could do whatever it pleased to them. The law isn't an absolutely reliable protection, but it's a good bit better than nothing.
It was obvious to me that there was no reason for American government lawlessness to be limited to people who aren't American citizens.
I don't take the abuse of non-Americans lightly. A good bit of the anger in this post is for the Americans who thought indefinite detention without charge could only happen to someone else.
SEC. 5. DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL OF UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENTS.
An individual, including a citizen of the United States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent under section 3(c)(2) in a manner which satisfies Article 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War may be detained without criminal charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners in which the individual has engaged, or which the individual has purposely and materially supported, consistent with the law of war and any authorization for the use of military force provided by Congress pertaining to such hostilities.
Information about the bill from Glenn Greenwald, from an article at The Huffington Post which I found out about it because Steve Barnes was interested in the people from the French Television show who weren't willing to give big electric shocks.
I'm feeling let down by my friendslist. What happened to the glory days when every frightening thing the government was doing was urgent news? Teapartyers behaving like assholes is not a substitute.
Perhaps I'm being unfair-- I don't follow facebook or twitter, and lj's been kind of quiet lately. Has anyone else heard about this monstrous bill?
Anyway, here are the sponsors of the bill:
Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]
Scott Brown [R-MA]
Saxby Chambliss [R-GA]
James Inhofe [R-OK]
George LeMieux [R-FL]
Joseph Lieberman [I-CT]
Jefferson Sessions [R-AL]
John Thune [R-SD]
David Vitter [R-LA]
Roger Wicker [R-MS]
More, more, more. Did Obama really authorize INTERPOL to operate independently in the US, without regard for the bill of rights.
[1] First they came for the..... and when they finally came for me, there was no one to speak up.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-19 01:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-19 01:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-19 02:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-19 01:39 am (UTC)I agree that they should be widely denounced, but given that most of the people who vote for these monsters actually like this sort of vileness, I'm not certain how useful or important denouncing this sort of grandstanding actually is.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-19 01:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-19 01:51 am (UTC)America was never as good as it said on the label, but it's been going downhill.
I begin to suspect that courage hasn't been sufficiently valued, and that's got something to do with the panicky response to 9/11.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-19 02:52 am (UTC)The only thing- the ABSOLUTELY only thing- Obama has done to reverse the Bush-Cheney torture regime is to issue a single executive order... which can, and certainly will, be reversed immediately by the next Republican President.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-19 01:49 am (UTC)There's no mention of Constitutional abridgement. It's basically to let Interpol operate like an embassy (well, I don't know, not a lawyer, I'm just reading the damn thing. You read it and see what you think.) The main difference between the Reagan and Clinton versions and the Obama version is taxes. Obama's given them a tax break, who knows why.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-19 01:55 am (UTC)I don't know whether this means they're immune from prosecution for what would ordinarily be called crimes.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-19 02:06 am (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_mission#Extraterritoriality
"Rather, the premises of diplomatic missions remain under the jurisdiction of the host state while being afforded special privileges (such as immunity from most local laws)"
Here's what US Interpol says in the .pdf on the page at the link text, " Expanding INTERPOL's privileges and immunities in the United States":
I wonder why they don't have to pay social security and income taxes? I'm guessing this is a sort of bribe to get Interpol to do more for us on the terror/intelligence front. It kind of sucks for US employees of Interpol, doesn't it?
no subject
Date: 2010-03-19 02:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-19 02:12 am (UTC)I worry about our government's motivations, but I'm actually more worried about the accidental repercussions of things they do without trying to generate a huge conspiracy.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-19 10:09 am (UTC)Because they're not Americans?
If I visit the USA for more than 30 days I'm supposed to go talk to the IRS about paying tax. So, to preserve my "non-resident alien" status I don't do that -- I never visit for more than 3 weeks.
Presumably INTERPOL has situations where officers -- who are citizens of other nations -- have to visit the USA and work there for more than 30 consecutive days, and they don't want to bug cops working a case with the hassle of registering with a foreign tax authority and paying tax in two jurisdictions simultaneously in the middle of a sufficiently serious criminal investigation that there are cops working overseas for months on end.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-19 12:46 pm (UTC)Anyway, the point is that Obama didn't give Interpol new law-enforcement privileges in the US. He reissued an Executive Order and changed their tax status.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-19 02:55 am (UTC)Yes, it does- diplomatic immunity, except where Interpol has waived immunity as part of, say, the treaty that forms Interpol in the first place.
So Interpol can double-park and ignore the tickets, but they can't arrest anyone without the cooperation of local officials.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-19 02:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-19 02:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-19 02:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-19 01:31 pm (UTC)Why do I see Ezar Vorkosigan's face hovering over this?
no subject
Date: 2010-03-19 04:53 am (UTC)Yes, there are reports of obnoxious behavior on the part of some Tea Partiers. There are reports of obnoxious behavior on the part of nearly every large-scale political movement. But arguing against ideas by pointing to the character flaws of people who assert them is a fallacy, and using abusive language to refer to those people is falling victim to the same obsessive political hostility you decry in them. I'm disappointed to see you doing this; your past posts have made a better impression on me.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-19 06:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-19 07:43 am (UTC)But even if you flatly disagree with their ideas, calling them by abusive names is not legitimate debate. Take what they say and show what's wrong with it. Namecalling is the tactic of a playground bully, not of a citizen of a free society.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-19 08:37 am (UTC)And whining about the word "teabagger" isn't legitimate debate either. People of my political persuasion have had invective heaped on our heads for decades. Now that we've finally got our hands on an epithet that stings, we're suddenly supposed to disarm?
no subject
Date: 2010-03-19 10:00 am (UTC)It's interesting (if true) that "Teabagger" (which I'd say is almost contentless-- I guess it has an implication of triviality) has more effect than "Rethuglican". In a sane world, (which I grant we aren't living in), being called a thug would be much worse.
And in the spirit of the fact-checking you usually do here..... What do you mean by "whining"?
Complaining about insults isn't debate-- it's meta-debate.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2010-03-19 09:49 am (UTC)I do think "Teabaggers" is a pretty mild insult, but courtesy is fairly cheap, and I think it does lead to being clearer-headed.
I would prefer a government which is smaller in many ways, but I wasn't arguing with their ideas, I was disgusted with the behavior of some of them.
Citizens of free societies seem to be pretty free with their insults-- that's part of what freedom means.
(no subject)
From:What do we know?
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2010-03-22 01:35 am (UTC) - Expand