Such other matters as the President considers appropriate.

[nancylebov]

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.

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.

Comments

[avram]

Going back to the original point, I know some people in the Tea Party demographic -- white, educated, middle-class, right-wing. Most of them express sympathy with socially conservative policies at some point, but they almost always dress up their opinions in the language of small government and/or Constitutionalism, even when what they're actually arguing for would require an expansion of government power, or a violation of Constitutional principles.

I expect that there are a handful of honest libertarians mixed in with the Tea Partiers, but that the bulk of them are the same old right wing.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

If you tell them their preferred policy would lead to an expansion of government power, what do they say?

[avram]

It varies. Often they just change the subject.

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

Sure. It's much like pointing out to liberals who favor health care that the current proposal in fact imposes legal requirements on people like me, who can't afford health insurance, to buy it anyway, from the same old overpriced uncompetitive carriers; offer pathetically inadequate subsidies; do nothing to lower the costs of health insurance or health care; and when we don't get insurance, because we still can't afford it, imposes annual fines on us that will make it even harder for us to afford health care. I've had one friend . . . actually a progressive who would like European style health care, whereas I'm a libertarian and would like radical free market reforms . . . turn against the Democratic proposals because of the mandate, and I know that Jane Hamsher over at Firedoglake has done likewise, and has identified the proposals (correctly, in my view) as fascist . . . but that's far from the usual response. Very few people are systematic or analytical thinkers about political or moral issues, regardless of where in the political spectrum they are. As H. L. Mencken pointed out a long time ago.

[avram]

I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here. Your reference to Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake indicates that you're aware that the health care bill is a contentious issue among liberals. Calling it "fascist" is ridiculous; yet another case of people calling anything they dislike "fascist". (Orwell wrote about this happening back in the 1940s, when fascism was a fresh and recent phenomenon.)

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

(a) Yes, there are some liberals who regard it as contentious. But the majority of those I've seen discussing it think it's desirable, don't see the mandate as objectionable and indeed often consider it necessary, and don't show much sign of having considered the actual costs to the uninsured Obama was originally promising to "help." And more than once I've had them become angry at my pointing out the real impact.

(b) If you think calling it fascist is ridiculous, complain to Hamsher; she is quoted as saying "Rather than actually helping the poor, this bill is a dangerous and unprecedented step on the road to domination of government by private corporate players who use it to suppress competition and secure their profits — the textbook definition of fascism" at http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/03/will-obamacare-lead-to-new-anti-fascist.html, which is where I found the link to her actual column.

(c) The logic of calling it fascism makes perfect sense to me. Fascism as an economic system implements the command economy not by expropriating industrial firms, but by organizing them into industrial sectors whose production and distribution are dictated by central planners, while the nominal owners retain their nominal title and are permitted to profit from carrying out their orders. In other words, it's statism in the interest of capitalists. Or what they imagine is their interest.

If you'd rather call it dirigisme, though, be my guest.