Losing our constitutional rights (yaaaaay)

[Cora]

So for those of you who heard/were following this story for a few months, Pres. Obama passed the NDAA (National Defense Authority Act) bill as his last executive order of the year 2011.

As if 2011 weren't already bad enough.

Basically, this bill allows "...American citizens suspected of terrorism to be indefinitely detained in military custody without charge or trial." Hmmm, anyone else remember that pesky fourteenth amendment right, which states citizens cannot be deprived of "life, liberty or property, without due process of law"?

Obviously that amendment has been overridden. Which worries me. Without it, the law is horribly unstable- all it takes is a redefinition of the word "terrorism" and basically anyone could be off to Guantanamo without any hope of a trial (as, NDAA did away with the idea of a "speedy trial by jury")

I don't mean to send the wrong idea- but the fall of democracy in Germany began with the deprivation of simple rights. It would be a shame to see our country go under as Nazi Germany did, and it will be difficult to take it back.

Just thought I would voice that here.

At least he won't use it during his presidency!
Wait- he won't always be president...

[Luigison]

Godwin's law in the original post.  Is that a record for this board?  (I'm not disagreeing with you.)

[PaperLuigi]

Obama promised to never use it, but that's not very reassuring because he's not going to be in office forever. What if Santorum gets in power? Or Perry?

This just makes me want to vote for Ron Paul even more because he's 100% opposed to it. And SOPA for that matter.

[Cora]

The instability of the law is what worries me. As I said, all someone would need to do is say "Oh well, homosexuality is terrorrism" (in regards to your comments on santorum :P) or, "Computer programmers are terrorists" (and knowing our congress theyd pass those) and they could basically have anyone imprisoned with no hope of trial.

[Cora]

Lol, yeah, in regards to Obama's "I wont use it" comment, I made a special picture!
http://qkme.me/35n2bc

[CrossEyed7]

all it takes is a redefinition of the word "terrorism" and basically anyone could be off to Guantanamo without any hope of a trial

Does terrorism even have a real definition?

Redefinition is definitely a potential problem. Remember in 2009 when the Department of Homeland Security was talking about "right-wing extremist" terrorist groups and said to look out for people with bumper stickers for Ron Paul or Bob Barr? On the flip side, consider that PeTA has been linked to the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front, which are considered terrorist organizations, meaning that, if they wanted to, the government could argue that anyone with a PeTA bumper sticker is funding terrorism. Consider also that links are often purported between movie piracy and terrorism -- if you give traffic to a website that pirates movies, and they get ad revenue from your traffic, the government could argue that you are funding terrorism, if it wanted to (further, consider that politicians are totally in the pockets of the MPAA).

[Cora]

Does terrorism even have a real definition?

The fact that we're using an abstract idea to make a law that could potentially ruin a person's life is the bit that worries me most. And since it is a more abstract concept, changing what it means would be easy. Too easy.

[ShadowBrain]

As is always the case when some vaguely dystopian-sounding piece of legislation hits the Congressional fan, I reiterate my halfhearted stance: I'm just going to live my own life doing what I deem pragmatically and socially acceptable. If that gets me put in government prison/camp someday, then **** this country anyway.