um...S.3081 – Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act 2010

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
Nah, I think that's a cop out. It wasn't the American people who saw Iraq as a threat. It wasn't the American people who demanded such a thing as the Patriot Act, nor Indefinite Detention. These are things politicians sold to the American people, not something they demanded.

Each of those things was not popular at the time? You're wrong. They were all popular at the time. Even the Iraq war had majority support in the initial phase. And you're mistaken if you think that Presidents and Congress don't look at polling numbers in deciding how to act. They do this routinely because they all want to be re-elected.

I think it's ironic that you're calling my position a copout. What exactly do we expect from our politicians except to do whatever they think will get them re-elected? If we do not send a message that we will vote against those who pursue heavy handed statism as part of the "war on terror," then we reap what we sow. And of course, we are sending the exact opposite message - we will vote you OUT of office if you do things like try suspected terrorists in civilian court, where they get full Constitional rights, or even if you Mirandize a suspected terrorist and give them a right to counsel. There is a reason the repubs demogogue the issue in this way, because they know it plays well to our electorate. FFS, Bush pissed and shit all over the Constitution in his first term, and he got re-elected, didn't he?

The painful truth is that the political "center" in this country is very much on the interventionist right with respect to foreign policy, and very much for the most heavy handed law enforcement measures imaginable.

- wolf
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
A guy writes a perfect synopsis of what the UNDERLYING PROBLEM is, and you completely miss the point by responding with nothing short of irony. If I gave anyone credit for much intelligence around here, I would say you were trolling, but I think from your post I can rule that out.

The underlying problem is something nobody seems to want to address. Obama isnt cowering in fear over the GOP on the terrorism front. He is leading the charge. That was the point of my post. I think people had this false impression Obama was going to divert away from Bush era policies. He is not only embracing them, but going further than any administration has gone before. And I dont believe it is because of poll numbers either, but because that is what he wants to do.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
Each of those things was not popular at the time? You're wrong. They were all popular at the time. Even the Iraq war had majority support in the initial phase.

Whether it's intentional or not, you're completely missing my point. You can only measure the popularity of those ideas after they were introduced to the American people. My point is those ideas were not introduced by the people, but by politicians (and benefiting special interests), and then sold to the American people. To say they are only representing what the people want is the cop out, because it's simply not true. It wasn't the people who demanded these things from government, in fact, it's quite the opposite.

And you're mistaken if you think that Presidents and Congress don't look at polling numbers in deciding how to act. They do this routinely because they all want to be re-elected.

Again, people weren't polled on these ideas until after these ideas came into existence. That's what you are ignoring, where these ideas came about.

I think it's ironic that you're calling my position a copout. What exactly do we expect from our politicians except to do whatever they think will get them re-elected? If we do not send a message that we will vote against those who pursue heavy handed statism as part of the "war on terror," then we reap what we sow. And of course, we are sending the exact opposite message - we will vote you OUT of office if you do things like try suspected terrorists in civilian court, where they get full Constitional rights, or even if you Mirandize a suspected terrorist and give them a right to counsel. There is a reason the repubs demogogue the issue in this way, because they know it plays well to our electorate. FFS, Bush pissed and shit all over the Constitution in his first term, and he got re-elected, didn't he?

The painful truth is that the political "center" in this country is very much on the interventionist right with respect to foreign policy, and very much for the most heavy handed law enforcement measures imaginable.

It is not that disagree that the people deserve a lot of the blame. They do. But they don't deserve to be blamed for coming up with bad ideas, just for being sold on them.
 

SphinxnihpS

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2005
8,368
25
91
The underlying problem is something nobody seems to want to address. Obama isnt cowering in fear over the GOP on the terrorism front. He is leading the charge. That was the point of my post. I think people had this false impression Obama was going to divert away from Bush era policies. He is not only embracing them, but going further than any administration has gone before. And I dont believe it is because of poll numbers either, but because that is what he wants to do.

The "underlying problem" I referenced is only a problem for those who perceive it to be. The point of woolfe9999's post, was that most Americans do not see it as such. Obama is doing what the majority people want.

The problem is education. One way or another though, people will be educated. The only real question is, will it be too late?
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
I love seeing the faux outrage of the Republicans on this board. Where were your big mouths when Bush and his neocons were pushing through shit like this without blinking an eye?

For the record, I hate that Obama isn't going through on his promises to close Gitmo and rid the government of these traitors to freedom. Honestly, it's enough for me to not vote for him again. But sitting here and seeing you conservatives who obviously support this but like posturing and trolling for the hell of it is pretty damn pathetic.

ok, i dont remember Bush or his lackys wanting stuff like this. got any proof?
 

SphinxnihpS

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2005
8,368
25
91
Whether it's intentional or not, you're completely missing my point. You can only measure the popularity of those ideas after they were introduced to the American people. My point is those ideas were not introduced by the people, but by politicians (and benefiting special interests), and then sold to the American people. To say they are only representing what the people want is the cop out, because it's simply not true. It wasn't the people who demanded these things from government, in fact, it's quite the opposite.



Again, people weren't polled on these ideas until after these ideas came into existence. That's what you are ignoring, where these ideas came about.



It is not that disagree that the people deserve a lot of the blame. They do. But they don't deserve to be blamed for coming up with bad ideas, just for being sold on them.

You have the same victim mentality everyone else seems to have. It is up to each individual to educate himself and think for himself. Whether you bought or sold the idea, doesn't make it any less ludicrous an idea, and doesn't make anyone any less culpable for believing in a ludicrous idea. Would you feel sorry for a guy who bought an acre of land at the bottom of a lake? Well, we bought about 100,000 acres of prime desert desert when we ratified USAPATRIOT.

Was marketing involved. You bet! Do I own a Pocket Fisherman?
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
Whether it's intentional or not, you're completely missing my point. You can only measure the popularity of those ideas after they were introduced to the American people. My point is those ideas were not introduced by the people, but by politicians (and benefiting special interests), and then sold to the American people. To say they are only representing what the people want is the cop out, because it's simply not true. It wasn't the people who demanded these things from government, in fact, it's quite the opposite.



Again, people weren't polled on these ideas until after these ideas came into existence. That's what you are ignoring, where these ideas came about.



It is not that disagree that the people deserve a lot of the blame. They do. But they don't deserve to be blamed for coming up with bad ideas, just for being sold on them.

So basically what you're saying is, we are not to be blamed because we are easily manipulable, because we bend to fear-mongering and demogragery, because we don't think critically about what are politicians say? My point was that as citizens of a democracy, we have the power to not permit these kinds of policies, particularly in the longrun, but we abdicate that power by falling in line with these ideas and policies whenever they are proposed. So what is your counter-argument? No, we don't have the power because they convinced us not to wield it?

If you look deeper into this you will realize that there are multiple cultural reasons why we are so suspectible to getting on board with these kinds of policies. But that is perhaps a lengthier discussion for another thread. For now, I found it useful to point out that the anti-authoritarian attitudes which seem common on P&N are not so common amongst the general populace. Implicitly, people appear to assume that the attitudes here predominate in the general electorate, and that when the government does things like this, they are doing it against the screaming will of the people. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.

- wolf
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
OK...I was watching a video which briefly spoke about this, and I havent heard about it. I apologize in advance if its a RP, and if it is if someone can link the original thread.

S.3081 – Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010

Mr. MCCAIN (for himself, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts, Mr. WICKER, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. LEMIEUX, Mr. SESSIONS, and Mr. VITTER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the JudiciaryCommitee.

OK basically this Act gives the feds power to detain ANYONE that falls under a vague description of enemy combatant, including American, without trial, indefinately, without miranda, without ever being charged, and without respresentation.

uh, what?

According to the bill, all that is needed is mere suspicion that someone either did, is about to, or is thought to be planning to harm the United States government or any civilian target.

Taken from an article found here (http://smargus.com/2010/03/sen-john...o-detain-americans-indefintely-without-trial/)




What? As of this writing I am at a loss for words. This expands the already far too reaching unPatriot Act into a far, far more dangerous area (OK, thats a little too much of an understatement). All through the election we heard Obama railing the Bush administration about the Patriot Act. And now this? Are you fucking kidding me? Now, dont get me wrong. Bush started us down this path. But I really thought Obama would at least out a hold on things, with his (now broken) promises of ending GITMO and such. This trumps Bush's efforts by far.​


I honestly didnt think I could dislike Bush any more in regards to the Patriot Act, but this takes the cake. Fuck you Obama, AND the Senate for this.​



Here's a link to the actual bill. It's a short read: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s3081/text
I haven't read through this thread, but here are all of the sponsors of this legislation:

Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]
Cosponsors:
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]
Roger Wicker [R-MS]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-3081

Odd, there don't seem to be any Democrats on the sponsor list.
 

TwinsenTacquito

Senior member
Apr 1, 2010
821
0
0
Does this actually add any powers that the Patriot Act didn't? Your cell phone is a 24/7 videocamera in your pocket if you are anyone that opposes our government.

I'm gonna look up if this is true, and if it is, hope that McCain dies.


Ok, it says you have to have engaged the US in "hostilities". I assume that means physical violence... but EVERY LAW IS A BAD LAW AND WILL BE TWISTED INTO WHATEVER THEY WANT IT TO MEAN.

Also, I never keep my celly on me for one reason or other, so fuck your taps.
 
Last edited:

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
So basically what you're saying is, we are not to be blamed because we are easily manipulable, because we bend to fear-mongering and demogragery, because we don't think critically about what are politicians say? My point was that as citizens of a democracy, we have the power to not permit these kinds of policies, particularly in the longrun, but we abdicate that power by falling in line with these ideas and policies whenever they are proposed. So what is your counter-argument? No, we don't have the power because they convinced us not to wield it?

If you look deeper into this you will realize that there are multiple cultural reasons why we are so suspectible to getting on board with these kinds of policies. But that is perhaps a lengthier discussion for another thread. For now, I found it useful to point out that the anti-authoritarian attitudes which seem common on P&N are not so common amongst the general populace. Implicitly, people appear to assume that the attitudes here predominate in the general electorate, and that when the government does things like this, they are doing it against the screaming will of the people. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.

- wolf

Look, when you excuse Obama's trampling upon our civil liberties because doing otherwise would allow Neoconservatives to paint him as "weak on defense," then you're exactly the part of the populace that is to blame. And that is exactly where our discussion began. Maybe you'd like to retract your statement, and then we can start to find some agreement. Otherwise, you can appear to be a hypocrite.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
Look, when you excuse Obama's trampling upon our civil liberties because doing otherwise would allow Neoconservatives to paint him as "weak on defense," then you're exactly the part of the populace that is to blame. And that is exactly where our discussion began. Maybe you'd like to retract your statement, and then we can start to find some agreement. Otherwise, you can appear to be a hypocrite.

I'm afraid you need to read post's more thoroughly. These are things I said in my previous posts:

This is not in any way to exculpate Obama for his role in this - if he cannot stand up for what he truly believes in then he is no better than any other egomaniacal politician whose sole concern is re-election.

I don't think the repubs "forced" him to do anything, and I think he is responsible for every decision he makes.

As you can already see from the contents of both of my posts, I basically already agree with everything you are sayiong with respect to Obama.

I'm afraid the statements do not match how you have characterized my viewpoint.

The only difference here is that I am not *only* interested in blaming politicians for all our troubles. Guess what, that is what everyone does. It isn't our fault; we just happen to have "bad people" running our country, for no particular reason of course. As if their behaviors and actions somehow emerged from cultural vacuum. That, my friend, is sticking our heads in the collective sand.

- wolf
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
I haven't read through this thread, but here are all of the sponsors of this legislation:

Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]
Cosponsors:
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]
Roger Wicker [R-MS]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-3081

Odd, there don't seem to be any Democrats on the sponsor list.

Yep - been covered :)
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
"Chickenshit Harvey"? How old are you?
A week has elapsed and yet Harvey has still not yet replied to the following post. "Chickenshit" aptly describes that pathetic bellowing hypocrite.

Quote: Originally Posted by Harvey I'll repeat my own statement -- I searched Google for the namd and number of the bill and Obama's name, and I found exactly ZERO links suggesting that Obama endorses this bill in any way. And I'll continue to yell about your EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang of traitors, murderers, torturers and war criminals until they're indicted, tried and convicted for their crimes. And since you're obviously reading challenged, I repeat what I said, earlier -- If, and at such time as Obama actually endorses this bill, I'll be all over him, as well. Meanwhile, for all of your pissing and moaning about this, now, the ONLY Senators who are sponsoring this bill are Republicans and Lieberman, who's a DINO. I agree that this bill is horrible, but you still haven't explained why you weren't crying about the Bushwhackos when they were actually committing their horrific crimes for eight years. Don't waste my time or anyone else's trying to put this off on anyone but Repugnatard right wingnuts until you have something more than your own vapid, meaningless assumptions and accusations. Posted earlier, but chickenshit Harvey pretends it doesn't exist: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/gl...ion/index.html Quote: But all year along, Barack Obama -- even as he called for the closing of Guantanamo -- has been strongly implying that he will retain George Bush's due-process-free system by continuing to imprison detainees without charges of any kind. In his May "civil liberties" speech cynically delivered at the National Archives in front of the U.S. Constitution, Obama announced that he would seek from Congress a law authorizing and governing the President's power to imprison detainees indefinitely and without charges. But in September, the administration announced he changed his mind: rather than seek a law authorizing these detentions, he would instead simply claim that Congress already "implicitly" authorized these powers when it enacted the 2001 AUMF against Al Qaeda -- thereby, as The New York Times put it, "adopting one of the arguments advanced by the Bush administration in years of debates about detention policies." So, Blackangst was "technically" wrong, Obama didn't request this bill.......OK well he did, but then he changed his mind and decided he didn't need Congress to craft a bill as he determined he's already got the right to indefinitely detain suspects. But Obama is as pure as the driven snow, bellowing not necessary, right Harvey? Integrity: Find some.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
OK...I was watching a video which briefly spoke about this, and I havent heard about it. I apologize in advance if its a RP, and if it is if someone can link the original thread.

S.3081 – Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010

Mr. MCCAIN (for himself, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts, Mr. WICKER, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. LEMIEUX, Mr. SESSIONS, and Mr. VITTER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the JudiciaryCommitee.

OK basically this Act gives the feds power to detain ANYONE that falls under a vague description of enemy combatant, including American, without trial, indefinately, without miranda, without ever being charged, and without respresentation.

uh, what?

According to the bill, all that is needed is mere suspicion that someone either did, is about to, or is thought to be planning to harm the United States government or any civilian target.

Taken from an article found here (http://smargus.com/2010/03/sen-john...o-detain-americans-indefintely-without-trial/)




What? As of this writing I am at a loss for words. This expands the already far too reaching unPatriot Act into a far, far more dangerous area (OK, thats a little too much of an understatement). All through the election we heard Obama railing the Bush administration about the Patriot Act. And now this? Are you fucking kidding me? Now, dont get me wrong. Bush started us down this path. But I really thought Obama would at least out a hold on things, with his (now broken) promises of ending GITMO and such. This trumps Bush's efforts by far.​


I honestly didnt think I could dislike Bush any more in regards to the Patriot Act, but this takes the cake. Fuck you Obama, AND the Senate for this.​



Here's a link to the actual bill. It's a short read: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s3081/text

Yep and you are now on the list of people to be picked up.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
A week has elapsed and yet Harvey has still not yet replied to the following post. "Chickenshit" aptly describes that pathetic bellowing hypocrite.

Stop already If your going to challenge him at least try to do it in cival debate, Your use of language belittles your facts and clouds opinon
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Stop already If your going to challenge him at least try to do it in cival debate, Your use of language belittles your facts and clouds opinon

You are free to put me on ignore if my use of "language" offends your sensibilities.
 

PaperclipGod

Banned
Apr 7, 2003
2,021
0
0
I love seeing the faux outrage of the Republicans on this board. Where were your big mouths when Bush and his neocons were pushing through shit like this without blinking an eye?

For the record, I hate that Obama isn't going through on his promises to close Gitmo and rid the government of these traitors to freedom. Honestly, it's enough for me to not vote for him again. But sitting here and seeing you conservatives who obviously support this but like posturing and trolling for the hell of it is pretty damn pathetic.

A lot of us were saying the same thing when Bush was doing it as well. Please don't lump us all in as hypocrites.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Maybe it's because I thoroughly support Obama's "failure" to immediately pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and believe he is honestly trying to close Gitmo (with which I disagree) but I cannot imagine why this would make the OP so furious at the Messiah. To publicly attack bills not yet in a position to pass is simply to waste political capital. More to the point, the President's time is also limited and valuable, and to waste it attacking things that are not yet a threat would seem to better serve me (who opposes most of his agenda) than those like the OP who presumably support most of his agenda. I agree with criticism of Obama's earlier proposal to do the same things, but the only connection between the two appears to be the Republicans' desire to be the author or at least get some of the credit. (Granted I'm assuming here that this bill is not in response to Obama's proposal, but considering the mutual hatred I think that's a safe assumption.)