NDAA

[SmartyPants]

I think it's appalling. A small smattering of senators from both parties voted no in the Senate, but otherwise the support for it was pretty much uniform. In the House, Democrats were split down the middle and the strong majority of Republicans voted for it. Regardless of party affiliation, I am extremely disappointed by everyone involved in approving that bill.

Does it help that Obama said he has "serious reservations" about signing the law and that he promised that he would never use it?  I am sure that the provision about indefinite imprisonment will be removed later just like how guantanamo bay was closed.

In the House, Democrats were split down the middle.

You know that is intentional?  Nancy Pelosi always organizes Demcratic congressmen to split the their vote for controversial bills.  She does it so Democrats can say they weren't for or against a bill.

That's a small relief. I'm curious. Do you think that there's any way that this could avoid being ruled as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?

It seems difficult to get to the Supreme Court without a trial.

I think people have made too big of a deal about warrantless wiretaps and waterboarding those three mass-killing al Queda leaders, but this is different.  I already felt some disconfort when Obama approved a target killing of an American, but al-Awlaki needed to die. When we give the government the power to imprison people without trial, we are taking a step towards having a police state.  

[CraigStern]

I'm going to move this discussion to Politics--this thread is just for asking me questions and hearing my answers.

[CraigStern]

Now then, back to the discussion.

Nancy Pelosi always organizes Demcratic congressmen to split the their vote for controversial bills.  She does it so Democrats can say they weren't for or against a bill.

Do you have a source for that? It doesn't seem impossible, mind you, but given how undisciplined Democratic Congresspeople have historically tended to be, I'd be surprised if Pelosi had the ability to pull something like that, much less do it consistently.

It seems difficult to get to the Supreme Court without a trial.

Yes, you need to go through a trial court first* before you can get to the Supreme Court. However, it doesn't have to be a criminal trial. Thanks to the right to petition for habeas corpus, you can challenge the legality of your detention if the government throws you in prison without charges. That gets you to the trial court. Which, incidentally, is a big part of why cases like Rasul v. Bush and Boumediene v. Bush are so important.


*Actually, you need to go through the trial court and then a federal appellate court. If you appeal the decision of the federal appellate court, then the Supreme Court gets to decide whether it grants you a writ of certiorari. If they do, then they will hear your case. If they don't, then you're stuck with whatever the federal appellate court decided, and someone else has to try to get them to rule on the issue in a separate case.

[SmartyPants]

Nancy Pelosi always organizes Demcratic congressmen to split the their vote for controversial bills.  She does it so Democrats can say they weren't for or against a bill.

Do you have a source for that? It doesn't seem impossible, mind you, but given how undisciplined Democratic Congresspeople have historically tended to be, I'd be surprised if Pelosi had the ability to pull something like that, much less do it consistently.

Honestly, it is speculation in this case.  I know for a fact that she organized a split vote for the debt ceiling deal and a couple of other bill, but haven't read anything for this bill.  Since the Democratic vote exactly 93 to 93 and this bill is very controversial, I just assumed that Pelosi did what she usually does.  Also, Democratic congressmen have become more united and disciplined after the last midterm election.


I don't understand why we still have these laws that prioritise security over human rights.  If this was right after 9/11 and everyone worried about another mass killing, then I would understand why people would people would give the government more power.  Since it have been over a decade since 9/11, we should know that is unnecessary to give the miltiary such powers.

[CraigStern]

I think it's a measure of our political climate. Politicians have discovered that "going negative" is more effective than getting people to like them, and scaring people into thinking that one's opponent is going to subject the public to danger is an extremely potent way of going negative. It takes unusual courage in today's political world to stand up for liberty against even the most ineffectual of security policies.