WARNING! this is a real threat to basic human freedoms!

[SilentCom]

Good news, Obama has already said he's going to Veto the military thing into the dirt should he ever find it on his desk.

I hope so. This isn't looking too good. Who decided it would have been a good idea in the first place anyways?

 

[Vausch]

And that's my cue to get out of the US as soon as I can. Any escapists from Japan looking for a roommate?

私は日本人じゃないです、でもわたしは日本語を勉強する。

私たちは日本をたのしいしましょう。

watashi wa nihonjin ja nai desu, demo watashi wa nihongo wo benkyousuru.

watashitachi wa nihon wo tanoshii shimashou.

[I'm not Japanese, but I'm studying the language.
Let's go enjoy Japan.]

Well I am in need of a tutor. I'll cover 60% of the rent if you'll teach me XD

 

[NotSoLoneWanderer]

Wow...wish I had friends intelligent or concerned enough to care or at least talk about this and other issues.

 

[SilentCom]

I love how America keeps voting in right wing asshole nut jobs and then complains when they start doing shit like this.
(Of course I realise that not all of America wants these people in power... but majority rules!).

This bill was voted in by the Senate, which has more Democrat than Republican senators. (51 Democrats, 47 Republican, 2 Independent). Also, it said something like 97 (or 93?) of the 100 voted for the bill. That makes both sides pretty much equally guilty.

 

[new_age_reject]

I love how America keeps voting in right wing asshole nut jobs and then complains when they start doing shit like this.
(Of course I realise that not all of America wants these people in power... but majority rules!).

This bill was voted in by the Senate, which has more Democrat than Republican senators. (51 Democrats, 47 Republican, 2 Independent). Also, it said something like 97 (or 93?) of the 100 voted for the bill. That makes both sides pretty much equally guilty.

Well then we're fucked from every angle.

 

[Mayamellissa]

"mommy? Why are we in jail?"
"Because Uncle Sam is dead sweetie and people in Washington gave the military complete control to throw us in prison if they deemed us a threat."
"What does that mean?"
"We're fucked."

 

[Crazycat690]

Well, time to move. Where's a good place?

*looks at the EU*
eh, nope.

What's wrong with the EU? Is it the good economy or schools? Perhaps the actually sane politicians? I demand a response on this! This statement simply doesn't make sense D:

Waiting for the magical word?

...Please? =3

Last I heard the EU/Eurozone was is just as much hot water economically as the US. That was the basis of the statement, and it was mostly in jest.

Of course most of my information on the topic comes from US news sources which, frankly, are unreliable at best. I mean CNN hasn't made a peep about this whole "US is a Battleground" crap.

Also, I openly acknowledge that most EU countries are considerably more advanced socially. The US seems to be trying to hold on to "The American Dream," which never really existed anyway, and is now just helping the rich stay rich.

I... can't actually argue with that, I responded like that because, well I live in Finland and we have it pretty good here, tell you what, go to Scandinavia if you want a good place to run away to forget about Europe^^

 

[Crazycat690]

Well, time to move. Where's a good place?

*looks at the EU*
eh, nope.

What's wrong with the EU? Is it the good economy or schools? Perhaps the actually sane politicians? I demand a response on this! This statement simply doesn't make sense D:

Waiting for the magical word?

...Please? =3

The EU is probably in the worst position at the minute.

It's economy is anything but good, infact it's gotten to the point that I'm expecting the EU to dissolve within the next 2-3 years.

The problem (and I said this from the start) is you can't have a universal currency without a universal government. The Euro proved that.

(I'm English BTW)

Well I'm Finnish, and our situation is pretty good. And if you expect the EU to dissolve withing the next 2-3 years based on the economic situation, then how fast do you think the US will fall? Surely, they are in a even worse position?

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Ah, America has declared Martial Law. No big surprise.

Americans, you know what that 2nd Amendment of yours is for, don't you?

It's for overthrowing Military Dictators.

 

[Crazycat690]

Well, time to move. Where's a good place?

*looks at the EU*
eh, nope.

What's wrong with the EU? Is it the good economy or schools? Perhaps the actually sane politicians? I demand a response on this! This statement simply doesn't make sense D:

Waiting for the magical word?

...Please? =3

The EU is probably in the worst position at the minute.

It's economy is anything but good, infact it's gotten to the point that I'm expecting the EU to dissolve within the next 2-3 years.

The problem (and I said this from the start) is you can't have a universal currency without a universal government. The Euro proved that.

(I'm English BTW)

Well I'm Finnish, and our situation is pretty good. And if you expect the EU to dissolve withing the next 2-3 years based on the economic situation, then how fast do you think the US will fall? Surely, they are in a even worse position?

How can you possibly think the dollar is in a worse position than the Euro? Have you been living in a cave?

Greece is on the brink of collapse and the rest of Europe is haemorrhaging money trying to keep them affloat. Because if Greece goes down the crapper, the rest of the Euro zone goes with it.

I think you're seriusly exaggerate the euro situation way too much :/ I mean, I don't know alot about economy, but I know the dollar is worth shit compared to the euro.

 

[HimochiIsAwesome]

Well, huzzah for me being British~
Then again, the whole "You're Welsh, oh, do you shag sheep? Haha, lol" thing kinda balances it out, me thinks~

 

[Kris015]

I'm certain that someday every sane american will ragequit the country.

 

[DiMono]

Has anyone actually bothered to read the bill in question [http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf]? (pdf) This is from page 362:

1867 PCS
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.?The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.?The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

So it specifically says that it doesn't require citizens to be detained by the military.

Here is a fairly balanced review of the actual bill as it stands now. A relevant portion copied:

First, section 1031 is the explicit grant of detention authority. It no longer says anything about US citizenship, one way or the other. It is just like the AUMF in that respect. Of course, we need to recall that the Supreme Court in Hamdi had no trouble concluding that insofar as the AUMF provided detention authority for persons captured in combat in Afghanistan, that authority extended to US citizens (Hamdi left open the question whether the AUMF provided detention authority to other contexts, and if so whether citizenship would remain irrelevant in those other contexts). In any event, against this backdrop, section 1031 as currently written?and if examined in isolation?would not alter the somewhat uncertain status quo regarding the availability of detention for citizens. But 1031 does not stand in isolation. Consider section 1032.

Section 1032 is the supposedly-mandatory military detention provision?i.e., the idea that a subset of detainable persons (?covered persons? in the lingo of the statute) are not just detainable in theory, but affirmatively must be subject to military detention (though only until one of several disposition options, including civilian custody for criminal trial, is selected). Section 1032 then goes on, in subpart (b), to state expressly that US citizens are exempt from this ?mandatory detention? requirement (though lawful permanent residents are not).

This obviously rules out the idea of a mandatory military detention for US citizens. But note that it tends to rule in the idea that the baseline grant of detention authority in 1031 does in fact extend to citizens. Otherwise there would be no need for an exclusion for citizens in section 1032, since the 1032 category is a subset of the larger 1031 category.

So how does this compare to the status quo? Well, here we should probably distinguish between captures inside the US and captures abroad. Only the former, in my view, was still an open question (vis-a-vis the relevance of citizenship) under the AUMF.

Basically, this bill doesn't actually grant any new powers, instead it formalizes the current military detention regime which so far only exists legally in administration policy. Broadly speaking, the Bush and Obama administrations have decided what is legal and acted on that basis without any Congressional oversight or formal laws outlining the actual legalities of the situation.

The bill broadly outlines the current administration policies, with a few differences. There is even a paragraph in there on page 360 that states:

Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

So before everyone jumps on the panic wagon, why not actually read the bill rather than random interpretations of it, which are in turn based on an ACLU reading of the first version of the bill which no longer exists.

The reason the administration is against this bill are the mandate and prisoner transfer restrictions. The mandate is simply stupid, tough on crime/terrorism bullshit. The prisoner transfer restrictions are a nearly purely political jab at the Obama administration to stop even the weak efforts at closing Guantanamo bay or even thinking of moving away from military detention of current detainees.