[phinno13]

I suspect anyone starting such a thread is a terrorist...

[OEMCHEAPSOFTDOWNLOAD]

Shouldn't it be an American starting a thread discussing the death of your democracy really, or are you all too busy reading about the Kardashians?

[lkastonidwedsrer]

But surely that would cause our resident Republican and Tea Party posters heads to explode if only Obama stood between them and tyranny?

[Quaganoca]

But surely that would cause our resident Republican and Tea Party posters heads to explode if only Obama stood between them and tyranny?

It's probably what they want. Then they can point to how Obama veto'd help for the troops and sided with terrorists.

[rikdpola]

I think the Patriot Act wore us all out in that regard. Obama is going to veto this anyways it looks like.

Nope. This simply gives him legislative cover for the indefinite detentions he already signed as an executive order.

http://www.salon.com/2011/03/08/guantanamo_17/

[lalpphilalk]

As long as you're not suspected of terrorism, you should be fine being an ordinary citizen.

[tefraxKedWere]

That would imply that since then there has been evidence of ACTUAL decline of personal liberty and such for ordinary Americans in that time, rather than additional legislation that you believe will effect that. I don't know about the other Americans on this board, but I haven't seen any of that.

Are you out of your mind? Your government just passed a bill directly breaching the 5th amendment and giving the state the right to lock you away for your natural life without being found guilty of any crime. What exactly could be any more of a blatent boot in the face of American freedom?

[shumozar]

Can someone tell me what kentonio is talking about? Unless you're in gitmo, the cops have to charge you with something and give you a trial or let you go.

[Innoloinarp]

Does the law apply to people within the borders of the US? Because if it does there probably isn't a single federal judge who would consider it constitutional.

[shanice]

Does the law apply to people within the borders of the US? Because if it does there probably isn't a single federal judge who would consider it constitutional.

It says in the article that it applies to people in US territory.

[markbila]

Wow. That's even worse than our rule which allows detention for 28 days in similar circumstances.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2010/0...65N29D20100624

[Amomiamup]

Does the law apply to people within the borders of the US? Because if it does there probably isn't a single federal judge who would consider it constitutional.

Don't you find it somewhat scary though that your elected representatives just voted to give away your freedom, leaving it to either Obama to veto or to unelected judges to overturn that decision? I'm not even being partisan here either, as it was a bipartisan vote in favour.

[layedgebiamma]

Funny how when its 2nd amendment stuff, people are happy to scream and shout about protection from tyranny, and yet when tyranny is introduced openly via congress hardly anyone has a problem with it. Sad..

[Fluivelip]

Consider: We used to have legal slavery in this country. You used to be able to own another person. The United States today is less of a police state than it used to be, not more.

I don't know why, but I'm mildly amused that you are using early-19th century American standards on slavery as a benchmark for whether current freedoms are being eroded.

[slima]

You are looking at it the wrong way, if I as a foreigner can already be indefinitely retained, it is only fair that internal American terrorists can also be. It is a matter of fairness.

After all one of the favourite old communist phrases was: "To protect agains external and internal enemies of the state" , the US is finally catching up, they are just slow that's all.

[BlackBird]

Congress has been passing unconstitutional laws since John Adams was president. The Supreme Court generally does a good job of overturning them. It does not concern me very much.

Consider: We used to have legal slavery in this country. You used to be able to own another person. The United States today is less of a police state than it used to be, not more.

Not this Supreme Court. This Supreme Court is full of **** when it comes to civil liberties.

[JulieSmithXIV]

The Constitution contains a provision for suspending rights including the 5th

[Atmotteenrift]

Not this Supreme Court. This Supreme Court is full of **** when it comes to civil liberties.

That's utterly false. For instance Roberts, Scalia and Thomas are extremely strict on the First Amendment and Fourth and Fifth. Alito is usually pretty good, but he broke his streak with the Fred Phelps case.

Seriously, this assertion is completely baseless.

[DiBellaBam]

Morse v. Frederick

Obviously the court finds "Bong hits 4 Jesus" to be an exception to free speech for students

[Janarealiti]

I find it sad that people are ok with Congress passing unconstitutional laws, because "the Supreme Court will fix things". Seems so assbackwards.