What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
You Are The Last-Minute Gift Master! (Guaranteed Win.) view!
bestbuy.com - This gift is never obsolete, everyone likes it and it's always in stock at the last minute...
162 Comments
- BBE1965, on 05/22/2009, -2/+130How about neither standard or radical, but blatantly unconstitutional...
- JoeParanoid, on 05/22/2009, -1/+76A very clear and concise explanation of what preventive detention would entail and why it's a very bad (and unconstitutional) idea. This should be given as a civics lesson to everyone.
- pintomp3, on 05/23/2009, -1/+56It's precrime without the precogs.
- frcc, on 05/23/2009, -2/+52"Is a system of indefinite detention with no charges a standard or radical idea?"
It's tyranny. - JackSchittt, on 05/23/2009, -1/+50Better ways to describe it are:
Just plain bad. Wrong. Unconstitutional. Against the spirit of everything this country was founded on. Will eventually backfire. - borez, on 05/23/2009, -1/+49Imprisonment for thought crimes... I'm sure I've read about this somewhere before.
- pilgrim3970, on 05/23/2009, -3/+51And this coming from the "constitutional scholar"
- KirbyMeister, on 05/23/2009, -7/+48The Change is a lie!
- kevinmac22, on 05/23/2009, -1/+42I guarantee that this will affect American citizens more than it affects other people. Just wait.
- theragu40, on 05/23/2009, -2/+38Obama has the potential to be a great president. I voted for the man. But seriously, try reading that speech and imagining it is Bush saying it. Pretty easy, isn't it? This is *exactly* the kind of policy that caused such hatred for the Bush administration. I find it difficult to believe that even the blindest of Obama advocates will be able to ignore the unconstitutionality of such a law. This is a disgusting proposal.
- faskill, on 05/23/2009, -4/+39"Is a system of indefinite detention with no charges a standard or radical idea?"
For the USA? Radical.
For China or other third world countries? (granted they don't kill you first) Standard.
Kinda shows the progress we've made... - franklymister, on 05/23/2009, -1/+35If Obama changes his position on this, I will support him - but right now I just feel completely disgusted. Imprisoning people without a trial is one of the most un-American things that can happen.
It was illegal and immoral when Bush did it, and it's just as illegal and immoral if Obama does it.
It's not just a "goddamned piece of paper," as W called it. - sigg14, on 05/23/2009, -12/+44Obama is really trying his best to surpass Bush as the worst president ever
- lead2thehead, on 05/23/2009, -8/+39Who would have thought that Obama would actually be MORE fascist than Bush?
- FlaNative, on 05/23/2009, -9/+37Remember; Work makes Free.
/First, they came for the terrorists.... - casek, on 05/23/2009, -1/+27this is completely illegal. dems, please rally against this. conservatives, please concentrate on issues that matter, like this one.
we've got to get rid of the dividing lines and the false paradigms and come together as Americans to make sure that our Constitution is upheld and preserved. - franklymister, on 05/23/2009, -2/+24It doesn't matter whether it does or not. Human rights aren't limited to Americans only. It's not about what country the person is a citizen of, it's about the country committing the violation - in this case, the USA.
Our Declaration of Independence didn't say "all men are created equal, as long as they're citizens of the right country." - SystemicThought, on 05/23/2009, -1/+22No one should have this power. It will inevitably be abused. If someone has committed a crime, prosecute and punish them. If someone presents a reasonable risk of threat to themselves or others, they can be civilly committed (those who intend to hurt large groups of people inevitably have a commitable mental condition, it just needs to be diagnosed), or they can be arrested on charges of conspiracy. But this 'preventive detention' has too much potential to be used on political opponents, similar to the accusations that Bush illegally selected journalists and activists for monitoring under the patriot act. I don’t think Obama would go overboard with using this inappropriately, but I do think that I don’t want this power to exist.
- lead2thehead, on 05/23/2009, -9/+29During Obama's campaign, I remember asking every Obama supporter I met to tell me why they were voting for him. Most of them couldn't name a single policy he supported. Instead, they just said something stupid like "change". Well here's your change, dumb-asses. Maybe next time you should ask what the changes are going to be.
- DrNemo, on 05/23/2009, -2/+22Permanent detention you can believe in. It was a dream under Bush, but now, thanks to Obama, it's a reality. I feel safer already.
- mcsenget, on 05/23/2009, -2/+19Obama said exactly what he needed to say in order to get elected.....he's smooth.
- brickbat, on 05/23/2009, -4/+21Look, it's ok because Obama is a nice, intelligent, articulate guy. Constitution? What Constitution? Rights?
- ruforealz, on 05/23/2009, -2/+17***** Bush, ***** Obama.
- inactive, on 05/23/2009, -12/+27fact: Nothing has really changed
fact: Obama fanatics will never change either
fact: 1000 days from now some fanatic will say, "Hey guys it has only been 1000 days, we can't judge Obama yet." - Unreal030, on 05/23/2009, -2/+16Ron Paul?
Sorry I had to do it. Let the digg downs commence! - BurgGuy, on 05/23/2009, -0/+13FlaNative, I'm shocked you're getting dugg down.
For those bury patrol diggers here's the original: work makes you free at Dachau:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arbeit_Macht_Fre ... - lead2thehead, on 05/23/2009, -0/+13You're under arrest for the future crime of terrorism.
- pilgrim3970, on 05/23/2009, -11/+23Still sippin' off of that red kool-aid aren't you?
- inactive, on 05/23/2009, -8/+20Cake is a lie. Obama isn't change.
- theragu40, on 05/23/2009, -2/+14Hopefully these types of proposals do not become the standard for Obama's administration. Otherwise it's going to get tougher to say you like Obama. His policies reflect on him.
- bazzarr, on 05/23/2009, -0/+12This would out work great if we still lived in the the Dark Ages. Why are we going BACKWARDS?
- synapz, on 05/23/2009, -4/+15Hmmm. But I hate what he's doing, and I hate him for it.
- kevinmac22, on 05/23/2009, -0/+11I completely agree that human rights do not apply to American citizens exclusively. I care very much about the human condition both within my country and in the rest of the world.
The point I was making however was clearly not implying that American citizens' rights should be prioritized, rather that this introduced measure will constitute a misconception (as it is intended to) that it is aimed at terrorists abroad. However, it will likely be used on America's own citizens more to reduce dissent, subversion and a difference of opinion.
I was not saying United States citizens are more important, but rather being used against themselves to promote an act that will likely result in further threats to democracy (ironically while this act is allegedly trying to prevent just that). And I assure you that this will soon happen elsewhere. So no, it does not just affect Americans. - akhomestead, on 05/23/2009, -3/+13Some of us see thru both parties.
- AlterLite, on 05/23/2009, -4/+14Change you can believe in? I find it amusing that the advocate of change isn't changing much from the last administration. People got caught up in his speeches and chants and couldn't see that he was just another freaking politician who says what people want to hear. If people weren't so blinded by their hate of Bush, they would have seen O for what he is... just another lying politician.
- Memitim, on 05/23/2009, -3/+13It is unconstitutional but it is also very standard. Every nation in history has consistently done things like this. The US was supposed to be better than that, founded upon the principles of freedom and justice, but that falls apart really fast once you put a good scare into the common folk. Cowardice triumphs over idealism almost every time.
- mcsenget, on 05/23/2009, -0/+9How do you boil a frog? Throw him into a hot pot of water? No. Put him in a nice cool pot of water and heat it up slowly. By the time he realizes he's been cooked alive he won't be able to do anything about it.
That's the same way you take away someone's liberty. - Unreal030, on 05/23/2009, -1/+10Hitler had a lot of potential, but then he started the whole white supremacist nazi thing. (Not saying Obama is anything like Hitler, just making a point on the "potential" comment. Anyone that looked at him objectively during the election (or his past voting record for that matter) knew that his potential would not be for the general welfare of the people. (No I am not a Republican, I am independent)
- Geheg3D, on 05/23/2009, -3/+12Me.
- inactive, on 05/23/2009, -7/+16O = W.
- sentinel106, on 05/23/2009, -1/+9Obama suggesting he can do it because the Bush Administration did it is like saying "two wrongs make a right."
This is unconstitutional and wrong no matter how you look at it. - netant, on 05/23/2009, -0/+8Don't overestimate the power of the elites. They can only serve ***** sandwiches for as long as we keep paying for them and then eat them.
Who has more power? The RIAA or the file swapping crowd? Sure the RIAA has the money and has the advantage in the legal arena, but can they really prevent people from exchanging music? - buckrogers1965, on 05/23/2009, -0/+8I am a conservative republican and I have opposed these violations of civil rights the whole time. I protested against invading the middle east before we did it because I knew we would be stuck there for decades if we did so and that it would chew up and spit out generations of Americans.
- buckrogers1965, on 05/23/2009, -0/+8Some boring book with number on the cover. Oh well, let's watch survivor. *stares mindlessly at the flashing hypnotic picture box*
- buckrogers1965, on 05/23/2009, -0/+8Yes, because giving governments a huge chunk of unregulated power to do anything they want never comes back to bite its citizens in the butt.
Oh wait, it is always bad. - PillCosby, on 05/23/2009, -2/+10a third party vote is not wasted...
- alienufo, on 05/23/2009, -1/+9the worst thing about this is (if he actually goes through with it) is that unless we get a viable 3rd party candidate in 2012 or a primary challenger, nothing is going to stop it. All the dem pols on capitol hill will change tune (well, most) to "support the president" on this and almost all the republicans already agree with indefinite detention.
- buckrogers1965, on 05/23/2009, -0/+8Preventative Detention.
It is not just a bad idea, it is illegal, immoral, unconstitutional and a violation of every core belief in the American system.
If we let them do this, then they will apply these same rules to us someday. - devnullDood, on 05/23/2009, -1/+9Oh ya! Democrats to the rescue!
Do you really believe this? You need to stop thinking Partisan and realize that we are all Americans!
News Flash! - Not all republicans agree with this policy or with Bush's policy's. Quit lumping us all together - inactive, on 05/23/2009, -5/+13They voted for him because the alternative was McCain/Palin.
That's all you need to know. -
Show 51 - 100 of 170 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 