The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012

[Meg 368]

Obama signs NDAA into law, dismantles Bill of Rights

Jenn Morrill, Salt Lake City Independent Examiner

December 31, 2011

Rumors have been floating around the internet for the past week or so that Obama signed NDAA into law before Christmas. Well, he didn't. But that doesn't really matter now, because today he did.

According to the ACLU, President Barack Obama just signed one of the most controversial bills into law since the Patriot Act. The sad part is that neither the House nor the Senate nor Obama seemed to think it was all that controversial, as it passed overwhelmingly in both the House and the Senate, and the president just signed it (even though he had at one time threatened to veto).

In case you haven't heard, H.R. 1540: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 or NDAA, is not your typical defense spending bill. It gives authority to the president (or perhaps it'd be more fitting to call him king or ruler at this point) to order the military to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without official charge or trial on the mere suspicion of being a terrorist or linked to a terrorist organization.

Obama did add a signing statement that reads, in part, "My Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens." While his promise might comfort some, there is no guarantee of future presidents doing the same.

Many in government will argue that there is nothing for Americans to worry about -- unless you're a terrorist that is. But as our government slips further and further from the rule of law and the founding principles of our nation that once made us great, tyranny inevitably creeps in to take its place. And when tyranny reigns, the line between who is a terrorist and who isn't becomes easily blurred. A "terrorist" could simply mean a political enemy of the state.

The citizens of our country that understand what happened when Obama lifted his pen off the dotted line (while in Hawaii) wonder why their elected representatives don't remotely represent them or stand up for the Constitution as they swear to do. In a previous article I pointed out that the U.S. senators from Utah were divided in their vote on this bill. Senator Orrin Hatch voted for NDAA, while Senator Mike Lee was one of only seven senators in the country that voted against it.

68 percent of the House voted in favor, and only one of three U.S. congressmen from Utah earned his title of "representative" by voting against the bill: Rep. Jason Chaffetz.

Rep. Jim Matheson (of district 2) is going to have a difficult time defending himself next year against his opponent, a Constitutional conservative and Utah State Representative, Carl Wimmer, who says he would have voted against the bill because Section 1031 (of the Senate-passed version) remained intact. Wimmer told Examiner that anyone who took an oath to uphold the Constitution should have voted against the bill. He said,

We're well down a dangerous path, here -- trying to preserve our safety by trading away what makes us American. Being "suspected" of having connections to terrorism is not justification for removing our right to due process. Some people I respect voted for this, but I'm afraid I strongly feel that this is a really bad bill.

Out of all the main contenders for the presidency, there is only one who has voiced opposition for the egregious bill. It should be predictable at this point that the one who stood on the side of the Constitution was Rep. Ron Paul. He said of the bill,

Little by little, in the name of fighting terrorism, our Bill of Rights is being repealed...The Patriot Act, as bad as its violation of the 4th Amendment, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed (NDAA) continues that slip toward tyranny and in fact accelerates it significantly. The main section of concern, Section 1021 of the NDAA Conference Report, does to the 5th Amendment what the PATRIOT Act does to the 4th. The 5th Amendment is about much more than the right to remain silent in the face of government questioning. It contains very basic and very critical stipulations about due process of law. The government cannot imprison a person for no reason and with no evidence presented or access to legal counsel.

He explains that the dangers of the new law are in its deliberate vagueness:

The dangers in the NDAA are its alarmingly vague, undefined criteria for who can be indefinitely detained by the US government without trial. It is now no longer limited to members of al Qaeda or the Taliban, but anyone accused of “substantially supporting” such groups or “associated forces.” How closely associated? And what constitutes "substantial" support? What if it was discovered that someone who committed a terrorist act was once involved with a charity? Or supported a political candidate? Are all donors of that charity or supporters of that candidate now suspect, and subject to indefinite detainment? Is that charity now an associated force?

The Bill of Rights has no exemption for ‘really bad people’ or terrorists or even non-citizens. It is a key check on government power against any person. That is not a weakness in our legal system; it is the very strength of our legal system. The NDAA attempts to justify abridging the bill of rights on the theory that rights are suspended in a time of war, and the entire Unites States is a battlefield in the War on Terror. This is a very dangerous development indeed. Beware.

It should be painfully obvious to Americans by now that if they continue to vote for the status quo, no matter if it's Republican or Democrat, then the attack on civil liberties and the dismantling of the Constitution will inevitably continue.

So raise your glasses to toast the new year. It's not even midnight, and your right to due process has already been taken away. What's next?

(To see how your "representatives" voted, click here.)

So, Obama says his administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Maybe he believes that. Maybe I even believe him. Either way, it doesn't matter.

We have now become a country where the government legally can put a citizen in indefinite military detention just someone claims you might be associated with terrorists. They don't have to prove it; they just have to make the claim.

We may not have a dictator. We now have a group of them.

[Indiana Joe 1,751]

This is no different than what we did during WW2 and the Cold War. If you were a suspected Nazi sympathizer or Commie, *whisk* you're gone. We've done it before; I'm sure we'll do it again. This is nothing new for the United States. I'm neither surprised nor alarmed.

  Edited January 1, 2012 by Indiana Joe  

[Duke87 1,070]

This is one of those things where it slips through because the issue isn't what it likely means in practice but rather what it potentially means in theory.

The objective is to make more efficient the process of dealing with actual terrorists. And I don't think anyone is at the moment seriously considering using it otherwise. But the law will outlast the current administration unless overturned, and those in power in the future might see things a little differently.

There is also, of course, the matter of false positives. I was stopped by the police a couple days ago for photographing a highway from an overpass. Not the least bit illegal, but with the culture of security theater around here taking pictures is considered to be "suspicious activity". It's absurd, of course - a terrorist looking to scope out the freeway needn't leave his home, there's Google Street View. But we've gotta keep up the illusion that we're can keep everyone safe!

Now, in this case the cop was very polite and let me go real quickly once he realized I was in fact not a terrorist. But with this sort of thing allowed it's not unfathomable to think that at a later date someone might get put in handcuffs and detained for similarly harmless but "suspicious" activity.

[Meg 368]

I'm neither surprised nor alarmed.

and that, in and of itself, is worrisome

Now, in this case the cop was very polite and let me go real quickly once he realized I was in fact not a terrorist.

and how did he determine that you weren't? Did you show him your papers that indicated you were a gainfully employed engineering type who had legitimate reason to take pictures of city infrastructure?

But with this sort of thing allowed it's not unfathomable to think that at a later date someone might get put in handcuffs and detained for similarly harmless but "suspicious" activity.

That's the problem. and odds are good we will never heard about it. The person will simply be "missing".

[Cockatoo 2,257]

I was stopped by the police a couple days ago for photographing a highway from an overpass.

That's an acceptable thing for a police officer to do in the United States? Stop someone for taking pictures on a highway? That sort of what you could call paranoid behaviour reminds me a lot more of an oppressive dictatorship than the land of the free...

[hym 358]

While I certainly wasn't expecting this piece of news, I can't say I'm surprised either. There is a reason I have zero confidence in the government.

[Meg 368]

That's an acceptable thing for a police officer to do in the United States? Stop someone for taking pictures on a highway?

We are all encouraged to be vigilant and watch out for suspicious behavior. That is the default message on a highway alert board near my house. (It changes when there are road closings or amber alerts and such.)

On some level, it's a good thing. Anyone who tries anything funny on a plane now is usually tackled by other passengers.

On the other hand, it does lead to, as you call it, paranoid behavior.

That sort of what you could call paranoid behaviour reminds me a lot more of an oppressive dictatorship than the land of the free...

oh, but it's becoming an oppressive dictatorship to protect our freedoms. or so we are supposed to believe.

[Sgt Pepper 864]

I remember reading about this before it was signed...I was so frightened...even as the young teenager I am, I have no love nor confidence in the US Government. I had always thought of the conspiracies and the insane things the government has been up too...but this made me even more depressed than I all ready was. I get a lot of stress just thinking about how corrupt America is...and I'm only 17...what am I supposed to do about it?

I even tried to tell my mom about this...she just thought I was crazy and said it would never happen and said that I shouldn't believe everything I see on the internet. Like the news on TV is any better?

[hym 358]

I was stopped by the police a couple days ago for photographing a highway from an overpass.

That's an acceptable thing for a police officer to do in the United States? Stop someone for taking pictures on a highway? That sort of what you could call paranoid behaviour reminds me a lot more of an oppressive dictatorship than the land of the free...

Police have always had the authority to stop someone if they had reasonable suspicion that something illegal was happening. Nothing has changed in this regard. What has changed is what constitutes "reasonable suspicion." Before 9/11, if you took a picture of the Golden Gate Bridge, people just assumed you were a tourist and thought nothing of it. After 9/11, people might wonder if you're a terrorist posing as a tourist, taking pictures for examination later.

[Duke87 1,070]

Now, in this case the cop was very polite and let me go real quickly once he realized I was in fact not a terrorist.

and how did he determine that you weren't? Did you show him your papers that indicated you were a gainfully employed engineering type who had legitimate reason to take pictures of city infrastructure?

By talking to me and noticing that I was behaving friendly and normally, not acting shifty. And because I look like a respectable young man, not a hoodlum. He asked where I was from but he didn't ask to see my ID. Honestly, he seemed more genuinely curious as to why on earth I would be taking such pictures than actually suspicious.

Also, for the record, I did not have "legitimate reason" to be taking those pictures. The type of engineering I do does not involve highways. I was shutterbugging for pleasure, not for business - though I was in the neighborhood for an unrelated business purpose. But, while odd, it is perfectly legal and I was perfectly within my rights to do it.

I was stopped by the police a couple days ago for photographing a highway from an overpass.

That's an acceptable thing for a police officer to do in the United States? Stop someone for taking pictures on a highway?

Yup. If you're anywhere in or near New York or DC, the cops may very well stop you and question you if you are taking pictures of anything infrastructure-related. Because, you know, terrorists take pictures of potential targets. It's absurd but it's become culturally ingrained as being suspicious, and objection is uncommon because it's something most people would not ordinarily do. In fact, there are several bridges and tunnels in New York City where photography of any sort is explicitly banned, and if the police catch you doing it they can confiscate your camera.

This is specific to the New York and DC areas (and military bases) where people are particularly paranoid about terrorism, though. If you are in, say, Kentucky, the cops won't bother you about photography.

There is some very stark contrast to be had between New York City and some other places in terms of the prevalence and activity of the police. Spend any significant amount of time in New York and you will notice, this city is crawling with cops. And don't mess with them, they don't tolerate crap. It's what they do to keep crime in check here: omipresence and iron-fistedness.

Look a little bit north to Canada and you will see the difference. If you are in Toronto or Montreal, police are a much less common sight. And if say, they catch you in a park late at night after it's closed, they will either just ignore you or tell you you have to leave and, if you do so quietly, give you no further trouble. In New York, they will put you in handcuffs first and ask questions later.

[sneakeypete 16]

Is this bill really as bad as the OP's article makes out? anyone had a chance to read it? I have not, however i've heard people say that the detaining US citizens thing is not true, or something, which has got me wondering either way.

[Meg 368]

Yup. If you're anywhere in or near New York or DC, the cops may very well stop you and question you if you are taking pictures of anything infrastructure-related. Because, you know, terrorists take pictures of potential targets. It's absurd but it's become culturally ingrained as being suspicious, and objection is uncommon because it's something most people would not ordinarily do. In fact, there are several bridges and tunnels in New York City where photography of any sort is explicitly banned, and if the police catch you doing it they can confiscate your camera.

Yup. A year or two ago, I was visiting the memorial at the Pentagon. While leaving, I happened to take a picture after I had crossed some invisible line. I was stopped and, very nicely, told to delete that last picture from my camera. I did so. (It was kinda funny when I was detained at the Pentagon when I was 8. It wouldn't be so funny now.)

[Cockatoo 2,257]

Do most Americans fell that this gradual "chipping away" of their freedoms is a fair trade-off for added protection against a perceived 'terror' threat?

Bills like this, the SOPA (somewhat related), those airport scanners, additional police presences, the culture of suspicion, a deterioration of America's image abroad as a free nation... is it all worth it?

To be honest, these are the sorts of issues that would make me think twice if I ever chose to visit the United States... the same sorts of issues (obviously to a much greater extent though) that would make me think twice before visiting hardline dictatorship.

Will I be detained or even end up in prison over a simple misunderstanding? What if I got a bit drunk, looked at a police officer the wrong way, and ended up spending my holiday in jail. What if some guy thought he heard me say "bomb" at the airport (due to my strange accent) and an over-zealous security officer decides to point his gun at me.

If I were a visitor in America, these are the sorts of things I would be paranoid about. The threat of terrorism probably wouldn't even cross my mind.

[Meg 368]

Do most Americans fell that this gradual "chipping away" of their freedoms is a fair trade-off for added protection against a perceived 'terror' threat?

To tell you the truth, I believe most Americans are either oblivious to it or pretending not to see it.

Bills like this, the SOPA (somewhat related), those airport scanners, additional police presences, the culture of suspicion, a deterioration of America's image abroad as a free nation... is it all worth it?

Nope. The terrorists have already won. We have already become something we never wanted to be.

To be honest, these are the sorts of issues that would make me think twice if I ever chose to visit the United States... the same sorts of issues (obviously to a much greater extent though) that would make me think twice before visiting hardline dictatorship.

Will I be detained or even end up in prison over a simple misunderstanding? What if I got a bit drunk, looked at a police officer the wrong way, and ended up spending my holiday in jail.

Sad is it is to say, it would depend on how you look and what language you speak. But, on general principles, it's not a good idea to wander around strange areas drunk.

What if some guy thought he heard me say "bomb" at the airport (due to my strange accent) and an over-zealous security officer decides to point his gun at me.

I've been around a lot of officers with a lot of guns and I've never seen them point a gun at anyone. If things get weird, just stay still and keep your hands visible.

If I were a visitor in America, these are the sorts of things I would be paranoid about. The threat of terrorism probably wouldn't even cross my mind.

There are weird cultural quirks that many people don't think about. For instance, most Americans know that, if they are driving and get pulled over for speeding or running a red light or whatever, they should keep their hands on the steering wheel.

A police officer approaching a car does not know what he will find. It is best it keep your hands visible and stationary until you have talked enough for him to know that you aren't going for a gun.

I've had European visitors who were startled at the sight of an armed guard at the airport. It's just a man standing there; nod hello and move on. One was concerned about the guns before he came over here but, while here, never saw one.

[hym 358]

Do most Americans fell that this gradual "chipping away" of their freedoms is a fair trade-off for added protection against a perceived 'terror' threat?

I don't think a really nation-wide poll has ever been done on the topic, though I could be wrong. Considering that Congress has a 17% approval rating for 2011, which is the lowest Congress has ever scored, I think the answer is probably "no." When it comes to all the people I know that have said anything on the subject, the answer is very resounding disapproval.

Bills like this, the SOPA (somewhat related), those airport scanners, additional police presences, the culture of suspicion, a deterioration of America's image abroad as a free nation... is it all worth it?

Addressing the points separately:

• Bills like this one are certainly not worth it.
  
• SOPA/PIPA really are not related to this and are a different issue entirely. One is a foolish attempt to enforce copyright law; the other is an assault on the Constitution.
  
• The airport scanners are more a case of phenomenal bureaucratic bungling than anything else. The TSA had the option to use a less invasive scanner that would have mitigated all the privacy claims from the start. Agency officials made the positively moronic decision to use the more invasive scanners. As for the technology itself, it is really nothing more than the next step in a logical progression of improved detection technology.
  
• Yes, there are additional police presences in some areas, but that is an area specific thing. There hasn't been a sudden explosion of beat cops everywhere. The pros/cons of any additional police presence are very much specific to that area.
  

To be honest, these are the sorts of issues that would make me think twice if I ever chose to visit the United States... the same sorts of issues (obviously to a much greater extent though) that would make me think twice before visiting hardline dictatorship.

Will I be detained or even end up in prison over a simple misunderstanding? What if I got a bit drunk, looked at a police officer the wrong way, and ended up spending my holiday in jail. What if some guy thought he heard me say "bomb" at the airport (due to my strange accent) and an over-zealous security officer decides to point his gun at me.

When it comes to issues like public intoxication, potentially reckless driving, disturbing the peace, or something similar, jurisdictions frequently give the officer quite a bit of leeway to determine how he wants to handle the situation. You can be so drunk that you're throwing up at the officer's feet (which certainly counts as public intoxication) but if you're within a few hundred feet of your apartment when he catches you, he might just tell you to go home and stay there. Conversely, if he thinks you might be at risk of alcohol poisoning, he could choose to detain you and radio the dispatcher to send local emergency medical services to look at you.

Just to give another example, Texas traffic law says that an officer has the authority to overrule any part of the traffic code if he feels the situation warrants it. If a state trooper catches you driving 85MPH on a highway where the speed limit is 70MPH, he can pull you over and give you a very healthy speeding ticket. Or he could decide that, because you're the only car he's seen on the highway for the past hour and the road is straight and flat for the next 100 miles, it's probably okay for you to drive 85MPH. It can also work the other direction. Say there is heavy fog, and instead of driving 70MPH like normal, everyone is driving 30MPH. If you're driving 70MPH, the officer might feel that you're recklessly endangering the other drivers and could arrest you.

This is nothing new. Jurisdictions have given officers this power for many years, and from my experience, most officers use it prudently.

[Jazzmaster 716]

So I guess, troops in Iraq or not, the War on Terror will never really be over.

I definitely don't go around feeling like my freedoms are being threatened by terrorists. Ask me if they're being threatened by the government though? Different story.

I've never been given a serious reason to look at our government and raise an eyebrow until the NDAA and SOPA were brought up. Everything else was business as usual; Congress can't agree on anything. So I would just roll my eyes and go 'yeah, that's politics'. But it's pretty disturbing that they can all agree on writing vague laws like this, with no real restriction on their part. Can't fix the damned economy, but they can toss us in the joint if we're even suspected of doing something wrong? Pfft.

They probably won't turn the nation upside down like a lot of people are shouting, but I can understand why so many people are so P.O.'ed. I've slipped a little thought into the back of my mind to move to another country, if this kind of business keeps up. I wouldn't do it today, but I would do it if I felt like I stopped being treated like a human in this country, which was supposed to be founded on freedom. It'd probably somewhere like Sweden; criticize them for being socialist all you want, but at least they seem to treat people like people, not potential criminals.

I'll close out this post with a thoughtful quote from one of my favorite comedians, unfortunately deceased:

"The politicians are put there to give you the illusion that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You don't have freedom of choice. You have owners. They OWN you."

[Easy Bakes 253]

Does the 5th Amendment have any teeth left it it anyway?

Are not most people who refuse to answer questions in court by pleading the 5th kept in jail for contempt until they answer them?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

I am tempted to say "There goes the old ball game". You now have a "legal" form of "Lettres de cachet". The next thing will a "Court of the Star Chamber". It is time to scrap all that junk that congress has passed, the Constitution and all your "state papers" dreamed up mostly by French intellectuals, and rejoin the Commonwealth of Nations with a proper Parliament and a Governor General to look after the ceremonial stuff. You see, folks, we've been there and done that.

The United States of America is starting to look more and more like the French Republic's Directory period, except Obama is not quite Robespierre. However, pick almost any Republican candidate and you'll be there.

Now that you have had your run with political toys, it is time to grow up, admit is was a bad mistake, and come in from the cold. You can admire the Declaration of Independence as a great document, but now you have finally dragged it into the mud. The tripartite government has now shown, after more than 200 years, that it is a flop and has resulted in this piece of legal garbage caused by a congress that just doesn't understand the concept of true freedom. All your amendments are now in the garbage can or very nearly.

I think it will be possible for you to keep your "united" states as a single country. We manage with provinces, but the DC government has now shown its true fall onto the slippery slope of a police state leading to a dictatorship.

Come home, people of America, come home. We would welcome you back as prodigal sons.

  Edited January 2, 2012 by A Nonny Moose  

[Meg 368]

Of all of the possibilities that I see, "running back home to mama" isn't one of them.

People will cheer the rise of Nehemiah Scudder before they endure the occupation by British troops.

[Indiana Joe 1,751]

I don't know where all of you get such a pristine perception of people.

The government does not make up these threats. If you got rid of all airport security, I'd say thousands of people would be killed in terrorist attacks in a matter of days.

Not to mention violent crime within this country. It seems to me that a significant portion of people would become criminals given the funding and the tools. Especially with the recession right now.

But of course, in order to protect ourselves, we take away our freedom. This country was founded on the basis that the majority should have the power because they will always do the right thing. Being one of the upcoming generation, I no longer believe this is the case. I have no faith in the majority anymore.

Its easy to blame the politicians. They're obviously not doing all the right things. I don't support them. But I don't think the population is doing the right things either. EVERYONE needs to clean up their act. It has to be a group effort. Not only our government is failing; we are failing as a people.

[Duke87 1,070]

If you got rid of all airport security, I'd say thousands of people would be killed in terrorist attacks in a matter of days.

No, no, no.

First of all, terrorist attacks take months and even years to plan and execute. So, "a matter of days" is harsh".

Secondly, who says that just because there's no airport security that there's no security? Let's not forget that mister underwear bomber successfully made it through airport security... and the passengers on the plane stopped him. As they would stop anyone who attempted anything. The hijackers on 9/11 got away with what they did because it was unprecedented. All the people on the plane believed that they were going to be taken somewhere and held hostage (as had been the case with all previous hijackings), not killed. And when the passengers of one plane found out otherwise, they took action.

Thirdly, why such the specific fuss over airplanes? There are plenty of other things out there to blow up which are completely unguarded. A terrorist need not get past security to attack a major bridge or tunnel, they just need to drive their truck there.

Most of this "security" that we put up with is really just security theater. It does jack to actually keep anyone safe, all it does is create the illusion that people are safe.

[Indiana Joe 1,751]

If you got rid of all airport security, I'd say thousands of people would be killed in terrorist attacks in a matter of days.

No, no, no.

First of all, terrorist attacks take months and even years to plan and execute. So, "a matter of days" is harsh".

Secondly, who says that just because there's no airport security that there's no security? Let's not forget that mister underwear bomber successfully made it through airport security... and the passengers on the plane stopped him. As they would stop anyone who attempted anything. The hijackers on 9/11 got away with what they did because it was unprecedented. All the people on the plane believed that they were going to be taken somewhere and held hostage (as had been the case with all previous hijackings), not killed. And when the passengers of one plane found out otherwise, they took action.

Thirdly, why such the specific fuss over airplanes? There are plenty of other things out there to blow up which are completely unguarded. A terrorist need not get past security to attack a major bridge or tunnel, they just need to drive their truck there.

Most of this "security" that we put up with is really just security theater. It does jack to actually keep anyone safe, all it does is create the illusion that people are safe.

It is. It is very psychological. That's also why planes are focused on. First of all, you already have general fears around flying. Add to it the fear of hijacking or blowing up and you get very effective terrorism. But I firmly believe that the system itself, the (according to you, 'false') sense of security is what keeps lots incidents from happening. Now that the idea is in peoples' heads, now that it's been done, if you leave it open to happen again, people will do it.

Even if the entire National Security system would prove to be completely useless in the event of someone REALLY wanting to destroy the country, the fact that it's there is what dissuades so many psychopaths.

Now if someone truly wanted to cause mayhem, they'd plant a bomb in a football stadium and set it off during a game, or something. Up until now no one has done it. I seriously worry that we might come to that point soon. I use 9/11 as evidence. As you said, it was unprecedented. People are doing bolder things. I think they do need to be cracked down upon.

The feeling during World War 2 was that you would give anything for your country. Where's that feeling now? The only thing people are concerned about is their own comfort. Yes, we pay taxes. Yes, we do public service. Jury duty. Some people join the army. Sometimes it takes more than that to run a country. A certain Kennedy quote is very appropriate here.

If I have to be detained to make my country more safe, so be it. I do not feel it's necessary because the politicians tell me it is, but because of the world I see and walk around in every day. If you don't want that, nobody's keeping you here. Move out.

And terrorists are targeting different areas. Times Square. That was fortunately also prevented by the good old citizens. However I'd rather live my life having my country watch out for my general security. I'd rather sacrifice some small conveniences and not have to watch my back to make sure it doesn't get blown up. There are enough things to worry about.

And all of this is just assuming that the government takes advantage of this bill in this way. There's no proof that they will.

[Meg 368]

Most of this "security" that we put up with is really just security theater. It does jack to actually keep anyone safe, all it does is create the illusion that people are safe.

After 9/11, they decided to search all of the cars entering the parking garage where I worked. (It was a federal building a few miles from the Pentagon.)

Each day, we had to stop, pop the trunk, and wait while someone walked around the car with a mirror on a long pole so they could see under it.

It all seemed to be pretty pointless so people took to leaving bulging suitcases and cardboard boxes in their trunks to see what was happen. The answer was nothing.

People started leaving boxes in their trunks labeled "This is a bomb" to see what the reaction was. The answer was nothing.

It was all a joke. An exercise to show that there was some "increased security". Eventually they installed metal detectors at the walk-in entrances to the building. But not near the elevators that lead up from the parking garage.

The whole thing was a farce.

[Duke87 1,070]

The feeling during World War 2 was that you would give anything for your country. Where's that feeling now? {...}

If I have to be detained to make my country more safe, so be it.

The problem with this philosophy is that it is self-contradictory. What makes America America is (in theory, anyway) our freedom. You cannot give up your freedom for the sake of your country. Your freedom is your country. By giving up our freedom, we are destroying America, not protecting it.

Personally? I am far more afraid of what an oppressive government and police force can do to me than of what a terrorist can do to me. Terrorist attacks are few and far between and in the greater scheme of things a tiny threat - comparing statistics over the last decade, including 9/11, you are forty times more likely to be murdered by other means. You are a hundred times more likely to die in a car accident. And that assumes that something like 9/11 will happen roughly once a decade, which it will not.

But if our rights are taken away, that affects everyone.

[Indiana Joe 1,751]

I seriously doubt that our government would make such a U-turn so as to turn into a dictatorship, even with the legal capability. There are three hundred million people who wouldn't allow it.

And I would certainly rather see changes in domestic crime policy. That's a lot worse. More local police funding; it's ridiculous that police officers are being laid off.

My congressman did not vote for the NDAA, and I'm glad. I wouldn't have either. The timing is terrible, too. It still wouldn't have been the right time, but signing it in 2001 would have made more sense. But it does not make our country a dictatorship.

Besides, if the rest of national security is a farce, then who's to say the government will ever detain anyone?

[Duke87 1,070]

I seriously doubt that our government would make such a U-turn so as to turn into a dictatorship, even with the legal capability.

U-turn? Just what direction do you think we are heading in?

There are three hundred million people who wouldn't allow it.

Not if you slowly bring the frog to a boil.

Besides, if the rest of national security is a farce, then who's to say the government will ever detain anyone?

The farce isn't that nobody's doing anything, the farce is that what's being done is unhelpful. They will detain people. And they will do so when it is utterly not necessary. And it will not make us safer.

[Meg 368]

There are three hundred million people who wouldn't allow it.

Not if you slowly bring the frog to a boil.

To elaborate on that for those who don't get the reference . . .

If you take a frog and dump him into very hot water, he will quickly jump out of it.

But, if you put a dump him into room temperature water, he will happily sit there. and if you increase the temperature of the water one degree at a time, he will happily sit there while he is cooked to death.

The farce isn't that nobody's doing anything, the farce is that what's being done is unhelpful. They will detain people. And they will do so when it is utterly not necessary. And it will not make us safer.

They are detaining people.

I've never been given a serious reason to look at our government and raise an eyebrow until the NDAA and SOPA were brought up.

My first reaction to that was "wow, really?"

Then I realized that you never got to watch the President say "when the President does it that means that it is not illegal" while being completely sincere. You never got to see 18 years old sent against their will to a fight a war that the American people did not support.

You never got to see American citizens put into concentration camps because of how they looked. or to see people get blackballed from their jobs just because Joe McCarthy didn't like them.

Okay, I wasn't around to see all of that either. But the point is, there are plenty of historical reasons to raise an eyebrow at the US government.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Meg, I was around for all the things you have cited and I consider myself lucky to be an outside, if alarmed, observer. Maybe I am a voice crying in the wilderness, but your congress and Supreme court are working you into a police state controlled by the corporations.

[Jazzmaster 716]

I've never been given a serious reason to look at our government and raise an eyebrow until the NDAA and SOPA were brought up.

My first reaction to that was "wow, really?"

Then I realized that you never got to watch the President say "when the President does it that means that it is not illegal" while being completely sincere. You never got to see 18 years old sent against their will to a fight a war that the American people did not support.

You never got to see American citizens put into concentration camps because of how they looked. or to see people get blackballed from their jobs just because Joe McCarthy didn't like them.

Okay, I wasn't around to see all of that either. But the point is, there are plenty of historical reasons to raise an eyebrow at the US government.

Ah yes, conscription, Japanese detainment, I remember that stuff from history...and you're right, there's PLENTY of occasions of the gov't acting pretty dang silly. I guess what I meant was, I've never been given a reason to raise an eyebrow to them in my own life time, until recently. It could be that I'm just starting to really open my eyes to all these things.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

U.S. history in the 20th Century is not all nice, progress, and light. Some of it is dark, retrogressive and against the principles of the state papers. Not the least of which is the Volstead Act, which I invite you to look up. It made several Canadians into millionaires.