And then, when something like this comes up, that actually does threaten our rights, crickets? Not only crickets but cooperation from the least cooperative congress possibly in history? What the fuck, guys?
Liberals don't trust police/military, and are ok with the welfare state. They're generally pretty consistent on this, Obama's signed off on this program, but it's been opposed by many more liberals than conservatives.
Conservatives are the opposite, as evidenced by the reaction to this. When you combine their rhetoric about "Obama's Tyranny" when it comes to marginal tax rates or healthcare reform with their complete silence about things that are actually threatening, it's pathetic.
You're even doing it yourself. 'Bloating the spectrum of government power' is obfuscatory BS. Social workers and teachers don't carry guns or listen to phone calls, yet you're trying to conflate them with the security state.
Liberal Democrats are hypocrites because they spent eight years bashing George W. Bush for his expanding surveillance state--and Obama specifically spoke out against it during his candidacy--yet many of those same liberal Democrats spend their time in Washington defending the current administration's policies. They hated Bush's wars and detainment policies yet say nothing about Obama's continuation of them, the drone strikes, and the general warmongering. This administration has been one long series of broken promises and defensive Democrats. Watching Nancy Pelosi attempt to differentiate between Obama's security state and Bush's security state was mind-boggling.
If you're going to respond that liberals are opposed to all this and don't consider Obama a true liberal because of it, conservatives did the same regarding George W. Bush when his poll numbers went down too. Every time there's a problem, the person in office suddenly doesn't represent you anymore, and you distance yourselves.
Bloating the spectrum of government power refers to desensitization to the growing power the government has to collect information on citizens for its own purposes, from the healthcare database to monitoring phone calls.
I can tell which "side" you're on just from the seething way you talk about the other team. If you took a step back and looked objectively, you'd see that you both come off the same way to independents and have the same transgressions and hypocrisies.
More like 4.5 than 6, but also for an 8 year period starting about 8 years before that, too.
First line of the article: "The Obama administration has won the latest battle in their fight to indefinitely detain US citizens and foreigners suspected of being affiliated with terrorists under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012."
Your link: "...enemy combatants, including U.S. citizens, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the rights of due process,"
We've got 2 issues there, 'enemy combatants' requires a bit more proof than 'suspected of terrorism', although things can be fudged like in the Bradley Manning case. Then we have the whole due process.
The 5th amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
The parts about the armed forces apply to military justice for troops, when wartime discipline is invoked. It's not saying that "when you're at war it all goes out the window for ordinary citizens".
Indefinitely detaining someone based on suspicion, without a requirement of due process or a way to appeal, is quite clearly unconstitutional although I hold little hope for the current Supreme Court to overturn it.
Your right to free speech as an American citizen is only a right so far as the US government continues to respect that right. The Executive branch could come out tomorrow and start detaining anyone they cared to while stating that any criticism of the US Government is now a detainable offense, and it would be legal if the Judicial branch waved it's hands and said "We'll allow it."
Our rights may be "god given", but god cannot protect us from the tyranny of men.
History is pretty clear that what's legal is not always what's right.
The term 'rights' is also a vague one, and can be split fairly easily into those which should be considered universal and those which only apply locally -- for example, I have the right to walk across the road even where there's no designated crossing point, while in the US that would be jaywalking. That's not a universal right and certainly not a constitutionally protected one, but it's a right that's been removed from US citizens (and for good reason too, in some places). On the other hand, I would say that the right to life should be universal. The US is still largely happy with the death penalty and (per an earlier story on HN) the US Government seems to think that extra-judicial killings are fine too. They are apparently lawful under the constitution, and also threaten American citizen's rights.