General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Senator Al Franken: Why I Voted Against the National Defense Authorization Act [View all]JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)seemed contradictory and ambiguous to me.
The Feinstein amendment was watered down to the point that it is virtually meaningless. The bill is a mess.
The version of the bill I saw also involves the National Guard in law enforcement in ways that concern me.
But then the text of the bill has changed so often that it is hard to know who is discussing what version of it.
I strongly disagree with your complacency about this bill.
I understand Obama's problem in dealing with the Guantanamo detainees, but claiming still more executive and military authority over American citizens is not the answer.
Just how do you define the word "terrorist"? Same question for "terrorism."
Throughout history in nation after nation, we have seen that one person's terrorist is another person's patriot.
Were the dissidents in the USSR, the Sakharovs, terrorists? The Soviets thought so.
Were the Jews in Germany terrorists? Hitler's SS viewed them as such.
Defining terrorists as associated with Al Qaeda is a problem since, as I understand it, Al Qaeda is not a nation or an organization that keeps lists of member or affiliates or that hands out membership cards. Any political foe could be designated as a terrorist or an Al Qaeda sympathizer as these things are vaguely defined now.
I am utterly opposed to this kind of ambiguity.
It is our legal tradition that our laws should be certain so that a person can know whether or not he or she is violating them.
The laws about terrorism are extremely subjective. They are incompatible with our legal traditions. They will cause our nation great sorrow -- greater sorrow than the terrorists themselves.
I have talked to a lot of people but I have not personally ever knowingly met or talked to a terrorist. Have you? Why do we need this law?