Posts Tagged ‘ david wallechinsky ’

Virginia Legislature Votes to Oppose Indefinite Detention of Americans without Trial

Yeah!!!! Finally there is a state that had the guts to stand up to the fed’s!

David Wallechinsky, Noel Brinkerhoff
allgov.com
Thursday, March 01, 2012

Lawmakers in Virginia have put aside their partisan differences about health care, contraception and other issues to officially oppose a controversial law passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama that allows the federal government to detain Americans without trial for alleged terrorism-related activities.
By votes of 39-1 in the state Senate and 96-4 in the House of Delegates, the legislature approved a bill “to nullify” provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012.
The Virginia legislation is largely symbolic, as it does not prevent federal agents from arresting terrorism suspects. But the legislative action is part “of a larger NDAA nullification campaign around the country.”
Seven other legislatures are also considering anti-NDAA bills. In addition, several local governments have passed resolutions that either denouncement the federal act or require noncompliance with it.
As previously reported by AllGov:
Obama’s supporters, including Republicans who normally oppose almost everything he does, have tried to defend the bill by saying that it doesn’t really go as far as its critics claim. However, the wording of the act, although carefully phrased, is nonetheless clear.
For example, Obama apologists say that it does not codify indefinite detention. But section 1021 (c-1) allows “Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of hostilities.” A U.S. president can take the position that he is engaged in a war without end. In fact, that is exactly what Presidents Bush and Obama have done. In addition, section (b-2) states that the law applies not just to members of al-Qaeda and the Taliban, but to any person who has “substantially supported” “associated forces.” Because these terms are not defined, Obama would appear to be free to interpret them as he chooses…as would be any future president.
Supporters of the president—and the members of Congress of both parties who passed the bill—dismiss the contention that American citizens can be detained indefinitely. Again the wording is clever, but disturbing. Section 1022 (b-1) states that, in regard to U.S. citizens “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” The key word here is “requirement.” In other words, the president still has the option to place Americans in indefinite military detention.
Some Americans may say that terrorism suspects should be stopped using any means necessary, and that if a few innocent people are imprisoned without trial by mistake, it’s unfortunate, but it’s better to be safe than sorry. However, there is now nothing to stop the current president of the United States, or the next one or the one after that, from taking advantage of the wording of the law and the fear of enemies to imprison whomever he chooses.
Advertisements

Congress Gives States the Right to Drug Test the Unemployed

As one of the MANY unemployed in this country, I can say that in theory this may be a good idea but it’s really just another way for the government to screw us all. I don’t believe that people collecting unemployment should be using illegal drugs however, with that being said, it’s still their body and still their choice as to what they do with the money they receive.

The other problem I see here is that addiction is a DISEASE and needs to be treated as such. You can’t just cut off a junkies money supply and tell them to get a job; it simply doesn’t work that way. If the government decides to do this in order to save a few bucks, they are only buying themselves more time. Crime WILL GO UP as these people are now forced to steal in order to support their habits. Emergency room visits WILL GO UP as those trying to get off the drugs begin experiencing withdrawal symptoms and require medical care.

It’s a lose/lose situation for everybody. How about we drug test the people on capital hill?

David Wallechinsky, Noel Brinkerhoff
All Gov

February 23, 2012

While millions of Americans will continue to enjoy their modest payroll tax cut, many of them will now have to submit to drug testing as part of the deal struck between the two parties in Congress. As part of the compromise reached to extend the tax cut, Democrats agreed to a Republican provision giving states the right to require those seeking unemployment benefits who were fired for drug use to undergo testing administered by the state. What’s strange about this concession is that workers who are fired for drug use are not eligible for unemployment benefits anyway.

However, a second section of the bill is likely to impact hundreds of thousands of individuals. This section applies to workers applying for jobs in industries where drug testing is prevalent even if the workers have never been laid off because of drug use. Any state that chooses to apply this rule will shift the financial burden of drug testing from employers to state taxpayers. The Department of Labor has not yet announced which industries will qualify for the drug testing provision

Some opponents of the bill have proposed that members of state legislatures who approve drug testing applicants for unemployment benefits should themselves be tested for drugs since they too receive government benefits.

Source

Advertisements