Donald Trump asks Congress for expanded Presidential powers, including to indefinitely detain Americans without trial.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm posting this here instead of the coronavirus thread because frankly, I think its big enough to warrant its own topic:

https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... s-pandemic

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has asked Congress for a slew of new emergency powers, according to documents obtained and reviewed by Politico.

The requests come as the federal government tries to combat the coronavirus pandemic which has sickened over 24,000 people nationwide in the U.S. and claimed more than 280 lives, according to data compiled by Johns Hopkins University.

Documents obtained by the publication revealed several different proposals.

One of the proposed changes would give the attorney general the power to ask top district judges to stop court proceedings "whenever the district court is fully or partially closed by virtue of any natural disaster, civil disobedience, or other emergency situation.”

These top judges would also gain the power to the stop court proceedings during a national emergency.

In addition, the DOJ has asked for the ability to ask chief judges to permanently detain an individual without trial during emergencies.

Another proposal would reportedly waive the statute of limitations for criminal investigations as well as civil trials during an emergency and could last up to "one year following the end of the national emergency."

Last week, President Trump declared the coronavirus outbreak in the U.S. a national health emergency.

The Hill has reached out to the DOJ for comment.

Statute of limitations? Gone.
Permanent detentions without trial during an "emergency" (which the President has the power to unilaterally declare).
Court proceedings halted during an emergency.

Now, maybe putting trials on hold during a pandemic makes sense. But this is Donald Trump. A man who has more or less openly aspired to be a dictator since he started running for President. Anyone who thinks these changes will be temporary is kidding themselves.

You know that Trump declaration of dictatorship that all of us with "Trump Derangement Syndrome" have been fearing for the last four years? THIS IS IT. Don't believe it? Slow down and repeat the following: The President literally just asked Congress for the right to detain any American indefinitely with no trial whatsoever.

And because of the current crisis, it will probably go through with barely a whisper of protest, with most people seeing it as simply necessary precautions, then have months to become used to the new state of affairs before they realize what it truly is.

[muse]

Um. What? Since when are the Department of Justice and Donald Trump the same entity?

[The Romulan Republic]

Um. What? Since when are the Department of Justice and Donald Trump the same entity?

Since AG Barr took it upon himself to act as the President's personal defense lawyer instead of as a politically-neutral public servant.

[Jub]

What other measures could they take that you would consider reasonable? Also, would you be posting with the same alarmist tone if it were President, signature strikes are my go-to move, Obama making the request?

[The Romulan Republic]

What other measures could they take that you would consider reasonable? Also, would you be posting with the same alarmist tone if it were President, signature strikes are my go-to move, Obama making the request?

I'd be concerned about these moves from any President, but Obama, for all his many faults, never demonstrated an aspiration to be a dictator (at least not outside the fever dreams of Republicans).

Of course, I do not believe that it was meant to be a genuine question- it was a rhetorical question intended to dismiss my concerns by accusing me of hypocrisy/Whataboutism.

I would suggest that a temporary hold on trials, with a clear time limit, would be appropriate. I would not condone giving the President the authority to permanently detain Americans without trial under any circumstances whatsoever.

[Jub]

I'd be concerned about these moves from any President, but Obama, for all his many faults, never demonstrated an aspiration to be a dictator (at least not outside the fever dreams of Republicans).

Of course, I do not believe that it was meant to be a genuine question- it was a rhetorical question intended to dismiss my concerns by accusing me of hypocrisy/Whataboutism.

I would suggest that a temporary hold on trials, with a clear time limit, would be appropriate. I would not condone giving the President the authority to permanently detain Americans without trial under any circumstances whatsoever.

How do you propose we put a limit on how long these measures may be needed given the potential severity of Covid-19 within the United States? As a follow-up, Is this something that should tie up legislators every month as they rubberstamp the paperwork through?

[The Romulan Republic]

I'd be concerned about these moves from any President, but Obama, for all his many faults, never demonstrated an aspiration to be a dictator (at least not outside the fever dreams of Republicans).

Of course, I do not believe that it was meant to be a genuine question- it was a rhetorical question intended to dismiss my concerns by accusing me of hypocrisy/Whataboutism.

I would suggest that a temporary hold on trials, with a clear time limit, would be appropriate. I would not condone giving the President the authority to permanently detain Americans without trial under any circumstances whatsoever.

How do you propose we put a limit on how long these measures may be needed given the potential severity of Covid-19 within the United States?

As your subsequent sentence shows you are aware, the obvious way would be to have Congress, in passing a bill authorizing such actions, set a strict time-limit on how long they will last, with renewel by Congress required to extend them. This is hardly the unsolvable problem you're making it out to be.

As a follow-up, Is this something that should tie up legislators every month as they rubberstamp the paperwork through?

YES. Yes it should. Giving up fundamental liberties and rights, even temporarily, is something that Congress should exercise oversight of, that Representatives and Senators should have to sit down and consider and consciously decide to do, not something that is just allowed to happen automatically for the sake of convenience.

I don't know why you're trying to defend giving the President the power to arrest anyone indefinitely without trials with zero oversight by any other branch of government. But if you're going to, you should admit what you're advocating- dictatorship.

[Jub]

As your subsequent sentence shows you are aware, the obvious way would be to have Congress, in passing a bill authorizing such actions, set a strict time-limit on how long they will last, with renewel by Congress required to extend them. This is hardly the unsolvable problem you're making it out to be.

You're aware that this leads to one of two outcomes;

1) The continuations continue to get rubber-stamped indefinitely.
2) There is a big fight over this and we get a government that doesn't do other things because they're fighting over this. I'm sure you can recall times that this has happened over things such as proposed budgets.

YES. Yes it should. Giving up fundamental liberties and rights, even temporarily, is something that Congress should exercise oversight of, that Representatives and Senators should have to sit down and consider and consciously decide to do, not something that is just allowed to happen automatically for the sake of convenience.

They can already end it if they need to via impeachment and removal of the president. How does this change any of that?

[Zaune]

I don't know about anyone else but I would have been legitimately worried if the Obama Administration was seriously proposing measures like that, even explicitly temporary ones during a global SHTF situation. However, I do credit President Obama with being the sort of person who'd try and only use his emergency powers sparingly and for the good of the country at first, and take a few months to become drunk with power and start descending into tyranny.

Trump, on the other hand, probably wouldn't last a week before he started having people thrown in the dungeons without trial for no particularly good reason. Including the poor staffer who had to gently remind him that the White House doesn't have any proper dungeons.

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't know about anyone else but I would have been legitimately worried if the Obama Administration was seriously proposing measures like that, even explicitly temporary ones during a global SHTF situation. However, I do credit President Obama with being the sort of person who'd try and only use his emergency powers sparingly and for the good of the country at first, and take a few months to become drunk with power and start descending into tyranny.

Trump, on the other hand, probably wouldn't last a week before he started having people thrown in the dungeons without trial for no particularly good reason. Including the poor staffer who had to gently remind him that the White House doesn't have any proper dungeons.

There is no way in hell this won't be used to target Democratic candidates, voters, and activists.

[Tribble]

Ya, I'm with TRR on this one.

I would be worried enough about any president trying to pass these measures, but Donald Trump? Does anyone here seriously think that giving that walking constitutional crisis extra powers is a good thing? Really?

Given all the things he's said and done so far I'd be very surprised if he didn't abuse the hell out them once he gets his chance.

[The Romulan Republic]

As your subsequent sentence shows you are aware, the obvious way would be to have Congress, in passing a bill authorizing such actions, set a strict time-limit on how long they will last, with renewel by Congress required to extend them. This is hardly the unsolvable problem you're making it out to be.

You're aware that this leads to one of two outcomes;

1) The continuations continue to get rubber-stamped indefinitely.
2) There is a big fight over this and we get a government that doesn't do other things because they're fighting over this. I'm sure you can recall times that this has happened over things such as proposed budgets.

So what you're arguing is that basic civil rights are a luxury which we cannot afford, and that they should be quietly abandoned with no oversight or debate for the sake of expediency. Got it.

They can already end it if they need to via impeachment and removal of the president. How does this change any of that?

Seriously, is that your argument? "Well, they can theoretically impeach at any time, so no other regulation or oversight is meaningful or needed"? That's nuts.

Plus, if this goes through, what is to stop Trump ordering the permanent detention without trial of anyone who tries to file articles of impeachment against him?

What you are advocating is dictatorship. Because having civil rights means too much red tape, apparently.

[Jub]

My take is that any system where emergency powers can't be used in an emergency is a system that's already sick to the point of being non-functional. Not that any specific figure looking to use said emergency powers is especially evil or benevolent.

[The Romulan Republic]

Perhaps. But that does not change the fact that if Trump gains these powers, there is precious little reason to believe that he will ever willingly give them up.

[Jub]

Perhaps. But that does not change the fact that if Trump gains these powers, there is precious little reason to believe that he will ever willingly give them up.

So what is to be done about it? He wasn't removed and the election is months away.

[The Romulan Republic]

Perhaps. But that does not change the fact that if Trump gains these powers, there is precious little reason to believe that he will ever willingly give them up.

So what is to be done about it? He wasn't removed and the election is months away.

He's asking Congress for this power. Lobby the House and Senate to block it. Anything to stall Trump, until the crisis is past or the election comes. And to make sure the people know what is happening. He's trying to use fear of the pandemic to push this through, unnoticed and unopposed.

[bilateralrope]

They can already end it if they need to via impeachment and removal of the president. How does this change any of that?

Congress already tried that. The Senate didn't even want to look at the evidence. So why do you think impeachment is a realistic option ?

[Jub]

He's asking Congress for this power. Lobby the House and Senate to block it. Anything to stall Trump, until the crisis is past or the election comes. And to make sure the people know what is happening. He's trying to use fear of the pandemic to push this through, unnoticed and unopposed.

Presumably, you've already made your phone call and sent your email and are spreading the news here. So what else?

Congress already tried that. The Senate didn't even want to look at the evidence. So why do you think impeachment is a realistic option ?

In that case, the union is already fucked as impeachment is the built-in check to a president using emergency powers.

[The Romulan Republic]

He's asking Congress for this power. Lobby the House and Senate to block it. Anything to stall Trump, until the crisis is past or the election comes. And to make sure the people know what is happening. He's trying to use fear of the pandemic to push this through, unnoticed and unopposed.

Presumably, you've already made your phone call and sent your email and are spreading the news here. So what else?

Not just here. I've been posting about it on just about every political and media social media page I'm on.

What else? Keep it up. Every day. Keep this issue in the spotlight. And if it passes, or is likely to pass... well, I'm deeply reluctant to tell people to break quarantine/lockdown, but there might be a point where we have to take to the streets, risks be damned.

I'm sure I'll get some flak for that, but fuck it. This is our generation's fight against despotism. This is our D-Day. We must not lose, and I'll be damned if I'll sit quietly while President Trump becomes Dictator for Life Trump.

Congress already tried that. The Senate didn't even want to look at the evidence. So why do you think impeachment is a realistic option ?In that case, the union is already fucked as impeachment is the built-in check to a president using emergency powers.

We stall until the election. We hope Trump is voted out in a landslide, and that the military respects that (because he won't).

If he doesn't leave peacefully... well, at that point I'd say the next move is to call for a National General Strike and urgeJoe Biden (presumably) to set up a rival administration rather than concede, but realistically we're settling it with bullets, at that point.

[The Romulan Republic]

Edit: Sorry, misatributed that last quote.