The place to hang out and talk about totally anything general.

Moderators: jelco, DTNC Vicious, bert_the_turtle

NDAA LOL TROLOLOL

NDAA LOL TROLOLOL

Postby Jordy... » Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:42 am

Discuss!
Jordy...
level5
level5
 
Posts: 2367
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:57 pm

Postby Jordy... » Tue Jan 03, 2012 12:48 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4LQjtIl ... re=related

The Troololols continues. Does nobody have an opinion on this wonderful piece of law that will bring prosperity and safety to the lives of Americans and those abroad?!

I was also surprised to hear that GoDaddy helped write the SOPA-act and excluded itself from being targeted by its rules.. I mean.. that's just crazy, that shit can only happen in a movie I would think..
Jordy...
level5
level5
 
Posts: 2367
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:57 pm

Postby Feud » Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:55 pm

Have you read the legislation, and if so, which version of the bill?
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
 
Posts: 5141
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Jordy... » Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:13 pm

1. No

2. None

All I know is that is legalizes the indefinite detention by military of citizens all over the world, including USA and the torture of these people. Without the right of trial, or any other right.

Basically, it legalizes a place like Guantanamo Bay. Furthermore it centralizes power by giving more rights to the president without outside interference of the senate or congress.

Is that incorrect and if so, what exactly is incorrect?
Jordy...
level5
level5
 
Posts: 2367
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:57 pm

Postby Feud » Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:17 pm

Jordy... wrote:All I know is that is legalizes the indefinite detention by military of citizens all over the world, including USA and the torture of these people. Without the right of trial, or any other right.


This is incorrect.

It does not allow for indefinite detention of anyone, citizen or not, without any rights. Further, what detentions it does allow for are restricted in regards to who, where, and under what circumstances they may be carried out under.

Further, it does not remove Presidential actions from the oversight of Congress (the Senate is a part of Congress, by the way) or from the Judiciary.

I encourage you read the actual legislation, not just what people are saying about it. It's very easy, especially with the internet, for rumors and worst case scenarios of a slippery slope argument to quickly become the narrative. The truth, while not always pretty, is often not nearly as bad as what people say it is.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
 
Posts: 5141
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Jordy... » Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:20 pm

I guess I should then, if I weren't this damn lazy...

This though: "As Congress considers the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for the 2012 fiscal year, a handful of senators have turned the bill into a vehicle for dangerous provisions that would authorize the president — and all future presidents — to order the military to pick up and imprison people, including U.S. citizens, without charging them or putting them on trial."

Source: http://www.aclu.org/indefinite-detentio ... zation-act

Comes close to what I was saying.

The thing with laws is that it often suffers from function creep, meaning it will be used outside the vision with which it was initially created.

Ok so instead of reading 565 pages, I'll use wikipedia xD:

"Pursuant to the AUMF passed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the NDAA text affirms the President's authority to detain, via the Armed Forces, includes any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners," or anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies, under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF] .." The text also authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin," or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity."[15] An amendment to the Act that would have explicitly forbidden the indefinite detention without trial of American citizens was rejected.[16]

Addressing previous conflict with the Obama Administration regarding the wording of the Senate text, the Senate-House compromise text, in sub-section 1021(d), also affirms that nothing in the Act "is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force." The final version of the bill also provides, in sub-section(e), that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." As reflected in Senate debate over the bill, there is a great deal of controversy over the status of existing law. [17]."

"All persons arrested and detained according to the provisions of section 1021, including those detained on U.S. soil, whether detained indefinitely or not, are required to be held by the United States Armed Forces. The law affords the military an option to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely without access to legal councel and requires the military to detain foreign persons. The law does extend to U.S. citizens the same as non-U.S. citizens. There is debate over the wording of 'requirement' in the revision under section 1022. Lawful resident aliens may or may not be required to be detained by the Armed Forces, "on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States.""

Basically, they CAN indefinitely hold someone, as they are doing in Guantanamo Bay, without trial, or be tried by military tribunal which is far from a fair process according to civilized standards. Also they can basically send anyone they'd like to wherever they like to torture them as has happened to several terrorist suspects. All that is for them to be required is to declare war, and as we've seen they have taken the liberty to not only declare war upon nations, but also on more liberal definitions of hostile entities as in "groups of people" or ideologies.

The horrors to which this law can extend into are unbelievable. They can declare war upon each and everyone and use this law to rain down terror. You ask anyone? Yes anyone, because as we've seen they are capable of forging false claims such as brought up against the Iraqi's.
Even more, they can stretch the meaning of a belligerent act to any length they desire.

But the main question remains, why do they want this law to be applicable inside America? Is there any serious threat conceivable in the coming future that will grant such desperate measures inside America? I cannot think of anything with which organizations like the Department of Justice, police, FBI and homeland security would not be able to deal with inside America?
So why make this law applicable to American citizens?
Jordy...
level5
level5
 
Posts: 2367
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:57 pm

Postby Feud » Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:45 pm

The ACLU article you quoted says within the article that it's not the finished text of the legislation. That's the whole point of that article, in fact. Plus, there's considerable question as to whether or not what they are referencing is being addressed fairly, and if the conclusions they are reaching are reasonable (the point of such postings, whether by them or by other groups like, is to motivate members to action through fear, and as such they use wosrt case scenarios that might not actually be reasonable). Further, the ACLU has a somewhat... "inconsistent" view on what they view to be a civil liberties and a rather pointed ideological orientation, which makes me a bit skeptical of their opinion on the matter.

As for wikipedia, notice all those quotations? Yeah, what's written in between the words and phrases they are quoting means an awful lot. As I said, I encourage you to actually read the legislation, not just what others are telling you about it. It makes a lot more sense that way.

As I said, this doesn't give the Executive free reign to lock up anyone, citizen or otherwise, indefinitely without rights, and it does not exclude the Executive from Congressional or Judicial oversight. You can say it does all you like, but it doesn't. And even if it is bad legislation (I'm personally not fond of it), we have ways of dealing with such. Far, FAR worse things have been signed into law here, and subsequently voided. Legislation cannot supercede the Constitution or the rights enshrined therein, and if this law is unconstitutional then we have means of dealing with it.

Freaking out about it shows both a distinct lack of understanding about how our system works, and its history. Be concerned? Sure, perhaps even to the point of taking action if one is so worried. But not freak out.
Last edited by Feud on Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
 
Posts: 5141
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Xarlaxas » Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:54 pm

The problem with a layman reading the text of laws like this is that there's going to be a lot of (purposefully) tricky language, and it's generally best to get the opinion of someone with the legal training to give some commentary.

From what I understand of the legislation (and yes I've not read it yet either) what they changed was from saying that Citizens *must* be detained to they *may* be detained, also something about how the law doesn't actually change anything but basically consolidates a bunch of other laws that are already in place.

My favourite comment on the law has to be a theory by one person that Obama passed the law in the hopes that someone would take it to the Supreme Court. :P
User avatar
Xarlaxas
level5
level5

 
Posts: 1522
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:48 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Postby Feud » Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:21 pm

Xarlaxas wrote:The problem with a layman reading the text of laws like this is that there's going to be a lot of (purposefully) tricky language


It's not meant to be tricky, it's just written in a format you're not used to.

For example, I don't know how to code. Looking at lines of code or the Darwinia source info is absolute gibberish to me. But, that doesn't mean it was written to be purposefully tricky, it just means I don't know how to read it.

Legislation is written in a distinct style and format that is specific to the trade. It's not meant to confuse people, and once you get the hang of it it's actually not hard to read. The reason that it is distinct from how you'd normally speak isn't because they are trying to trick people, just the opposite. Writing simply is a great way to convey principles and ideas, but a horrible way to make laws in a complex society (for example, you have the Ten Commandments which are simple principles and standards, then chapters that deal with the details of how those principles function in social law).

Doctors, programmers, engineers, evey field has its own way of saying things that deal with everyday things in a much more complex and technical manner. Politics is no different. It's not there to trick people, it's just that people don't make an effort to learn it.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
 
Posts: 5141
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Xarlaxas » Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:29 pm

They should really teach people how to read legislation in school, what with it being so important to society. . . .
User avatar
Xarlaxas
level5
level5

 
Posts: 1522
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:48 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Postby Feud » Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:37 pm

Xarlaxas wrote:They should really teach people how to read legislation in school, what with it being so important to society. . . .


Haha, well, they do. You just have to take the right classes. :wink:

Most people don't really want to know though. And, honestly, there's so much of it that few have the time to read what's produced even if they had the inclination (most politicians don't have time to read it all, that's why staff is so important). It's kinda like computer code. Knowing it is a good tool to have, but most people who use computers don't know how the code works. If the computer is working then they are happy, and if it breaks they are usually more interested in it getting fixed quickly then in the technical details of what went wrong.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
 
Posts: 5141
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Xarlaxas » Wed Jan 04, 2012 9:05 pm

In High schools I mean, there were no such classes in my school, we don't even have a schoolhouse rock equivalent here.

Most politicians don't seem to know how laws actually work either, especially when discussing scary things like the internet (the SOPA committee hearing was painful).
User avatar
Xarlaxas
level5
level5

 
Posts: 1522
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:48 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Postby Feud » Wed Jan 04, 2012 9:13 pm

That's too bad. I got a bit of it in High School, and more in college. Still learning though, it's a process and you can get rusty at it just like anything else.

Xarlaxas wrote:Most politicians don't seem to know how laws actually work either, especially when discussing scary things like the internet (the SOPA committee hearing was painful).


That's why lobbyists and beuraucrats are so important to good republican government. Like many things, in the right amount and in the right ways they are valuable tools, but when used wrongly they are deadly. :wink:
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
 
Posts: 5141
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Xarlaxas » Wed Jan 04, 2012 9:16 pm

Aye, I think it should be a part of mandatory education really, people don't really know what democracy is these days. . . .

America really loves using them poorly. :P
User avatar
Xarlaxas
level5
level5

 
Posts: 1522
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:48 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Postby Feud » Wed Jan 04, 2012 9:19 pm

Xarlaxas wrote:America really loves using them poorly. :P


Perhaps, but we do a pretty good job of it 99% of the time. :wink:
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
 
Posts: 5141
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA
Next

Return to Introversion Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests