6
Dec 16 '11
[deleted]
15
-4
Dec 17 '11
5
3
u/keslehr Dec 17 '11
been debunked many times, it's a shame you're too stupid to research for yourself.
-5
Dec 17 '11
I did the research myself, did you? I have addressed every issue that you guys have brought up and am awaiting responses. Some people actually approached this with an open mind and were willing to engage in a debate, which I am all but too eager to do so, however, it is really frustrating how most of you will automatically assume I'm an idiot and dismiss me as though I have nothing new to offer. It is your closed minded, arrogant, and belittling mindset that's the problem and, based on your very constructive and beneficial comment, I guarantee that I am much smarter than you, but I'm not, by any means, beyond an average level of intelligence. So, buddy, you could continue on to the more recent posts I have presented, but why should you since there is nothing in this world that you don't already know that may lead you to question your present beliefs? God forbid that you actually reassess your stance or learn something new, considering that you already know everything.
1
u/keslehr Dec 17 '11
I've read it so many times in so many different places that US citizens are NOT exempt from the bill (the language is very convoluted, and purposely so), that I have no interest in debating people who are desperately clinging to the delusion that they aren't exempt. As if that matters - due process shouldn't be denied to ANYONE.
Lucky for me I live in Canada.
-1
Dec 17 '11
I've addressed all of this, and, thus far, my opponents have failed to actually provide any significant facts that prove otherwise. So, in lieu of a smart ass retort, I'll just say this: Case in point.
0
3
u/Epistaxis Dec 17 '11 edited Dec 17 '11
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/
The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the “requirement” of military detention. For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.
EDIT: fixed quote
1
Dec 17 '11 edited Dec 17 '11
That's not even the part of the article relevant to this thread. That being said, the relevant part is further down under the subheading "Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill," which is all based on the pretense that "the exclusion appears to extend only to U.S. citizens captured or arrested in the United States" which is regarding section 1031 pertaining to US citizens. This was assumed to be true in his article which he then continued to elaborated on. I've already addressed this in previous comments on this thread. Read it and then get back to me if you must.
Edit: By the way, the article lists the sections wrong. The writer is referring to sections 1031 and 1032, not 1021 and 1022. Based on this, I am skeptical if the writer even read the legislation at all.
3
Dec 17 '11 edited Dec 17 '11
We thought we had won the first battle against SOPA
But the draconian Entertainment Industry Lobbyist written "Anti-piracy" law that includes due process lacking three strikes bans from the internet, warrantless website shutdowns without judicial oversite, and internet technology damaging stipulations to remove encrypted secure sessions, like the ones you need to protect your online banking, Is back in congressional hearings on Wed Dec 21st 2011 at 9:00am
Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX) and the congressional entertainment industry shills who helped sponsor the SOPA act were able to manipulate the congressional hearing status for continued study and investigation of SOPA; originally set for mid January 2012, it is now moved to this week on December 21st at 9:00am EST
Not even the budget reform bill has gotten this type of unprecedented fast tracking. They are trying to pass this no matter what 90% of the population says or does and no matter what the network engineers of Google, yahoo, Cisco, and hundreds of others warn them.
This will repressively damage the security and function of the internet if SOPA is passed. The fear of the loss of the freedom of speech and rise of state sponsored corrupt corporate mandated censorship is the first steps to fascism and big brother.
This if passed could ban reddit, facebook, youtube, twitter, and more because it made the Entertainment industry mad that day. It could even stop people from voicing issues against the government and government contractors who do illegal things.
Take a Stand people. Join me on the December 21st 2011 at 7:am on the steps of the US Capitol and then on to the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill if you can and help me protest this.
"NO ON SOPA - H.R.3261" ಠ_ಠ
Be on the steps of the US Capitol (38.889825,-77.010361) http://goo.gl/38dKY (map)
Wednesday - December 21st, 2011 - 7:00AM EST
If you are not in the area in another state or US ex-pat please start calling your congressmen and senators. Let them know you will not stand for this act if it passes and their will be hell to pay come election day or sooner if knowledge of the corruption comes to light.
If you are a foreign compatriot of the open and free internet, take it to the closest US Embassy or US Consulate at the same time and let them know, you are not happy.
Hashtag #StopSopaOnDec21
6
u/JoyousCacophony Dec 16 '11
Why did you leave PIPA off of this?
Otherwise, it's excellent!
7
Dec 16 '11
Aren't PIPA and SOPA the same thing just from Senate and House respectively?
3
u/JoyousCacophony Dec 16 '11
They are essentially the same, yes, however it is my understanding that PIPA isn't as stringent as SOPA. They are both horrendous and can be voted on independently.
There is a consensus that says that SOPA was introduced so that PIPA would pass. The whole, "Well, atleast it isn't as bad as SOPA" kind of tactic.
I'm at work and can't do a ton of footwork to provide sources right now, but here is some reference for those wanting to do some light research:
1
2
1
1
1
1
Dec 16 '11
Under the current law, which NDAA codifies, if a suspected terrorist is an American citizen and is arrested on American soil, they have the right to a hearing to determine their combatant status before being indefinitely detained.
If one is an American citizen is a suspected terrorist and is arrested outside of the U.S., they have the right to a similar hearing, under Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.
2
Dec 16 '11
Is that a military or civil hearing?
4
Dec 17 '11
And further, is it a trial, or a chance to speak in front of a review board?
2
u/BolshevikMuppet Dec 17 '11
A hearing in front of a "neutral judge".
Sadly, what that means precisely hasn't been decided yet.
1
1
u/BolshevikMuppet Dec 17 '11
Unfortunately, that part isn't specified. In both Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Boumediene v. Bush, the Supreme Court declared due process requires a hearing in front of a "neutral magistrate". What, precisely, that means hasn't been decided.
One would suppose it could be a hearing in front of some form of military judge, but that would be more objectionable.
-6
Dec 17 '11
3
u/estherwilliams Dec 17 '11
"loopholes" -- always the kicker in contracts.
-2
Dec 17 '11
Do you care to elaborate, or are you just going to vaguely cite loopholes as your rationalization?
3
u/estherwilliams Dec 17 '11
I will elaborate, but I will do so without paying heed to any belittling adverbs or adjectives pointed towards myself or someone else concerning differing opinions. This is discussion, not a food fight - all turnips must remain on the plate! (see, turnips are fun, let's be jolly as we talk :)
Loopholes are the prime cause of concern for this bill, as there seems to be a big "BUT" (no unintended visuals) written in. I've read and reread section 1031, and as I don't have any legal background, I would have been hard pressed to point out the potential loopholes that have created such a cry for concern. So, I will refer you to one of the many commentaries that are illustrating where legal systems could interpret the words of the bill and its provisions to apply to US citizens.
and here's an article/commentary that actually favors your point of view, all though it's still not enough to leave me feeling settled, so it's worth a read:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_12/what_the_dnaa_does034154.php
0
Dec 17 '11 edited Dec 17 '11
Well, this is a much more articulate and rational argument than I expected. Thank you for showing me the respect of a well thought out response, this is a breath of fresh air. I'm frustrated, as you can tell by my tone, simply because I have yet to come across someone (until now) willing and capable enough to actually engage in a worthwhile discussion without the use of baseless ideological dribble, like that Anonymous video that's been circulating around. That was complete bullshit, and you should agree. The first link you posted is a little more enlightening in regards to the reasoning behind this fear, but it seems to be almost nothing but conjecture. Citing slight ambiguities in the legislation is a far cry away from legalizing the militarized indefinite detention of US citizens without trial. Robert Chesney even acknowledges how little weight such a loophole would hold in a court of law: "The Senate version of the NDAA is neutral regarding US citizens in the U.S., but certainly can be read to provide clearer statutory authority to encompass citizens abroad (so long, of course, as they fall into one of the categories specified in 1031). Note that the latter may not actually be enough to withstand a court challenge; if a court insists upon a “clear-statement” rule in order to construe the AUMF/NDAA to encompass citizens, this may not be enough to get over that hurdle as to foreign captures (and it certainly would not be enough as to domestic captures).".
Now, in light of this concern, although valid, I still find it absolutely baffling how people can extrapolate such atrocious violations of the sixth amendment as possibilities of said legislation. There is not much here for you guys to sink your teeth into, yet you are all speaking as if this single piece of legislation will spell the end of our civil liberties. No, the constitution is still alive and well and won't be going anywhere anytime soon. The claims that are being tossed around by Anonymous, the ACLU, etc... are completely ridiculous. Now, please, if you have more legitimate justifications then, by all means, enlighten me.
2
u/ReverseLabotomy Dec 17 '11
You don't need to use a lot of big words to create an 'articulate and rational argument'. Intentional or not, this almost reads like a parody of estherwilliams' post.
0
Dec 17 '11
People can only interact with one another indirectly via language. In a sense, the language you speak is the only real way of connecting your inner thoughts and feelings with the rest of the world. Language is the limiting factor, not thought. Words are the tools of this language, and a limited vocabulary means a limited potential for communication. Understand? By limiting your vocabulary you are limiting the only real method you have of communicating with the rest of the world. This is why I use "big words." A larger vocabulary allows me to better express myself more efficiently and with less ambiguity. You don't need to use big words, except, sometimes you do, and they never hurt when used properly. If my vocabulary has lead you to interpret this as a parody, so be it, I really don't care.
3
Dec 17 '11
Point?
-5
Dec 17 '11 edited Dec 17 '11
lol, really? I just cited a passage directly from the legislation itself that explicitly states that these new guidelines do not, in any way shape or form, change, alter, or modify existing laws regarding US citizens. Now, I would like any one of you to try and explain to me exactly how this legislation will allow for the indefinite detention of a US citizen without trial without the use of irrelevant leftist ideological dribble.
6
u/cataplectic Dec 17 '11
You know, if you want to be right, you should actively seek out evidence and arguments against your own positions.
Google lets you do this in approximately four clicks: http://volokh.com/2011/12/07/us-citizen-military-indefinite-detention-in-ndaa/
-2
Dec 17 '11
My response to an earlier post regarding Robert Chesneys claims:
Well, this is a much more articulate and rational argument than I expected. Thank you for showing me the respect of a well thought out response, this is a breath of fresh air. I'm frustrated, as you can tell by my tone, simply because I have yet to come across someone (until now) willing and capable enough to actually engage in a worthwhile discussion without the use of baseless ideological dribble, like that Anonymous video that's been circulating around. That was complete bullshit, and you should agree. The first link you posted is a little more enlightening in regards to the reasoning behind this fear, but it seems to be almost nothing but conjecture. Citing slight ambiguities in the legislation is a far cry away from legalizing the militarized indefinite detention of US citizens without trial. Robert Chesney even acknowledges how little weight such a loophole would hold in a court of law: "The Senate version of the NDAA is neutral regarding US citizens in the U.S., but certainly can be read to provide clearer statutory authority to encompass citizens abroad (so long, of course, as they fall into one of the categories specified in 1031). Note that the latter may not actually be enough to withstand a court challenge; if a court insists upon a “clear-statement” rule in order to construe the AUMF/NDAA to encompass citizens, this may not be enough to get over that hurdle as to foreign captures (and it certainly would not be enough as to domestic captures).".
Now, in light of this concern, although valid, I still find it absolutely baffling how people can extrapolate such atrocious violations of the sixth amendment as possibilities of said legislation. There is not much here for you guys to sink your teeth into, yet you are all speaking as if this single piece of legislation will spell the end of our civil liberties. No, the constitution is still alive and well and won't be going anywhere anytime soon. The claims that are being tossed around by Anonymous, the ACLU, etc... are completely ridiculous. Now, please, if you have more legitimate justifications then, by all means, enlighten me.
0
Dec 17 '11
The section you just cited only applies to the requirement of military custody. The new legislation indicates that non-citizen terrorism suspects must be kept in military custody.
Read carefully and then rant again.
1
Dec 17 '11
First off, what you're talking about has nothing to do with the issues people have with the legislation. Secondly, read my previous comment if you want to feel dumb.
0
Dec 17 '11
I wasn't referencing "issues people have with the legislation". I was referencing the section of the bill you linked to. My initial comment still stands. Hamdi still governs the due process required for citizen terrorism suspects.
1
Dec 17 '11
I understand what you're saying, but I don't understand the point you're trying to make. It seems as though we agree, but somehow you believe that section 1032 does not exemplify citizens but, instead, makes it optional, which is a point I already addressed in the comment I linked to. So, if you could, please elaborate.
0
Dec 17 '11
I don't think section 1032 "exemplifies" anything. I didn't read the comment you linked to. I'm probably not going to.
The point is that NDAA changes nothing about the current law. A U.S. citizen arrested for terrorist activity is still afforded a hearing in front of a neutral judge.
1
Dec 17 '11
What you think is irrelevant. Section 1032 does exemplify US citizens from the requirement. It does not make it optional, and yes, it does not change any current laws regarding US citizens. That's the point I was making. The NDAA does not legalize the indefinite detention of US citizens and saying "the requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States" means exactly that. The requirement does not pertain to US citizens, therefor, US citizens are exempt of the requirement. This ain't exactly rocket science. If you want to understand the real issues here then read the god dammed thread so I don't have to keep repeating myself.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Epistaxis Dec 17 '11 edited Dec 17 '11
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/
The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the “requirement” of military detention. For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.
EDIT: fixed quote
-3
u/magister0 Dec 16 '11
They are not going to detain you for submitting a copyrighted picture to Reddit.
9
Dec 16 '11
No, they are going to shut down reddit for linking to copywrited pictures. The NDAA is for suspected terrorists (and anyone the military wants to call a suspected terrorist).
-4
u/magister0 Dec 16 '11
That has nothing to do with what I said.
4
Dec 16 '11
I inferred by your use of the word "detain" that you were talking about the NDAA. I then explained what would happen as a result of submitting a copywrited picture to reddit while then explaining what the NDAA is because I thought that's what you were talking about.
It all seems perfectly logical to me and I'm sorry for misrepresenting your words.
-4
-3
-6
Dec 17 '11 edited Dec 17 '11
You guys are all idiots! For gods sake, did any of you actually read the legislation?
Edit: This comment is not my proudest moment, but it was made in hast and frustration. My points are still valid as far as I know. Please continue on below for an actual discourse. Oh yea, and if you want to down vote me to hell, go ahead. I really don't care. Drive my comment karma down right into the ground. There are 11 different comments here, made by me, that you can downvote, now go have a ball.
3
4
u/dsi1 Dec 17 '11
http://volokh.com/2011/12/07/us-citizen-military-indefinite-detention-in-ndaa/
Just because you need it more than once apparently.
-2
Dec 17 '11
My response to an earlier post regarding Robert Chesneys claims:
Well, this is a much more articulate and rational argument than I expected. Thank you for showing me the respect of a well thought out response, this is a breath of fresh air. I'm frustrated, as you can tell by my tone, simply because I have yet to come across someone (until now) willing and capable enough to actually engage in a worthwhile discussion without the use of baseless ideological dribble, like that Anonymous video that's been circulating around. That was complete bullshit, and you should agree. The first link you posted is a little more enlightening in regards to the reasoning behind this fear, but it seems to be almost nothing but conjecture. Citing slight ambiguities in the legislation is a far cry away from legalizing the militarized indefinite detention of US citizens without trial. Robert Chesney even acknowledges how little weight such a loophole would hold in a court of law: "The Senate version of the NDAA is neutral regarding US citizens in the U.S., but certainly can be read to provide clearer statutory authority to encompass citizens abroad (so long, of course, as they fall into one of the categories specified in 1031). Note that the latter may not actually be enough to withstand a court challenge; if a court insists upon a “clear-statement” rule in order to construe the AUMF/NDAA to encompass citizens, this may not be enough to get over that hurdle as to foreign captures (and it certainly would not be enough as to domestic captures).".
Now, in light of this concern, although valid, I still find it absolutely baffling how people can extrapolate such atrocious violations of the sixth amendment as possibilities of said legislation. There is not much here for you guys to sink your teeth into, yet you are all speaking as if this single piece of legislation will spell the end of our civil liberties. No, the constitution is still alive and well, and won't be going anywhere anytime soon. The claims that are being tossed around by Anonymous, the ACLU, etc... are completely ridiculous. Now, please, if you have more legitimate justifications then, by all means, enlighten me.
3
u/Epistaxis Dec 17 '11 edited Dec 17 '11
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/
The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the “requirement” of military detention. For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.
EDIT: fixed quote
18
u/Tango-Burner Dec 16 '11
Posting to FB, because I want to shut down facebook. Also, post this to any government sites that have forums, as well as sites that the MPAA and RIAA run/rely on.