Posted December 20, 2011 I'm not quite sure how much people know bout this, as there's been pretty much a media blackout on the issue (as there seems to be for any issue when civil rights are a concern), but considering there have been a few threads here recently talking about actual issues, I thought it might be a good time to talk about something like this. Anyway, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16192472 Basically the most controversial part of the bill is that it allows the United States military to detain indefinitely, without trial, any person, including US citizens, "suspected of being a terrorist". Its worth noting that to be suspected of being a terrorist in the US, you only have to qualify as one of the following: -Be missing one or more fingers -Have more than a weeks worth of food in your house -Be involved in a protest (even a peaceful protest) -Be declared a terror suspect by the president Its also worth noting that the bill originally wasn't supposed to apply to US citizens, but Obama threatened to veto the bill if that power wasn't added. The bill essentially declares their constitution void. I'm finding it a little bit worrying and disturbing that there seems to be a trend of removing civil liberties in the west a the moment. In my own country, the government are working on passing a bill that would allow the police to monitor people's internet usage, etc. Without any sort of warrant, and would make it illegal to post using a pseudonym online. I'm certainly not one to fall for conspiracy theories, but things so blatant aren't easy to deny. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 20, 2011 -Be missing one or more fingers -Have more than a weeks worth of food in your house -Be involved in a protest (even a peaceful protest) All completely ridiculous - especially the protest one. "Those who make peaceful protest impossible, make violent protest inevitable" -- John F. Kennedy We've been seeing too much stuff lately about authorities coming down hard on innocent protesters. It's only going to escalate things. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 20, 2011 Sounds like it's triggered by the Occupy movements? (<-- said without any research.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 20, 2011 Sounds like it's triggered by the Occupy movements? (<-- said without any research.) I don't really think it does, what the OWS people are doing is illegal even without any authoritarian laws (you can't just squat on public and in many cases private property like that). Not to mention they're completely disorganized, confused, and are never going to have any real impact because of that. However, I certainly think it has to do with corporate interests (I want to make it clear, I don't have any problems with corporations, but I do have a problem with their influences on governments). For instance, consider the case of marijuana and industrial hemp. Both are illegal to produce in the US, yet there's no justifiable reason as to why (especially in the case of industrial hemp). However, its quite obvious as to why its still illegal in the US if you look at what industries would loose out if it was legalized. This includes the cotton industry, the paper industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the tobacco industry, and the alcohol industry among others, many of which have massive amounts of lobbying power. Despite massive amounts of government and private propaganda against legalization, large numbers of people are starting to come to realize that the government has no real justification for keeping such things illegal. And naturally, its not just that one issue that's like that. People are starting to realize that the government (and the corporations they serve) have way too much influence over their lives, as well as markets (regulating industries to make it difficult for smaller companies to compete), and don't even get me started on the pro-Israel lobbies. The government (mainly talking about the US government now) is realizing that if they want to protect corporate interests, and hold onto their own power, they need a way to silence people who happen to be working against them, and this is the way they appear to be wanting to do it. I'm not suggesting all dissenters are going to be hauled away to these FEMA camps people seem obsessed with, but I largely doubt everyone who's detained under this bill will be someone who's life's goal is to blow themselves up in a crowded area. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 20, 2011 I've been reading about this over the last couple of weeks thanks to American friends and some things that have covered it, like the Daily Show. What I don't understand though, while it's fucking crazy... is, surely it'll just be struck down by the Supreme Court? I mean... I know it's tied into the defence bill/budget... but surely the Supreme Court can still strike that down. I think it was Jon Stewart that said something like, "Remember terrorists: you can take our lives, but'll never take our freedom - we'll do that ourselves". Or something. And of course the best quote that sums this up is the age old... "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Benjamin Franklin Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 20, 2011 What I don't understand though, while it's fucking crazy... is, surely it'll just be struck down by the Supreme Court? I mean... I know it's tied into the defence bill/budget... but surely the Supreme Court can still strike that down. People detained under this bill will never appear in court. Its unlikely that the US government will even announce anyone was detained. So a case will likely never come before the courts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 20, 2011 People detained under this bill will never appear in court. Its unlikely that the US government will even announce anyone was detained. So a case will likely never come before the courts. No I mean the Supreme Court could just strike this whole bill as unconstitutional because of the part about detaining US citizens. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 20, 2011 I'd heard about this, and the also passing SOPA? some internet censorship thing. Tbh, I think this is all totally ridiculous, but then again...who's the people letting it happen? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 20, 2011 Meanwhile summer 2012 in London... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 21, 2011 I don't really think it does, what the OWS people are doing is illegal even without any authoritarian laws (you can't just squat on public and in many cases private property like that). Not to mention they're completely disorganized, confused, and are never going to have any real impact because of that. In the UK you can essentially live anywhere for 30 days before the local council can move you on legally. I have no idea if any similar US law exists, though! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 21, 2011 Well, i'll be damned. If i was American, i would qualify as a terrorist. Because i have more than 1 weeks food in my house. I believe most of us would qualify to be fair. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 21, 2011 I completely identify with the picture heroicjanitor posted. Well, i'll be damned. If i was American, i would qualify as a terrorist. Because i have more than 1 weeks food in my house. I believe most of us would qualify to be fair. Arrest the whole country!! ALL YOUR TERRORIST ARE BELONG TO US! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 21, 2011 In the UK you can essentially live anywhere for 30 days before the local council can move you on legally. I have no idea if any similar US law exists, though! Such laws would be state (or perhaps even county) issues in the US. As far as I know, its the fact that their squatting that allows the cities to have them moved in the, as for the most part they weren't being violent. In a few cases it was because they were on private property, or that once incident where they surrounded a bunch of police officers and refused to let them go. No I mean the Supreme Court could just strike this whole bill as unconstitutional because of the part about detaining US citizens. I keep hearing conflicting things about how such a thing works in the US, but quite a few people are saying that a case actually needs to go before the court for them to be able to make a decision. But again, I'm not really sure how this specifically would work there. I'd heard about this, and the also passing SOPA? some internet censorship thing. Tbh, I think this is all totally ridiculous, but then again...who's the people letting it happen? Yep. Basically it would allow the government to shut down any website that was infringing on a copy write (so basically all of them). If a small group of dissidents tried to organize, they could easily shut down their websites under such legislation. If the bill was simply about piracy they could have easily made it more specific. The way it works is that domestic (to the US) sites could simply be shut down, with the government threatening legal action on the host, or invading the home of anyone hosting out of their house. With foreign sites they would be able to force US DNS hosts to stop listing said sites (I'm not sure if they're doing anything at the ISP level though). Meanwhile summer 2012 in London... What about it...? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 21, 2011 I keep hearing conflicting things about how such a thing works in the US, but quite a few people are saying that a case actually needs to go before the court for them to be able to make a decision. But again, I'm not really sure how this specifically would work there. The Supreme Court themselves can decide to take on a case; or the US General Attorney can ask the Supreme Court - neither of those will happen. But, a state can try and take the bill to the court, and it will end up moving up to the Supreme Court. March 26-28 next year is when they're hearing arguments on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which has been brought by more than 20 states. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 21, 2011 Their government is way too big tbh. Their whole constitution relies on a small government not interfering with a free market. With so much influence, the military only has to give a few million to a couple of people, tell them to increase their budget slightly, and they make a profit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 21, 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16195861 It's interesting to note the language used in this article, how it's designed to make it sound normal that soldiers would be deployed on the streets of the capital... oh BBC news... But yeah americawise, the third bush term is going excellently. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 21, 2011 Their government is way too big tbh. Their whole constitution relies on a small government not interfering with a free market. With so much influence, the military only has to give a few million to a couple of people, tell them to increase their budget slightly, and they make a profit. Its too big, on top of the fact, thats its full of career politicians that won't hesitate to shit all over the Constitution for a bit more money and control. The voters here, ''The American People'' are so easily manipulated and the one man who actually wants to do the right thing fiscally, domestically and abroad, Ron Paul, will never be elected by the powers that be. Its a very frustrating time to live in America and we're gonna have to suffer some long overdue consequences before it gets any better Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 21, 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16195861 It's interesting to note the language used in this article, how it's designed to make it sound normal that soldiers would be deployed on the streets of the capital... oh BBC news... But yeah americawise, the third bush term is going excellently. Troops have been used as extra Olympic security in the past. The truth about the amount of troops is mostly down to it not being planned correctly in the first place. Plus America breathing down the UK's neck because they're concerned about security. (Hence why they're sending a crazy amount of special agents over) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 21, 2011 The voters here, ''The American People'' are so easily manipulated and the one man who actually wants to do the right thing fiscally, domestically and abroad, Ron Paul, will never be elected by the powers that be. At least he's doing better than last time. Polling in 1st place in a few key states now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 21, 2011 *sigh* I don't even know what to say. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 21, 2011 Ron Paul is the most economically intelligent candidate (not hard to be) but he is a huge fucking fail on race and gender issues. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 21, 2011 Ron Paul is the most economically intelligent candidate (not hard to be) but he is a huge fucking fail on race and gender issues. Because ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 21, 2011 Thinks racism is over, is pro freedom yet somehow anti choice, etc etc. Or if you meant why is he better economically, because he believes having a deficit is probably a bad thing, which is still quite a revolutionary idea for most american politicians Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 21, 2011 I meant the fail on gender and racial issues. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
