# US to due process: "Fuck you"



## Corto (Dec 16, 2011)

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll932.xml
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-s...erican-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being

This is, honestly, fucking disgusting, and as a scholar of the law, I find it sickening. 

Usually, on those "the US is an imperialist pig dog" debates, I defend the US because, as worldwide powers go, it is pretty neat (especially compared with past and present world powers such as old empires, the Soviets, China, or whatever) and I won't lie, I despise communism so we have that bit in common, but this is a complete fucking piece of shit that pisses all over Human Rights, shits over the concept of rechstaat, rapes the bill of rights in the face and kicks democracy in the shins. I hate, hate, _hate_ when self-important fucks with Che Guevara Tshirts call the US "the fascist power hungry empire" but honestly, fascism is the only word that springs to mind when thinking about this bill.

American users: Beyond the Presidential veto (which Obama already said he won't be using here), is there no other mechanism to stop this, considering the Senate already approved it? In my country even the suggestion of such a law would be laughed at and then forbidden by our Constitutional Court for going against our Constitution and even the most basic Human Rights treaty. Is there nothing similar in the US? Has the US not signed any international pact that promises due process?


----------



## Xenke (Dec 16, 2011)

It reminds me of Tropico.

This is not a good thing.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 16, 2011)

I saw this coming a mile away, democracy has been dead in the usa for years, shit like this doesn't surprise me.
Welcome to the north korea of the western world in a metaphorical sense.


----------



## Cocobanana (Dec 16, 2011)

It's a wonder anyone can understand the 'provisions' in the law, and I'm sure the supreme court will have their say about this if it really were as bad as you guys and the fear-mongering people who wrote this article say. 

From what I heard on news radio, they did change some parts of it before passing it. Who knows what parts but probably enough that no one here would have a problem with it.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Dec 16, 2011)

>:C

I am sorry for a low post consisting in nothing but rage face but this sums up my feelings


----------



## LizardKing (Dec 16, 2011)

[yt]Axo7cMmwmnE[/yt]

I've got no idea how much time and effort went into orchestrating 9/11 and other attacks, but clearly it was worth it. 10 years on and still the USA continues to erode citizens' rights further and further. Hell, at this point more damage is probably caused by citizens' reactions to these measures than the events they're supposed to prevent. Good lord.

(FYI: The "terrorists win" thing is from Counter-Strike)


----------



## ArielMT (Dec 16, 2011)

Theoretically, it could go through the federal court system possibly to the Supreme Court, but in practice it can't happen until a citizen is harmed by it in such a way that, first, news of such harm escapes to the light of day, second, that citizen is willing and able to fight the law and sue the government, and third, if it gets appealed to the Supreme Court, they agree to hear the case.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Dec 16, 2011)

We should start a revolution. That is all I have to say.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Dec 16, 2011)

Dragonfurry said:


> We should start a revolution. That is all I have to say.




Yea, you get on that and be the first tester of this new law


----------



## Dragonfurry (Dec 16, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> Yea, you get on that and be the first tester of this new law


  Sure. I will just go up the Senate building and start some trouble. :V


----------



## Corto (Dec 16, 2011)

Cocobanana said:


> It's a wonder anyone can understand the 'provisions' in the law, and I'm sure the supreme court will have their say about this if it really were as bad as you guys and the fear-mongering people who wrote this article say.
> 
> From what I heard on news radio, they did change some parts of it before passing it. Who knows what parts but probably enough that no one here would have a problem with it.


http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011...l-does-apply-to-u-s-citizens-on-u-s-soil.html


> Theoretically, it could go through the federal court system possibly to the Supreme Court, but in practice it can't happen until a citizen is harmed by it in such a way that, first, news of such harm escapes to the light of day, second, that citizen is willing and able to fight the law and sue the government, and third, if it gets appealed to the Supreme Court, they agree to hear the case.



I'm sure it'd be real easy to fill that complaint while locked up with no access to a lawyer or a court. 
I thought the US Supreme Court filled the role of our Constitutional Court (which is a separate entity from our "common" judicial branch and Supreme Court, that revises all law that is approved to see if it's constitutional -including internationa treaties which have the legality of our constitution here in Chile- both when it's voted by the legislative AND if it's already being applied, when someone fills a complaint). What you say bears resemblance to the second function I mentioned, but does no organ in the US fill the first function? No one oversees that bills and laws are constitutional before they are applied? Or does this whole job fall under the legislative power?

I swear, the anglosaxon judicial system confuses me.


----------



## Mentova (Dec 16, 2011)

I'm normally not one to claim the sky is falling over dumb legislation, but goddamn this is scary to think about. I can see shit going south here pretty damn fast.


----------



## Aidy (Dec 16, 2011)

What the fuck are they doing all of a sudden, Jesus Christ..


----------



## ~secret~ (Dec 16, 2011)

What in all the fuck is this. I knew the US wasn't perfect, but the fact this shitrag was even proposed in the first place is sickening.



Corto said:


> I swear, the anglosaxon judicial system confuses me.



Think of it in the context of unjustified superiority and it makes sense.


----------



## ~secret~ (Dec 16, 2011)

-doublepost-


----------



## `Nobu (Dec 16, 2011)

This is disturbing news. From what I do know, in times of "war", constitutional rights are lost, and military powers tend to gain sovereignty. 

Is terrorism that great of a threat?

Thank you for reminding me about having a passport made. I want no part of a country which has this sort of "legal" power over its citizens. Martial law comes to mind, and I believe that they will abuse this power.


----------



## Mentova (Dec 16, 2011)

`Nobu said:


> Is terrorism that great of a threat?


No, it's really not. At this point it's just a political buzzword for scaring people.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 16, 2011)

Is this that fucking NDAA bullshit?

I am going to go summon the ghost of Benjamin motherfucking Franklin and he is going to go "Raiders of the Lost Ark" on Capitol Hill

fucking hell


----------



## Volkodav (Dec 16, 2011)

didnt the US say they were pulling their dick out of iraq's ass like a month ago? Why are we still hearing shit about USA + war
this is just US's way of saying "hey! yeah! we're uhh.. we're doing this! kiss our ass!... anybody? still around guys?"
"We cant play in Iraq anymore so I guess we can play army-men in our neighbourhood"


*laughs from Canada*


----------



## Aidy (Dec 16, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Why are we still hearing shit about USA + war



When are we not?


----------



## Volkodav (Dec 16, 2011)

Aidy70060 said:


> When are we not?


couldnt have sai it better myuself


----------



## Tycho (Dec 16, 2011)

US Gov't isn't really scared in the least of the idea of civil disobedience/rebellion on a large scale countrywide, are they?


----------



## Mentova (Dec 16, 2011)

Tycho said:


> US Gov't isn't really scared in the least of the idea of civil disobedience/rebellion on a large scale countrywide, are they?



I'd say they have to have some sort of fear if they're passing a law that says they can pretty much secret police your ass off indefinitely.

This is like something straight out of Deus Ex.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 16, 2011)

BetrayerOfNihil said:


> "You have the right to shut the fuck up. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?"



Actually, no, you don't have that right.



Mentova said:


> I'd say they have to have some sort of fear if they're passing a law that says they can pretty much secret police your ass off indefinitely.
> 
> This is like something straight out of Deus Ex.



It's like a big obnoxious kid poking at a relatively mellow dog with a stick over and over and over, and what I wonder is when the fuck is that dog going to finally try and bite the obnoxious bastard?

This is (or SHOULD BE) a provocation to the American people.  An insult.


----------



## Aden (Dec 16, 2011)

Look on the bright side: at least the terrorists can't hate us for our freedoms as much


----------



## Dragonfurry (Dec 16, 2011)

If this gets past into law I am seriously gonna march to D.C and give them a piece of my mind.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Dec 16, 2011)

Dragonfurry said:


> If this gets past into law I am seriously gonna march to D.C and give them a piece of my mind.



Where you'll be summarily thrown in jail until terrorism is over.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Dec 16, 2011)

ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> Where you'll be summarily thrown in jail until terrorism is over.



I would love to see them try to. I am allowed my right to protest. Or is that one taken away from me too? Am I allowed to even live Goverment? Do I have your permission to live? Do I have to ask you permission to have a wife or even a girl?


----------



## Tycho (Dec 16, 2011)

Dragonfurry said:


> I would love to see them try to. I am allowed my right to protest. Or is that one taken away from me too? Am I allowed to even live Goverment? Do I have your permission to live? Do I have to ask you permission to have a wife or even a girl?



They could probably arrange for that to happen.


----------



## Dreaming (Dec 16, 2011)

Woah, nice new law dude. A bit batshit insane.......


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 16, 2011)

Any Canadians looking for a new husband? Housebroke; comes with 30 chickens and a promising career in stenography. Makes breakfast-in-bed every Saturday morning, guaranteed.


----------



## Corto (Dec 16, 2011)

Jesus Dragonfurry you're so 17 it hurts.



> would love to see them try to. I am allowed my right to protest. Or is that one taken away from me too?


Yeah they can take that away. That's what the bill is all about, if you're suspected of terrorism (by doing such dastardly things as having weather proof ammo or food for a week or more) then you can get thrown in jail, no lawyer and no court trial. It's the ultimate insult to human rights.


----------



## RedSavage (Dec 16, 2011)

Clayton said:


> *laughs from Canada*



clayton can i move to canada with you? i just need a place to couch surf for awhile until i can get my own place away from my hypocritical ass country. pleeeeease? http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s45/soraroxasbinx/pussinbootsKAWAII.jpg


----------



## Volkodav (Dec 16, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> Any Canadians looking for a new husband? Housebroke; comes with 30 chickens and a promising career in stenography. Makes breakfast-in-bed every Saturday morning, guaranteed.


ME
I AM
ME 
CALLED IT FIRST NO CALLBACKS



CoyoteCaliente said:


> clayton can i move to canada with you? i just need a place to couch surf for awhile until i can get my own place away from my hypocritical ass country. pleeeeease? http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s45/soraroxasbinx/pussinbootsKAWAII.jpg



Omfg YES
It's rainin bitches on Clay


----------



## RedSavage (Dec 16, 2011)

and suddenly clay had his very own man harem overnight


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 16, 2011)

We could all literally* sit and do nothing*. Even the high-and-mighty government would have nothing to do but give in. Probably the best thing my maternal grandfather ever told me.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 16, 2011)

Clayton said:


> ME
> I AM
> ME
> CALLED IT FIRST NO CALLBACKS


:[

Sorry, applicants are subject to careful screening. Habitual use of Jeffrey Dahmer as a forum avatar is grounds for immediate disqualification. 


Although I guess it'd be better than indefinite incarceration in federal prison. CHOICES.


----------



## Volkodav (Dec 16, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> and suddenly clay had his very own man harem overnight



ive had one way before this thread har harrrr



Ad Hoc said:


> :[
> 
> Sorry, applicants are subject to careful screening. Habitual use of Jeffrey Dahmer as a forum avatar is grounds for immediate disqualification.
> 
> ...


beggars can't be choosers
im gonna make you my bitchboy


----------



## RedSavage (Dec 16, 2011)

*SO* now it just seems to me like SOPA was one big ass distraction while they passed this law. 

This basically sums up the way I see it. http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/350/6/d/corporotopia_01_by_alexiuss-d4j9s5t.jpg


----------



## Alstor (Dec 16, 2011)

It's odd how the government is putting up a bill to censor protests in the same year that they erected a monument of one of the most famous American protesters in the Washington Mall.

My government disgusts me.


----------



## ArielMT (Dec 16, 2011)

Aidy70060 said:


> What the fuck are they doing all of a sudden, Jesus Christ..



It's an off year.  No one ever pays attention to what they do in an off year.  The real election runs everyone pays attention to don't begin until Spring or so.


----------



## Cocobanana (Dec 16, 2011)

I guess I should start researching what it would take to move to Canada.


----------



## LizardKing (Dec 16, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> *SO* now it just seems to me like SOPA was one big ass distraction while they passed this law.



It's like FA!

_"OMG wut happened to furocity guys omg da fux"_

"We added new things!"

_"Ooooh shiny_


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Dec 16, 2011)

Reminder that this failed to pass in the Senate.  Read the news you jerks.


----------



## Volkodav (Dec 16, 2011)

friends
you are all free to move to my house
just to let you know, we will all be in my room
bring food and vodka as payment and also sex


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 16, 2011)

Antonin Scalia said:


> Reminder that this failed to pass in the Senate.  Read the news you jerks.


 I don't think so?


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Dec 16, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> I don't think so?



If I've read my sources correctly, the provision that passed changed the language so that American citizens are not to be detained by the US military indefinitely.  However, if you ain't American, you're fucked.

Ariel's right, however.  The only way I see this being repealed outside of Presidential veto is either by it ending up in the US Supreme Court or if Congress decides to repeal it themselves.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Dec 16, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> I don't think so?



They have passed it minus the Udall Amendment.  So the provision for indefinite detainment is not contained within the bill, therefore for all intensive purposes it has not made it past the senate.


Term_the_Schmuck said:


> However, if you ain't American, you're fucked.


This has always been the policy, so it's really not much of a change.


----------



## Aidy (Dec 16, 2011)

Antonin Scalia said:


> This has always been the policy, so it's really not much of a change.



so true


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 16, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> If I've read my sources correctly, the provision that passed changed the language so that American citizens are not to be detained by the US military indefinitely.  However, if you ain't American, you're fucked.





Antonin Scalia said:


> They have passed it minus the Udall Amendment.  So the provision for indefinite detainment is not contained within the bill, therefore for all intensive purposes it has not made it past the senate.


Rarely been so glad to be corrected.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Dec 16, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> Rarely been so glad to be corrected.


Uh well there's a thing called the PATRIOT Act


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 16, 2011)

Antonin Scalia said:


> Uh well there's a thing called the PATRIOT Act


The patriot act is the aids of congress, it infected other bills with the same mentality and we can't get rid of it, not to mention the countless people saying that measures to prevent it are anti-american or some bull.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 16, 2011)

Antonin Scalia said:


> Uh well there's a thing called the PATRIOT Act


Rapid subject change was rather rapid.  I thought the only provisions of that which are still in effect are surveillance related anyway? Shitty, but not on the level of indefinite incarceration.  No expert on the subject, though.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Dec 16, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> Rapid subject change was rather rapid.  I thought the only provisions of that which are still in effect are surveillance related anyway? Shitty, but not on the level of indefinite incarceration.  No expert on the subject, though.


Irregardless of both of these laws, all it takes one judge to sign a warrant.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 16, 2011)

Antonin Scalia said:


> Irregardless of both of these laws, all it takes one judge to sign a warrant.


So you're saying I have to go live with Clayton after all? 

(Also irregardless isn't a--what the hell Firefox thinks it's a word.)


----------



## Volkodav (Dec 16, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> So you're saying I have to go live with Clayton after all?
> 
> (Also irregardless isn't a--what the hell Firefox thinks it's a word.)



once you said it the first time , you were in my radar
and theres no escape now.


----------



## Onnes (Dec 16, 2011)

Clayton said:


> once you said it the first time , you were in my radar
> and theres no escape now.



Canada: come for the freedom, stay because you've been locked in Clayton's basement dungeon.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Dec 16, 2011)

YOU'RE ALREADY DEAD


----------



## Telnac (Dec 16, 2011)

Wow.  I'm very, very rarely on the same side as the ACLU on anything but damn, this is scary stuff.  Any President can now legally use the US military to jail their political opponents.  The USA has become the new Iraq.

[Edit] Oh, so the indefinite detention provision was killed?  I certainly hope so!


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Dec 16, 2011)

Telnac said:


> Wow.  I'm very, very rarely on the same side as the ACLU on anything but damn, this is scary stuff.  Any President can now legally use the US military to jail their political opponents.  The USA has become the new Iraq.



I love how no one bothers to read the above posts where this is shown to not be the case.

It's cool though.


----------



## Corto (Dec 16, 2011)

Antonin Scalia said:


> They have passed it minus the Udall Amendment. So the provision for indefinite detainment is not contained within the bill, therefore for all intensive purposes it has not made it past the senate.


http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senate-rejects-amendment-banning-indefinite-detention
It says here the rejected amendment was the good amendment.
If you have some source saying otherwise, please give a link. I'm very intrigued by this, but have basically no knowledge of American political/judicial blogs and news sources. 




Term_the_Schmuck said:


> If I've read my sources correctly, the provision that passed changed the language so that American citizens are not to be detained by the US military indefinitely.  However, if you ain't American, you're fucked.



Because, as you said, no one reads the previous posts, let me reiterate my links.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011...l-does-apply-to-u-s-citizens-on-u-s-soil.html
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011...s-apply-to-american-citizens-on-u-s-soil.html


> Donâ€™t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.



Yes americans are exempt from the "military MUST detain" thing. They are still covered by the "military CAN detain" thing.


----------



## Kinuki (Dec 16, 2011)

It seems like those new provisions will 'just' legalize all the extralegal measures spawned by the War On [strike]Abstract Nouns[/strike] Terror and that weren't already covered by the [strike]ErmÃ¤chtigungsgesetz[/strike] PATRIOT Act.

So, yepp, this does away with part of the Constitution. But wait with the indignation, think about it for a moment. In a time where Saddam, Osama and practically all leaders of Al Qaeda are either dead or hiding from our troops and fearing for their sorry lives, why does that get pushed through? To protect us from the ZOMG tewwwowists that lurk in every shadow? Hardly. To lock up dissidents who dare to protest against the exploitation of America by some corporates powerful enough to lobby any desired law into existence? DINGDINGDING Jackpot!

Apparently the police doesn't suffice as the repressive apparatus anymore and the Army has to help out. Well, maybe the detainees make the best of the situation and call it 'Occupy Gitmo' or something.


----------



## Cocobanana (Dec 16, 2011)

Maybe they had to make this law because some potential 9/11 re-enacters are 'american citizens' and are protected by the same laws that us actual patriotic americans have. Which would be bad of course...

I am not sure why else this law would need to be made, except maybe for the scare of something like 'occupy wall street' getting more violent.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 16, 2011)

Cocobanana said:


> Maybe they had to make this law because some potential 9/11 re-enacters are 'american citizens' and are protected by the same laws that us actual patriotic americans have. Which would be bad of course...
> 
> I am not sure why else this law would need to be made, except maybe for the scare of something like 'occupy wall street' getting more violent.


You certainly defend invasive government a lot for a self-proclaimed libertarian.


----------



## BRN (Dec 16, 2011)

Jesus fucking christ you guys are ass-face retarded but this is literally _ridiculous._


----------



## Corto (Dec 16, 2011)

Cocobanana said:


> Maybe they had to make this law because some potential 9/11 re-enacters are 'american citizens' and are protected by the same laws that us actual patriotic americans have. Which would be bad of course...
> 
> I am not sure why else this law would need to be made, except maybe for the scare of something like 'occupy wall street' getting more violent.



Yes please do explain to me why if this bill is to act against the "bad guys" and "9/11 re enacters" all it does is remove due process and the right to a lawyer. 
Your argument could work if the bill said something like "suspects of terrorism can be arrested and tried with no further proof" (good luck winning that case), or "authors of act of terrorism can be detained" or something.
This law states that someone who is a mere SUSPECT (and even if they were fucking caught after blowing the white house, everyone deserves a fair trial) can be DETAINED with NO TRIAL, NO PROOF and NO WAY TO DEFEND THEMSELVES IN A COURT. Don't try to rationalize it.

Also if the biggest worry is about domestic terrorism, why does the bill give the military the power to detain everyone, anywhere, including outside the US?


----------



## Kinuki (Dec 16, 2011)

Cocobanana said:


> potential 9/11 re-enacters are 'american citizens' and are protected by the same laws that us actual patriotic americans have


This Tom Clancy writes some damn good novels, amirite?



Cocobanana said:


> I am not sure why else this law would need to be made, except maybe for the scare of something like 'occupy wall street' getting more violent.


Yeah, because the powers that be can't allow protests against the dismantling of the democratic system to actually succeed. Better to enact such laws and lock 'em up in Gitmo.


----------



## Corto (Dec 16, 2011)

> Maybe they had to make this law because some potential 9/11 re-enacters are 'american citizens' and are protected by the same laws that us actual patriotic americans have. Which would be bad of course...


Hahahah I just caught this up. 

Yes let's treat different people with different laws (equality is overrated, right?) and let's separate them with a completely retarded, abstract and impossible to measure principle such as _patriotism_. I'm sure those right wing militias will agree with you that they're comitting these imaginary acts of terrorism because they're not patriotic enough.

EDIT: Oh wait I forgot they don't need to agree with you at all. Or be right wing militias. Or anything else, because you can lock them up without trial to prove their guilt.


----------



## Corto (Dec 16, 2011)

Ok I have a question here, because I don't understand American politics very well:

I would imagine that the democrats, being the "left wing" party, would oppose this (and apparently half of them did). I imagined the Tea Party, being batshit insane, would support this (they didn't, same link) and apparently even the republicans opposed this. If that's so, then who the fuck put this idea forward, and managed to get it passed? I mean, it really doesn't ring with me as the thing the democrats (which I've come to recognize as those supporting more liberal stuff such as abortions, gays, and whatever) would do. Was it they? Should I be digusted by them too?


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Dec 16, 2011)

Corto said:


> Ok I have a question here, because I don't understand American politics very well:
> 
> I would imagine that the democrats, being the "left wing" party, would oppose this (and apparently half of them did). I imagined the Tea Party, being batshit insane, would support this (they didn't, same link) and apparently even the republicans opposed this. If that's so, then who the fuck put this idea forward, and managed to get it passed? I mean, it really doesn't ring with me as the thing the democrats (which I've come to recognize as those supporting more liberal stuff such as abortions, gays, and whatever) would do. Was it they? Should I be digusted by them too?



Somewhere along the way someone likely sneaked the provision in while this thing was being tossed around.  I have no idea who brought it up, but I'd say likely this was a measure instituted by a small group of individuals rather than something which had partisan blessing.


----------



## Conker (Dec 16, 2011)

Well fuck...Why the hell won't Obama blast this shit down?


----------



## Tycho (Dec 16, 2011)

Conker said:


> Well fuck...Why the hell won't Obama blast this shit down?



idk, wants to look "tough on terror" for the upcoming elections?


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Dec 16, 2011)

Corto said:


> Ok I have a question here, because I don't understand American politics very well:
> 
> I would imagine that the democrats, being the "left wing" party



They are not left wing, American politics at this point in time is an amalgamation of corporate and political interests.  There is only a right wing and a center-right party.


----------



## Onnes (Dec 16, 2011)

When considering US politics, you have to realize that the two party system largely assures that various groups of voters have no choice but to support certain candidates--the very liberal aren't going to vote Republican and the very conservative aren't going to vote Democrat. Because of the support of these voters is guaranteed, candidates choose to often ignore them and focus on other groups that may not necessarily vote for them in an election. This is why you see supposedly liberal politicians pursuing far right policies: they want to broaden their appeal while secure in the knowledge that they cannot lose their existing voting base.


----------



## lupinealchemist (Dec 16, 2011)

Tycho said:


> idk, wants to look "tough on terror" for the upcoming elections?


If you ask me, that's political suicide, at least if the US population were sane.


----------



## Corto (Dec 16, 2011)

Man, bipartisan politics are retarded.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 16, 2011)

lupinealchemist said:


> If you ask me, that's political suicide, at least if the US population were sane.



Sanity is such a subjective thing in America.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 16, 2011)

Corto said:


> Man, bipartisan politics are retarded.


You should hear the stupid shit that spews out of people's mouths whenever someone questions the system as it is, even though they disagree with congress.
It'd be like in a metaphorical sense the argument saying seatbelts kill lives and then winding up with your head smashing against the dashboard.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Dec 16, 2011)

I dont really care that much for America anymore. Time to move to Canada


----------



## Kinuki (Dec 16, 2011)

Corto said:


> If that's so, then who the fuck put this idea forward, and managed to get it passed?


The real government, namely a group of CEOs and other billionaires. They told their puppets who pretend to be either left- or right-wing to pass this and then it passed. It's that simple if you don't have to bother with that whole 'rule of the people' shebang.


----------



## Rotsala (Dec 16, 2011)

Oh fuck it's the illJEWminati

THE END TIMES ARE HERE, WAKE UP SHEEPLE


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Dec 16, 2011)

The solution to these problems is an intracranial injection of 9mm


----------



## Inciatus (Dec 16, 2011)

You may want to use something more powerful, there was an old man in Florida that was shot and didn't know it. He though he had a stroke and found out there was a bullet in his head.

On topic, this is quite a shame that they would even propose this. If this goes through I hope the Supreme Court repeals it.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 16, 2011)

Inciatus said:


> You may want to use something more powerful, there was an old man in Florida that was shot and didn't know it. He though he had a stroke and found out there was a bullet in his head.
> 
> On topic, this is quite a shame that they would even propose this. If this goes through I hope the Supreme Court repeals it.


The problem is that the government has on a regular basis in the past ignored what the supreme court ruled, the problem is the supreme court has no way of enforcing their rulings.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Dec 16, 2011)

Well can someone tell us a way to get the peoples power back.

Also this song is exactly what we need to listen to right now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qfKornBBGg


----------



## Aleu (Dec 16, 2011)

Dragonfurry said:


> Well can someone tell us a way to get the peoples power back.
> 
> Also this song is exactly what we need to listen to right now.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qfKornBBGg


I think this would be more fitting.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Dec 16, 2011)

Aleu said:


> I think this would be more fitting.



Damn it you are right.


----------



## Kangamutt (Dec 17, 2011)

Fuck this bullshit. The worst part about this law passing is that it passed on the anniversary of the passing of the Bill of Rights. Talk about a major cockslap to the face of us.

Other than going through the Supreme Court, the only channel I can see to do away with this is with the power of Initiative, Referendum, and Recall (People calling to instate a law, remove a law and remove an elected official from office, respectively). Though I doubt people here would really take any initiative to put up a referendum against the NDAA. :/
Also, the most of it is a huge fucking pork barrel to boost defense spending, and probably worsening our debt. From what I hear, it's Cold War-era sized spending to develop advanced weapons to fight people who make their arsenal from what you find in a hardware store.

In the end though, the fact that Obama backed down from his veto threat (I would LOVE to know why) stripped every ounce of faith I had in him. I thought he'd gotten a pretty good spine with a smart head on those shoulders, but it turns out he's just a limp dick that ran out of Viagra at the last moment. Between him being in the 2012 running and the circus that is the GOP primaries, I'd say we're pretty much fucked.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Dec 17, 2011)

Because no one else ever bothers to do this before panicking, here's a link to the actual bill in question: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1540
It's over 1000 pages long, and even the summary takes a fair chunk of time to get through.  Now... I searched the summary for the word 'detain', and all that came up were clauses about Guantanamo prisoners (and some bullshit thing about declaring that the assassination of Osama bin Ladin was a victory for freedom... or whatever.  Apparently these are things we can legislate, along with global climate and the origin of life).  I ain't seeing nothing about detaining American citizens, though.  I don't really feel like sifting through that whole fucking thing, but I wonder if someone could find the clause in question here?  I only ask because half the time, I know that organizations like the ACLU tend to over-inflate things in their newsletters as a way to scare the shit out of people so they can get more money to keep fighting court cases.  But this bill is a monster, so this time it's not as easy for me to locate what the supposedly freedom-removing clause is.  I'm just guessing that if the bill actually contains a passage stating that the military can arrest American citizens without due process, it probably wouldn't have passed.  So if someone could find that passage, then we can all officially start freaking out.  The grand majority of it, though, seems to be allocating money for various military vehicles and weapons and shit.


----------



## 8-bit (Dec 17, 2011)

Dragonfurry said:


> Well can someone tell us a way to get the peoples power back.
> 
> Also this song is exactly what we need to listen to right now.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qfKornBBGg





Aleu said:


> I think this would be more fitting.



You're both wrong, it's this. :V


----------



## Tycho (Dec 17, 2011)

Aleu said:


> I think this would be more fitting.



Yeah I think I got you both beat.

[yt]R8mlJO24cGc[/yt]

When it hits the fan this is the music I'll be killing pigs to.


----------



## Onnes (Dec 17, 2011)

M. Le Renard said:


> Because no one else ever bothers to do this before panicking, here's a link to the actual bill in question: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1540
> It's over 1000 pages long, and even the summary takes a fair chunk of time to get through.  Now... I searched the summary for the word 'detain', and all that came up were clauses about Guantanamo prisoners (and some bullshit thing about declaring that the assassination of Osama bin Ladin was a victory for freedom... or whatever.  Apparently these are things we can legislate, along with global climate and the origin of life).  I ain't seeing nothing about detaining American citizens, though.  I don't really feel like sifting through that whole fucking thing, but I wonder if someone could find the clause in question here?  I only ask because half the time, I know that organizations like the ACLU tend to over-inflate things in their newsletters as a way to scare the shit out of people so they can get more money to keep fighting court cases.  But this bill is a monster, so this time it's not as easy for me to locate what the supposedly freedom-removing clause is.  I'm just guessing that if the bill actually contains a passage stating that the military can arrest American citizens without due process, it probably wouldn't have passed.  So if someone could find that passage, then we can all officially start freaking out.  The grand majority of it, though, seems to be allocating money for various military vehicles and weapons and shit.



The relevant portion is Section 1031, which allows the president to detain any person "engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners" indefinitely. This section does not exclude US citizens. Basically, its language grants the president powers that have already been judged to be unconstitutional.

I'm rather curious why you would think that the many parties, including numerous legal scholars, against the NDAA would not have read the relevant portions of the bill.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Dec 17, 2011)

Cocobanana said:


> It's a wonder anyone can understand the 'provisions' in the law, and I'm sure the supreme court will have their say about this if it really were as bad as you guys and the fear-mongering people who wrote this article say.
> 
> From what I heard on news radio, they did change some parts of it before passing it. Who knows what parts *but probably enough that no one here would have a problem with it*.



Oh, I have a problem with it, in ANY form.  The WHOLE THING needs to be tossed in the wastebucket, Udal ammendment or no Udal ammendment.


----------



## Corto (Dec 17, 2011)

M. Le Renard said:


> Because no one else ever bothers to do this before panicking, here's a link to the actual bill in question: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1540
> It's over 1000 pages long, and even the summary takes a fair chunk of time to get through.  Now... I searched the summary for the word 'detain', and all that came up were clauses about Guantanamo prisoners (and some bullshit thing about declaring that the assassination of Osama bin Ladin was a victory for freedom... or whatever.  Apparently these are things we can legislate, along with global climate and the origin of life).  I ain't seeing nothing about detaining American citizens, though.  I don't really feel like sifting through that whole fucking thing, but I wonder if someone could find the clause in question here?  I only ask because half the time, I know that organizations like the ACLU tend to over-inflate things in their newsletters as a way to scare the shit out of people so they can get more money to keep fighting court cases.  But this bill is a monster, so this time it's not as easy for me to locate what the supposedly freedom-removing clause is.  I'm just guessing that if the bill actually contains a passage stating that the military can arrest American citizens without due process, it probably wouldn't have passed.  So if someone could find that passage, then we can all officially start freaking out.  The grand majority of it, though, seems to be allocating money for various military vehicles and weapons and shit.



Because no one on this god damned forum reads the links I post.
They mention 1032 as being the one regarding US citizens. From this, it took me 10 seconds to find the part about detainees, it's Subtitle D (the one helpfully called "DETAINEE MATTERS"). 

Sec. 1031, point B mentions the detainment without trial until "the end of hostilities" (good luck defining that when you're waging war on an abstract concept).


----------



## Kangamutt (Dec 17, 2011)

M. Le Renard said:


> Because no one else ever bothers to do this before panicking, here's a link to the actual bill in question: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1540
> It's over 1000 pages long, and even the summary takes a fair chunk of time to get through.  Now... I searched the summary for the word 'detain', and all that came up were clauses about Guantanamo prisoners (and some bullshit thing about declaring that the assassination of Osama bin Ladin was a victory for freedom... or whatever.  Apparently these are things we can legislate, along with global climate and the origin of life).  I ain't seeing nothing about detaining American citizens, though.  I don't really feel like sifting through that whole fucking thing, but I wonder if someone could find the clause in question here?  I only ask because half the time, I know that organizations like the ACLU tend to over-inflate things in their newsletters as a way to scare the shit out of people so they can get more money to keep fighting court cases.  But this bill is a monster, so this time it's not as easy for me to locate what the supposedly freedom-removing clause is.  I'm just guessing that if the bill actually contains a passage stating that the military can arrest American citizens without due process, it probably wouldn't have passed.  So if someone could find that passage, then we can all officially start freaking out.  The grand majority of it, though, seems to be allocating money for various military vehicles and weapons and shit.


Yeah, I can't find it either. Though I find it funny that they just HAD to reaffirm that marriage is between a man and a woman in a military bill! What does this have to do with national defense? (Other than their plot to make the world FAAAAAAABULOUS! :V) Other than that, like it's been said by you, others and I, it's just dumping money into the military. Though it could be better used elsewhere right now.

ADD:


Corto said:


> Because no one on this god damned forum reads the links I post.
> They mention 1032 as being the one regarding US citizens. From this, it  took me 10 seconds to find the part about detainees, it's Subtitle D  (the one helpfully called "DETAINEE MATTERS").
> 
> Sec. 1031, point B mentions the detainment without trial until "the end  of hostilities" (good luck defining that when you're waging war on an  abstract concept).


After reading the full text of 1032 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:6:./temp/~c112I1WVLM:e581028: I am seeing your point. This is treading in a *VERY* dangerous grey area that could interpreted the wrong way, either accidental or intentional, moreso with this "War on terrorism", which isn't exactly easy to fight an ideology. If anything, this "requirement" needs to be further defined, and to what extent.


----------



## Corto (Dec 17, 2011)

ARE YOU ACTIVELY IGNORING ME JESUS CHRIST

Am I invisible to you people or something
WHY AM I SO UNLOVED :C


----------



## Roose Hurro (Dec 17, 2011)

M. Le Renard said:


> I ain't seeing nothing about detaining American citizens, though.  I don't really feel like sifting through that whole fucking thing, but *I wonder if someone could find the clause in question here?*





Here you go, a direct link from your own link (let me know if you have any trouble with it):  http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-1540

Edit:  Ugggh... tried my own link, and it didn't direct to the proper section.  Well, like Corto said, go to section 1031 and start from there.  All you have to do is go to the title page that comes up after you give approval, then scroll down to the relevant section (1031) and click on it.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Dec 17, 2011)

BetrayerOfNihil said:


> Hah. *Well that's a better idea* than marching down Pennsylvania Avenue with a duffel bag full of molotovs made from bottles of beer.



How about this better idea?  Rather than abandoning America for Canada, why don't you contact your reps in Congress and tell them who does the voting?  Enough people do this, it should twist their balls quite well, and make them sit up, squeal like little girls, and take notice.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Dec 17, 2011)

Okay... following Corto's link to the article on 1031 and looking at the bill in question, here's what we're all apparently talking about:



> (b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
> 
> (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
> 
> (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.



So now the actual language is on the forums, which was what I was looking for when I browsed through this thread (and what I didn't find, hence why I assumed--as happens rather frequently in these kinds of discussions--that no one looked at the actual bill.  But I stand corrected in this case).  I guess the issue is that the language isn't super ultra precise, because all it says it 'the requirement to detain'?  Then I'll bet I know why it passed; no one in the senate or house read the 1100 page bill in its entirety and examined it for every bit of wording that could possibly be misconstrued in a court of law.  So I guess now it's out there, and folks should be calling their senators and asking them to take a second look to tweak this stupid thing so American citizens can't lawfully be placed under military custody for undefined acts of aggression.
I don't know.  I guess I'm just not so quick to grab up a rifle and start a revolt because I can see the possibility that maybe this wasn't a purposeful violent act of aggression against the rights of US citizens, and might instead have been a simple mistaken vagary in wording that no one caught until everyone voted to pass it through.  People are nothing if good at finding connections between random events, so obviously since this is related somehow (I would argue loosely) to the recent protests and police brutality, it's going to seem like a conspiracy.  If it is, I'm sure we'll be seeing the effects of it before too long, and if it isn't, well, people are sure making a big stink, so hopefully the mistake will get rectified before the Pres signs it into law (assuming he still hasn't, as he hadn't when last I checked a few hours ago).


----------



## Onnes (Dec 17, 2011)

M. Le Renard said:


> Then I'll bet I know why it passed; no one in the senate or house read the 1100 page bill in its entirety and examined it for every bit of wording that could possibly be misconstrued in a court of law.  So I guess now it's out there, and folks should be calling their senators and asking them to take a second look to tweak this stupid thing so American citizens can't lawfully be placed under military custody for undefined acts of aggression.



Actually, the legal ramifications of the law were brought up on the senate floor, and several senators took the time to defend the indefinite detention of US citizens as laid out in the bill. Senators, at least, absolutely knew what they were voting on.


----------



## Kinuki (Dec 17, 2011)

Rotsala said:


> Oh fuck it's the illJEWminati
> 
> THE END TIMES ARE HERE, WAKE UP SHEEPLE


Instead of a secret society that tried to spread the ideals of Enlightenment in feudal Germany and ceased to exist 200+ years ago, the de facto power holders in contemporary America are persons who are billions of dollars worth. Because you can buy _anyone _with _billions of dollars, _including democratically elected officials.

Is it really that hard to get?


----------



## Roose Hurro (Dec 17, 2011)

BetrayerOfNihil said:


> I was making fun of his "stomp into the Capital and teach them a lesson" post. *I also don't oppose any of this*, I don't feel that I would be threatened by any of it.



I take it you don't oppose the Patriot Act, then?


----------



## Aleu (Dec 17, 2011)

Kinuki said:


> Instead of a secret society that tried to spread the ideals of Enlightenment in feudal Germany and ceased to exist 200+ years ago, the de facto power holders in contemporary America are persons who are billions of dollars worth. Because you can buy _anyone _with _billions of dollars, _including democratically elected officials.
> 
> Is it really that hard to get?



Is satire really that hard to get?


----------



## Kinuki (Dec 17, 2011)

Aleu said:


> Is satire really that hard to get?


If it's indistinguishable from an ad hominem, than I would say yes, yes indeed.


----------



## Corto (Dec 17, 2011)

M. Le Renard said:


> So now the actual language is on the forums, which was what I was looking for when I browsed through this thread (and what I didn't find, hence why I assumed--as happens rather frequently in these kinds of discussions--that no one looked at the actual bill.  But I stand corrected in this case).  I guess the issue is that the language isn't super ultra precise, because all it says it 'the requirement to detain'?  Then I'll bet I know why it passed; no one in the senate or house read the 1100 page bill in its entirety and examined it for every bit of wording that could possibly be misconstrued in a court of law.  So I guess now it's out there, and folks should be calling their senators and asking them to take a second look to tweak this stupid thing so American citizens can't lawfully be placed under military custody for undefined acts of aggression.



I'm not gonna link to the same god damned articles for the third time, but if congressmen are discussing this bill in terms like, and I quote,


> â€œ1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homelandâ€


 then I'll go on a hunch and say it isn't refering to the budget on air force bombers.

Also, if they get a presidential veto talking about the detainee section as a threat I'm gonna assume at least some senators read it, even if they fell asleep when they openly discussed those sections of the bill and then voted on the amendment that would alter that specific part.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 17, 2011)

Kinuki said:


> If it's indistinguishable from an ad hominem, than I would say yes, yes indeed.



I found it pretty obvious and even I can't get jokes unless they're puns.


----------



## Kinuki (Dec 17, 2011)

Aleu said:


> I found it pretty obvious


Of course you would say that. Implications that your opposite is a nutcase are _always _just tongue in cheek, amirite?


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Dec 17, 2011)

Kinuki said:


> Of course you would say that. Implications that your opposite is a nutcase are _always _just tongue in cheek, amirite?



I hear Jon Stewart makes a living off doing just that.


----------



## Corto (Dec 17, 2011)

It was a pretty obvious joke.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 17, 2011)

Kinuki said:


> Of course you would say that. Implications that your opposite is a nutcase are _always _just tongue in cheek, amirite?



Poe's Law. Get to know it sometime. If something is as ridiculous as it sounds, it probably isn't srs. Especially if it's on forums like this where we relish in sarcasm.


----------



## Kinuki (Dec 17, 2011)

Aleu said:


> Poe's Law. Get to know it sometime. If something is as ridiculous as it sounds, it probably isn't srs. Especially if it's on forums like this where we relish in sarcasm.


Dude, Poe's Law also comprises its logical inverse. 'Any sufficiently advanced kookiness is indistinguishable from a parody of it.' So don't reprimand me for getting back at something I perceive as the real thing. There are enough kooks here to make it a possibility to be reckoned with.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Dec 17, 2011)

Corto said:


> I'm not gonna link to the same god damned articles for the third time, but if congressmen are discussing this bill in terms like, and I quote,  then I'll go on a hunch and say it isn't refering to the budget on air force bombers.
> 
> Also, if they get a presidential veto talking about the detainee section as a threat I'm gonna assume at least some senators read it, even if they fell asleep when they openly discussed those sections of the bill and then voted on the amendment that would alter that specific part.



These things clearly move too fast for me to keep up.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 17, 2011)

Kinuki said:


> Dude, Poe's Law also comprises its logical inverse. 'Any sufficiently advanced kookiness is indistinguishable from a parody of it.' So don't reprimand me for getting back at something I perceive as the real thing. There are enough kooks here to make it a possibility to be reckoned with.


To be honest, I've yet to see any. Sure, there's the occasional idiot but generally not THAT bad. Despite popular opinion, just because this is a furry forum doesn't mean we're all pants on head retarded conspiracy theorists.

Even though this bill is ripe with CT ammo. Personally I think this thing will be shot by the end of the year.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 17, 2011)

Aleu said:


> To be honest, I've yet to see any. Sure, there's the occasional idiot but generally not THAT bad. Despite popular opinion, just because this is a furry forum doesn't mean we're all pants on head retarded conspiracy theorists.


Well, we did get this guy. He only squeezed out 30 or so posts before getting banned, though. I'm not sure why I remember him so well.

But yeah. He got banned for white supremacy bullshit pretty much instantly. It really isn't tolerated here, Kinuki. Although I'm not sure if just plain Jew-phobia, without all the other stuff that usually comes with it, would be tolerated or not.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 17, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> Well, we did get this guy. He only squeezed out 30 or so posts before getting banned, though. I'm not sure why I remember him so well.
> 
> But yeah. He got banned for white supremacy bullshit pretty much instantly. It really isn't tolerated here, Kinuki. Although I'm not sure if just plain Jew-phobia, without all the other stuff that usually comes with it, would be tolerated or not.



Could you, like, read my post again. Please?


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 17, 2011)

Aleu said:


> Could you, like, read my post again. Please?


I'm just saying that they do turn up once in a while. Don't last long though, usually, you're right.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 17, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> I'm just saying that they do turn up once in a while. Don't last long though, usually, you're right.



I was saying as a whole and that we do get the occasional idiot, regardless of how long they last.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 17, 2011)

Aleu said:


> I was saying as a whole and that we do get the occasional idiot, regardless of how long they last.


Alright, sorry.


----------



## CAThulu (Dec 17, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> How about this better idea?  Rather than abandoning America for Canada, why don't you contact your reps in Congress and tell them who does the voting?  Enough people do this, it should twist their balls quite well, and make them sit up, squeal like little girls, and take notice.



Don't come to Canada.  For one, the NDAA bill will not stop at the border; with the entire world being labelled as a battlefield in war, and the war they're using to justify this bill is the 'war on terror', you're not safe anywhere.  You'll be extradited to Guantanamo no matter where you are...unless they just send over a drone and shoot your ass to save a few hours and dollars in manpower.

Secondly, Canada has some shit going down that while clearly not as draconian, is downright scary.  There's the omnibus crime bill that smashes 9 bills together into one package.  This bill will not take mental health into consideration in crimes, impose much more strict sentencing on youth, and put possession of pot (and I'm talking a joint here) on equal footing with being a sex offender in regards to minimum sentencing.  The courts won't even be allowed to override it based on the circumstances; they'll have to put someone away for at least 6 months for a first time offence (maximum is 14 years under this bill).   But this isn't about pot here.  Under this bill, if you were 17 and caught after dark walking past a school and passing a joint to a friend, you could be sentenced to 6 months in prison for trafficking by a school.  Regardless that there's no money exchanged, school is closed for the night so there are no children, and you're a minor.  So now you have a criminal record, which means if you want a decent job you can kiss that goodbye.  This is a mark against you for the rest of your life.  Needless to say, this is not good for a strong economy.  If you commit a crime and you're mentally unstable the courts will not be allowed to take that into account, and the last place you want to send mentally unstable people is to jail if they're every going to get better.  This is only a small part of the bill, mind you; there are 7 other provisions beside these two.  http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20111202/mental-illness-crime-bill-ottawa-111202/

To handle what's obviously going to be a huge swell in inmates, there's also plans in the works to build more super-jails across Canada, even though our crime has been going down every year for over a decade.  Even Texas is saying we're nuts for pursuing this bill and it's only going to make the problem worse.  _Texas_.  The Canadian Bar Association (our lawyers), Canadian Pediatrics Association, and a whole host of others are calling this a really bad idea.  At least 2 provinces are refusing to foot the bill, essentially saying that if Harper wants it so bad the federal government can pay for it, because they want no part of it.  

See, with our main opposition leader having died earlier this year, our supreme leader has used this power vacuum to push through ("fast track") some crazy stuff that the majority of Canada does not (pulling out of Kyoto, putting our water up as a tradeable commodity, firing our environmental experts, etc), whether the rest of Canada likes it or not.  We can 'Occupy', protest, write letters, whatever, but democracy is dying out over here as well.  It's all falling on deaf ears and the Conservatives have the majority.  Everyone in the combined opposition can vote against him and the bills will still pass.


So to sum it up, no, don't come here.  Not because we don't want you, but because between the Omnibus Crime Bill and the American drones, there's no where for you to go any more.


----------



## GingerM (Dec 17, 2011)

Aleu said:


> To be honest, I've yet to see any. Sure, there's the occasional idiot but generally not THAT bad. Despite popular opinion, just because this is a furry forum doesn't mean we're all pants on head retarded conspiracy theorists.
> 
> Even though this bill is ripe with CT ammo. Personally I think this thing will be shot by the end of the year.



I agree, but if you're an American citizen of age to exercise your voting rights, it wouldn't hurt to let your congress-people and senators know you oppose this bill (always assuming you do). More bad laws have been passed in history because the great majority of the citizenry assumed they wouldn't because other people would do something about it. Never forget you're 'other people' to other people


----------



## Tycho (Dec 17, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> So to sum it up, no, don't come here.  Not because we don't want you, but because between the Omnibus Crime Bill and the American drones, there's no where for you to go any more.



There are not enough screaming rageface memes in the world.

IN THE ENTIRE FUCKING WORLD.


----------



## Corto (Dec 17, 2011)

I'm sure the Canadian government would be perfectly ok with the US sending assassin commandos and automatic machines of war into their national territory.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 17, 2011)

welp, one formal letter of protest and "fuck you" sent off to my representative.

Norm Dicks is a fucking retarded name, too.  Fucker.




Corto said:


> I'm sure the Canadian government would be perfectly ok with the US sending assassin commandos and automatic machines of war into their national territory.



They would be the bagpipe that didn't say no.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Dec 17, 2011)

Corto said:


> I'm sure the Canadian government would be perfectly ok with the US sending assassin commandos and automatic machines of war into their national territory.


http://truthalliance.net/Portals/0/Archive/Gallery/32/DHS%20Drone.jpg


----------



## GingerM (Dec 17, 2011)

Corto said:


> I'm sure the Canadian government would be perfectly ok with the US sending assassin commandos and automatic machines of war into their national territory.



Have you looked at Canada's military? Let me be clear - I'm one of them (RCN), and I'm proud of my service. Nevertheless, I can do basic math. Our military, all services, would not be able to actually resist the American military. Our combat aircraft are nearly 30 years old, which is _old_ for military aircraft. What, exactly, do you suppose the Canadian government could _do_ about American Predator drones in our skies? Aside from sending stiff notes of protest to Washington? Furthermore, let's assume the US did send in federal agents to summarily extradite people back to the US (this has been done before; as I understand it, the American legal system does not care how the accused comes to be within their jurisdiction). Again, what, precisely, could Ottawa do about it? And as someone above has noted, we have our own version of right-wing power-mongering going on, so my question assumes that Ottawa would actually _want_ to do something.

Here's something else for Americans and Canadians to worry about: The shared borders initiative. The idea is that there will be no impediments to travel across the US-Canada border. How will this work? Canadian and American laws will be more closely aligned (read: Canadian law will be aligned with American law) However, it does mean, for example, that an American citizen traveling from Europe via Toronto, say, and runs afoul of Canada Customs may be denied entry not just into Canada but into the US as well. This shared border thing is something Prime Minister Harper and President Obama are pushing quite hard.


----------



## CAThulu (Dec 17, 2011)

Corto said:


> I'm sure the Canadian government would be perfectly ok with the US sending assassin commandos and automatic machines of war into their national territory.



We already are. :C



> Armed U.S. police officers will for the first time be allowed to operate in Canada along with the RCMP as part of far-reaching changes in Canadian-American border operations to be unveiled next week by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Barack Obama.
> The joint action plan to be announced at the White House will also break new ground by introducing exit-entry records that will track the movements of everyone who leaves the United States or Canada, with the information available to authorities in both countries.


 http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1094483--border-deal-fuels-concerns-in-canada


----------



## Aleu (Dec 17, 2011)

Son of a BITCH. Welp, there goes my plan on moving to Canada. It'll be America 2.0


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 17, 2011)

GingerM said:


> Have you looked at Canada's military? Let me be clear - I'm one of them (RCN), and I'm proud of my service. Nevertheless, I can do basic math. Our military, all services, would not be able to actually resist the American military. Our combat aircraft are nearly 30 years old, which is _old_ for military aircraft. What, exactly, do you suppose the Canadian government could _do_ about American Predator drones in our skies? Aside from sending stiff notes of protest to Washington? Furthermore, let's assume the US did send in federal agents to summarily extradite people back to the US (this has been done before; as I understand it, the American legal system does not care how the accused comes to be within their jurisdiction). Again, what, precisely, could Ottawa do about it? And as someone above has noted, we have our own version of right-wing power-mongering going on, so my question assumes that Ottawa would actually _want_ to do something.
> 
> Here's something else for Americans and Canadians to worry about: The shared borders initiative. The idea is that there will be no impediments to travel across the US-Canada border. How will this work? Canadian and American laws will be more closely aligned (read: Canadian law will be aligned with American law) However, it does mean, for example, that an American citizen traveling from Europe via Toronto, say, and runs afoul of Canada Customs may be denied entry not just into Canada but into the US as well. This shared border thing is something Prime Minister Harper and President Obama are pushing quite hard.


If Canada wanted to express displeasure with America, all they would have to do is goof around with the oil supply. We get more oil from you guys than any other country, by a fairly large margin. 

Although, by the looks of the rest of your post, they don't really _want_ to express displeasure with America.


----------



## GingerM (Dec 17, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> If Canada wanted to express displeasure with America, all they would have to do is goof around with the oil supply. We get more oil from you guys than any other country, by a fairly large margin.
> 
> Although, by the looks of the rest of your post, they don't really _want_ to express displeasure with America.



True, but how long would the US tolerate that situation? My guess is, not very long at all. Let's face, that longest undefended border in the world would present problems for Canada to resist any kind of military action - and I can all too easily see the American administration of the day deciding that shutting off oil to the US constituted an 'act of economic terrorism' and there you go; Prime Minister Harper (or whomever is PM) is suddenly the next Saddam.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 17, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> If Canada wanted to express displeasure with America, all they would have to do is goof around with the oil supply. We get more oil from you guys than any other country, by a fairly large margin.



And then the US military swoops in and liberates the fuck out of Canada and ensures that it gets its oil, by hook or by crook.



Ad Hoc said:


> Although, by the looks of the rest of your post, they don't really _want_ to express displeasure with America.



We are scary when viewed from the "guns and bombs" angle.


----------



## Volkodav (Dec 17, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> If Canada wanted to express displeasure with America, all they would have to do is goof around with the oil supply. We get more oil from you guys than any other country, by a fairly large margin.
> 
> Although, by the looks of the rest of your post, they don't really _want_ to express displeasure with America.



99% of the shit here comes from china.
i dont think we'd give a shit if america gave us the silent treatment


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 17, 2011)

GingerM said:


> True, but how long would the US tolerate that situation? My guess is, not very long at all. Let's face, that longest undefended border in the world would present problems for Canada to resist any kind of military action - and I can all too easily see the American administration of the day deciding that shutting off oil to the US constituted an 'act of economic terrorism' and there you go; Prime Minister Harper (or whomever is PM) is suddenly the next Saddam.


Wouldn't the resulting global outcry just be awful, though? I'm not really politically-minded enough to guess that would be, but it couldn't be good. Much worse than what happened with the Middle East. It seems like it would be asking for trouble domestically, too; I don't think _that_ many American voters would actually fall for it. I don't doubt you that America probably could win a war with Canada, but would it be worth it in the long run?


----------



## Rhodri (Dec 17, 2011)

Oh. Oh wow.

Well, this is an awfully cheerful way to enter what is going to be a shit-kicker of a recession. 

One is not amused.


----------



## GingerM (Dec 17, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> Wouldn't the resulting global outcry just be awful, though? I'm not really politically-minded enough to guess that would be, but it couldn't be good. It seems like it would be asking for trouble domestically, too; I don't think _that_ many American voters would actually fall for it. I don't doubt you that America probably could win a war with Canada, but would it be worth it in the long run?



In the abstract, yes. In the concrete, with jobs on the lines and the prospect of not being able to pay the bills, feed their kids, etc., I feel reasonably certain the average American would be "get the oil and fuck the world's opinion; what are they going to do about it anyway?" Now whether or not the administration in Washington would be concerned about relations with the rest of the world, I don't know; I'm just not sufficiently familiar with the ins and outs of power and politics in the American political system.

There's also the question of how many Canadians would actually actively resist it, too. Anti-Americanism is a popular attitude in Canada, but only because it's like flea bites: annoying, but hardly worth being concerned over. Actually getting up off the couch or out of Tim Hortons to take up arms against this hypothetical American invasion would be another question. It's important to remember that Canadians as a nation are not nearly as inclined toward rugged individualism than Americans; it's not part of our culture. The notion of a citizen-militia being ready to take up arms simply isn't part of who we are.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 17, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> Wouldn't the resulting global outcry just be awful, though? I'm not really politically-minded enough to guess that would be, but it couldn't be good. Much worse than what happened with the Middle East. It seems like it would be asking for trouble domestically, too; I don't think _that_ many American voters would actually fall for it. I don't doubt you that America probably could win a war with Canada, but would it be worth it in the long run?



The outcry would be substantial.  And mostly ineffectual.  Also, whether the voters fell for it or not would be irrelevant.  Once the gears are in motion, kiss it off.  Letting the war dog off the chain is easy, getting it to come back is not.  Voters would scream WTF and it would still take a decade to withdraw and try and undo some of the mess.


----------



## Volkodav (Dec 17, 2011)

Rhodri said:


> Oh. Oh wow.
> 
> Well, this is an awfully cheerful way to enter what is going to be a shit-kicker of a recession.
> 
> One is not amused.


were still in a recession *smack*


----------



## Rhodri (Dec 17, 2011)

Clayton said:


> were still in a recession *smack*



True. But, I am under the impression that we are just beginning what is going to be quite a large one. I'm still thinking of everything in terms of 'the recession is coming, but not quite here yet. Just the appetisers.'


----------



## Tycho (Dec 17, 2011)

Clayton said:


> were still in a recession *smack*



It could be argued that we went from being in one recession to being on the cusp of another, even worse one.  Depends on which person with lots of money you happen to ask.

edit: just noticed your location

derrherr how does i geography


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 17, 2011)

GingerM said:


> In the abstract, yes. In the concrete, with jobs on the lines and the prospect of not being able to pay the bills, feed their kids, etc., I feel reasonably certain the average American would be "get the oil and fuck the world's opinion; what are they going to do about it anyway?" Now whether or not the administration in Washington would be concerned about relations with the rest of the world, I don't know; I'm just not sufficiently familiar with the ins and outs of power and politics in the American political system.


I think most Americans would want a peaceful resolution. I mean, in this particular hypotical situation, we have Canada cutting off the oil because America is arresting Canadian citizens/legal residents on Canadian soil and flying drones over Canada. All America would have to do is stop doing those things (and I think a lot of Americans would say that's a fair thing to ask), and then the pipelines are turned back on. Even if some Americans were so mislead that they didn't realize that was what was happening, the idea of war is pretty damned unpopular right now, especially so close to home. (Note that most of the wars America has fought in recent history have been with countries whose citizens/soldiers are poor and would have to cross an ocean to touch us.) 

America would likely beat Canada if it did come to war, but I think the fallout is a pretty good incentive to not let that happen.


----------



## Onnes (Dec 17, 2011)

Keep in mind that Canada is part of NATO. Were the US to attack Canada, the US would have to be removed from NATO per its charter, and the remaining members of NATO would be obligated to defend Canada. Basically, it would result in absolute isolation for the United States.


----------



## BRN (Dec 17, 2011)

Clayton said:


> were still in a recession *smack*



Actually, we were in recovery. But now we're pretty much on the cusp of a double-dip. Fucking capitalism.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 17, 2011)

SIX said:


> Actually, we were in recovery. But now we're pretty much on the cusp of a double-dip. Fucking capitalism.



AHA, "recovery".


----------



## zachery980 (Dec 17, 2011)

Right now in the US your voice is not herd if you don't have money, its sad but, true. the Government no longer listens to the people and they don't give a crap.


----------



## BRN (Dec 17, 2011)

Aleu said:


> AHA, "recovery".



I tend to find proof every day that economists are not sociologists.


----------



## General-jwj (Dec 17, 2011)

I know what this is. American politicians saw the 2010 polls by the French-American institute that showed that 65% of French people interviewed "liked" the USA (double the numbers from 2005) and they thought "if the French like us then we're doing something wrong" so they then decided to fuck shit up and disregard foreign policy as blatantly as they could ?

I mean, I try my damnedest not to notice the shit your government does in your own country, because it doesn't really concern me most of the time, but when it's shit like this I can't help but think your government's fucked up ... Snatching up people anywhere in the world ? What are you ? Fucking China ? If this hits the fan ... people here are gonna go batshit over the America hatred. It won't be the playful "oh yeah we hate those assholes (not really though)" you usually get people will be legitimately angry and with good cause too!

For the sake of pretty much everyone involved I hope this stupidity won't come to pass.


----------



## greg-the-fox (Dec 17, 2011)

Brb, moving to Canada.


----------



## Volkodav (Dec 17, 2011)

Tycho said:


> It could be argued that we went from being in one recession to being on the cusp of another, even worse one.  Depends on which person with lots of money you happen to ask.
> 
> edit: just noticed your location
> 
> derrherr how does i geography



it was bad here
I live in a city that survives on the auto industry. when Chrysler's shut down, literally everybody was off work and in welfare offices.



greg-the-fox said:


> Brb, moving to Canada.


do i smell a new roomate


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Dec 17, 2011)

I'm gonna start an insurgency if this passes


----------



## Roose Hurro (Dec 17, 2011)

BetrayerOfNihil said:


> No. I'm not bothered by the possibility that they listen to my phone calls or read my e-mails or look through any records on me, *I have nothing to hide*, and am not suffering due to their 'intrusions.'



It's not about you or anyone having anything to hide... it's about the violation of your rights.  It's like the whole gun-control thing:  â€œFirst they came for the automatic weapons, but I did not have any automatic weapons, so I did not speak out.
 Then they came for the handguns, but I did not have any handguns, so I did not speak out.
 And when they came for my hunting guns, there was no one left to stand up with me.â€

So, if you don't protect (speak up about) your rights, THAT is how you lose them.




CAThulu said:


> Don't come to Canada.  *For one, the NDAA bill will not stop at the border*; with the entire world being labelled as a battlefield in war, and the war they're using to justify this bill is the 'war on terror', you're not safe anywhere.  You'll be extradited to Guantanamo no matter where you are...unless they just send over a drone and shoot your ass to save a few hours and dollars in manpower.



Indeed, if we go by what the "law" says.  There will be no place to run.  So, this is why I say "Speak up!"  It's how The People let their reps know who's really in charge.




CAThulu said:


> Secondly, Canada has some shit going down that while clearly not as draconian, is downright scary.  There's the omnibus crime bill that smashes 9 bills together into one package.  This bill will not take mental health into consideration in crimes, impose much more strict sentencing on youth, and put possession of pot (and I'm talking a joint here) on equal footing with being a sex offender in regards to minimum sentencing.  The courts won't even be allowed to override it based on the circumstances; they'll have to put someone away for at least 6 months for a first time offence (maximum is 14 years under this bill).   But this isn't about pot here.  Under this bill, if you were 17 and caught after dark walking past a school and passing a joint to a friend, you could be sentenced to 6 months in prison for trafficking by a school.  Regardless that there's no money exchanged, school is closed for the night so there are no children, and you're a minor.  So now you have a criminal record, which means if you want a decent job you can kiss that goodbye.  This is a mark against you for the rest of your life.  Needless to say, this is not good for a strong economy.  If you commit a crime and you're mentally unstable the courts will not be allowed to take that into account, and the last place you want to send mentally unstable people is to jail if they're every going to get better.  This is only a small part of the bill, mind you; there are 7 other provisions beside these two.  http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20111202/mental-illness-crime-bill-ottawa-111202/
> 
> To handle what's obviously going to be a huge swell in inmates, there's also plans in the works to build more super-jails across Canada, even though our crime has been going down every year for over a decade.  Even Texas is saying we're nuts for pursuing this bill and it's only going to make the problem worse.  _Texas_.  The Canadian Bar Association (our lawyers), Canadian Pediatrics Association, and a whole host of others are calling this a really bad idea.  At least 2 provinces are refusing to foot the bill, essentially saying that if Harper wants it so bad the federal government can pay for it, because they want no part of it.
> 
> See, with our main opposition leader having died earlier this year, our supreme leader has used this power vacuum to push through ("fast track") some crazy stuff that the majority of Canada does not (pulling out of Kyoto, putting our water up as a tradeable commodity, firing our environmental experts, etc), whether the rest of Canada likes it or not.  We can 'Occupy', protest, write letters, whatever, but democracy is dying out over here as well.  It's all falling on deaf ears and the Conservatives have the majority.  Everyone in the combined opposition can vote against him and the bills will still pass.



Whole thing sounds _nasty_... and that's using a light term.




CAThulu said:


> So to sum it up, no, don't come here.  Not because we don't want you, but because between the Omnibus Crime Bill and the American drones, *there's no where for you to go any more*.



If you don't protect your _old_ home, don't expect your _new_ home to be safe, either.


----------



## Mayfurr (Dec 17, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> It's not about you or anyone having anything to hide... it's about the violation of your rights.  It's like the whole gun-control thing:  â€œFirst they came for the automatic weapons, but I did not have any automatic weapons, so I did not speak out..."



Speaking of gun control, it is me or did the whole US Second Amendment justification argument about "an armed citizenry prevents repressive government" just get flushed down the pan with this new law?


----------



## GingerM (Dec 18, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Keep in mind that Canada is part of NATO. Were the US to attack Canada, the US would have to be removed from NATO per its charter, and the remaining members of NATO would be obligated to defend Canada. Basically, it would result in absolute isolation for the United States.



Turkey and Greece are both members of NATO and yet it was necessary for the UN to intervene in Cyprus.


----------



## The_Mask (Dec 18, 2011)

This bill will/has gone through. The unfortunate truth is that the majority of US citizens are too lazy, or too wrapped up in their own lives to actually pay attention to politics. Most of us actually think the president has some sort of power, when in reality it's the vice president. Unless NDAA were broadcasted during primetime television, there will be practically no opposition.



> Brb, moving to Canada.


I once pledged to move to Australia, then I found out its govt. may as well be a duplicate of California. Then I thought, hey, why not Canada? Nope, Chuck Testa.


----------



## CAThulu (Dec 18, 2011)

GingerM said:


> There's also the question of how many Canadians would actually actively resist it, too. Anti-Americanism is a popular attitude in Canada, but only because it's like flea bites: annoying, but hardly worth being concerned over. Actually getting up off the couch or out of Tim Hortons to take up arms against this hypothetical American invasion would be another question. It's important to remember that Canadians as a nation are not nearly as inclined toward rugged individualism than Americans; it's not part of our culture. The notion of a citizen-militia being ready to take up arms simply isn't part of who we are.



That is the best description of our country's attitude I've ever come across.  Some would say we're apathetic towards the whole situation, or maybe we're just hopeless about the whole thing. The 'occupy' movement up here is a big deal because we're not the kind to organize up here on a grand scale for a cause.  Not for this long.  But for all the protesting we have been peaceful about it because we're not that violent as a collective.  Hockey games are the exception 

Now, if there was only a way to combine the loss of a Canadian hockey team in the Stanley Cup Playoffs with the closing of the Timmies chain, and a major political rally.   It would make the Arab Spring look like a garden party


----------



## Corto (Dec 18, 2011)

Just as a quick warning if someone turns this into a gun control debate I'm banning everyone.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 18, 2011)

Corto said:


> Just as a quick warning if someone turns this into a gun control debate I'm banning everyone.



what about a nuclear proliferation debate


----------



## Kinuki (Dec 18, 2011)

BetrayerOfNihil said:


> No. I'm not bothered by the possibility that they listen to my phone calls or read my e-mails or look through any records on me, *I have nothing to hide*, and am not suffering due to their 'intrusions.'


Hnnnnngg that's not how it works.

If you just search hard enough, you find something illegal by _everybody_. The modern law system is so complex, sooner rather than later everybody does something illegal, whether or not one is aware. It's like the medieval rules for what's sinful and what's not of the Catholic Church. The system was made intentionally overly complex; you easily accumulated a dozen sins or so per day (e.g. for eating fish at the wrong day), so they could sell more indulgences.

If they want to see you burn and have a sufficiently thorough surveillance apparatus, they just let it datamine till they found something. That's just how Big Brother works and therefore you should be against all PATRIOT Act-like laws whether or not you regard yourself as an all-American patriot.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Dec 18, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> Speaking of gun control, *is it me or did the whole US Second Amendment justification argument about "an armed citizenry prevents repressive government" just get flushed down the pan* with this new law?



Like anything, it doesn't work if the spirit isn't there.  And no matter what you use to "justify" a right, a right exists outside of the acknowledgement of any law.  In other words, the Constitution didn't give us our rights, it simply enumerated them.  They can only be taken from us if we give them away.  Or in this case, just don't care to protect them.  Apathy bites everyone's ass, in short.




Kinuki said:


> Hnnnnngg that's not how it works.
> 
> If you just search hard enough, you find something illegal by _everybody_. *The modern law system is so complex, sooner rather than later everybody does something illegal, whether or not one is aware.* It's like the medieval rules for what's sinful and what's not of the Catholic Church. The system was made intentionally overly complex; you easily accumulated a dozen sins or so per day (e.g. for eating fish at the wrong day), so they could sell more indulgences.
> 
> If they want to see you burn and have a sufficiently thorough surveillance apparatus, they just let it datamine till they found something. That's just how Big Brother works and therefore you should be against all PATRIOT Act-like laws whether or not you regard yourself as an all-American patriot.



This is where the phrase "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" came from.


----------



## ArielMT (Dec 18, 2011)

BetrayerOfNihil said:


> No. I'm not bothered by the possibility that they listen to my phone calls or read my e-mails or look through any records on me, I have nothing to hide, and am not suffering due to their 'intrusions.'



The fact that you have nothing to hide should not mean you have to forfeit your right to privacy at the government's whim.  I don't have anything to hide either, but I don't want just any old Tom, Dick, and Harry to see it, and I shouldn't be compelled to prove my nothing to hide when Officer Friendly and Agent Nice come knocking.

They can look through public records all they want, that's fine, but I'll speak in Navajo and write email in PGP and still remain within the rule of law governing a free society.  (Incidentally, my PGP public key, if anyone wants it.)


----------



## GingerM (Dec 18, 2011)

ArielMT said:


> They can look through public records all they want, that's fine, but I'll speak in Navajo and write email in PGP and still remain within the rule of law governing a free society.  (Incidentally, my PGP public key, if anyone wants it.)



This so much! BTW, if I may ask, did you have relatives who were code talkers during WWII?


----------



## ArielMT (Dec 18, 2011)

GingerM said:


> This so much! BTW, if I may ask, did you have relatives who were code talkers during WWII?



No, the bit of native blood I have in my veins is Cherokee.  I don't actually know Navajo, and I don't know anyone who was a code talker.  That would've been awesome, though.


----------



## GingerM (Dec 18, 2011)

BetrayerOfNihil said:


> @everyone: If my total lack of privacy and loss of some rights means that would-criminals are deterred by mass surveilence and other things, and that any wrongdoers stupid enough to go for it anyway get detained soon after commiting their crimes, it is worth it. Call me a fucking Sheep or whatever all you want, I don't give a shit.



I am disappointed, but not surprised. You're not alone in having this outlook, either, and historically this approach has never ended well.



ArielMT said:


> No, the bit of native blood I have in my veins is  Cherokee.  I don't actually know Navajo, and I don't know anyone who  was a code talker.  That would've been awesome, though.



It would! I would also consider speaking in a foreign tongue, but the only one I know - and that only a little bit - is French. I suppose I could try talking in Klingon  Or could you try teaching me Cherokee?


----------



## CAThulu (Dec 18, 2011)

BetrayerOfNihil said:


> @everyone: If my total lack of privacy and loss of some rights means that would-criminals are deterred by mass surveilence and other things, and that any wrongdoers stupid enough to go for it anyway get detained soon after commiting their crimes, it is worth it. Call me a fucking Sheep or whatever all you want, I don't give a shit.



and i completely agree... if that was the only thing that was happening.  I for one would LOVE if this could help curb violence, theft, gang activity, and illegal narcotics/ weapons trade, and not have the absolute potential be exploited.

But now that OWS protesters have been officially labelled terrorists, do you think they'll keep it there?  What's to stop them from calling other organized protests a 'terrorist threat'?   If you're called a terrorist, your conversations in forums, chatrooms, and Facebook will be monitored.  Drones will keep watch over where you're going and what you're doing.  You think you're under surveillance now for corporate info gathering, wait until the government decides to track you because you broke a law.  

I wish I was being paranoid here.  This is serious Orwellian shit, maybe 30 years too late, but 1984 is pretty bang on in a lot of ways.  You set this precedence and what's to stop the next president in using it to push an agenda.  

I would seriously hate to be an American of Middle Eastern decent right now.  Brown skin?  Arabic Accent?  Visit a mosque?  You're gonna be watched.  Fuck your rights as an American citizen.  Fuck the fact that Saddam and Osama Bin Ladin are dead.  We're paranoid as hell and we don't trust anyone who isn't white.  Gawd Bless Amurrica.



ArielMT said:


> The fact that you have nothing to hide should not mean you have to forfeit your right to privacy at the government's whim. I don't have anything to hide either, but I don't want just any old Tom, Dick, and Harry to see it, and I shouldn't be compelled to prove my nothing to hide when Officer Friendly and Agent Nice come knocking.
> 
> They can look through public records all they want, that's fine, but *I'll speak in Navajo and write email in PGP and still remain within the rule of law governing a free society*. (Incidentally, my PGP public key, if anyone wants it.)



Yes!!    I'm totally on board with this.  I think it's time I start speaking "klingon pig latin" in my emails using a Furthark font.


----------



## Kinuki (Dec 18, 2011)

BetrayerOfNihil said:


> @everyone: If my total lack of privacy and loss of some rights means that would-criminals are deterred by mass surveilence and other things, and that any wrongdoers stupid enough to go for it anyway get detained soon after commiting their crimes, it is worth it. Call me a fucking Sheep or whatever all you want, I don't give a shit.


First of all, punishing the innocent to get to the guilty is an inhumane, bad system. And anyway, who says this 'deterrence' will make a noticeable dent? Crime can easily organize itself to better figure out ways of circumventing detection whereas the normal citizen cannot. And besides, if you have such a repressive apparatus in place the guys in charge automatically become gangsters, too.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 18, 2011)

I, for one, do not feel it's worth it to give up MY rights just because of someone else's fuck up. It's not about "nothing to hide" it's about having that right to not have someone go through my life. It can be applied to any part of the Bill of Rights. "Oh, I have nothing to say so fuck freedom of speech.", "Oh, I don't have guns so who cares if that's taken?", "Oh, I don't plan on getting married so let's just get rid of that right" and so on and so forth. The whole "I don't have anything to hide so fuck privacy" is an incredibly immature way of thinking. Just because someone wants privacy doesn't mean that they are a criminal. If you're in a private conversation with someone, that means it's intended for THAT PERSON ONLY.
The government doesn't give a shit about its people. This isn't about protecting America from whatever boogeyman is out there. This is all a political ploy to which they can use when convenient.


----------



## ArielMT (Dec 18, 2011)

Someone wrote somewhere in a time that was only superficially different from our own time, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."


----------



## GingerM (Dec 18, 2011)

Benjamin Franklin said:
			
		

> Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.



Mr. Franklin was a very smart man.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Dec 18, 2011)

America's congress and government people in power, FUCK YOU ALL- HARD, you will not shut me up and you wont take my guns, dont like it? come at me bro.


----------



## Rhodri (Dec 18, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> America's congress and government people in power, FUCK YOU ALL- HARD, you will not shut me up and you wont take my guns, dont like it? come at me bro.



That is pretty much the right attitude to take. 

The day that we are no longer able to defend our rights is pretty much the end, should anyone decide to try to take them away. Don't go out picking fights, or using guns (or anything else for that matter) to impose your will on others. But, if someone threatens you, your property or the right to believe what ever the hell you want (within your own home), well it's always nice to be able to tell them to fuck off, with guns.

Do not fuck with the person holding a shotgun.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 18, 2011)

BetrayerOfNihil said:


> @everyone: If my total lack of privacy and loss of some rights means that would-criminals are deterred by mass surveilence and other things, and that any wrongdoers stupid enough to go for it anyway get detained soon after commiting their crimes, it is worth it. Call me a fucking Sheep or whatever all you want, I don't give a shit.


I can see where you get this feeling, because hey, it should only affect the bad guys right? That's fairly valid. The problem is that, historically, giving this much power to the government usually doesn't turn out well. Here is what we have here: With the PATRIOT Act, the government can put anyone under surveillance; with the NDAA, the government can indefinitely detain anyone--as it was first proposed, even American citizens and legal residents. Sure, now it's about "defeating terrorism," but with so little oversight and so little accountability, really all it takes is one weak link for someone to end up detain "for national security" just because their socialist or anarchist blog got a few too many hits, or there's some evidence that they're about to leak some kind of info that maybe the someone's Big Oil buddy doesn't want out there. Sounds too Orwell but you don't have to do too much reading about the Second Red Scare or McCarthyism to know how that kind of power goes bad quick. 

Also, I am guessing you are neither Arabic-American nor Muslim? Those communities are just about having a panic attack over this, and for good reason--altogether too many of their (completely innocent!) members have already experienced what it's like to be targeted wrongfully by the government, and now there is this scare that the government's gotten even more power? Have you ever heard of Japanese Internment Camps, my friend?


----------



## General-jwj (Dec 18, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> with the NDAA, the government can indefinitely detain anyone--as it was first proposed, even American citizens and legal residents.



Yeah because the way you say it it's way more shocking that the government can lock up it's citizens than just go about snatching foreigners wherever they please ... I'm fucking thrilled a foreign government I have no influence over is deciding it can just grab me in my home and lock me up until the end of my days ...


----------



## Roose Hurro (Dec 18, 2011)

BetrayerOfNihil said:


> @everyone: If my total lack of privacy and loss of some rights means that would-criminals are deterred by mass surveilence and other things, and that any wrongdoers stupid enough to go for it anyway get detained soon after commiting their crimes, it is worth it. Call me a fucking Sheep or whatever all you want, *I don't give a shit*.



If you don't give a shit, why do you "protest" so hard?  And yes, you are what we call a Sheep because, rather than taking your personal safety into your own hands, you've decided to give away that right, that liberty, to someone else, so you don't have to take on the responsibility.  It's as simple as that.




CAThulu said:


> and i completely agree... if that was the only thing that was happening.  *I for one would LOVE if this could help curb violence, theft, gang activity, and illegal narcotics/ weapons trade*, and not have the absolute potential be exploited.
> 
> But now that OWS protesters have been officially labelled terrorists, do you think they'll keep it there?  What's to stop them from calling other organized protests a 'terrorist threat'?   If you're called a terrorist, your conversations in forums, chatrooms, and Facebook will be monitored.  Drones will keep watch over where you're going and what you're doing.  You think you're under surveillance now for corporate info gathering, wait until the government decides to track you because you broke a law.



The trouble is, it won't, and it shouldn't do so at the cost of freedom and liberty.  The problem we have with this "law" is the fact it treats everyone as guilty, without any concern for the innocent.  Without due process, this is what you get:  Everyone is guilty, no one is innocent.  It's the only way you can lock someone up without charge or proof.  You first have to eliminate the very concept of "innocent until proven guilty".




Kinuki said:


> First of all, punishing the innocent to get to the guilty is an inhumane, bad system. And anyway, who says this 'deterrence' will make a noticeable dent? Crime can easily organize itself to better figure out ways of circumventing detection *whereas the normal citizen cannot*. And besides, if you have such a repressive apparatus in place the guys in charge automatically become gangsters, too.



Because the "normal" citizen is law-abiding, not a law-breaker.  If the law doesn't directly punish those guilty of a crime, then it punishes the innocent, those who respect the law.  Turns them into law-breakers with no claim to innocence, because, whether they did anything wrong or not, they're automatically guilty under the new law.  So yes, gangsters!




ArielMT said:


> Someone wrote somewhere in a time that was only superficially different from our own time, *"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."*



There's another saying:  "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."




GingerM said:


> Mr. Franklin was a very smart man.



Indeed he was.  Though I would change the word "smart" to "wise".




Rhodri said:


> That is pretty much the right attitude to take.
> 
> The day that we are no longer able to defend our rights is pretty much the end, should anyone decide to try to take them away. Don't go out picking fights, or using guns (or anything else for that matter) to impose your will on others. But, if someone threatens you, your property or the right to believe what ever the hell you want (*within your own home*), well it's always nice to be able to tell them to fuck off, with guns.
> 
> Do not fuck with the person holding a shotgun.



Not just within your own home, but wherever you go, wherever you happen to be, at any time and in any place.




Ad Hoc said:


> I can see where you get this feeling, because hey, it should only affect the bad guys right? That's fairly valid. The problem is that, historically, giving this much power to the government usually doesn't turn out well. Here is what we have here: With the PATRIOT Act, the government can put anyone under surveillance; with the NDAA, the government can indefinitely detain anyone--as it was first proposed, even American citizens and legal residents. Sure, now it's about "defeating terrorism," but with so little oversight and so little accountability, really all it takes is one weak link for someone to end up detain "for national security" just because their socialist or anarchist blog got a few too many hits, or there's some evidence that they're about to leak some kind of info that maybe the someone's Big Oil buddy doesn't want out there. Sounds too Orwell *but you don't have to do too much reading about the Second Red Scare or McCarthyism to know how that kind of power goes bad quick*.



Indeed... I remember those times.  Nasty...  >.<




Ad Hoc said:


> Also, I am guessing you are neither Arabic-American nor Muslim? Those communities are just about having a panic attack over this, and for good reason--altogether too many of their (completely innocent!) members have already experienced what it's like to be targeted wrongfully by the government, and now there is this scare that the government's gotten even more power? *Have you ever heard of Japanese Internment Camps, my friend?*



Heard about them, think they are one of the biggest disgraces America has suffered at the hands of its government.


----------



## ArielMT (Dec 18, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> The problem we have with this "law" is the fact it treats everyone as guilty, without any concern for the innocent.  Without due process, this is what you get:  Everyone is guilty, no one is innocent.  It's the only way you can lock someone up without charge or proof.  You first have to eliminate the very concept of "innocent until proven guilty".



But of course!  Locking up the innocent and bringing the innocent to trial to answer for a crime is unfair!  :V


----------



## Roose Hurro (Dec 18, 2011)

ArielMT said:


> But of course!  Locking up the innocent and bringing the innocent to trial to answer for a crime is unfair!  :V



Sarcasm noted, but "innocent" is open to interpretation, isn't it?   :V


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 18, 2011)

General-jwj said:


> Yeah because the way you say it it's way more shocking that the government can lock up it's citizens than just go about snatching foreigners wherever they please ... I'm fucking thrilled a foreign government I have no influence over is deciding it can just grab me in my home and lock me up until the end of my days ...


Ah shit you're right. That's some shit, too. 



Roose Hurro said:


> Indeed... I remember those times.  Nasty...  >.<


Ach. No envy.


----------



## Onnes (Dec 18, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> Ah shit you're right. That's some shit, too.



We've always had that capability, though, as foreigners outside our soil receive absolutely no constitutional protections. Prior to Ford we were perfectly happy to assassinate inconvenient leaders and overthrow functioning democracies that happened to go against our will.


----------



## Ruby Dragon (Dec 18, 2011)

So, when's the Second Civil War gonna break out? Really, I wonder how stuff isn't going down right now with all of the crap Congress is doing. Internet Censorship (I think that was killed) and now THIS.

Really, though, unless you act incredibly stupid and threaten to blow up a school you will still get a fair trial. They didn't just let loose the Army to do whatever the hell they want.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 18, 2011)

Ruby Dragon said:


> They didn't just let loose the Army to do whatever the hell they want.



*looks at the wording on the bill*

hm

pretty sure they did

although it's more a case of letting the Army loose to do whatever the fuck their superiors tell them to


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 18, 2011)

Onnes said:


> We've always had that capability, though, as foreigners outside our soil receive absolutely no constitutional protections. Prior to Ford we were perfectly happy to assassinate inconvenient leaders and overthrow functioning democracies that happened to go against our will.


Oh. Well. That is also some shit. Basically all the things are shit. 

 (â•¯Â°â–¡Â°ï¼‰â•¯ï¸µ â”»â”â”»)


----------



## Kommodore (Dec 18, 2011)

i am not surprised. granted, i have not read the bill and only know about it by what has been summarized here, but it just sounds _wrong._ 

you _should not_, under any circumstances, be able to detain a citizen without giving them due process. 

unfortunately i dont see anything being done about it until someone actually gets harmed by it. 

while i dont see this bill actually being _used_ for this purpose any time soon, it should not exist in the first place.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Dec 18, 2011)

I've seen shit about government bills.

I've seen when the government denies allowing someone to have a ferry business to one island when the government's two ships, which depart and arrive both ways AT THE SAME TIME ALONGSIDE EACH OTHER, once per day, is not enough. I've heard of SOPA. I've seen the increased regulations that my own father experiences firsthand with small business owners.

But this... this is the first time I was actually afraid. This is the first major step to totalitarianism. Think of the Gestapo. Give the military more power over your citizens and the ability to suspend their rights.

I do not remember the public supporting this.


----------



## VGmaster9 (Dec 19, 2011)

This song is a pretty good analogy of the situation.


----------



## Francis Vixen (Dec 19, 2011)

Anyone else feel that SOPA was just a distraction and this is the real threat?


----------



## CAThulu (Dec 19, 2011)

Francis Vixen said:


> Anyone else feel that SOPA was just a distraction and this is the real threat?



I was just wondering about that.  Or maybe they're using this to distract us from SOPA.


----------



## Rhodri (Dec 19, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Not just within your own home, but wherever you go, wherever you happen to be, at any time and in any place.



I specified 'within your own home' because I think there is a limit to how far that can go. Obviously, you can think what ever you want, be it inside you home or outside. However, if you believe in walking around naked with neon signs strapped to your chest, pointing to your genitals (what? Is that really so unlikely?), then I really would prefer if you kept that shit to your own house. The same goes for people who preach on street corners. I am not interested. If you and some fellow believers want to pool resources and build a church, or hold services within one of your homes, then by all means do. But keep it off the street please. 

So, what I'm trying to say here is: Actions taken as a result of your beliefs should be tempered, or kept within private property. There would of course be exceptions to this, but ideally it would require foreknowledge of- and consent for these actions by the local populace.



Commiecomrade said:


> I've seen shit about government bills ... But this... this is the first time I was actually afraid. This is the  first major step to totalitarianism. Think of the Gestapo. Give the  military more power over your citizens and the ability to suspend their  rights.
> 
> I do not remember the public supporting this.



What really worries me about this situation is that they deem these actions to be necessary, even if they are just intended as a precautionV). Otherwise, obviously, they wouldn't be doing this. So, this leads one to question, 'just what are they expecting to happen that would require them to have this kind of power?' 

Well, I've been reading some articles by various folks that are predicting rather scary things for America from 2012 onwards. One, Gerald Celente, from the Trends Research Institute, goes so far as to say that next Christmas in America will see families concerned more with putting food on the table, than presents under the tree. 

I can't help but think that if the American government seems to be gearing up for the worst, then the worst may just be gearing up to happen. Call me paranoid, but I'm not seeing a whole lot of light to this situation.

I'm just grateful that I don't live in America. Ireland... is not much of an improvement, but I ought to be able to get the hell out of here before too much longer, and into somewhere relatively sane, like Canada or NZ. Before the shit hits the windmill.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Dec 19, 2011)

Rhodri said:


> I specified 'within your own home' because I think there is a limit to how far that can go. Obviously, you can think what ever you want, be it inside you home or outside. However, if you believe in walking around naked with neon signs strapped to your chest, pointing to your genitals (what? Is that really so unlikely?), then I really would prefer if you kept that shit to your own house. The same goes for people who preach on street corners. I am not interested. If you and some fellow believers want to pool resources and build a church, or hold services within one of your homes, then by all means do. But keep it off the street please.
> 
> *So, what I'm trying to say here is: Actions taken as a result of your beliefs should be tempered, or kept within private property.* There would of course be exceptions to this, but ideally it would require foreknowledge of- and consent for these actions by the local populace.



But that's the problem... as much as you may dislike or even protest it, you haven't the right to dictate where and when people express their freedoms, be they of the press, of religion, or of the bearing of arms.  And yes, that particular "belief" is highly unlikely, but then, I've heard about the "gay" parades in San Fran... so, really, you can see where I'm coming from.  If you don't like the way I express my freedoms and liberties, then you can express your own freedom and liberty to ignore me.  Or to turn around and leave.  Remember, if you don't respect my freedoms and liberties, don't expect me to respect yours.  Two way street, and all that.

But yes, a person should display common sense (temperance), and, as the saying goes:  "Don't shout FIRE! in a crowded theater."  But if I choose to wave a "right-wing" newspaper for sale, or to preach on that same street-corner, if you don't like it, you don't have to buy and/or read my newspaper, and you can certainly ignore my preaching and go on your way.  It's not like I'm attacking you and tying you up... forcing you to listen to The Gospel.  Or taking money forcefully from your wallet, and making you read my newspaper at gunpoint.

Heh... in other words, my "home" is my Nation.  The land of my birth.  My freedoms and liberties extend to the very limits of its borders.  If not, then I am just a "prisoner" in my own "home".  Locked in my "living space", if you will.  That is neither freedom nor liberty.  Both of which come at a price.  What is that price?  Risk.  And your personal discomfort.

Like you said, so long as I don't go picking fights or forcing my will on others.


----------



## GingerM (Dec 19, 2011)

This. This exactly. What you tout is precisely the right the 1st Amendment protects. The government SHALL NOT INFRINGE your right to get up on a soapbox on the street corner and speak your mind, and those who would deny you that freedom, who tell you not to, are in fact supporting the mindset behind such idiocy as SOPA.

Places like the Internet are a bit trickier; the definition of public and private space on the Internet are still kind of wooly. Within the context of FA, these forums are arguably a public space. However, within the context of the Internet in general, this is more like a virtual club room - and clubs may make rules to suit themselves, untrammeled by the requirements of the 1st Amendment (since that document says nothing about what clubs may or may not do). Similarly, one could argue that a person's blog is their space, not public space.

But to consider applying such rules as SOPA to the internet at large is very much a blatant violation of your rights.


----------



## Bobskunk (Dec 19, 2011)

HEY LOOK AT ME I'M A MASSIVE ATTENTION WHORE


----------



## Corto (Dec 19, 2011)

Bobskunk post like that again and I'm banning you.


----------



## Bobskunk (Dec 19, 2011)

Corto said:


> Bobskunk post like that again and I'm banning you.



good, make this forum even worse

hugs n kisses, Corto


----------



## Corto (Dec 19, 2011)

<3


----------



## Rhodri (Dec 19, 2011)

You raise a good point, Roose Hurro and GingerM. I really should have  followed that train of thought further than I did. I still stand by my  reply to what DD said on the last page, but shall update 'the right to  believe what ever the hell you want (within your own home)' to 'the  right to believe whatever the hell you want (within your own nation)'. 

Which brings me to something else:



Roose Hurro said:


> Heh... in other words, my "home" is my Nation.  The land of my birth.



Perhaps you may wish to consider changing your definition of nation there. I'm just quibbling over wording, but I would argue that where you are born is irrelevant. Something more along the lines of where you reside, or hold citizenship, perhaps.

The only reason that I bring this up is because that definition would exclude me from believing what I choose to believe, within Ireland. Originally born in Zimbabwe, I moved to Ireland a decade or so ago, and have held full citizenship, Irish passport, etc. from a few months after I arrived. This being the case, I would expect to be allowed the freedom we've been talking about here. Which I am, to a greater extent, but there are still some things that are considered against the law which I would say shouldn't be. 

So yes, it is just a minor point. Ideally, citizenship shouldn't be a factor. You should be able to travel to any point on the globe, regardless of your starting point, and continue to live as you would at home. This however is not the case, but that goes without saying, and not really the topic being discussed here.


----------



## GingerM (Dec 19, 2011)

.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Dec 19, 2011)

GingerM said:


> This. This exactly. What you tout is precisely the right the 1st Amendment protects. The government SHALL NOT INFRINGE your right to get up on a soapbox on the street corner and speak your mind, and those who would deny you that freedom, who tell you not to, are in fact supporting the mindset behind such idiocy as SOPA.
> 
> Places like the Internet are a bit trickier; *the definition of public and private space on the Internet are still kind of wooly*. Within the context of FA, these forums are arguably a public space. However, within the context of the Internet in general, this is more like a virtual club room - and clubs may make rules to suit themselves, untrammeled by the requirements of the 1st Amendment (since that document says nothing about what clubs may or may not do). Similarly, one could argue that a person's blog is their space, not public space.
> 
> But to consider applying such rules as SOPA to the internet at large is very much a blatant violation of your rights.



I'd say the internet as a whole is "public" while each individual website is "private"... given that someone owns each website, and can therefore set the rules of conduct (from "Have at it" to "My Precious!  Mine!").  Even outside the internet, when it comes to discussion or debate (a public forum), there is usually a moderator to keep things focused on the subject.




Bobskunk said:


> HEY LOOK AT ME I'M A MASSIVE ATTENTION WHORE



Shoot... missed Bobby Boy's words of "wisdom".   :V




Rhodri said:


> You raise a good point, Roose Hurro and GingerM. *I really should have followed that train of thought further than I did.* I still stand by my reply to what DD said on the last page, but shall update 'the right to believe what ever the hell you want (within your own home)' to 'the  right to believe whatever the hell you want (within your own nation)'.



Heh... no prob, it was late and I was tired last night, so I wasn't sure if what I wrote myself was clear.  But we all know trains are sometimes late to the station.




Rhodri said:


> Perhaps you may wish to consider changing your definition of nation there. *I'm just quibbling over wording, but I would argue that where you are born is irrelevant.* Something more along the lines of where you reside, or hold citizenship, perhaps.
> 
> The only reason that I bring this up is because that definition would exclude me from believing what I choose to believe, within Ireland. Originally born in Zimbabwe, I moved to Ireland a decade or so ago, and have held full citizenship, Irish passport, etc. from a few months after I arrived. This being the case, I would expect to be allowed the freedom we've been talking about here. Which I am, to a greater extent, but there are still some things that are considered against the law which I would say shouldn't be.
> 
> So yes, it is just a minor point. Ideally, citizenship shouldn't be a factor. You should be able to travel to any point on the globe, regardless of your starting point, and continue to live as you would at home. This however is not the case, but that goes without saying, and not really the topic being discussed here.



Well, at least in America, if you are born here, you are automatically a citizen.  But you have a point, given some people are born in one nation, yet leave that nation and become a citizen elsewhere... or even hold multiple citizenships, both in the nation of their birth and in the nation they reside.

Which does bring up your last point:  No matter where I was born, I should be able to go anywhere in the world without restriction on my "native" rights and liberties.  But yes, not the topic under discussion.

So, I take it you hold dual citizenship, then?


----------



## Volkodav (Dec 19, 2011)

i hope there is a war in my city so soldiers can yell at me in their uniforms and handcuff me and treat me like a filthy bitch


----------



## Rhodri (Dec 20, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> So, I take it you hold dual citizenship, then?



Unfortunately, no. When my family and I moved here, we had to renounce our Zimbabwean citizenship. I couldn't begin to tell you why, as I was 12 at the time, and this wasn't exactly a topic that my parents would discuss with me. I do know that we were almost turned back when we arrived in England (stopped in Luton for the connection to Dublin), and would have been, but for the fact that my dad still held an Irish passport. He was originally born here, as was his father, though my great-grandfather and those that preceded him were Welsh. It was all a bit messy. It got even better, as this was during a large BSE crisis in England and Ireland, and the containers with our possessions were impounded in England because of a Zebra pelt in one of them. So, we had departed Zimbabwe in the middle of summer, arrived in the middle of an Irish winter, and had no winter clothing as it was impounded in England. We were also living right on the coast, in a house with no central heating or double glazing. But I digress.

A Zimbabwean citizenship wouldn't do me very much good. I don't plan to move back there at any point in the near future. Conditions there are somewhat... fucked. The president is a madman, and the economy has been well and truly destroyed. The currency no longer exists (but did set records before finally rolling over and dying). Tourism is a shadow of what it once was. Agriculture was being destroyed before we even left, and is nothing now compared to what it was. Crime is high. Even the capital city suffers from frequent rolling black outs. Things would have to improve greatly before I considered moving back. Though, I should very much like to, as Zimbabwe is a truly beautiful country, and offered a lifestyle hugely different from anywhere else in the world that I have seen. Oh well.


----------



## Teal (Dec 22, 2011)

I'm confused, has this passed, has it not passed?
Does it affect Americans or just non-Americans?


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 22, 2011)

TealMoon said:


> I'm confused, has this passed, has it not passed?
> Does it affect Americans or just non-Americans?


It's still going through, there was another bill to remove the indefinite retention of american citizens and the senate rejected it.


----------



## Neuron (Dec 22, 2011)

In the other topic I mentioned there are rumors that the occupy protestors have already been rounded up in buses from eyewitnesses who managed to escape the attention of the riot police by being quiet and observant. We can't get through to any of the contacts from occupy that were staying recently, and many people are commenting that people are missing. They could be putting extensions on the detainment and it does make you wonder if they are trying to extend the detention for when this legitimately goes through. Something very funny is going on about what happened with the raid of the protests in my state, regardless. Keep your eyes out, and for God's sake keep your head low.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Dec 22, 2011)

Change we can believe in.
Then again, I don't believe any president since Andrew Jackson took office would have chosen not to sign that bill.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 22, 2011)

Lacus said:


> In the other topic I mentioned there are rumors that the occupy protestors have already been rounded up in buses from eyewitnesses who managed to escape the attention of the riot police by being quiet and observant. We can't get through to any of the contacts from occupy that were staying recently, and many people are commenting that people are missing. They could be putting extensions on the detainment and it does make you wonder if they are trying to extend the detention for when this legitimately goes through. Something very funny is going on about what happened with the raid of the protests in my state, regardless. Keep your eyes out, and for God's sake keep your head low.


This shit sucks, because if the bill goes through the government can legally make you disappear.


----------



## Neuron (Dec 22, 2011)

I think people in a 72 hour hold have been released, but I am not sure. People are still saying there are definitely people who they can't get a hold of. However Ben Meyer whom I personally met at the protest was interviewed with the news about what went down with my occupy raid, so we know there are people out there, who did not get arrested. From the sounds of the interview however I do no think Ben would have been around to see the bus round up because the other witnesses I spoke to said the buses were very, very late at night. 

I am not very secure in the fact that where there were once dozens of homeless people out panhandling and occupying, suddenly they are gone and there's only a small handful when I'm around after the raid. Seems like they got put in at least a 72 hour hold. And they intend to make it longer if they get released and protest again, of that I am sure.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 22, 2011)

Lacus said:


> I think people in a 72 hour hold have been released, but I am not sure. People are still saying there are definitely people who they can't get a hold of. However Ben Meyer whom I personally met at the protest was interviewed with the news about what went down with my occupy raid, so we know there are people out there, who did not get arrested. From the sounds of the interview however I do no think Ben would have been around to see the bus round up because the other witnesses I spoke to said the buses were very, very late at night.
> 
> I am not very secure in the fact that where there were once dozens of homeless people out panhandling and occupying, suddenly they are gone and there's only a small handful when I'm around after the raid. Seems like they got put in at least a 72 hour hold. And they intend to make it longer if they get released and protest again, of that I am sure.


That's not legal, the police can only legally hold them for 24 hours.
The people who were held should file a lawsuit.


----------



## Neuron (Dec 22, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> That's not legal, the police can only legally hold them for 24 hours.
> The people who were held should file a lawsuit.


Don't know if they were dropped off somewhere in the city or dropped off at the jail, detained, maybe they were only held for 24 hours. My lack of luck in contacting anyone seems to indicate otherwise though and my friend said that police have often been filing for detention extensions, trying to make bullshit charges on people, etc.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Dec 22, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> That's not legal, the police can only legally hold them for 24 hours.
> The people who were held should file a lawsuit.



That's assuming they haven't had a magistrate or judge bring in a court order which would allow them to hold them for longer than 24-48 hours.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 22, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> That's assuming they haven't had a magistrate or judge bring in a court order which would allow them to hold them for longer than 24-48 hours.


Even still they are testing the limits of the legal system, they can't hold them forever and with no trial cause the bill hasn't passed yet.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Dec 22, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Even still they are testing the limits of the legal system, they can't hold them forever.



It hasn't nearly been long enough to be considered "forever."

And it's also not testing the limits of the system.  Holding someone for more than 24 hours happens.  The whole "Sorry Captain McBossCharacter, we can't hold him because it's been 24 hours and we haven't charged them with anything" is a movie plot device.  If the department has good reason for why they are holding you in detention for longer than 24 hours, then they go through a process similar to getting a warrant in order to keep you for a set period of time.

Likewise, if these people arrested HAVE been charged, then they're stuck being detained because most courts in the nation starting either Tuesday or yesterday are at half-staff for the holiday, meaning that courts AREN'T IN SESSION.  This would mean that these men and women would likely have to be detained until the earliest time a judge could see them, which likely would be some time after Christmas.


----------



## Neuron (Dec 22, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> It hasn't nearly been long enough to be considered "forever."
> 
> And it's also not testing the limits of the system.  Holding someone for more than 24 hours happens.  The whole "Sorry Captain McBossCharacter, we can't hold him because it's been 24 hours and we haven't charged them with anything" is a movie plot device.  If the department has good reason for why they are holding you in detention for longer than 24 hours, then they go through a process similar to getting a warrant in order to keep you for a set period of time.
> 
> Likewise, if these people arrested HAVE been charged, then they're stuck being detained because most courts in the nation starting either Tuesday or yesterday are at half-staff for the holiday, meaning that courts AREN'T IN SESSION.  This would mean that these men and women would likely have to be detained until the earliest time a judge could see them, which likely would be some time after Christmas.


Oh, great, so people can't see their families for Christmas? Was BAD ENOUGH that they brutally punched a schizophrenic woman in the chest, now they are taking away their holidays too.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Dec 22, 2011)

Lacus said:


> Yeah which means a lot of my fucking friends are not seeing their FUCKING FAMILIES for Christmas.



Okay.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Dec 22, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Okay.


this is a zionist conspiracy to destroy christmass


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 31, 2011)

Ugh, Obama signed the bill anyhow... Yeah big surprise there.
Somebody call the ACLU.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Dec 31, 2011)

This will be an interesting new year.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 31, 2011)

Gryphoneer said:


> This will be an interesting new year.


2012, the year the bill of rights died.


----------



## Teal (Dec 31, 2011)

So it's gonna take effect? When?


----------



## Tycho (Dec 31, 2011)

Shameful.  Just shameful.  Plain to see what the legacy of Obama's two terms will be - kowtowing to conservative insanity.

At least it won't be Romney or any of the other GOP goons in the Oval Office.  Going from a steady descent into hell to an uncontrolled plummet is not an improvement.

Though even that doesn't matter without the House and Senate being blue.  Fuck, we're all fucked.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Dec 31, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Shameful.  Just shameful.  Plain to see what the legacy of Obama's two terms will be - kowtowing to conservative insanity.
> 
> *At least it won't be Romney or any of the other GOP goons in the Oval Office.*  Going from a steady descent into hell to an uncontrolled plummet is not an improvement.



Don't count out the Repub ticket.... however, if "voters" are stupid enough to vote for Obama again, then be prepared to leave the planet.  You won't be safe anywhere on earth.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 31, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Shameful.  Just shameful.  Plain to see what the legacy of Obama's two terms will be - kowtowing to conservative insanity.
> 
> At least it won't be Romney or any of the other GOP goons in the Oval Office.  Going from a steady descent into hell to an uncontrolled plummet is not an improvement.


Romney may get the nomination, but it turns out he can't stand running against anyone sane.  If you ask me the reason why he is doing so well is that it's like a normal woman standing next to jabba the hut anything in comparison to jabba the hut looks hot in comparison.  Once the republicans have decided who is going to run against obama they're going to start crumbling.


Roose Hurro said:


> Don't count out the Repub ticket.... however,  if "voters" are stupid enough to vote for Obama again, then be prepared  to leave the planet.  You won't be safe anywhere on earth.


Obama probably is going to get it cause everybody has been focusing on Cain, Perry, Bachmann and the other crazies.  Without the crazies making romney look good it's only a matter of time.


----------



## AlexInsane (Dec 31, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Fuck, we're all fucked.



It took you until now to realize that?

My dear sir, we've been fucked on a more or less continual basis since democracy was first instituted in this country.


----------



## The_Mask (Dec 31, 2011)

AlexInsane said:


> It took you until now to realize that?
> 
> My dear sir, we've been fucked on a more or less continual basis since democracy was first instituted in this country.



It never was a democracy, it's a republic. Well, was anyways, it's just a mess now.
Save us Anonymous! :V


----------



## ArielMT (Jan 1, 2012)

Who's in the White House doesn't matter as much as who's in the House and Senate, especially where bills made laws are concerned.  You've all got a House seat up for grabs, and 33 states or so have a Senate seat up for grabs.  Red or blue, don't send these same jackasses and jennyasses back to Washington, and don't replace them with opposite-party jackasses either.  They want us to forget that little fact as we send a President to Washington and vote for a "local guy" for House or Senate.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 1, 2012)

ArielMT said:


> Who's in the White House doesn't matter as much as who's in the House and Senate, especially where bills made laws are concerned.  You've all got a House seat up for grabs, and 33 states or so have a Senate seat up for grabs.  Red or blue, don't send these same jackasses and jennyasses back to Washington, and don't replace them with opposite-party jackasses either.  They want us to forget that little fact as we send a President to Washington and vote for a "local guy" for House or Senate.


I think now is as good of a time as any to show congress that they are not above the people.


----------



## ArielMT (Jan 1, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> I think now is as good of a time as any to show congress that they are not above the people.



That won't happen if "experienced" (corrupt) politicians are the only ones running for office.  It doesn't matter who we vote for if Kang and Kodos are the only names on the ballot.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 1, 2012)

The_Mask said:


> It never was a democracy, it's a republic.



It's a democratic republic you fools. God.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Jan 1, 2012)

TealMoon said:


> So it's gonna take effect? When?


It's called the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012#cite_note-0, so either today or even the day it was signed. Happy new year, everyone.

Now I could say something to the effect that the big decisions get made by more powerful, meaning rich, persons than the president in backroom deals, but I fear someone might object to presenting self-evident truths as self-evident truths and brand me as a wingnut, so I will desist. Would be superfluous, anyway.


----------



## The_Mask (Jan 1, 2012)

So how long till the occupiers disappear?


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 1, 2012)

The_Mask said:


> So how long till the occupiers disappear?


Some already have.


----------



## AlexInsane (Jan 1, 2012)

Time to flee to a friendlier police state, like China.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 1, 2012)

AlexInsane said:


> Time to flee to a friendlier police state, like China.


You know that does raise the point, have we reached the point in which the usa is a police state *yet*?


----------



## Aetius (Jan 1, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> You know that does raise the point, have we reached the point in which the usa is a police state *yet*?



Not even close, compared to China, Syria, and North Korea.


----------



## AlexInsane (Jan 1, 2012)

Crusader Mike said:


> Not even close, compared to China, Syria, and North Korea.



But we're making good progress!

Pretty soon, we'll be the envy of every repressive dictatorship in the world!


----------



## Aetius (Jan 1, 2012)

AlexInsane said:


> But we're making good progress!
> 
> Pretty soon, we'll be the envy of every repressive dictatorship in the world!



We got a long road ahead of us!
They don't call these governments "genocidal regimes" for no reason :V


----------



## HeroHoxha (Jan 1, 2012)

Dragonfurry said:


> We should start a revolution. That is all I have to say.




I'd support this so long as some people on this forum don't participate in it.


----------



## Aetius (Jan 1, 2012)

HeroHoxha said:


> I'd support this so long as some people on this forum don't participate in it.



Why hello there :3


----------

