Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Phmcw]

America is already a democracy in nothing but name.
And saying this law is nothing new is completely wrong : what it authorize now was forbidden but done illegally, so it's exactly like saying that given me ownership of your house is nothing new if I squatted it for a while. I thing I'll move at your place.

[palsch]

And saying this law is nothing new is completely wrong : what it authorize now was forbidden but done illegally, so it's exactly like saying that given me ownership of your house is nothing new if I squatted it for a while. I thing I'll move at your place.

Except that isn't true. No forms of military detention previously forbidden have now been legalised.

Seriously. Name one.


The problem with this bill (and all previous law concerned with this area) is that Congress has refused to take a firm stance. They have explicitly left it up to the courts to decide. Or rather, the court and administration(s) to fight it out.

[dragonshardz]

Internet censorship? Check (or as good as)

Indefinite detention for loosely defined "crimes"? Check

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Oppressed States of America. Women to the left, men to the right, children in the center. You will be processed and indoctrinated.

The revolution will not be televised.

[Montague]

Is it too late to point out that every other country in the world is just as oppressive, if not more so?

[Nadaka]

Is it too late to point out that every other country in the world is just as oppressive, if not more so?

Does that make it any less of a travesty?

[dragonshardz]

Is it too late to point out that every other country in the world is just as oppressive, if not more so?

Not Sweden. Not the UK.

There's a fairly decent amount of nonoppressive countries.

Seems the USA is leaving their ranks, in the name of national security.

[Nadaka]

UK is also becoming a police state.

[Itnetlolor]

I think the major source of everywhere's problem is that people are just getting too smart, communicating with each other internationally at an instant, sometimes looking past race and orientation, and researching the intent behind certain high-class decisions (corporate and political); which can explain some reasons why there's so much backing for PIPA/SOPA; cease civil international communication and (sometimes) tolerance. Despite all the chaos of previous decades, it seems a bit too orderly for my tastes, as if it was choreographed, and a few scapegoats have been chosen that have known too much.

Kinda reminds me of the beginning of FMA:Brotherhood and the Harsher in Hindsight realization by the middle/near-end of the series (more audience than Ed & Al. Spoiler). Not to betray anyone, but has anyone really looked into what certain terror factions and leaders really knew? Were some of them 3rd party hired guns by an obsfucated 1st party masked via passing suggestion? It sounds like such an underhanded method that can be set and then forgotten for a genuine looking reaction to an all-out terrifying incident (give it a decade or 2 to percolate; none would be the wiser, especially future leaders). I dunno, 9-11 just keeps coming to mind when this thought comes up. What better target to disrupt everything, especially world economy than the World Trade Center? After all, 9-11 wasn't the first time that place was targeted for destruction. And in that regard, what better close-knit group to have watch over everything that flew into chaos internationally afterward than the United Nations? Seems legit enough, but could also be an underhanded method of relocating control to a more private(ized) organization with an illusion of peace in mind.

To make such control more firm in each country, the global economy must be rendered into shambles, and a majority of the lower classes (middle-class and lesser worldwide), and imprison those who resist lockdown caused by massive debt caused by the powers that be. What doesn't help is how much the one incident itself alone was enough to cause people to panic enough to become fully dependent on their government for protection, and fall right into their hands to sign off on anything in the name of safety, that would in turn, sacrifice our own once things are over.

I think what strikes me equal parts funny and horrified is that the recent events based around and post-9-11 era reminds me of the DENNIS system in Always Sunny in Philidelphia. The people played right into their hands, and they didn't even realize it. Great, now I sound like one of those crazy conspiracy theorists. Nonetheless, something just didn't seem right at all about the event since it happened is all I'm saying, and a decade later, my worry is taking more form. I hope Wikileaks finds something that can at least put my mind at ease about this, whether it proves or disproves it.

[PTTG??]

The European Union is an excellent example of what you get when multiple powerful groups try to work together, which is to say, very loud nothing productive at all.

[thobal]

America is already a democracy in nothing but name.
And saying this law is nothing new is completely wrong : what it authorize now was forbidden but done illegally, so it's exactly like saying that given me ownership of your house is nothing new if I squatted it for a while. I thing I'll move at your place.

America has never been a democracy. It was a confederation of independent states for eight years, then it was a republic that vacillated between federalism and con-federalism for seventy years until the two sides shot it out and the federalists came out on top. Now America is a "federal republic" and has been for more than a hundred years. Federalism isnt weak in America, but right now we're seeing it being vastly strengthened.

At the current time, what is happening is that certain people seem to believe a war is occurring. It has been customary in war time for the Congress to pass certain acts which nullify certain areas of the constitution and for the Supreme Court to basically just let it slide until the end of the war.

The problem is that the current war isn't expected to end for anywhere from 50 to 100 years.

[PTTG??]

There comes a point in time when one must realize that you are being treated as an enemy combatant, and have no choice but to act as one.

[atomicwinter]

Can't this be taken to the supreme court as it basically throws away several important constitutional rights, there is no way they can do this under constitutional law.

[Frumple]

The problem is that the current war isn't expected to end for anywhere from 50 to 100 years.

Wait, what war? There's been a couple invasions and some occupation, but I haven't noticed any wars. Plenty of low-intensity stuff, but no wars with the US involved.

Now, armed conflict? Sure, there's that. Not war, though. Plenty of mislabeling things as wars because it sounds better on TV, but...

[Pnx]

The problem is that the current war isn't expected to end for anywhere from 50 to 100 years.

Wait, what war? There's been a couple invasions and some occupation, but I haven't noticed any wars. Plenty of low-intensity stuff, but no wars with the US involved.

Now, armed conflict? Sure, there's that. Not war, though. Plenty of mislabeling things as wars because it sounds better on TV, but...

I get that you're trying to argue semantics, but I'm not really sure how you can consider the War in Afghanistan to not be a war. It's an extended armed conflict between the Taliban and the US (and technically the Afghan government, but they haven't been much help). Pretty much every definition I've found of war defines that as a war.

[thobal]

The problem is that the current war isn't expected to end for anywhere from 50 to 100 years.

Wait, what war? There's been a couple invasions and some occupation, but I haven't noticed any wars. Plenty of low-intensity stuff, but no wars with the US involved.

Now, armed conflict? Sure, there's that. Not war, though. Plenty of mislabeling things as wars because it sounds better on TV, but...

The "war" is the nebulous "War on Terror", which is really just a made up name for a conflict between wealthy industrialists in the Middle East and imperialists in the West. The prize is cultural hegemony over Western Europe. The Eastern faction obviously wants Islam as a guiding principle of life in Europe and a return to it's precolonial peak. It's unclear what the Western faction desires besides the status quo, obviously.

People dont remember that the Middle East today is effectively the ruins of a vast (but decaying) empire that was suddenly conquered by Europeans less than 100 years ago with the advent of the automobile and the aeroplane. Those imperial remnants and pretenders now have access to vast oil wealth and they want their power back.

Additionally, there are the neo-aristocrats in the West who desire a more familiar societal model where they are on top and the peons are on the bottom and it stays that way.

In other words, this is a very complicated and crowed stage.