Welcome to the American Police State

[Azure]

Originally Posted by valo403

I don't see why Calgarians would be all that worked up about the Constitution. It doesn't apply to them.

We always talk about how we should care about human rights abuses in China and North Korea, but when the US wants to pass a bill that effectively has the makings of a police state type government, suddenly we shouldn't care?

Either way, I am American, so I have a reason to be concerned.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by valo403

I think the lesson is that if you want to have a serious debate about an issue you should probably present an intelligent argument, as opposed to a sentence and a video from Anonymous. Why would anyone take you seriously if that's how you're going to present your argument? Add in the 'I'm getting my masters in this' line and the whole thing gets laughable.

It's a real issue, and if the OP is so well versed in it to be pursuing a masters in it you'd think he'd present some actual arguments, links to credible sources and *gasp* thoughts of his own. Instead we get a video and one line comments about the destruction of the Constitution and an impending police state.

+1. Well said.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by valo403

I don't see why Calgarians would be all that worked up about the Constitution. It doesn't apply to them.

Yeah, we have our own "War Measures Act" or whatever it's now been updated to.

Even so this bill makes me edgy, as like the 'War Measures Act', it can be an excuse to trod on Americans rights, which could be contagious.

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by valo403

I think the lesson is that if you want to have a serious debate about an issue you should probably present an intelligent argument, as opposed to a sentence and a video from Anonymous. Why would anyone take you seriously if that's how you're going to present your argument? Add in the 'I'm getting my masters in this' line and the whole thing gets laughable.

It's a real issue, and if the OP is so well versed in it to be pursuing a masters in it you'd think he'd present some actual arguments, links to credible sources and *gasp* thoughts of his own. Instead we get a video and one line comments about the destruction of the Constitution and an impending police state.

Maybe it is because I didn't realize I would be ridiculed for posting a video that can be verified with a quick google search.
Who cares if it's anonymous posting it? Does it make it any less real? This is the only website I've seen that has had this sort of cynicall response to this video, so excuse me for not realizing the standards you all hold yourself to.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Azure

We always talk about how we should care about human rights abuses in China and North Korea, but when the US wants to pass a bill that effectively has the makings of a police state type government, suddenly we shouldn't care?

Either way, I am American, so I have a reason to be concerned.

Oh I agree, and as a US resident it impacts me, I was just responding to the notion that people on this board aren't outraged. Outside of a few of us it's not really a major issue.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by valo403

Oh I agree, and as a US resident it impacts me, I was just responding to the notion that people on this board aren't outraged. Outside of a few of us it's not really a major issue.

Fair enough, I didnt even know about it, but if you want actual discussion it has to be raised.

Honestly, this was a good idea for a thread and its a topic worthy of discussion, but the way it was started and then the constant badgering of the OP means that this thread has to die. No one is really getting past the first few pages of bickering.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Cole436

Maybe it is because I didn't realize I would be ridiculed for posting a video that can be verified with a quick google search.
Who cares if it's anonymous posting it? Does it make it any less real? This is the only website I've seen that has had this sort of cynicall response to this video, so excuse me for not realizing the standards you all hold yourself to.

You know if you'd have posted that video along with an actual argument, or at least an attempt at one, you'd probably have seen a different response. Screaming that the Constitution will be destroyed and a police state will rise without saying more is going to get you looked at like a loon every single time. You've pretty much pushed people to not take you seriously with responses you put out there, it comes off like a high school kid. That's what people jumped on.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

-Thomas Jefferson

"Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious," according to Oscar Wilde.

- John Mason

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Locke

Fair enough, I didnt even know about it, but if you want actual discussion it has to be raised.

Honestly, this was a good idea for a thread and its a topic worthy of discussion, but the way it was started and then the constant badgering of the OP means that this thread has to die. No one is really getting past the first few pages of bickering.

Agreed. Worthy discussion, but a bunch of stupid driveby comments didn't exactly help further it.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Locke

Fair enough, I didnt even know about it, but if you want actual discussion it has to be raised.

Honestly, this was a good idea for a thread and its a topic worthy of discussion, but the way it was started and then the constant badgering of the OP means that this thread has to die. No one is really getting past the first few pages of bickering.

Perhaps we can merge it with the "Scumbag Canucks" thread

[THE SCUD]

I didn't know that University of Phoenix did masters now! Cool. Was the V-mask video allowed in lieu of your thesis?

sarcasm is no fun if it's in green

[IliketoPuck]

I understand that everyone is busy with the semantics of how Cole has presented his argument, but can we get past that and actually have some intelligent discussion about the situation?

What are the actual ramifications of this bill if it is written into law?

Will it really amount to a police state, or will it give a government endorsement to the use of facilities like Guantanamo Bay?

What steps can Americans take to voice their opposition to this bill?

How do senators/congressmen actually come up with legislation like this and think that it is a good idea?

These are all questions I have about the topic, if we can get past Cole posting an anonymous video, I would genuinely like to talk about what implications this issue could have in the future for Canadians.

[Muta]

The issue at hand is the content of that bill.

The fact that what is being debated is the credibility of the YouTube video the OP presented is strange.

Who cares who said it? Let's just debate the bill, since that is what is at hand.

[TapeToTape]

It seems similar to the way that the press handles elections. Not much discussion about what was passed into law and a lot about the style of speech delivery.

On a somewhat related note, does anyone know of a website where laws that are passed are translated into everyday language?

[CaptainCrunch]

I would expect that this bill will come under serious attack by the supreme court if it gets by the President.

Its too broad, and it effects guaranteed rights under the U.S. Consititution. At the heart of it, basically the National Defense Act would effectively repeal the Posse Comitatus Act.

I would like to add though that the National Defense Autorization act isn't a radical reshuffling as Congress could have suspended Posse Comitatus which could be ignored by an act of congress ie national emergency requiring military support. Basically the bill allows certain actions to happen without martial law is enacted or without Congress having to continue to re-enact suspensions

In theory in something like Hurrican Katrina, Military members could patrol streets, arrest looters and actively fire on mobs if so ordered by an act of congress. I also believe that a declaration of Martial Law at a state or federal level could in theory suspend Posse.

I don't know if this bill is a blanket attack on consitutional rights as the original terrifying video makes it out to be, it sounds more like a reaction to the home grown terrorist threat and equalizing the treatment of homegrown members or sympathizers to foreign terrorist groups to foreign terrorists threatening the United States and being sent to Guantonimo (sp)

There's a lot of muddle in the originating video and in the debate of this bill by people.

However I could be completely wrong.

[IliketoPuck]

There was a movie related to this that came out a few years ago, I forget the name of it but I think it had a pregnant Reese Witherspoon in it.

I think giving the government the power to hold someone without the right to appeal is much too broad. In a similar way to Alberta's drunk driving laws, the lack of appeal is what really bothers me about this.

[TurnedTheCorner]

OK, so in the vein of more serious discussion of the issue at hand:

1) I'm not familiar with the proposed bill beyond some quick googling last night. While the wording of the section at issue is definitely chilling, I have no idea what the broader implications of passing the bill are. It is called the National Defense Funding Bill, so I imagine there are a number of security and dollar ramifications attached to it. If it's anything like a lot of bills, there's probably lots of pork in it for various reps and senators to give it their blessing to get this far, but that may not be the case.

2) If it gives the government the ability to detain US citizens without trial, will that happen? The acid test when the provision of the new law is used in this fashion would be a much more telling time IMO. I'm not at all familiar with constitutional law, but a cursory glance suggests that this law could be challenged as being unconstitutional, at least this part of it. I don't know how that kind of objection could be raised if the detainee has no trial rights, but again I am admittedly not a lawyer or very familiar with the US legal system.

3) Americans should be able to still contact Obama and urge him to veto this bill. They can definitely get involved with the ACLU or other civil liberty organizations to raise awareness of the dangers of this type of legislation. This could continue to be used in the event the bill is signed into law, and could be a means of having the law challenged as being unconstitutional in the event it is used.

4) Again, without knowing the entire scope of the legislation, it's hard to say where each congressman was coming from when deciding to pass this. Perhaps the liberty concerns were not raised, perhaps there is other funding issues such as increasing or cutting spending that received a higher profile when it was being debated. I don't know.

There are checks and balances in the system to be used on legislation like this. There is the standard presidential veto, which would need a separate vote in the HoR and Senate to be overturned, needing a 2/3 majority in both votes. There is a pocket veto, where the sitting President simply does nothing with the bill and it dies when the congress is adjourned. I don't think this can be applied here, because the President has 10 days (excluding Sundays) to act on the bill presented or it simply becomes law. The elections are far enough away that a pocket veto is unlikely for this bill. And as mentioned, there is the matter of the Supreme Court ruling on the law being unconstitutional should it be challenged.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

There was a movie related to this that came out a few years ago, I forget the name of it but I think it had a pregnant Reese Witherspoon in it.

I think giving the government the power to hold someone without the right to appeal is much too broad. In a similar way to Alberta's drunk driving laws, the lack of appeal is what really bothers me about this.

I do agree with the broadness of it, the indefinate detention without due process isn't right to me and I believe that this bill will eventually be quashed by the courts as its a fundamental change in dealings with U.S. Citizens.

They're trying to generalize homeland security to deal with home grown terrorists in the same way.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

Really? Too important?

He also thought he needed a separate thread for the scumbag canucks meme after posting it once in the funny/cool thread.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

OK, so in the vein of more serious discussion of the issue at hand:

1) I'm not familiar with the proposed bill beyond some quick googling last night. While the wording of the section at issue is definitely chilling, I have no idea what the broader implications of passing the bill are. It is called the National Defense Funding Bill, so I imagine there are a number of security and dollar ramifications attached to it. If it's anything like a lot of bills, there's probably lots of pork in it for various reps and senators to give it their blessing to get this far, but that may not be the case.

There is always things stuffed into funding bills, its the easiest way to get legislative changes put through, especially when the funding is based around defense.

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

2) If it gives the government the ability
to detain US citizens without trial, will that happen? The acid test when the provision of the new law is used in this fashion would be a much more telling time IMO. I'm not at all familiar with constitutional law, but a cursory glance suggests that this law could be challenged as being unconstitutional, at least this part of it. I don't know how that kind of objection could be raised if the detainee has no trial rights, but again I am admittedly not a lawyer or very familiar with the US legal system.'

Right now we don't know how open the U.S. Government has been in terms of dealing with homegrown threats. For all we know, for every Time's Square bomber that's been caught and reported on there could be several that were caught and we never heard about it.

This is definately going to be a litmus case when we hear about the first indefinate detention order, there is no doubt that the ACLU or Civil Liberties Group will challenge that detention so that it can get put in front of the Supreme Court. This bill is not an ammendmant to the Constitutiuon, and I don't think a Bill can abrogate the Consitition without it being ammended to take that law of Bill into account (someone American can probably correct me if I'm wrong.

While the detainee might not have rights, there is a right to challenge the law

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

4) Again, without knowing the entire scope of the legislation, it's hard to say where each congressman was coming from when deciding to pass this. Perhaps the liberty concerns were not raised, perhaps there is other funding issues such as increasing or cutting spending that received a higher profile when it was being debated. I don't know.

my

From my understanding, Obama isn't threatening the act because of the Consitituional issues, he's threatening to Veto because the introduction of Military Intelligence into the Civillian world could compromise Civilian intelligence gathering capabilities.

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

There are checks and balances in the system to be used on legislation like this. There is the standard presidential veto, which would need a separate vote in the HoR and Senate to be overturned, needing a 2/3 majority in both votes. There is a pocket veto, where the sitting President simply does nothing with the bill and it dies when the congress is adjourned. I don't think this can be applied here, because the President has 10 days (excluding Sundays) to act on the bill presented or it simply becomes law. The elections are far enough away that a pocket veto is unlikely for this bill. And as mentioned, there is the matter of the Supreme Court ruling on the law being unconstitutional should it be challenged.

Its literally passed a couple of checks and balances and is heading for the next level which is Obama who agree's from the sound of it with the letter of the act but not the execution. The check is going to be up to the Civil Liberties Groups and their efforts to find a litmus case to bring to the Supreme courts.